Mar 4, 2024 at 10:55 AM#16
paige_pharma said:Admin said: ...regarding the trial evidence...
Same pattern here, and in the same order.
Last edited: Mar 4, 2024 at 4:55 PM
22 20bri_stats, pete_manc_UK, anna.melb_AU and 19 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Mar 6, 2024 at 2:52 PM#17
labquiet_amy said:Propensity score matching studies and the trial evidence: when RCTs aren't available for a specific question, propensity score-matched observational…
Genuinely useful, thank you. I had the facts and not the framework. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
23 21stefan_berlin, Dr.EM_Chicago, pete_RVA and 20 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Mar 8, 2024 at 6:48 PM#18
From the other side of the consultation, briefly. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.
Last edited: Mar 8, 2024 at 9:48 PM
24 22Dr.PulmRoch, maya_sedona, stefan_berlin and 21 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsMar 10, 2024 at 10:44 PM#19
lisa_labSD said:If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not.
This matches mine closely enough to be worth saying so out loud.
25 23maya_sedona, stefan_berlin, Dr.EM_Chicago and 22 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report
Mar 13, 2024 at 2:37 AM#20
Moderator note: leaving this open. It is being argued well and the disagreement is the useful part. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.
47 20HPLC_Greg, LibrarianMeg, bri_stats and 44 others
Reply Quote Save Share Report