Editing 2726: Methodology Trial
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
+ | {{incomplete|Created by a PLACEBO RESEARCHER - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} | ||
− | When testing the efficacy of a potential medical treatment, researchers compare subjects who | + | When testing the efficacy of a potential medical treatment, researchers compare subjects who got the treatment against subjects who got a {{w|placebo}}. Usually each subject does not know whether they received the treatment or placebo. This distinguishes the actual effects of the treatment from the effects of simply participating in a study. People who receive a placebo (or an ineffective treatment) often believe their treatment is working due to such causes as paying more attention to one's health or expecting to feel better. This misattribution of effect to a non-treatment is called the "placebo effect". |
− | In this comic a team of researchers appears to have studied some medical treatment, using a placebo controlled test. | + | In this comic a team of researchers appears to have studied some medical treatment, using a placebo controlled test. When they present their findings, however, it is revealed that the treatment they were given was also a placebo. Their own study was the subject of a placebo controlled test conducted on their methodology. They were the placebo group, while a different team used the same methodology to study the real treatment. Thus, all of this team's findings were due to the placebo effect, instead of any real merit to the "treatment", meaning that their methodology shouldn't be used for any real world applications. |
− | + | The particular flaw in the methodology appears to be dividing their subjects into too many sub-groups in order to get an apparent result. The researcher did find significance in one sub-group, even though in reality there was no signal, just noise, since it was all placebo groups. This references the same p-hacking problem as [[882: Significant]]. Only in this case the researcher themself is the subject of the real trial. | |
− | |||
− | The particular flaw in the methodology appears to be dividing | ||
− | |||
− | |||
Treatments ''can'' be more effective on specific subgroups of the population; for example, an anti-cancer drug might only work against specific mutations that cause cancer. But any such result needs to have appropriate statistical significance and new subjects from that subgroup should be tested to ensure the result is repeated. | Treatments ''can'' be more effective on specific subgroups of the population; for example, an anti-cancer drug might only work against specific mutations that cause cancer. But any such result needs to have appropriate statistical significance and new subjects from that subgroup should be tested to ensure the result is repeated. | ||
− | + | Such an experiment might be considered unethical, because one researcher offers what he believes to be genuine treatment to a large number of participants only for a third party (the offscreen speaker) to replace all his medicine with placebos, ultimately deceiving the patients. The title text references that it was approved by a genuine Institutional Review Board (IRB), the group which decides whether a proposed experiment is ethical to perform. However they also have a "placebo IRB", presumably made up of people who have no qualifications to make such judgements well. | |
− | |||
− | |||
==Transcript== | ==Transcript== | ||
− | + | {{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}} | |
:[Cueball stands in front of a poster holding a pointer. The poster shows a scatter plot with four points and error bars, with one data point labeled "Subgroup" is marked with an asterisk and is placed somewhat higher up than the other three points.] | :[Cueball stands in front of a poster holding a pointer. The poster shows a scatter plot with four points and error bars, with one data point labeled "Subgroup" is marked with an asterisk and is placed somewhat higher up than the other three points.] | ||
:Cueball: However, we see clear evidence that the treatment is more effective than the placebo for some subgroups. | :Cueball: However, we see clear evidence that the treatment is more effective than the placebo for some subgroups. | ||
Line 34: | Line 29: | ||
:Off-panel voice: However, we can now reveal that the '''''London''''' team was studying the real treatment. Both groups in your study got a placebo. | :Off-panel voice: However, we can now reveal that the '''''London''''' team was studying the real treatment. Both groups in your study got a placebo. | ||
:Cueball: Aw, '''''maaan...''''' | :Cueball: Aw, '''''maaan...''''' | ||
− | :[Caption below panel | + | :[Caption below panel] |
:Researchers hate it when you do placebo controlled trials of their methodology. | :Researchers hate it when you do placebo controlled trials of their methodology. | ||