Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with.
14 likes 1mo
Evidence · Journal club · continued
Journal club: LEADER as the historical anchor posts 91–111
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
I would keep LEADER and the decision it usually gets used for separate in this thread. They are related and they are not the same question, and merging them is why the last one went badly.
28 likes 1mo
c.ostergaard, post #61: What I can speak to on LEADER is narrow, so I will keep it narrow rather than generalising from it. Beyond that boundary I do not know. Go to post
Post #92 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.
Small methodological point on LEADER: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
Post #94 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The practical version of LEADER is three sentences long. The rigorous version is three pages and reaches the same conclusion with the conditions attached.
20 likes 1mo
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
LEADER looks different depending on whether you are reading the primary literature or the summaries of it, and the difference is not in our favour.
j.restrepo, post #53: Worth stating the null on LEADER before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one. Go to post
Answering the question post #96 raises rather than the one it answers.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in.
Post #98 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
Worth saying I have only my own numbers here, and n is small.
5 likes 24d
IMainwaring, post #98: Answering the question post #96 raises rather than the one it answers. The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions. Stating my assumptions rather than smuggling them in. Go to post
I had written a reply contradicting post #98 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
I would treat the number as indicative rather than as a measurement.
t.kulkarni, post #31: LEADER is one of those subjects where the general answer and the answer for a specific case diverge, and the thread will go in circles until someone says which one is being asked for. Go to post
That is a cleaner way of putting what I was circling around.
Reframing LEADER slightly, because I think the disagreement is about the question rather than the answer. If the question is "does it happen", yes. If it is "how often", nobody here knows.
15 likes 14d
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Something worth flagging about LEADER: the strongest-sounding claims in this thread are the ones with no source attached, which is the usual pattern and not a coincidence.
l.lundgren, post #91: Understood, and I withdraw the assumption I opened with. Go to post
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
VThorvaldsen, post #21: Where I part company with post #18, and it is a narrow parting. Careful with the language on LEADER. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method. Go to post
Picking up post #104: that is the part I would want checked first.
The documentation on LEADER is better than this thread and I say that as someone who has posted in the thread.
LEADER has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.
0 likes 4d
steady_state, post #20: I have been on both sides of the LEADER argument in this category within eighteen months, which should tell you how strong the evidence for either side is. Go to post
Adding what did not work for me on LEADER, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.
This topic was referenced in
- Journal club: STEP 8 and the fairness of the comparator doseEvidence › Journal club · 6 replies
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Journal club: SURMOUNT-4 and continuation versus withdrawal — a second dataset
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Journal club: SURMOUNT-4 and continuation versus withdrawal — a second dataset Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting a small dataset on SURMOUNT-4 and…
|
+58 | 64 | 17k | 13mo |
|
Journal club: semaglutide in MASH, and surrogate endpoints — does this still hold?
Journal club: semaglutide in MASH, and surrogate endpoints — does this still hold? I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. A narrow question about semaglutide…
|
3 | 28k | 6mo | |
|
Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold?
Asking directly, because I could not find a straight answer: Journal club: STEP 1 and the treatment-policy estimand — does this still hold? Working notes on STEP 1 rather than a conclusion. I would rather…
|
+70 | 76 | 4.8k | 15h |
|
Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove — one year on
Journal club: STEP 4 and what a withdrawal design can prove — one year on Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Session topic: STEP 4 ( JAMA , 2021). Please read…
|
+56 | 62 | 34k | 15mo |
|
Journal club: SURMOUNT-1, read without the press release
Journal club: SURMOUNT-1, read without the press release Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting a small dataset on SURMOUNT-1. It is mine, it is…
|
+139 | 157 | 66k | 12mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags estimand, number needed to treat, journal club
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preprint servers and what screening they do — the long version
On the subject in the title: Preprint servers and what screening they do — the long version Working notes rather than a conclusion. A preprint question rather than a question about the finding in it. The…
|
+7 | 11 | 26k | 4mo |
|
A structured critique template this community uses — a second dataset
On the subject in the title: A structured critique template this community uses — a second dataset Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting a small dataset on structured critique template. It is mine,…
|
+47 | 51 | 16k | 15h |
|
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry
Revisiting: Hepatic effects of glucagon receptor agonism: the mechanistic worry Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A methods question rather than a substantive…
|
+10 | 14 | 8.4k | 16h |
|
Revisiting: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work
Revisiting: How this community labels and discusses unrefereed work Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Reading an unrefereed manuscript properly, and asking…
|
+31 | 35 | 7k | 1d |
|
Follow-up: What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not
What a statistical analysis plan adds that the paper does not I have a specific reason for asking rather than idle curiosity, and the context is below. A follow-up question about statistical analysis plan…
|
2 | 7.2k | 3mo |