Archive for October, 2023
Swedish sleep researchers torture subjects with math problems
This is alarming news, literally: Researchers from Stockholm University discovered via studies involving over 1700 subjects* that over two-thirds of them, especially younger individuals, habitually hit the snooze button.
I am appalled at this lack of discipline and ambition! However, I must confess that in my younger days, I got in the habit of putting my alarm on temporary pause repeatedly, which often caused me to run late for class. That would not do! Therefore, I purchased a cleverly built clock called the Clocky that rolls away when ringing, thus forcing you to jump out of bad to hunt it down. Highly recommended!
Putting aside my negative attitude about snoozers, I do feel bad for those subjected to the sleep study because as reported by the New York Times: “Immediately after the participants woke up, the researchers flipped on the lights and presented them with math problems and other cognitive tests — a challenge even more grating than a shrieking alarm, and one the participants had to complete before having a cup of coffee.”** Oof!
The good news for you slackers who do not leap out bed like I do is that this new study provides a pass for delaying the inevitable: “Snoozing [for 30 minutes] does not lead to cognitive impairments upon waking.” Just do not sleep through your final exam on math. That would be a nightmare!
*Is snoozing losing? Why intermittent morning alarms are used and how they affect sleep, cognition, cortisol, and mood , Journal of Sleep Research, October 17, 2023.
**“You Snooze, You … Win?”, Dani Blum, Oct. 18, 2023.
Variation in eggs presents perplexing problems for preparation
Posted by mark in Basic stats & math, food science on October 13, 2023
Today is World Egg Day.
I’m a big fan of eggs—my favorite being ones perfectly poached in an Endurance Stainless Steel Pan. However, the eggs that come from my daughters’ hens vary in size far more per container than store-bought, graded ones. I work around this by adding or subtracting time based on my experience. I really should weigh the eggs and design an experiment to optimize the time.
Coincidentally, I just received the new issue of Chance, published by the American Statistical Association. An article titled “A Physicist and a Statistician Walk into a Bar” caught my eye because one of my Stat-Ease consulting colleagues is a physicist and another is a statistician. I was hoping for a good joke at both of their expense. However, the authors (John Durso and Howard Wainer) go in a completely different direction with an amusing, but educational, story about a hypothetical optimization of soft-boiled eggs.
The problem is that recipes suffer from the “flaw of averages” —smaller ones get undercooked and bigger ones end up overcooked unless the time gets adjusted (as I well know!).
While the physicist sits over a pint of beer and pad of paper scratching out possible solutions based on on partial differential equations related to spheroidal geometry, the statistician assesses data collected on weights versus cooking time. Things get a bit mathematical at this point* (this is an ASA publication, after all) but in the end the statistician determines that weight versus cooking time can be approximated by a quadratic model, which makes sense to the physicist based on the geometry and makeup of an egg.
I took some liberties with the data to simplify things by reducing the number of experimental runs from 41 to 8. Also, based on my experience cooking eggs of varying weights, I increased the variation to a more realistic level. See my hypothetical quadratic fit below in a confidence-banded graph produced by Stat-Ease software.
Perhaps someday I may build up enough steam to weigh every egg, time the poaching and measure the runniness of the resulting yolks. However, for now I just eat them as they are after being cooked by my assessment of the individual egg-size relative to others in the carton. With some pepper and salt and a piece of toast to soak up any leftover yolk, my poached eggs always hit the spot.
*For example, they apply Tukey’s ladder of variable transformations – a method that works well on single-factor fits and can be related to the shape of the curve being concave or convex, going up or down the powers, respectively. It relates closely to the more versatile Box-Cox plot provided by Stat-Ease software. Using the same data as Durso and Wainer presented, I found that the Box-Cox plot recommended the same transformation as Tukey’s ladder.
Data detectives keep science honest
Posted by mark in science, Uncategorized on October 6, 2023
An article in Wall Street Journal last week* drew my attention to a growing number of scientists who moonlight as data detectives sleuthing out fraudulent studies. Thanks to their work the number of faulty papers retracted increased from 119 in 2002 to 5,500 last year. These statistics come from Retraction Watch who provide a better, graphical, perspective on the increase based on percent retractions per annual science and engineering (SE) publication–not nearly as dramatic given the explosion in publications over the last 20 years, but still very alarming.
“If you take the sleuths out of the equation it’s very difficult to see how most of these retractions would have happened.”
Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Data Colada –a blog dedicated to investigative analysis and replication of academic research.
Coincidentally, I just received this new cartoon from Professor Nadeem Irfan Bukhari. (See my all-time favorite from him in the April 27, 2007 StatsMadeEasy blog Cartoon quantifies commitment issue.)
It depicts statistics as the proverbial camel allowed to put its nose in the tent occupied by science disciplines until it become completely entrenched.
Thank goodness for scientists like Nadeem who embrace statistical tools for design and analysis of experiments. And kudos to those who guard against faulty or outright fraudulent scientific publications.
*The Band of Debunkers Busting Bad Scientists, Nidhi Subbaraman, 9/24/23