Graham Macklin
banner
gmacklin.bsky.social
Graham Macklin
@gmacklin.bsky.social
PhD student at TSE studying renewable energy
National park enthusiast
I haven't used chatgpt yet, so I'm interested to see what I can do! My email is [email protected]
January 17, 2025 at 10:32 PM
I'd also be happy to look at your code at some point this weekend if that would be helpful
January 17, 2025 at 10:18 PM
I'm also a little surprised by how much the positive oversample pulls down the upper end of the CI for p, although again that might be a bootstrap artifact
January 17, 2025 at 8:55 PM
It generally looks good to me! The one thing that stands out are the confidence intervals, especially sensitivity and specificity - they seem a little tighter than I'd expect and the CI for sensitivity doesn't even include the true value. Is that just an artefact of bootstrapping?
January 17, 2025 at 8:51 PM
It definitely seems like someone should have! But I don't know where. It's pretty far outside what I typically read, though, so that's not particularly informative. If you come across something or write it up yourself, please send it along, I'd love to read a more formal treatment!
January 17, 2025 at 3:30 PM
Yeah, depending on your priors and how many re-tests you do, your new confidence interval for the prevalence is probably something like 0.039 - 0.047, and that also means that your specificity has a CI of something like ~0.953/0.96 - ~1
January 17, 2025 at 3:07 PM
But you need significantly more gold-standard tests than 1/prevalence in order to estimate the prevalence in the first place.
January 17, 2025 at 2:48 PM
I need to write it out more formally to check, but I think that if you have a good measure of the prevalence, then yes. In the extreme scenario where you know the prevalence exactly and get a positive retest on all of the cheap test's positives, then you know that the false negative rate must be 0.
January 17, 2025 at 2:46 PM
I don't think that it is possible to reliably say anything about the specificity in this scenario. If 1/1000 people have the disease even with a false negative rate of 100% and all 200 tests used in the negative group, there is still over an 80% chance of observing 0 false negatives in your sample.
January 17, 2025 at 3:46 AM
Reposted by Graham Macklin
The conscious embrace and enabling of anti-vax by the GOP leaders, the ones who know better, is probably one of the most unambiguously evil things I’ve seen in my lifetime.
November 12, 2024 at 4:38 AM
Reposted by Graham Macklin
water supplies are a) not a problem in the east b) a big problem in the west that could be more or less solved overnight by cutting livestock feed agriculture by like a fifth. data centers are a rounding error
September 18, 2024 at 1:35 PM