Thursday Throughput: Solar Boil Edition
[ThTh1] Last week, NBC news published a remarkable story about how a couple had their adoptive daughter taken away from them for suspected abuse. The story goes in depth on the “child abuse specialists” now being used at many hospitals and how once an allegation of abuse has been made, the machinery of the state is very difficult to stop. It includes a number of simply amazing things, like how the specialists documented a “bruise” on a child’s foot that turned out to be one they created during a blood draw.
There’s a lot to the story but there’s one aspect that struck me: the idea of “sentinel injuries”. These are injuries to babies that are too young to cruise and cross medical professionals as suspicious. They are supposed to be a harbinger, however, of future abuse. Congress is now talking about allocating funds to do testing for babies that have sentinel injuries, the utility of which is based on a study that claimed that 22.5% of definitely abused children had sentinel injuries vs. 8% of “intermediate concern” and 0% of “definitely not abused”.
This makes it sound like sentinel injuries are a good marker for abuse. But as my friend Kevin Wilson breaks down in this Twitter thread, they may not be. The reason is because it is rare for children that young to be physically abused, with abuse rates ranging from a fraction of a percent to a few percent at most. What that means is that although abused children are more likely to have sentinel injuries, non-abused children are so much more common that the vast majority of sentinel injuries may be false positives. So families could be traumatized, funds could be spent, unnecessary medical tests could be done mostly in vain.
(To give another example of the statistical error being made here: the most common symptom of a brain tumor is headaches. But brain tumors are rare. So the vast majority of people who get headaches will not have tumors. Now imagine that you gave people MRI’s every time they had a headache. It would be an expensive waste of time. It does make sense to rule out a tumor for chronic headaches with other symptoms — I got an MRI when they were diagnosing my migraines. But it would not make sense routinely.)
Kevin points out some other problems with the study and I recommend the thread (and a follow, if you do the Twitter thing). I understand people are passionate about child abuse. But sentinel injuries worry me as a diagnostic tool. I think we’re looking at another triad.
[ThTh2] A couple of throughputs ago, I mentioned a study that claimed that streaming video was consuming so much energy that watching a single 30-minutes show was like driving your car several miles. Several commenters noted some bad assumptions in the article. The BBC more or less took a look and discovered the authors overestimated the impact — by about a factor of 80. No, that’s not a typo. They used old data and severely overestimated how much energy streaming servers use. Those servers have become remarkably efficient. (H/T:Andre Kenji de Sousa).
[ThTh3] We are still learning a lot about how life rose, thrived and evolved on Earth. One new theory: a monster impact two billion years ago may have saved us all.
[ThTh4] Could a habitable planet orbit a black hole, like in the movie Interstellar? Yes, in theory. It would need very specific circumstances and a black holes that’s rotating so that you get frame-dragging. But it would work.
[ThTh5] Speaking of frame dragging, we just detected it around a distant white dwarf star.
[ThTh6] Great story. A guy from a trailer park overturned our understanding of lichen.
[ThT7] Our universe is expanding as a result of the Big Bang. As it does, however, gravity should slow it down. Whether it will slow it down enough to reverse the expansion was a big question 20 years ago. But studies of the deep universe revealed something shocking. Instead of the expansion of the universe slowing down because of gravity, it is accelerating because of something else. That something else is a complete mystery and we call it Dark Energy. A new theory may explain Dark Energy by changing our understanding of gravity. It would also, I would add, transform our understanding of particle physics, general relativity and quantum field theory. The best thing is that we might be able to test this using our new gravitational wave detectors.
[ThTh8] Ad Astra, Spitzer. And we thank you.
Today is the day. 📆
After 16 years of observing our cold, dark, and dusty galaxy 🌌, we're saying goodbye to our Great Observatory 🛰️.
We'll share updates as events unfold in @NASAJPL Mission Control. https://t.co/nKiaXJJQEU#SpitzerFinalVoyage pic.twitter.com/2Gt0DnfKwz
— NASA Spitzer (@NASAspitzer) January 30, 2020
[ThTh9] This video talks about some work I did as a postdoctoral fellow.
[ThTh10] The HPV vaccine is straight-up rendering cancer-causing viruses extinct.
.@PHE_uk surveillance of #HPV in sex. active 16-18 yo females in England. "In 2018, 10 yrs after vaccination was introduced, we detected no HPV16/18 infections.." https://t.co/hX2tfEUGs5 No evidence of increases in any other high-risk HPV types. #VaccinesWork #HPVvaccine pic.twitter.com/B1pHYbaV0W
— Alvaro Carrascal (@CarrascalAlvaro) January 27, 2020
[ThTh11] A spectacular image of the solar surface comes this week from the NSF’s solar telescopes. What you’re looking at are convection cells — clumps of hot gas welling up from the stellar interior, releasing heat, cooling off and then sinking back down. It is literally the same process as happens when water boils on your stove. Here’s a time lapse video where you can watch the Sun’s surface boil at 5800 degrees.
[ThTh10] don’t worry, the antivaxers are ready to go on retransmitting HPV. It’s hard work keeping viruses from going extinct, but they’re willing to do their part!
Although one does have to consider what the “infection parties” are going to look like for that one.Report
[ThT7] – A testable prediction from modern physics? How odd. I didn’t know we did those anymore.Report
C’mon, we all know ThTh11 is Crackerjacks.Report
Ghost pepper crackerjacks, maybe.Report
ThTh1: a case maybe of “when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” but I’ve been reading some Bayesian statistics and I think a person could Bayes the heck out of those numbers to demonstrate that the false-positive rate for “sentinel injuries” being abuse in very small children is high and so maybe CPS (or whatever) shouldn’t be so quick on the draw, but….I suspect this is one of those cases where emotions runs high, and “protecting the children” even if it means breaking up a family where nothing is going wrong and subjecting innocent parents to one of the worst suspicions will just….continue.Report
Someone did that. It depends a lot on what you assume the rate of child abuse is. But for, say, 2%, you get five times as many false positive as real ones.Report
As Michael notes, the base rate is key to that analysis. A bit of anecdata: around 35 years ago my nephew, a toddler, experienced a broken arm. CPS investigated and while the injury was never adequately explained in my vuew, my brother and SIL were cleared or at least there was insufficient evidence to proceed against them.
Fast forward 30 years and it turns out SIL is schizophrenic af. Like hospitalized and heavily medicated. I’d always thought of her as weird, hyper-religious was what I saw, but it seems her mental illness was characterized by screaming fits of rage, including physical violence, that I wasn’t aware of. Well that changes everything about my nephew’s mysterious injury doesn’t it?
Thankfully, she’s doing better now but I had no idea what my brother was going through. It was all hush-hush family secret stuff that was even hidden from me (Honestly, I’m not real close with my siblings).
All of which is to say that figuring out what’s what, even when you’re relatively close to the situation, isn’t always easy. Trying to get a handle on population statistics seems fraught.Report
Honestly, obscuring the base rate is one of the great ways to lie with P&S. Be it abuse, or illness/poisoning*, or injury/death** rates.
* Michaels post about RoundUp & NHL; any story about the supposed toxicity of any given substance that avoids talking about dose & L/D rates.
** The infamous gun control canard about a person being 21x more likely to be injured or killed with a firearm if there was one in the house completely ignored the base rate (along with all manner of confounding factors).Report
The worst sin is getting the correlation backwards. I don’t doubt that these “sentinel injuries” are present in a large fraction of confirmed cases of child abuse. But that still doesn’t tell us anything really about the likelihood in the other direction. And I don’t think it’s so much a matter of “obscuring” the base rate as just not knowing the base rate. And definitions come into play: one person’s abusive beating is another’s loving discipline. It’s not a clear binary.Report
If you can say that Y causes X to Z times more likely, then you have to have a base rate for X to occur. Maybe it’s just a SWAG at the base rate, but you still have to have something.
And if you are not telling people what that base rate is, then I have to wonder why.
Also, leaving the base rate out of the discussion helps to get correlation and causation backwardsReport
The law/public policy when it comes right down to it is really bad at science and statistics. Frankly so is the voting public. It lends itself to all kinds of overreaction and the ability to put an agenda in a scientific gloss that the ultimate decision maker has no real business assessing.
Maybe there’s merit to these techniques but sounds to me more like the crime lab forensic stuff that’s discredited every time someone halfway objective tests it but which nevertheles remains admissible in courtrooms across the land.Report
ThTh6: I love stories like that, not just the guy escaping the poverty and making good, but discoveries that upset the apple cart.Report
ThTh9: Dude. That’s awesome.Report
“Oh, look, dahlin’. Mistah Trump is a Classical architecture fan. Now I really hate him.”
https://archinect.com/news/article/150182232/new-executive-order-could-make-classical-architecture-the-preferred-and-default-style-for-america-s-public-buildings?fbclid=IwAR05fkJBYypON-t86yQ7A90fGkd6LL5AdKTADsDaQLhZRItNDO42gleJVUwReport
A tweet saying: (I have no idea how to make tweets show up right)
I guess everything over there will be Soviet style Corbusier from now on, or glass strip malls.Report
[ThTh6] A guy who grew up in a trailer park, and earned a PhD without either mastering the obstacle course of grades, test scores and leadership activities or taking on crippling student loans.Report
No, he did the whole undergrad and graduate thing. He just got an exceptional offer because he didn’t have the high school transcript.Report
Science and Mathematics related: The Babylonians were doing Trig 1500 years before the Greeks supposedly discovered it.Report
I’m pretty sure we’ve discovered evidence the Babylonians had basic trig before this. I distinctly remember reading in one of my math history texts that we had base-60 sine and cosine tablets from Mesopotamia, which I expect were Babylonian.
Maybe when I have some free time I’ll check, but it’s well understood that both the Egyptians and Babylonians had a pretty solid base of practical math well before the Greeks. The real advance of the Greeks was the idea of “pure” axiomatic math.Report
A friend sent me a piece the other day with someone’s clever geometric way to find roots of quadratic equations without the quadratic formula. That article finished up with a statement to the effect of see how much simpler this is, so this is how we should be teaching it. This one sneaks in the same idea.
As I repeat, ad nauseam, there’s a reason things are taught the way they are: everything from Algebra 1 through the first semester of differential equations and linear algebra is the basic math sequence for engineers and a variety of sciences. We teach algebra the way we do because we need it that way later. We teach trigonometry the way we do because we need it that way later.Report
E.g we have trig functions in radians and logs base e because that makes their derivatives simpler.Report
I was thinking more that we teach trig based on angle — which seems to annoy the author of the original article — in order to get (in particular) sine and cosine functions that are periodic and defined everywhere (plus have a variety of other useful properties). Down the road a ways, replace the angle variable with a time variable and you get an enormously important tool in science and engineering. Replace angle with a two-dimensional position function and you get a critical tool for image compression.Report