A critique should end with what would change your mind. Without that it is a position rather than an argument.
It is a small point and it changes the answer, which is an awkward combination.
12 likes 11d
Evidence · Study critique · continued
Coming back to: A structured critique template this community uses posts 61–70
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
What I would check first on structured critique template is whether the thing being measured moved or whether the way of measuring it moved. Those look identical in a graph.
25 likes 10d
FFaulkner, post #15: A note on scope: what I am saying about structured critique template applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking. Go to post
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on structured critique template. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
z.okonkwo, post #29: I think the structured critique template question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread. Go to post
I had written a reply contradicting post #60 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
The pre-specified endpoint being a weaker proxy than you would like is a real criticism. It is a smaller one than saying the result was chosen after the fact.
When you change your mind: if a reply convinces you that your criticism was not well-founded, say so plainly. The critique might still be real but smaller than you originally thought. That is not a failure — it is how discussion works.
0 likes 5d
j.moreau, post #38: Picking up post #35: that is the part I would want checked first. Where a critique changes your position, saying so in the thread is worth more than being right, and it is the thing this subcategory does better than most places. Go to post
Where I part company with post #64, and it is a narrow parting.
Practical experience of structured critique template, offered as one case with the conditions stated, not as a general finding. Conditions first, because they are what make it interpretable.
Whatever the answer on structured critique template turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, invite the correction.
4 likes 2d
e.ndiaye, post #48: I read post #46 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite. When you change your mind: if a reply convinces you that your criticism was not well-founded, say so plainly. The critique might still be real but smaller than you originally thought. That is not a failure — it is how discussion works. Go to post
Everything in post #68 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Surrogate endpoints are not automatically bad and their validity is compound-specific and population-specific. The question is whether this surrogate has been validated for this use.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
About the Study critique category
Structured criticism of a specific published study. Criticise the method, not the author. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded with its…
|
4 | 114 | 16mo | |
|
A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis
A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I would like to disagree carefully with the settled view on claim built, and I…
|
+71 | 80 | 1.1k | 14mo |
|
A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis — what changed since
On the subject in the title: A claim built entirely on a subgroup analysis — what changed since Working notes rather than a conclusion. What changes if the standard account of claim built is wrong? I ask…
|
2 | 2k | 18mo | |
|
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 |
|
A critique that turned out to be unfair, retracted by its author
Posting this under the heading it deserves: A critique that turned out to be unfair, retracted by its author Everything below is what sits behind that. Critique, and specifically the version of it that the…
|
+34 | 38 | 20k | 17h |
Related topics — sharing the tags confounding, risk of bias, disputed
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
An ABAB design with a data table and honest limitations
An ABAB design with a data table and honest limitations Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. An honest uncertainty about ABAB design rather than a disguised…
|
2 | 45k | 5mo | |
|
Reading a rodent study on a secretagogue without over-extrapolating
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Reading a rodent study on a secretagogue without over-extrapolating Everything below is what sits behind that. Reading a rodent study, and specifically the version…
|
+50 | 54 | 32k | 10mo |
|
A community side-effect dataset, with its response rate and biases
A community side-effect dataset, with its response rate and biases — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Community side-effect dataset: setting out the arithmetic in full,…
|
2 | 5.1k | 19h | |
|
Revisiting: Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157
On the subject in the title: Revisiting: Oral versus injected administration claims for BPC-157 Working notes rather than a conclusion. A follow-up question about Oral versus injected administration claims…
|
+23 | 27 | 7.7k | 15mo |
|
Criticising the method without criticising the authors — one year on
On the subject in the title: Criticising the method without criticising the authors — one year on Working notes rather than a conclusion. A methods question rather than a substantive one, about Criticising…
|
+16 | 20 | 61k | 11mo |