Astral Codex Ten

Leucht et al

4 min read

Leucht et al

Article

Leucht et al is a recurring person in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 2 times across 2 issues between May 31, 2023 and June 08, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as “Leucht et al investigate when doctors subjectively feel like their patients have gotten better”; “Credit here: Leucht et al”. It most often appears alongside ibuprofen, ACX survey, Adderall.

Metadata

  • Category: People
  • Mention count: 2
  • Issue count: 2
  • First seen: May 31, 2023
  • Last seen: June 08, 2023

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

All Medications Are Insignificant In The Eyes Of God And Traditional Effect Size Criteria
May 31, 2023 · Original source
Others are even stricter. Leucht et al investigate when doctors subjectively feel like their patients have gotten better, and find that even effect size 0.50 correlates to doctors saying they see little or no change. Based on this research, Irving Kirsch, author of some of the earliest credible antidepressant effect size estimates, argues that “[the] thresholds suggested by NICE were not empirically based and are presumably too small”, and says that “minimal improvement” should be defined as an effect size of 0.875 or more. No antidepressant consistently attains this. He wrote:
Inline links: Leucht et al, argues that, wrote
Attempts To Put Statistics In Context, Put Into Context
June 08, 2023 · Original source
The correlation between reading and math is higher than the correlation between which countries are near the equator, and which countries are hot. The first effect might sound kind of trivial, but it is r = 0.86. And the second effect might sound immense, but it is only r = 0.64. The real correlation between standardized reading and math tests is in between, r = 0.72. The examples above might be sort of cheating, because they’re comparing college majors (which are averaged-out aggregates of people) to countries (which are just individual countries). But that’s my point. It’s easy to cheat! Obviously someone wanting to exaggerate or downplay the generality of intelligence could choose which of these two ways they wanted to “put it into context”. I don’t have a solution to this except for constant vigilance and lots of examples. So here are a lot of examples. I thought I was the first to do this, but partway through I found some prior art. None completely satisfied me, but I’ve stolen a little from all of them. Credit here: Meyer et al, Hattie on education, Reason Without Restraint, Leucht et al. Some effect sizes and correlations are naturally misleading, or depend a lot on context. I’ve tried as hard as I can to avoid these and make all my examples clear, but they will necessarily require some charity. Effect Size: DARE keeps kids off drugs: 0.02
Inline links: r = 0.86, r = 0.64, r = 0.72, Hattie on education, Reason Without Restraint, Leucht et al, 0.02