Well, reading the study, I'm not sure more patients could rescue it from methodological bias. They assumed the premise basically -- we should find a biomarker, which is kind of what this thread is discussing. Then they went trawling for biomarker in a sea of millions of biomarkers. They did this by training an model that produced the desired result, using a grid search for hyper parameters that even further expanded the available degrees of freedom here beyond what they had from the biology. No pre-registration; There are millions of places where the researchers could have made a different decision -- would they still have gotten a publishable result? Oh plus the authors mostly work for the company whose data they use, which is hoping to sell a diagnostic test.
I'm giving you a thorough response because I'm detecting a cavalier anti scientism which I think is sadly becoming more common. This stuff is hard; are you sure you understand it enough to have an informed opinion?
alt Hacker News
Well, reading the study, I'm not sure more patients could rescue it from methodological bias. They assumed the premise basically -- we should find a biomarker, which is kind of what this thread is discussing. Then they went trawling for biomarker in a sea of millions of biomarkers. They did this by training an model that produced the desired result, using a grid search for hyper parameters that even further expanded the available degrees of freedom here beyond what they had from the biology. No pre-registration; There are millions of places where the researchers could have made a different decision -- would they still have gotten a publishable result? Oh plus the authors mostly work for the company whose data they use, which is hoping to sell a diagnostic test.
I'm giving you a thorough response because I'm detecting a cavalier anti scientism which I think is sadly becoming more common. This stuff is hard; are you sure you understand it enough to have an informed opinion?