Hypothesis testing and anomaly explaining.

P van Andel

doi:10.3109/01674820009075611

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10994178

Hypothesis testing and anomaly explaining.

P van Andel

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

An experimenter who tests a hypothesis and observes an anomaly that conflicts with his knowledge and views, normally reacts by suspecting some sort of mistake. When he has excluded this possibility, his second sensible reaction is to find an ad hoc interpretation to explain the anomaly. When his favorite interpretation is interesting, probable, simple, elegant and testable enough, he can experiment to verify this explanation as a new hypothesis, independently from the anomaly. This article describes how a scientific investigation walks on two legs: one leg of hypothesis testing and a second leg of anomaly explaining.

Explore related subjects

Bias Data Interpretation, Statistical Humans Models, Theoretical Observation Research Design Science Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

P van Andel. 2000. Hypothesis testing and anomaly explaining.. https://doi.org/10.3109/01674820009075611

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 ± 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

PubMed2001

The significance of not finding a gene.

As more investigators conduct extensive whole-genome linkage scans for complex traits, interest is growing in meta-analysis as a way of integrating the weak or conflicting evidence from multiple studies. However, there is a bias in the most commonly used meta-analysis linkage technique (i.e., Fisher's [1925] method of combining of P values) when it is applied to many nonparametric (i.e., model free) linkage results. The bias arises in those methods (e.g., variance components, affected sib pair, extremely discordant sib pairs, etc.) that truncate all "negative evidence against linkage" into the single value of LOD = 0. If incorrectly handled, this bias can artificially inflate or deflate the combined meta-analysis linkage results for any given locus. This is an especially troublesome problem in the context of a genome scan, since LOD = 0 is expected to occur over half the unlinked genome. The bias can be overcome (nearly) completely by simply interpreting LOD = 0 as a P value of 1divided by 2ln(2) is approximately equal to .72 in Fisher's formula.

Bias↗

PubMed2001

Estimating hospital deaths due to medical errors: preventability is in the eye of the reviewer.

CONTEXT: Studies using physician implicit review have suggested that the number of deaths due to medical errors in US hospitals is extremely high. However, some have questioned the validity of these estimates. OBJECTIVE: To examine the reliability of reviewer ratings of medical error and the implications of a death described as "preventable by better care" in terms of the probability of immediate and short-term survival if care had been optimal. DESIGN: Retrospective implicit review of medical records from 1995-1996. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen board-certified, trained internists used a previously tested structured implicit review instrument to conduct 383 reviews of 111 hospital deaths at 7 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers, oversampling for markers previously found to be associated with high rates of preventable deaths. Patients considered terminally ill who received comfort care only were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reviewer estimates of whether deaths could have been prevented by optimal care (rated on a 5-point scale) and of the probability that patients would have lived to discharge or for 3 months or more if care had been optimal (rated from 0%-100%). RESULTS: Similar to previous studies, almost a quarter (22.7%) of active-care patient deaths were rated as at least possibly preventable by optimal care, with 6.0% rated as probably or definitely preventable. Interrater reliability for these ratings was also similar to previous studies (0.34 for 2 reviewers). The reviewers' estimates of the percentage of patients who would have left the hospital alive had optimal care been provided was 6.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4%-8.6%). However, after considering 3-month prognosis and adjusting for the variability and skewness of reviewers' ratings, clinicians estimated that only 0.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.7%) of patients who died would have lived 3 months or more in good cognitive health if care had been optimal, representing roughly 1 patient per 10 000 admissions to the study hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Medical errors are a major concern regardless of patients' life expectancies, but our study suggests that previous interpretations of medical error statistics are probably misleading. Our data place the estimates of preventable deaths in context, pointing out the limitations of this means of identifying medical errors and assessing their potential implications for patient outcomes.

Bias↗