Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
fharrell.com | ||
| | | | |
hbiostat.org
|
|
| | | | | In this article I provide much more extensive simulations showing the near perfect agreement between the odds ratio (OR) from a proportional odds (PO) model, and the Wilcoxon two-sample test statistic. The agreement is studied by degree of violation of the PO assumption and by the sample size. A refinement in the conversion formula between the OR and the Wilcoxon statistic scaled to 0-1 (corcordance probability) is provided. | |
| | | | |
www.fharrell.com
|
|
| | | | | Many researchers worry about violations of the proportional hazards assumption when comparing treatments in a randomized study. Besides the fact that this frequently makes them turn to a much worse approach, the harm done by violations of the proportional odds assumption usually do not prevent the proportional odds model from providing a reasonable treatment effect assessment. | |
| | | | |
hbiostat.org
|
|
| | | | | This article discusses issues with unadjusted effect ratios such as odds ratios and hazard ratios, showing a simple example of non-generalizability of unadjusted odds ratios. | |
| | | | |
errorstatistics.com
|
|
| | | Below is an email exchange that Andrew Gelman posted on this day 5 years ago on his blog, Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science. (You can find the original exchange, with its 130 comments, here.) Note: "Me" refers to Gelman. I will share my current reflections in the comments. Exchange with Deborah Mayo on... | ||
