Michael Fralick

Пікірлер

@StevenBrown-s7j Күн бұрын

Thanks for the analysis! Just a quick off-topic question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (mistake turkey blossom warfare blade until bachelor fall squeeze today flee guitar). How can I transfer them to Binance?

@angelanakiganda 10 күн бұрын

Interesting teacher, this is quite helpful. Thank you,

@maryz.1869 25 күн бұрын

can you please explain how did you find the coefficients?

@Fralickmike 25 күн бұрын

@@maryz.1869 the coefficients are the output from the regression model. If you’re unsure about regression here’s a talk on it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gailfZ-fZshrlaMsi=u3oIwOVonWfxluDI Note that for propensity scores the coefficient is from logistic regression. But that video above gives a good overview of linear regression as a starting point. In the new year I’ll post a video on logistic regression

@farabiabdullah5139 Ай бұрын

Great Sir!

@kikones34 2 ай бұрын

1:17 in my test, this one was considered a correct answer... I cannot believe how it is such a widespread misconception. Thanks for stating that it's wrong and not equivalent to the correct interpretation (F).

@kikones34 Ай бұрын

Actually, I'm getting confused now. I understand why D isn't true, but aren't A and F equivalent? I cannot see the difference. If the true value falls in the intervals 95% of the time, doesn't that mean that for any given interval, there's a 95% chance that it contains the true value...?

@saikatpanda6653 2 ай бұрын

Thanks a lot for that excellent explanation!

@VAsGenuineEpic 2 ай бұрын

I get confused on how to determine which set of intervals provide stronger evidence. How would I do so given the list below? I know I look for the options that do not contain 1 because they are statistacally significant but once I narrow down to the last 2 what are the indicators? A. Industrial radiographers: 1.15 (0.53-2.19) B. Nuclear power plant: 5.55 (4.88-6.29) C. Dose-response: 1.10 (0.96-1.27) D. Shipyards: 9.97 (8.50 - 11.63)

@blakewhittington4336 2 ай бұрын

I've been on hydrocodone for years and I might be prescribed Ozempic do they not go together ?

@BassamSulaiman123 3 ай бұрын

thank you

@ian_1 3 ай бұрын

I remember watching your initial video about confounding and observational studies almost two years ago, and because of an upcoming interview I wanted to watch it again. That's how I came across this shorter and more focused video. Very helpful and I'm glad you continue making such useful content.

@Fralickmike 3 ай бұрын

@@ian_1 you’re most welcome. Thank you for the kind words

@galpandgalp 3 ай бұрын

Thank you, good talk, clarifying things many do not

@ArchitPandharipande 3 ай бұрын

Superb

@Fralickmike 3 ай бұрын

thank you

@Paul-MihaiSvaia 3 ай бұрын

Very clear and example-based explanation! Great job! Thank you!

@Fralickmike 3 ай бұрын

@@Paul-MihaiSvaia thank you!

@mahnoorirfan8890 3 ай бұрын

Thank you so much sir.This has been very helpful.

@KalMunq 4 ай бұрын

I feel like this is too simplified

@artworthi 4 ай бұрын

if probability score matching improves the validity of overall impact of cofounders, why aren't they used mor often in entertainment, movies, ect? Sounds like an entertaining way to infer or narrow in on a hunch, so im confused why this isn't as generally mentioned? I had to go down so many A.I. rabbit holes to even ask the question - What are propensity scores.

@TheProblembaer2 5 ай бұрын

Wonderfull, thank you so much!

@abhijithasok4314 6 ай бұрын

This is the reason why the side effects for Statin were under reported.

@heenajariyal6620 6 ай бұрын

Tirzepatide from Eli Lilly

@nesrinaa4844 7 ай бұрын

THANK YOU

@danielaperezvasquez3340 8 ай бұрын

Omg!! This was perfect thanks!

@jananys3156 8 ай бұрын

thank you so much for this video helped me with my journal club!

@ghadah9120 8 ай бұрын

Michael, the man that you’re!! Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

@frankpeprah6198 9 ай бұрын

Very informative

@josephinechikapa9587 9 ай бұрын

Thank you for this lecture it is really helpful

@FROSTHAWK247 9 ай бұрын

I am a masters student studying social work and even when the focus of the research is different the process of calculating these scores is more or less similar. This video was a great deal of help and extremely digestible, thank you so much!

@Fralickmike 9 ай бұрын

That’s very kind of you. And I’m glad you found it helpful !

@frankvanschellen4980 9 ай бұрын

thank you for this great explanation! Is there also a possibility when having 3 treatment groups to calculate propensity scores with the same strategy?

@Fralickmike 9 ай бұрын

You’re most welcome. There is but that gets complicated fast! If there are 3 groups and one is the ref then I do two pair wise comparisons to the ref. Hope that helps.

@dr.tomadragos-medicreziden1806 9 ай бұрын

DB RCT are the best! Thank you for the content! Why should i listen to other trials if they are vulnerable to biases?

@Fralickmike 9 ай бұрын

Sometimes double blind trials is not feasible and sometimes not possible. also, unblinded RCTs are still very useful. but they are just prone to some biases that double blinded trials are not

@josefoso15 10 ай бұрын

Fantastic! Nicest explanation of PSM ever

@Fralickmike 10 ай бұрын

Thx so much!

@akshitbhalla874 10 ай бұрын

Thank you so much for making this video!

@Fralickmike 10 ай бұрын

My pleasure. Thank you for your kind words!!

@augustinechukwunta680 11 ай бұрын

Great video - well explained

@augustinechukwunta680 11 ай бұрын

Great video - you made it so easy to understand

@Fralickmike 11 ай бұрын

thank you very much!!

@osashruf 11 ай бұрын

Great vid! Would love to see a crash course on Kaplan-Meier/survival analysis

@Fralickmike 11 ай бұрын

Great idea. Will work on that one in the future for sure

@KalMunq 11 ай бұрын

Can you talk about confidence intervals in depth? I’m having a hard time trying to interpret it

@Fralickmike 11 ай бұрын

Yes here is recent video on it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a5akeIupjp5_iassi=58K48FXROpUEm4is

@stanislavlegkovoy2119 11 ай бұрын

thanks, pretty clear

@svenkreutzer5617 11 ай бұрын

Great, thanks!

@silverlight7938 11 ай бұрын

Really helpful, I wanted to ask What is the difference between Propensity score matching and Case control matching (SPSS)?

@Fralickmike 11 ай бұрын

Case control matching is unrelated. Here is great resource on everything you need to know about case control studies sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/MPH-Modules/EP/EP713_Case-Control/

@ShenghanLi Жыл бұрын

Thanks for the clear explanation!

@Fralickmike Жыл бұрын

My pleasure. Thank you for watching

@flori2611 Жыл бұрын

THANK YOU SO MUCH

@Fralickmike Жыл бұрын

My pleasure. I’m happy you enjoyed it

@ericyeh4315 Жыл бұрын

genius! deeply appreciate this video! helpful for med students drowned by statistical terms

@Fralickmike Жыл бұрын

Thank you !

@A_Psych_Nurse Жыл бұрын

Hi Michael, Appreciate this breakdown, despite most of it going over my head. When you say these statistical methods do not mimic RCTs, what exactly does that mean? How closely do we get to the results of a RCT using this method, and has this method been verified against the findings of RCTs? The reason I'm asking this is b/c I came across a cohort article comparing adolescents who took antipsychotic medication vs. those who didn't, and compared how they were doing 5 years later. The article suggests, after using IPTW, that antipsychotic medication in those w/ their first episode of psychosis, actually makes for a worse 5 year outcome. I'm skeptical though b/c it's a cohort study and no randomization was done. The authors acknowledge this weakness, and then state that the Stabilized IPTW is used to eliminate the possibility that those with worse psychosis were the ones who were given an antipsychotic medication. (I think this is the most probable explanation for why those who were given AP medication fared worse. . .simply b/c they already were experiencing more profound psychosis and so we would expect them to be doing worse at a 5 year follow-up). Seems super fishy to me. . .any thoughts here are appreciated, thx.

@Fralickmike Жыл бұрын

You are totally right to be skeptical. There’s no way to answer this Q “how close do we get to the results of a RCT”. It would be like asking how much does this glass of wine taste like a beer. They are two different things. To learn more about why RCTs are so powerful and what randomization achieves (that no cohort study can) here is link to my 6min crash course on RCTs: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYLXaZ2IareajLMsi=cpMn3c6YQnWYj3wv

@A_Psych_Nurse Жыл бұрын

awesome, thank you for the insanely prompt and helpful response Michael!@@Fralickmike

@yutingchen9701 Жыл бұрын

great video!

@Fralickmike Жыл бұрын

Thank you!!

@ishikahalder799 Жыл бұрын

🤩

@MphoDiane Жыл бұрын

Very good lesson except that you are extremely fast. I wish you could slow down your pace

@Fralickmike Жыл бұрын

Thank you for feedback. Note you can slow the speed to 0.75 or 0.5 to slow it down

@ajkovic914 Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much. Plz make more videos especially about meta-analysis

@Fralickmike Жыл бұрын

Thank you for your kind words!!

@jamesharte8390 Жыл бұрын

excellent breakdown and synopsis. Thank you.

@girlthatcooks4079 Жыл бұрын

There are 3 scores as 0.6, would it be fair/unbiased to match with random 2 only?

@Fralickmike Жыл бұрын

that is a good question. you are right that it would be ok to pick at random. In some studies people match "many to one". so you could keep all 3. But the "ideal" approach is 1:1 based on prior studies.

@girlthatcooks4079 Жыл бұрын

@@Fralickmike Thank you!!

@ruiz_aeg Жыл бұрын

I learnt so much. Such a good presenter. Thank you!

@Fralickmike Жыл бұрын

Thank you! That’s very kind of you

@articulatepro4449 Жыл бұрын

This lecture coul even solve a particular question... kept rigmaroles coming...

@taifshah9003 Жыл бұрын

you are so stupid, while giving a lecture, avoid your shit chatting with people

Ең жақсы KZbin

Пікірлер