3 ms·

> This is a good read, it is hard to find things written about the issue of medicine vs the business of medicine. It's not just business concerns though. Many

> This is a good read, it is hard to find things written about the issue of medicine vs the business of medicine. It's not just business concerns though. Many of the individuals doing medical research are just flat-out unqualified/untrained to design a study and manipulate and analyze data. I'm not a statistics guru like some on HN, but I'm pretty good at knowing what to do with a given set of data. I'm exposed to the research efforts of medical professionals through my social network and fiancée, and generally I find their methods/analyses to be either explicitly bad or misguided. Two easy examples would be a general lack of a correction for alpha-inflation and little attention paid to normality of data. Yes, it's anecdotal experience, and that must be recognized. But, in my observation, it's pervasiveness is noteworthy.

elemeno 14y ago
I'm on both side of the fence there. I'm more than aware that most doctors don't have the training or background for serious data analysis, but all the doctors I know who are doing research or trials that rely on serious data analysis aren't doing the analysis themselves anyway. For example, my father is an oncologist who does a lot of clinical trials. When it comes to the number crunching side of the trials, he won't be doing any of it himself but relying on data analysts who work for him (who have statistics backgrounds) and statisticians who work for the MRC (Medical Research Council), CRUK (Cancer Research UK) and the academic institutions which his department is affiliated with. My experience is anecdotal as well, but it largely can be summed up as 'doctors who are doing serious research and/or trials ensure that the stats are solid, however most doctors aren't doing research at that level'.
- HelloMcFly 14y ago
  In my experience most of them do bring in someone for the stats aspect of it, but they're often not consulted on study design (when relevant), and their "experts" typically seem to be just "experts relative to the other authors" rather than actual stats experts. But that doesn't change the probable truth in your final statement.

elemeno 14y ago

I'm on both side of the fence there. I'm more than aware that most doctors don't have the training or background for serious data analysis, but all the doctors I know who are doing research or trials that rely on serious data analysis aren't doing the analysis themselves anyway. For example, my father is an oncologist who does a lot of clinical trials. When it comes to the number crunching side of the trials, he won't be doing any of it himself but relying on data analysts who work for him (who have statistics backgrounds) and statisticians who work for the MRC (Medical Research Council), CRUK (Cancer Research UK) and the academic institutions which his department is affiliated with. My experience is anecdotal as well, but it largely can be summed up as 'doctors who are doing serious research and/or trials ensure that the stats are solid, however most doctors aren't doing research at that level'.

HelloMcFly 14y ago
In my experience most of them do bring in someone for the stats aspect of it, but they're often not consulted on study design (when relevant), and their "experts" typically seem to be just "experts relative to the other authors" rather than actual stats experts. But that doesn't change the probable truth in your final statement.