A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Jake Olivier has been at it again, about you know what.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 29th 16, 11:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Jake Olivier has been at it again, about you know what.

I haven't read Jake's latest research, which is a re-examination or
reuse of data collected in previous studies into you know what efficacy.
I don't even pretend to fully comprehend the meaning of his results.
Basic statistics I grasp, but there are terms here I've not learned about.

There was a guy who found that the results of various case controlled
studies overestimate the efficacy of you know what.

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/?lang=nl&r...+odds+rat ios

Has Zeegers work been discredited?

If not, I wonder whether Jake's findings are an overestimation as well?

Regardless, as far as I can tell, Jake doesn't consider the risk, only
the result after an event.

--
JS
Ads
  #2  
Old September 30th 16, 03:57 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Jake Olivier has been at it again, about you know what.

On 9/29/2016 6:36 PM, James wrote:
I haven't read Jake's latest research, which is a re-examination or
reuse of data collected in previous studies into you know what efficacy.
I don't even pretend to fully comprehend the meaning of his results.
Basic statistics I grasp, but there are terms here I've not learned about.

There was a guy who found that the results of various case controlled
studies overestimate the efficacy of you know what.

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/?lang=nl&r...+odds+rat ios


Has Zeegers work been discredited?

If not, I wonder whether Jake's findings are an overestimation as well?


Yes, certainly. But Jake and his cohorts have an excellent publicity
machine. Those who point out the weaknesses in his (and related)
methods do not.

One fundamental fact is, Olivier's meta-study admitted only data from
"case-control" studies based on presentations to hospitals. That's been
shown to be the type of study most likely to grossly overestimate helmet
benefit. Why? Probably because self-selection is unavoidable. The
person who crashed the bike (or that person's parent) is almost always
the one deciding to seek medical help. Those who are the most
risk-averse will be both the ones wearing the helmet, and the one's more
likely to go to the ER "just to be sure," even if the crash was mild.
Those not wearing helmets are more likely to have lesser insurance
coverage, more likely to go to ER only if they're really hurt - and be
more likely to have a high blood alcohol content, which is strongly
correlated with bad crashes.

I think this is why so many case-control studies (and Olivier's
meta-case-control study) predict wonderful things for helmet use; but
time trend analyses (TBI counts, or TBI counts per rider) show very low
benefit, or even detriment resulting from helmet use.

Regardless, as far as I can tell, Jake doesn't consider the risk, only
the result after an event.


Of course! It goes without saying that riding a bike is terribly,
terribly risky. It causes almost all the Traumatic Brain Injury in the
world!

Oh, wait...



--
- Frank Krygowski
  #3  
Old September 30th 16, 10:39 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Jake Olivier has been at it again, about you know what.

On 30/09/16 12:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/29/2016 6:36 PM, James wrote:
I haven't read Jake's latest research, which is a re-examination or
reuse of data collected in previous studies into you know what efficacy.
I don't even pretend to fully comprehend the meaning of his results.
Basic statistics I grasp, but there are terms here I've not learned
about.

There was a guy who found that the results of various case controlled
studies overestimate the efficacy of you know what.

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/?lang=nl&r...+odds+rat ios



Has Zeegers work been discredited?

If not, I wonder whether Jake's findings are an overestimation as well?


Yes, certainly. But Jake and his cohorts have an excellent publicity
machine. Those who point out the weaknesses in his (and related)
methods do not.

One fundamental fact is, Olivier's meta-study admitted only data from
"case-control" studies based on presentations to hospitals. That's been
shown to be the type of study most likely to grossly overestimate helmet
benefit. Why? Probably because self-selection is unavoidable. The
person who crashed the bike (or that person's parent) is almost always
the one deciding to seek medical help. Those who are the most
risk-averse will be both the ones wearing the helmet, and the one's more
likely to go to the ER "just to be sure," even if the crash was mild.
Those not wearing helmets are more likely to have lesser insurance
coverage, more likely to go to ER only if they're really hurt - and be
more likely to have a high blood alcohol content, which is strongly
correlated with bad crashes.


Have you read Zeegers paper, link above? The case controlled studies
use an assumption of exposure that turns out, according to Zeegers, not
to be valid. He gives a mathematical proof and tests this on 3 studies,
confirming his hypothesis.

--
JS

  #4  
Old October 1st 16, 06:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Jake Olivier has been at it again, about you know what.

On 9/30/2016 5:39 PM, James wrote:
On 30/09/16 12:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/29/2016 6:36 PM, James wrote:
I haven't read Jake's latest research, which is a re-examination or
reuse of data collected in previous studies into you know what efficacy.
I don't even pretend to fully comprehend the meaning of his results.
Basic statistics I grasp, but there are terms here I've not learned
about.

There was a guy who found that the results of various case controlled
studies overestimate the efficacy of you know what.

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/?lang=nl&r...+odds+rat ios




Has Zeegers work been discredited?

If not, I wonder whether Jake's findings are an overestimation as well?


Yes, certainly. But Jake and his cohorts have an excellent publicity
machine. Those who point out the weaknesses in his (and related)
methods do not.

One fundamental fact is, Olivier's meta-study admitted only data from
"case-control" studies based on presentations to hospitals. That's been
shown to be the type of study most likely to grossly overestimate helmet
benefit. Why? Probably because self-selection is unavoidable. The
person who crashed the bike (or that person's parent) is almost always
the one deciding to seek medical help. Those who are the most
risk-averse will be both the ones wearing the helmet, and the one's more
likely to go to the ER "just to be sure," even if the crash was mild.
Those not wearing helmets are more likely to have lesser insurance
coverage, more likely to go to ER only if they're really hurt - and be
more likely to have a high blood alcohol content, which is strongly
correlated with bad crashes.


Have you read Zeegers paper, link above? The case controlled studies
use an assumption of exposure that turns out, according to Zeegers, not
to be valid. He gives a mathematical proof and tests this on 3 studies,
confirming his hypothesis.


Yes, I've read it. But without the publicity machine, the paper has
little impact. Olivier and others simply pretend it was never published.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #5  
Old October 2nd 16, 03:07 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andrew Chaplin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 206
Default Jake Olivier has been at it again, about you know what.

Frank Krygowski wrote in
:

Yes, I've read it. But without the publicity machine, the paper has
little impact. Olivier and others simply pretend it was never
published.


A variation on the "file drawer problem"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
  #6  
Old October 2nd 16, 03:30 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Jake Olivier has been at it again, about you know what.

On 10/2/2016 10:07 AM, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote in
:

Yes, I've read it. But without the publicity machine, the paper has
little impact. Olivier and others simply pretend it was never
published.


A variation on the "file drawer problem"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias


I just finished the book _Bad Science_ by Ben Goldacre. He deals with
that problem fairly extensively, especially regarding studies of
medicines.

As he expressed it, a pharmaceutical company (or a seller of quackery)
has a big motivation to publish research showing their new drug is
effective, and to fire up the publicity machine to call attention to the
studies.

But if research shows no benefit, there's no financial incentive to call
attention to that; so the research is likely to go unpublished and sit
in someone's file drawer. Even if it is published, no publicity machine
kicks into gear, so nobody hears about the paper. Even journalists are
(perhaps unwittingly) complicit; saying "This study showed no effect" is
a non-story and won't sell papers or advertising.

As Goldacre noted, a null result really is good information. If nothing
else, it can prevent wasting time on further tests. And regarding
quackery, it can save consumers money.

All of this applies to the dominant bicycling quackery item: helmets.
In this case, calling attention to negative results can do even more; it
can dissuade legislators from passing stupid laws.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #7  
Old October 3rd 16, 12:29 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Jake Olivier has been at it again, about you know what.

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 3:36:38 PM UTC-7, James wrote:
I haven't read Jake's latest research, which is a re-examination or
reuse of data collected in previous studies into you know what efficacy.
I don't even pretend to fully comprehend the meaning of his results.
Basic statistics I grasp, but there are terms here I've not learned about..

There was a guy who found that the results of various case controlled
studies overestimate the efficacy of you know what.

http://www.fietsberaad.nl/?lang=nl&r...+odds+rat ios

Has Zeegers work been discredited?

If not, I wonder whether Jake's findings are an overestimation as well?

Regardless, as far as I can tell, Jake doesn't consider the risk, only
the result after an event.

--
JS


I'm glad you brought that up. What is being said is that you cannot use the same method of determining "risk" in random data and in control group studies. And what these bicycle helmet studies have been using is the method of analyzing risk appropriate for "control group" studies.

In random studies you have little to no idea of the actual risks that are being encountered so simply estimating the number of cyclists wearing helmets and those not and counting the difference in percentages injured is meaningless.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
best way to a lower low on a Jake 2-4? mtb Dad Techniques 5 May 19th 08 07:27 PM
JI never: Jake Mccrann arrested in Cuba War Office Australia 0 November 21st 07 06:09 PM
Jake, you get wise. You get to church! PiledHigher Australia 3 June 20th 07 10:19 PM
Jake Hearts Lance Ed Sporak Racing 6 July 23rd 06 12:09 AM
FS: Kona Jake the Snake Scott Marketplace 1 September 3rd 03 01:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.