Comments on To justify zero false-positive assumption, Stanford study needs a reference sample 10 times biggerKaiser Fung explores the false positive problem with antibody testing.TypePad2020-04-23T08:56:26Zjunkchartshttps://junkcharts.typepad.com/numbersruleyourworld/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://junkcharts.typepad.com/numbersruleyourworld/2020/04/to-justify-zero-false-positive-assumption-stanford-study-needs-a-reference-sample-10-times-bigger/comments/atom.xml/Kaiser commented on 'To justify zero false-positive assumption, Stanford study needs a reference sample 10 times bigger'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341e992c53ef0264e2da2add200d2020-05-13T17:30:05Z2020-05-13T22:18:48ZKaiserhttps://junkcharts.typepad.com/numbersruleyourworldAR: Thanks for spotting them. Fixed. Yes they should be 300 not 30 in those two formulas. The cutoff for...<p>AR: Thanks for spotting them. Fixed. Yes they should be 300 not 30 in those two formulas. The cutoff for 5% was correctly stated at 99% specificity.</p>Antonio Rinaldi commented on 'To justify zero false-positive assumption, Stanford study needs a reference sample 10 times bigger'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341e992c53ef0263ec19b4ca200c2020-05-13T17:03:28Z2020-05-13T22:18:48ZAntonio RinaldiThere are two typos: in the following sentence 30 sould be 300: The chance of 300 negatives in 300 samples...<p>There are two typos: in the following sentence 30 sould be 300:<br />
The chance of 300 negatives in 300 samples is (0.99)^30 = 5%.<br />
Even in the next one.</p>Kaiser commented on 'To justify zero false-positive assumption, Stanford study needs a reference sample 10 times bigger'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341e992c53ef0240a524b026200b2020-04-27T17:19:27Z2020-04-28T07:39:16ZKaiserhttps://junkcharts.typepad.com/numbersruleyourworldMagnus: Wikipedia has a page on Rule of Three. It literally is the calculation I did above. The only thing...<p>Magnus: Wikipedia has a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(statistics)" rel="nofollow">page</a> on Rule of Three. It literally is the calculation I did above. The only thing is it applies a standard approximation for the log function to simplify the formula. This "zero events" problem has been studied by statisticians a lot - that's because it's a special case where classical statistics lead to an absurd answer.</p>Magnus commented on 'To justify zero false-positive assumption, Stanford study needs a reference sample 10 times bigger'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d8341e992c53ef0240a5244d35200b2020-04-26T15:22:52Z2020-04-27T15:03:58ZMagnusThank you, this is really interesting. I am quite often using the similar "one-way confidence bands" in my own professional...<p>Thank you, this is really interesting. I am quite often using the similar "one-way confidence bands" in my own professional work, when using sample date when all the sample observations either show a "Yes" or "No"<br />
The "rule of three" introduced at the end could be very helpful for us. Do you have any links to papers or books where this is explained more in detail?</p>