3 ms·
Yeah. When evaluating a drug we should not only be looking overall, but if there is a subset of the test population for which it behaves differently. This is
by LorenPechtel 7y ago
Yeah. When evaluating a drug we should not only be looking overall, but if there is a subset of the test population for which it behaves differently. This is especially true for any diagnosis of exclusion.
Such a drug should be approved but with a big warning that it only works in some cases.
- WhiteSage 7y agoYou have to fix the hypotheses to test before you begin the experiment, as otherwise you will stumble upon a lot of spurious correlations. That your birthday is the same day than someone's in your class/work group is a rare event, that two people have the same birthday in your class/work group, not at all uncommon. This is the birthday paradox. In the same spirit, with a drug you'll always find groups where it works because of spurious correlations, specially if you don't fix beforehand the group where you want to test it.
- derefr 7y agoRun one trial to find correlations with specific groups, then run another trial under the hypothesis that it works for that group.
- nradov 7y agoWell sure but that costs a fortune. Drug development is already extremely expensive.
- ncmncm 7y agoThat is a good idea, but it generates accusations of special pleading. Medical science is plagued with many kinds of fetish, and medical doctors are not generally obliged to actually understand science.