Search results

Anonymisation and Re-identification is an interesting and quite active research area. But Crawley isn't adding to it my making baseless claims. If I remember correctly the information tribunal were not impressed by Anderson's claims that reidentification would be possible with the PACE data...

I think if anyone is pulling together published work into a treatment guide it will be a bit strange. It will need to talk of things like CBT/GET to get past the gatekeepers at the BMJ. So as you say a move forward but not as big a step as we would like.

Yes that doesn't seem enough to really tell. I do feel someone should do a massive replication project to look at all the interesting results with many more people and controls to see what is reliable.

I think health services like CBT because its cheap and easy to deliver and makes them think they are doing something useful. But that does suggest that it may be less effective than a good therapist. I suspect it is a real problem running any trials where you are basically reliant on the skills...

I think one of the big issues that may come up in this type of testing is the dynamic nature of the disease. So after rest I wonder if effects are not there until after some level of exertion. However, going to give blood can be quite an exertion depending where people have to go, how much help...

Random forest techniques are quite a popular classification technique in machine learning.

One thing I've been looking at recently (with help!) using very different data is to assess whether a particular feature is any good. That is does the data suggest a feature is IID (independently identically distributed). It feels like such tests would be good on this data as I think it would...

Could there be questions about ethical approval The timings for the trial were: 1) Ethics committee approved something sept 2010 2) Randomisation for feasibility study trial started sept 2010 3) Ethic committee approved amended protocol May 2011 4) Trial was registered July 2012 (but using...

From the paper This looks dodgy and could bias results in that giving results over the phone could lead to additional response bias. Especially if the children had a perception that there is a 'right answer' that the researchers are after.

I would describe the Smile trial as a bit like a magic trick. The basic methodology is one of ask people how they feel and how they function. Use the Lightning process to tell them they can think themselves better if they ignore symptoms. Then ask them how they feel and how they function. Maybe...

Full open paper http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2017/09/20/archdischild-2017-313375 (Moderator note: see this post for an alternative link to the paper and links to related threads)

I think her audience were starting to get the feeling that something is up from twitter responses. The question is how long Bristol university and her colleagues continue to support her. Having met her as a doctor she does come across as convincing before you think about what she is saying.

We have an electric bed that will sit you up or/and lift your feet up for that reason but it is quite good for sitting up in bed.

That seems to be pandering to the BPS people. I do think an occupational therapist can be useful in terms of providing adaptations and equipment to help make life easier.

I think it is up to her to be reasonably clear. Scientists should be somewhat pedantic about statements (which is why maths is used as a language for most science). I doubt if she actually stated a lie because she knew she was being recorded. But when accusing people extra care needs to be taken.

It looks very different from what I would expect but I can only see the summary

I think she is bright enough to know its not just patients but lots of academics. Also I think patients pushing back saying thats stigmatizing means she will know it is dodgy to label patients. Its like the racists who talk about 'those people'.

Having encountered Crawley as a doctor I wouldn't be surprised if she had threats. Its hard not to get very emotional when you feel your child is being badly treated and the authorities won't do anything.

If individuals could be identified then it would be PII and the FoI act wouldn't apply. In the PACE case they tried to argue that people could be identified but the tribunal didn't accept their argument. They are already identified as having ME - its obvious. These days fitbits are popular (ok...

Should I turn embedding of bbc links off?