Not really surprised, such is the life of a beavercel. And I agree….I’d be extremely interested to hear about any conflicting interests he has.




And since I won’t be discussing the code with him due to his insistence on lying about what people say, I guess I’ll just share this with you and others who may be interested.


https://github.com/csi-hamburg/2022_...ediction.ipynb



There are a few potential ways in which this code could output inaccurate data:

1.) Inconsistent or incorrect data preprocessing: The accuracy of a machine learning model is highly dependent on the quality of the input data. If the prediction_df used to create the X and y variables is not properly preprocessed, it may contain missing values, outliers, or other inconsistencies that could lead to inaccurate results.

2.) Insufficient cross-validation: The code uses nested cross-validation to evaluate the model's performance. However, the number of iterations (iterations=100) may not be sufficient to obtain stable and reliable results. Increasing the number of iterations could help improve the accuracy of the output.

3.) Improper parameter search: The code uses logistic regression with elastic net regularization and performs parameter search using LogisticRegressionCV. The choice of parameter values and the range of values to search may not be optimal for the given dataset. Adjusting the parameter search space or using alternative parameter optimization techniques could potentially lead to more accurate results.

4.) Randomness in cross-validation: The StratifiedKFold cross-validation strategy is used with the shuffle=True option and a different random_state value for each iteration. The random splitting of data could introduce variability in the results. To obtain more reliable estimates, you may consider fixing the random_state to a specific value or performing multiple runs with different random seeds and averaging the results.

5.) Overfitting or underfitting: The code does not include any measures to prevent overfitting or underfitting of the model. It is possible that the model is either too complex or too simple for the given data, leading to inaccurate predictions. Regularization techniques, such as adjusting the regularization strength or exploring other models, could help address this issue.

But the data and code are all freely available.

They used an an accurate, but sophisticated sounding, term for their predictive regression. Probably not necessary, but certainly not a gotcha or reason to disregard the results.

If we consider any study using linear regression (by extension ANOVA) as invalid, we don't have much left. Regression is kinda what everyone does.


The code is well organized and runs quick. You can see for yourself if any of these concerns are present in this data set.

How can I have conflicts of interest on papers on which I am not an author?

Interesting. Where do you see the word “invalid” in that post?

You already said you were incorrect with your first claim, so perhaps admitting you were incorrect with your 2nd claim will be easier.

Yep. You didn't say "invalid" rather called it an "issue". I posted the quote.

If we're gonna get literal, evaluation of stories will get interesting

At least we agree the authors weren't somehow supervising the regression themselves.

I can tell you have never really talked to a Pharmaceutical Rep. You are either lying to yourself or easily duped if you don’t think 99% of doctors aren’t on the take.

Why would someone do surgery if they're on the take from Pharma?

Wouldn't they prescribe meds instead?

Surgery has nothing to do with it..it’s what they prescribed before or after the surgery. What a ridiculous post

Suggesting there is no code to address or assess under/over fitting while also noting their CV is a little sus.

Oh, I see.

You replied to a post about surgical treatment for brain cancer.

Thanks!

3 of my friends since high school are Pharmaceutical Reps, 2 in San Diego, and one that moved to Orange County..they are in hundreds of doctors offices a year..are you denying that doctors are not incentivized by Pharmaceutical Companies?

My response was to Wincel & his beliefs, post content had little to do with it..but it does connect


Edit-& just like that JLC’s narrative comes through again lol

I said thanks.

If my narrative that I'd do anything possible to treat a kid's brain cancer is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

It doesn't look like surgery or pharmaceuticals can do much at this point for covid-related brain damage

Yep.

Surgery, chemo, radiation, diet changes, etc.

Looks like it. Turn it into whatever tickles your fancy.

Come on, man. You can make me seem more preposterous than that.

I'm not aware of any cancer cures. But if you have info, plz share.

On which grants, pubs, or talks?

How can there be a conflict of interest in expressing my opinions and positions on topics on a message board?

a conflict of interest
idiom
Add to word list
C2
a situation in which someone cannot make a fair decision because they will be affected by the result:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...ct-of-interest

Unless you consider me being negged as affecting me (positively), I don't see how I can have a conflict of interest.

Fair

Hurr Durr, get the jab, otherwise if you get the Rona, you'll suffer brain damage, low T, and impotence......hurr durr........

The zealous vaxcels already suffer from these things.

Apparently so do people who get covid

You do realize the majority of the world's population got Covid at least once?

Yep.

Also, regression not bad by default.

If people who got the vax, and also got covid, are experiencing these issues, how do we know whether it was the vax or the covid?

The MRI study suggests there are organic effects associated with infection.

What does the mri study show on people with just the vax?

Haven't seen that. Share if you can, thx.

Yep, you do

So true