The third meeting of our New Phil Stat Forum*:
The Statistics Wars
and Their Casualties
November 19: 15:00 – 16:45 (London time)
10-11:45 am (New York, EST)
“Randomisation and Control in the Age of Coronavirus“
ABSTRACT: Many critics of randomisation have assumed that it is supposed to guarantee balance of prognostic factors, proceeded to show that this is impossible and then concluded that the theory is flawed. However, the shocking truth about randomisation is exactly the opposite of what they suppose. If we knew that all prognostic factors in a randomised clinical trial were balanced, the standard analysis of such trials would be wrong. The analysis that Fisher proposed for randomised experiments makes an allowance for factors being unbalanced. I shall show how this fundamental misunderstanding of how the randomisation and analysis combination deals with error is the origin of a serious error in interpreting trials. I shall illustrate the points with a game of chance and an actual trial. I conclude by recommending that would-be commentators should not presume to analyse the logic of trials until they have analysed some results.
Stephen Senn is a consultant statistician in Edinburgh. His expertise is in statistical methods for drug development and statistical inference. He consults extensively for the pharmaceutical industry in the UK, Europe and the USA on: planning of clinical trials and drug development programmes, project evaluation and prioritization, regulatory advice and representation, data safety monitoring board advice, specialist analyses, and statistical training. Stephen Senn has worked as a statistician but also as an academic in various positions in Switzerland, Scotland, England and Luxembourg. From 2011-2018 he was head of the Competence Center for Methodology and Statistics at the Luxembourg Institute of Health in Luxembourg. He was a Professor in Statistics at the University of Glasgow (2003) and University College London (1995-2003). He received the George C Challis Award of the University of Florida for contributions to biostatistics, 2001 and the PSI Award for most interesting speaker in 25 years of PSI in 2002. In 2009, he was awarded the Bradford Hill Medal of the Royal Statistical Society. In 2017 he gave the Fisher Memorial Lecture. He is an honorary life member of PSI and ISCB.
Information about the Phil Stat Wars forum and how to join is here.
- April 20, 2020: S. Senn: Randomisation is not about balance, nor about homogeneity but about randomness (Guest Post)
- July 20, 2020: Stephen Senn: Losing Control (guest post)
- October 28, 2020: S. Senn: Testing Times (guest post)
- November 12, 2020: A Vaccine Trial from A to Z, with a Postscript (guest post)
For related posts on randomization by Stephen Senn, see these guest posts from the Error Statistics Philosophy blog:
- March 16, 2020: Stephen Senn: Being Just about Adjustment (Guest Post)
- January 20, 2020: S. Senn: “Error point: The importance of knowing how much you don’t know” (guest post)
- July 1, 2017: S. Senn: Fishing for fakes with Fisher (Guest Post)
- July 14, 2013: Stephen Senn: Indefinite irrelevance
Slides and Video Links:
Stephen Senn’s slides: Randomisation and Control in the Age of Coronavirus
Stephen Senn’s presentation:
- (Link to paste in browser) https://philstatwars.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/stephen_senn.mp4
- SHORT LINK (quick): https://wp.me/abBgTB-uO
Discussion on Senn’s presentation:
- (Link to paste in browser) https://philstatwars.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/stephen_senn_discussion.mp4
- SHORT LINK (quick): https://wp.me/abBgTB-uP
Mayo’s Memos: Any info or events that arise that seem relevant to share with y’all before the meeting.
*Meeting 11 of our the general Phil Stat series which began with the LSE Seminar PH500 on May 21
National Institute of Statistical Sciences (NISS): The Statistics Debate (Video)
October 15, 2020: Noon – 2 pm ET
(17-19:00 London Time)
(Online webinar debate, free but must register to attend on website above)
Debate Host: Dan Jeske (University of California, Riverside)
Jim Berger (Duke University)
Deborah Mayo (Virginia Tech)
David Trafimow (New Mexico State University)
Where do you stand?
- Given the issues surrounding the misuses and abuse of p-values, do you think p-values should be used?
- Do you think the use of estimation and confidence intervals eliminates the need for hypothesis tests?
- Bayes Factors – are you for or against?
- How should we address the reproducibility crisis?
If you are intrigued by these questions and have an interest in how these questions might be answered – one way of the other – then this is the event for you!
Want to get a sense of the thinking behind the practicality (or not) of various statistical approaches? Interested in hearing both sides of the story – during the same session!?
This event will be held in a debate type of format. The participants will be given selected questions ahead of time, so they have a chance to think about their responses, but this is intended to be much less of a presentation and more of a give and take between the debaters.
So – let’s have fun with this! The best way to find out what happens is to register and attend!