Tuesday, 6 January 2015

Two-thirds of cancers - collected links

News sites getting the meaning of "two thirds of cases" wrong: Independent ,Telegraph, Mail, Express, Mirror, Huffington Post
News site getting it wrong in the headline but right in the text without one having to scroll down: Reuters.
News sites getting it right: BBC, Guardian.

The press release.

__

The Science abstract, with paywalled link to the paper
Free preview of the paper
Supplement on the data and methodology


__

Long critical review of the paper and its reporting: David Gorski
Discussion of the reporting: Andrew Maynard, Science-Presse (in French)
Criticism of the interpretation of correlation: Guardian, statsguy, Antonio Rinaldi (in Italian), with his own model, me, with a toy model
Criticism of the correlation calculation: StatsChat
Criticism of the clustering methodology: Understanding Uncertainty (with discussion of the reporting), statsguy, me, with discussion of the methodology generally
Criticism of the message: Cancer Research UK (with discussion of the reporting and the paper)
Expressing doubts about the accuracy of the data: Paul Knoepfler

A few comments on the paper: Science

Support for the paper: Steven Novella
Support for the message: PZ Myers, expressing disdain for those reluctant to accept the role of random chance

1 comment:

  1. Of all the reviews I've read, yours is the most cogent. The conclusion I draw from the paper is that (assuming the data is correct, outliers don't throw things off, etc.) the non-luck part played in cancer is roughly uniform across types. Alas, the paper infers that a function is constant and yet claims that it is zero. Some people seem to have a hard time distinguishing a function from its derivative...

    ReplyDelete