• HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Assuming X~B(20,0.5), that gives us a p-value of…

    0.00000095367431640625

    Time to reject H0!

  • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    First 20 patients died until the surgeon learned how to do it, next 20 survived. Technically it’s 50% survival rate

  • Deconceptualist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Can somebody explain the difference between the mathematician and the scientist parts of this?

    • Sjmarf@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      146
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      The normal person thinks that because the last 20 people survived, the next patient is very likely to die.

      The mathematician considers that the probability of success for each surgery is independent, so in the mathematician’s eyes the next patient has a 50% chance of survival.

      The scientist thinks that the statistic is probably gathered across a large number of different hospitals. They see that this particular surgeon has an unusually high success rate, so they conclude that their own surgery has a >50% chance of success.

  • TheImpressiveX@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    183
    ·
    14 hours ago

    “You should know that 9 out of 10 people who undergo this surgery will die. But don’t worry, the last 9 people who took this surgery all died, so you’re in the clear!”

    • InputZero@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Technically 1 out of 1 people who undergo that procedure die, eventually. Same is true for people who elect not to have the procedure done, eventually.

        • atomicorange@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Death rate is also strongly correlated with when you were born. We’ve gotten much better at not being dead in the last 100 years. For people born in 1925 the death rate is nearly 100%, but for people born in 2025 it has dropped close to zero!

    • meep_launcher
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      12 minutes ago

      I mean even then the stats can change with so many variables. It’s kind of like how you have a 50% chance of surviving by splitting up with Sam. You both knew it had to be done- the forest was thick and you knew it could only stalk one of you. You wish you had more time with him, but someone had to survive to tell the tale.

      As you get some distance and pray to God that you are alone, you crouch low and look for any sign of a trail or a building to get to. The fog is beginning to thicken as you decide to move downhill. Water flows downward, so this is the best chance you have to find a river.

      You keep running as quietly as you can as the last glow of sunlight dissipates from above the trees. You begin to panic as you realize there’s no hope for navigation in pure darkness. But then hope. The bubbling of water on rocks tells you that the river is just below. You cautiously move through the brush, heart pumping- were you being followed? It could have been waiting for the perfect moment- who knows how quietly it can move.

      You get down to the river when you see a light on the other side. You focus on the shining and see it’s a flashlight. Sam had taken the flashlight with him, is it possible your paths reconnected? You wade across the shallow current- the water is cold but maybe this means you two lost whatever it was miles ago. Your shoes press down on the pebble shores as you scrape your way up the bank. “SAM” you whisper “SAM HEY”. No response. You slow down as you approach the flashlight laying on the ground. It was Sam’s, but Sam was nowhere to be seen. You reach down as you feel rain drops slowly fall on you. As you grab the light you notice something- the raindrop on your hand is dark.

      As you realize what you are seeing, you begin to shake, mouth agape. You feel another drop on your shoulder. You knew you shouldn’t. You knew you should have accepted it and just moved on. You shouldn’t have looked up.

      There he was. The top half of Sam was dangling from the branches, his pale face looking down at you with blood streaking across his face and dripping off his nose. How could this happen? What could do this to Sam, especially since you knew he was the fastest man in your platoon. He was able to get to you with the ammunition you needed when you’re whole unit was under fire in Kuwait. He saved your life, but you couldn’t do the same for him.

      The shock is broken when you hear heavy boots stepping in front of you. It was over. There was nothing you could do. Nothing you ever could do. It- he- whatever you would call the figure in front of you just stated back into your soul. You felt the rattling of your lungs as you took the last few breaths you ever would. The blood soaked hands that reached out through the darkness led up to the man of your nightmares. Bits of Sam falling out of his mouth, he is fully revealed. It was him. It was always him. It was always

      Shia LaBeouf

      But yea in order to answer this we should define our parameters a bit more.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Is the surgery incredibly risky overall but the surgeon only takes patients with the highest chances of survival?

      • xantoxis@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 hours ago

        If you were the patient, you’d still be happy about that. If the surgeon is cheating the stats, but has already accepted you as a patient, then you have the highest chance of survival.

    • thefartographer
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      69
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Doctor stabs you. “Oh no! Questioning the surgery claims another…”

    • ignirtoq@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 hours ago

      How would you scientifically measure a difference between those two definitions?

      • Cenotaph@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        50
        ·
        13 hours ago

        I mean, say this doctor has a 100% success rate but another doctor has 0%. Those two doctors collectively have a 50% success rate but it you have far better odds with the first doctor than the second

          • thefartographer
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            ·
            11 hours ago

            After a certain point, it’s really society’s fault for letting the surgeon batting 0 continue performing surgeries.

        • Saiwal@hub.utsukta.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          12 hours ago

          @Cenotaph Nope, say the first doctor did 100 successful cases, the other did 2 successful and 2 failed, then the collective would be (100+2)*100/104 = 98.07%

          So the number of cases would matter.

          • Cenotaph@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Of course. My point was only that there is definitely a difference between an individual doctor’s success rate and the overall success rate of a procedure across all doctors, responding to the commment I replied to.

      • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        In a statistical regression model, that would be a variable that encodes a specific individual; although encoding hypothetical (the scientific meaning of that word, not the layperson meaning) attributes of that individual is probably functionally equivalent, more useful, and easier to conduct.

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          Attributes of the surgeons is not easier, because you need to pick the correct attributes.

          Really you just need an indicator variable showing 1 if its data from the surgeon under analysis and zero otherwise.

          Then test for that indicator variable being statistically larger than 0.