Knowledge

Selection bias

Source đź“ť

294:, is another form of Attrition bias, mainly occurring in medicinal studies over a lengthy time period. Non-Response or Retention bias can be influenced by a number of both tangible and intangible factors, such as; wealth, education, altruism, initial understanding of the study and its requirements. Researchers may also be incapable of conducting follow-up contact resulting from inadequate identifying information and contact details collected during the initial recruitment and research phase. 332:
lower socio-economic background. Furthermore, another study shows that women are more probable to volunteer for studies than males. Volunteer bias is evident throughout the study life-cycle, from recruitment to follow-ups. More generally speaking volunteer response can be put down to individual altruism, a desire for approval, personal relation to the study topic and other reasons. As with most instances mitigation in the case of volunteer bias is an increased sample size.
284:. It gives biased results where it is unequal in regard to exposure and/or outcome. For example, in a test of a dieting program, the researcher may simply reject everyone who drops out of the trial, but most of those who drop out are those for whom it was not working. Different loss of subjects in intervention and comparison group may change the characteristics of these groups and outcomes irrespective of the studied 175:, a potential mixup between cause and effect when exposure is dependent on indication, e.g. a treatment is given to people in high risk of acquiring a disease, potentially causing a preponderance of treated people among those acquiring the disease. This may cause an erroneous appearance of the treatment being a cause of the disease. 331:
Self-selection bias or a volunteer bias in studies offer further threats to the validity of a study as these participants may have intrinsically different characteristics from the target population of the study. Studies have shown that volunteers tend to come from a higher social standing than from a
318:
record of Earth: if large impacts cause mass extinctions and ecological disruptions precluding the evolution of intelligent observers for long periods, no one will observe any evidence of large impacts in the recent past (since they would have prevented intelligent observers from evolving). Hence
306:
has argued that data are filtered not only by study design and measurement, but by the necessary precondition that there has to be someone doing a study. In situations where the existence of the observer or the study is correlated with the data, observation selection effects occur, and
392:, the general tendency of humans to give more attention to whatever confirms our pre-existing perspective; or specifically in experimental science, the distortion produced by experiments that are designed to seek confirmatory evidence instead of trying to disprove the hypothesis. 37:
introduced by the selection of individuals, groups, or data for analysis in such a way that proper randomization is not achieved, thereby failing to ensure that the sample obtained is representative of the population intended to be analyzed. It is sometimes referred to as the
165:, when a treatment for the first symptoms of a disease or other outcome appear to cause the outcome. It is a potential bias when there is a lag time from the first symptoms and start of treatment before actual diagnosis. It can be mitigated by 203:, when specific subsets of data are chosen to support a conclusion (e.g. citing examples of plane crashes as evidence of airline flight being unsafe, while ignoring the far more common example of flights that complete safely. See: 93:
for differences or similarities found in the sample at hand. In this sense, errors occurring in the process of gathering the sample or cohort cause sampling bias, while errors in any process thereafter cause selection bias.
237:
Performing repeated experiments and reporting only the most favorable results, perhaps relabelling lab records of other experiments as "calibration tests", "instrumentation errors" or "preliminary surveys".
907:
Jordan, Sue; Watkins, Alan; Storey, Mel; Allen, Steven J.; Brooks, Caroline J.; Garaiova, Iveta; Heaven, Martin L.; Jones, Ruth; Plummer, Sue F.; Russell, Ian T.; Thornton, Catherine A. (2013-07-09).
101:, pre-screening of trial participants, discounting trial subjects/tests that did not run to completion and migration bias by excluding subjects who have recently moved into or out of the study area, 909:"Volunteer Bias in Recruitment, Retention, and Blood Sample Donation in a Randomised Controlled Trial Involving Mothers and Their Children at Six Months and Two Years: A Longitudinal Analysis" 363:
When data are selected for fitting or forecast purposes, a coalitional game can be set up so that a fitting or forecast accuracy function can be defined on all subsets of the data variables.
78:(or non-human factors) in which all participants are not equally balanced or objectively represented. It is mostly classified as a subtype of selection bias, sometimes specifically termed 395:
exclusion bias, results from applying different criteria to cases and controls in regards to participation eligibility for a study/different variables serving as basis for exclusion.
360:
determinants of selection into the sample which bias estimates, and this correlation between unobservables cannot be directly assessed by the observed determinants of treatment.
386:
by not publishing uninteresting (usually negative) results, or results which go against the experimenter's prejudices, a sponsor's interests, or community expectations.
256:
is a kind of selection bias caused by attrition (loss of participants), discounting trial subjects/tests that did not run to completion. It is closely related to the
151:, when one disease predisposes for a second disease, and the treatment for the first disease erroneously appears to predispose to the second disease. For example, 187:
Partitioning (dividing) data with knowledge of the contents of the partitions, and then analyzing them with tests designed for blindly chosen partitions.
1999: 46:, resulting from the method of collecting samples. If the selection bias is not taken into account, then some conclusions of the study may be false. 1889: 1864: 210:
Rejection of bad data on (1) arbitrary grounds, instead of according to previously stated or generally agreed criteria or (2) discarding "
109:, where disease is diagnosed earlier for participants than in comparison populations, although the average course of disease is the same. 761:
Tamim H; Monfared AA; LeLorier J (March 2007). "Application of lag-time into exposure definitions to control for protopathic bias".
2291: 2287: 734:
Feinstein AR; Horwitz RI (November 1978). "A critique of the statistical evidence associating estrogens with endometrial cancer".
2337: 2295: 2283: 1894: 1054:Ćirković, M. M.; Sandberg, A.; Bostrom, N. (2010). "Anthropic Shadow: Observation Selection Effects and Human Extinction Risks". 1992: 89:
of a test (the ability of its results to be generalized to the rest of the population), while selection bias mainly addresses
1038: 813: 715: 636: 214:" on statistical grounds that fail to take into account important information that could be derived from "wild" observations. 2458: 2374: 159:, so estrogens given for the postmenopausal syndrome may receive a higher than actual blame for causing endometrial cancer. 344:
may be used in special cases. An assessment of the degree of selection bias can be made by examining correlations between
2239: 594:
Cortes, Corinna; Mohri, Mehryar; Riley, Michael; Rostamizadeh, Afshin (2008). "Sample Selection Bias Correction Theory".
244:
as if it were a single experiment (which is logically the same as the previous item, but is seen as much less dishonest).
2209: 1985: 66:
of a population, causing some members of the population to be less likely to be included than others, resulting in a
2496: 1291: 17: 340:
In the general case, selection biases cannot be overcome with statistical analysis of existing data alone, though
1966: 1884: 1694: 2303: 2518: 2341: 2063: 1813: 2489: 2174: 1699: 1353: 2468: 1348: 323:
might similarly be underestimated due to selection bias, and an anthropic correction has to be introduced.
2432: 2404: 2333: 2087: 1471: 231: 2528: 2523: 2482: 2158: 1807: 1333: 2533: 2277: 1937: 1661: 1461: 1439: 975: 472: 681: 619: 2215: 2163: 2043: 1961: 1874: 1756: 1521: 1501: 1397: 478: 436: 196: 2261: 2131: 2109: 2078: 2053: 2036: 85:
A distinction of sampling bias (albeit not a universally accepted one) is that it undermines the
2412: 2249: 2170: 1947: 1631: 1611: 1392: 1370: 676: 614: 273: 204: 166: 75: 528: 2253: 2140: 2048: 2012: 1726: 1641: 1616: 1561: 1977: 409: â€“ Tendency to misinterpret statistical experiments involving conditional probabilities 2219: 1679: 1531: 1407: 1284: 1118: 1063: 920: 516: 466: 406: 43: 169:, that is, exclusion of exposures that occurred in a certain time period before diagnosis. 8: 2126: 2058: 1834: 1751: 1651: 1586: 1526: 1516: 1511: 1375: 349: 308: 285: 125:
reasons), but the extreme value is likely to be reached by the variable with the largest
1122: 1067: 924: 260:, where only the subjects that "survived" a process are included in the analysis or the 2379: 2329: 2144: 2073: 2031: 1731: 1716: 1476: 1466: 1449: 1256: 1144: 1087: 1011: 951: 908: 786: 642: 604: 531:. Retrieved on 2009-09-23. Site in turn cites: Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. 442: 424: 341: 156: 118:
Early termination of a trial at a time when its results support the desired conclusion.
71: 991: 571: 554: 2453: 2417: 2384: 2309: 2231: 2008: 1844: 1781: 1766: 1689: 1671: 1606: 1402: 1318: 1193: 1185: 1136: 1079: 1075: 1034: 1003: 995: 956: 938: 886: 809: 778: 743: 711: 632: 576: 555:"The effects of sample selection bias on racial differences in child abuse reporting" 484: 412: 389: 320: 291: 257: 200: 190: 90: 86: 1015: 790: 2227: 2148: 2102: 2097: 1911: 1771: 1711: 1636: 1621: 1481: 1434: 1343: 1338: 1323: 1248: 1214: 1175: 1148: 1126: 1091: 1071: 987: 946: 928: 876: 846: 842: 770: 686: 624: 595: 566: 448: 375: 102: 662:"Domain adaptation and sample bias correction theory and algorithm for regression" 646: 193:
alteration of data inclusion based on arbitrary or subjective reasons, including:
2422: 2245: 2200: 1879: 1869: 1646: 1626: 1541: 1444: 1419: 1414: 1387: 1365: 1277: 1163: 933: 705: 540: 1162:
Tripepi, Giovanni; Jager, Kitty J.; Dekker, Friedo W.; Zoccali, Carmine (2010).
628: 504: 2369: 2321: 2114: 2026: 1921: 1916: 1906: 1829: 1706: 1656: 1601: 1591: 1576: 1571: 1536: 1491: 1456: 1360: 1309: 661: 454: 418: 379: 152: 106: 98: 690: 451: â€“ Higher probability of publishing results showing a significant finding 2512: 2427: 2394: 2389: 1859: 1839: 1802: 1776: 1761: 1741: 1721: 1684: 1596: 1556: 1551: 1546: 1424: 1328: 1189: 999: 942: 460: 439: â€“ Systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment 433: â€“ Tendency of a scientific study to support the interests of its funder 383: 241: 227: 67: 63: 59: 264:, where only the subjects that "failed" a process are included. It includes 2269: 2153: 1819: 1581: 1566: 1197: 1140: 1083: 960: 890: 782: 430: 315: 303: 261: 1007: 580: 2463: 2317: 2190: 2180: 1736: 1506: 1496: 1486: 1382: 1239:
Heckman, J. J. (1979). "Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error".
881: 864: 747: 105:, where slowly developing disease with better prognosis is detected, and 830: 2265: 2257: 2223: 2185: 2092: 1854: 1849: 1824: 1260: 1031:
Anthropic Bias: Observation Selection Effects in Science and Philosophy
42:. The phrase "selection bias" most often refers to the distortion of a 1180: 319:
there is a potential bias in the impact record of Earth. Astronomical
2325: 2313: 1942: 1429: 774: 603:. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 5254. pp. 38–53. 345: 1252: 1131: 1106: 2359: 1901: 1786: 126: 609: 2364: 808:. Philadelphia, Pa: American College of Physicians. p. 159. 211: 122: 121:
A trial may be terminated early at an extreme value (often for
348:(background) variables and a treatment indicator. However, in 2007: 760: 593: 1300: 469: â€“ Theory relating to sampling from finite populations 130: 34: 1164:"Selection Bias and Information Bias in Clinical Research" 27:
Bias in a statistical analysis due to non-random selection
1269: 1161: 865:"Empirical evidence of attrition bias in clinical trials" 906: 1053: 553:
Ards, Sheila; Chung, Chanjin; Myers, Samuel L. (1998).
733: 155:
syndrome gives a higher likelihood of also developing
806:
Hypertension (Key Diseases) (Acp Key Diseases Series)
382:, the distortion produced in community perception or 481: â€“ Prediction that causes itself to become true 82:, but some classify it as a separate type of bias. 710:. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 262. 1107:"Astrophysics: Is a doomsday catastrophe likely?" 2510: 982:. Originally published as Volume 1, Issue 7497. 475: â€“ Theory within the practice of psychology 803: 1104: 653: 587: 552: 1993: 1285: 487: â€“ Logical error, form of selection bias 415: â€“ Theory of response to surprise events 546: 463: â€“ Bias in the sampling of a population 457: â€“ Bias in the reporting of information 240:Presenting the most significant result of a 199:, which actually is not selection bias, but 822: 659: 541:Dictionary of Cancer Terms → Selection Bias 505:Dictionary of Cancer Terms → selection bias 226:Selection of which studies to include in a 2000: 1986: 1948:Heuristics in judgment and decision-making 1292: 1278: 729: 727: 1179: 1130: 950: 932: 902: 900: 880: 862: 680: 618: 608: 570: 2292:Preventable fraction among the unexposed 2288:Attributable fraction for the population 697: 660:Cortes, Corinna; Mohri, Mehryar (2014). 2296:Preventable fraction for the population 2284:Attributable fraction among the exposed 1238: 1028: 858: 856: 828: 724: 129:, even if all variables have a similar 14: 2511: 897: 421: â€“ Fallacy of incomplete evidence 371:Selection bias is closely related to: 1981: 1273: 1209: 1207: 973: 869:International Journal of Epidemiology 703: 297: 2459:Correlation does not imply causation 2375:Animal testing on non-human primates 853: 517:Medical Dictionary - 'Sampling Bias' 831:"Some Remarks on Wild Observations" 24: 1204: 863:JĂĽni, P.; Egger, Matthias (2005). 543:. Retrieved on September 23, 2009. 507:. Retrieved on September 23, 2009. 352:models, it is correlation between 97:Examples of sampling bias include 25: 2545: 1105:Tegmark, M.; Bostrom, N. (2005). 529:TheFreeDictionary → biased sample 366: 326: 62:is systematic error due to a non- 1076:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01460.x 356:determinants of the outcome and 112: 54: 49: 1232: 1155: 1098: 1047: 1022: 967: 797: 754: 519:Retrieved on September 23, 2009 2342:Pre- and post-test probability 2064:Patient and public involvement 847:10.1080/00401706.1960.10489875 534: 522: 510: 498: 13: 1: 992:10.1016/S0140-6736(67)92377-X 572:10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00131-2 492: 335: 2469:Sex as a biological variable 934:10.1371/journal.pone.0067912 829:Kruskal, William H. (1960). 669:Theoretical Computer Science 248: 149:Clinical susceptibility bias 7: 2433:Intention-to-treat analysis 2405:Analysis of clinical trials 2334:Specificity and sensitivity 2088:Randomized controlled trial 1814:DĂ©formation professionnelle 974:Small, W. P. (1967-05-06). 629:10.1007/978-3-540-87987-9_8 597:Algorithmic Learning Theory 399: 232:combinatorial meta-analysis 137: 10: 2550: 1808:Basking in reflected glory 1299: 763:Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 220: 2477: 2442:Interpretation of results 2441: 2403: 2352: 2302: 2276: 2238: 2208: 2199: 2175:Nested case–control study 2125: 2072: 2019: 1956: 1938:Cognitive bias mitigation 1930: 1795: 1670: 1307: 1168:Nephron Clinical Practice 691:10.1016/j.tcs.2013.09.027 559:Child Abuse & Neglect 473:Selective exposure theory 2044:Academic clinical trials 1522:Illusion of transparency 804:Matthew R. Weir (2005). 479:Self-fulfilling prophecy 437:List of cognitive biases 2262:Relative risk reduction 2110:Adaptive clinical trial 2054:Evidence-based medicine 2037:Adaptive clinical trial 1033:. New York: Routledge. 704:Fadem, Barbara (2009). 314:An example is the past 181: 2250:Number needed to treat 1029:Bostrom, Nick (2002). 427: â€“ Cognitive bias 205:availability heuristic 2519:Sampling (statistics) 2254:Number needed to harm 2141:Cross-sectional study 2093:Scientific experiment 2049:Clinical study design 1890:Arab–Israeli conflict 1617:Social influence bias 1562:Out-group homogeneity 80:sample selection bias 2220:Cumulative incidence 1532:Mere-exposure effect 1462:Extrinsic incentives 1408:Selective perception 467:Sampling probability 445: â€“ Type of bias 44:statistical analysis 2127:Observational study 2059:Real world evidence 2013:experimental design 1757:Social desirability 1652:von Restorff effect 1527:Mean world syndrome 1502:Hostile attribution 1123:2005Natur.438..754T 1068:2010RiskA..30.1495C 976:"Lost to Follow-Up" 925:2013PLoSO...867912J 742:(11 Pt 2): 4001–5. 309:anthropic reasoning 144:Susceptibility bias 2413:Risk–benefit ratio 2380:First-in-man study 2330:Case fatality rate 2171:Case–control study 2145:Longitudinal study 1672:Statistical biases 1450:Curse of knowledge 882:10.1093/ije/dyh406 707:Behavioral Science 443:Participation bias 425:Frequency illusion 342:Heckman correction 298:Observer selection 282:protocol deviators 157:endometrial cancer 72:statistical sample 2529:Scientific method 2524:Experimental bias 2506: 2505: 2454:Survivorship bias 2418:Systematic review 2385:Multicenter trial 2348: 2347: 2338:Likelihood-ratios 2310:Clinical endpoint 2278:Population impact 2232:Period prevalence 2009:Clinical research 1975: 1974: 1612:Social comparison 1393:Choice-supportive 1181:10.1159/000312871 1040:978-0-415-93858-7 986:(7497): 997–999. 815:978-1-930513-58-7 717:978-0-7817-8257-9 638:978-3-540-87986-2 485:Survivorship bias 413:Black swan theory 407:Berkson's paradox 390:confirmation bias 321:existential risks 292:Lost to follow-up 258:survivorship bias 201:confirmation bias 91:internal validity 87:external validity 16:(Redirected from 2541: 2534:Causal inference 2353:Trial/test types 2228:Point prevalence 2206: 2205: 2149:Ecological study 2132:EBM II-2 to II-3 2103:Open-label trial 2098:Blind experiment 2074:Controlled study 2002: 1995: 1988: 1979: 1978: 1772:Systematic error 1727:Omitted-variable 1642:Trait ascription 1482:Frog pond effect 1310:Cognitive biases 1294: 1287: 1280: 1271: 1270: 1265: 1264: 1236: 1230: 1229: 1227: 1226: 1215:"Volunteer bias" 1211: 1202: 1201: 1183: 1159: 1153: 1152: 1134: 1102: 1096: 1095: 1062:(10): 1495–506. 1051: 1045: 1044: 1026: 1020: 1019: 971: 965: 964: 954: 936: 904: 895: 894: 884: 860: 851: 850: 826: 820: 819: 801: 795: 794: 775:10.1002/pds.1360 758: 752: 751: 731: 722: 721: 701: 695: 694: 684: 666: 657: 651: 650: 622: 612: 602: 591: 585: 584: 574: 550: 544: 538: 532: 526: 520: 514: 508: 502: 449:Publication bias 376:publication bias 163:Protopathic bias 103:length-time bias 40:selection effect 21: 18:Law of selection 2549: 2548: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2502: 2473: 2437: 2399: 2344: 2298: 2272: 2246:Risk difference 2234: 2195: 2129: 2121: 2076: 2068: 2032:Trial protocols 2015: 2006: 1976: 1971: 1952: 1926: 1791: 1666: 1647:Turkey illusion 1415:Compassion fade 1312: 1303: 1298: 1268: 1253:10.2307/1912352 1237: 1233: 1224: 1222: 1219:Catalog of Bias 1213: 1212: 1205: 1160: 1156: 1132:10.1038/438754a 1103: 1099: 1052: 1048: 1041: 1027: 1023: 972: 968: 905: 898: 861: 854: 827: 823: 816: 802: 798: 759: 755: 732: 725: 718: 702: 698: 682:10.1.1.367.6899 664: 658: 654: 639: 620:10.1.1.144.4478 600: 592: 588: 551: 547: 539: 535: 527: 523: 515: 511: 503: 499: 495: 490: 402: 369: 338: 329: 300: 251: 223: 184: 173:Indication bias 140: 115: 70:, defined as a 57: 52: 28: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2547: 2537: 2536: 2531: 2526: 2521: 2504: 2503: 2501: 2500: 2497:List of topics 2493: 2486: 2478: 2475: 2474: 2472: 2471: 2466: 2461: 2456: 2451: 2449:Selection bias 2445: 2443: 2439: 2438: 2436: 2435: 2430: 2425: 2420: 2415: 2409: 2407: 2401: 2400: 2398: 2397: 2392: 2387: 2382: 2377: 2372: 2370:Animal testing 2367: 2362: 2356: 2354: 2350: 2349: 2346: 2345: 2322:Mortality rate 2308: 2306: 2300: 2299: 2282: 2280: 2274: 2273: 2244: 2242: 2236: 2235: 2214: 2212: 2203: 2197: 2196: 2194: 2193: 2188: 2183: 2178: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2161: 2151: 2137: 2135: 2123: 2122: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2115:Platform trial 2107: 2106: 2105: 2100: 2095: 2084: 2082: 2070: 2069: 2067: 2066: 2061: 2056: 2051: 2046: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2034: 2027:Clinical trial 2023: 2021: 2017: 2016: 2005: 2004: 1997: 1990: 1982: 1973: 1972: 1970: 1969: 1964: 1957: 1954: 1953: 1951: 1950: 1945: 1940: 1934: 1932: 1931:Bias reduction 1928: 1927: 1925: 1924: 1919: 1914: 1909: 1907:Political bias 1904: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1892: 1887: 1882: 1877: 1872: 1867: 1862: 1852: 1847: 1842: 1837: 1835:Infrastructure 1832: 1827: 1822: 1817: 1810: 1805: 1799: 1797: 1793: 1792: 1790: 1789: 1784: 1779: 1774: 1769: 1764: 1759: 1754: 1752:Self-selection 1749: 1744: 1739: 1734: 1729: 1724: 1719: 1714: 1709: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1692: 1687: 1682: 1676: 1674: 1668: 1667: 1665: 1664: 1659: 1654: 1649: 1644: 1639: 1634: 1629: 1624: 1619: 1614: 1609: 1604: 1599: 1594: 1589: 1587:Pro-innovation 1584: 1579: 1574: 1572:Overton window 1569: 1564: 1559: 1554: 1549: 1544: 1539: 1534: 1529: 1524: 1519: 1514: 1509: 1504: 1499: 1494: 1489: 1484: 1479: 1474: 1469: 1464: 1459: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1442: 1440:Dunning–Kruger 1437: 1432: 1427: 1422: 1417: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1400: 1395: 1390: 1385: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1368: 1363: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1354:Correspondence 1351: 1349:Actor–observer 1341: 1336: 1331: 1326: 1321: 1315: 1313: 1308: 1305: 1304: 1297: 1296: 1289: 1282: 1274: 1267: 1266: 1247:(1): 153–161. 1231: 1203: 1174:(2): c94–c99. 1154: 1097: 1046: 1039: 1021: 966: 896: 852: 821: 814: 796: 753: 723: 716: 696: 652: 637: 586: 565:(2): 103–115. 545: 533: 521: 509: 496: 494: 491: 489: 488: 482: 476: 470: 464: 458: 455:Reporting bias 452: 446: 440: 434: 428: 422: 419:Cherry picking 416: 410: 403: 401: 398: 397: 396: 393: 387: 380:reporting bias 368: 367:Related issues 365: 337: 334: 328: 327:Volunteer bias 325: 299: 296: 254:Attrition bias 250: 247: 246: 245: 238: 235: 222: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 208: 197:Cherry picking 188: 183: 180: 179: 178: 177: 176: 170: 160: 153:postmenopausal 139: 136: 135: 134: 119: 114: 111: 107:lead time bias 99:self-selection 56: 53: 51: 48: 31:Selection bias 26: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2546: 2535: 2532: 2530: 2527: 2525: 2522: 2520: 2517: 2516: 2514: 2499: 2498: 2494: 2492: 2491: 2487: 2485: 2484: 2480: 2479: 2476: 2470: 2467: 2465: 2462: 2460: 2457: 2455: 2452: 2450: 2447: 2446: 2444: 2440: 2434: 2431: 2429: 2428:Meta-analysis 2426: 2424: 2421: 2419: 2416: 2414: 2411: 2410: 2408: 2406: 2402: 2396: 2395:Vaccine trial 2393: 2391: 2390:Seeding trial 2388: 2386: 2383: 2381: 2378: 2376: 2373: 2371: 2368: 2366: 2363: 2361: 2358: 2357: 2355: 2351: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2211: 2207: 2204: 2202: 2198: 2192: 2189: 2187: 2184: 2182: 2179: 2176: 2172: 2169: 2165: 2162: 2160: 2159:Retrospective 2157: 2156: 2155: 2152: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2139: 2138: 2136: 2133: 2128: 2124: 2116: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2108: 2104: 2101: 2099: 2096: 2094: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2086: 2085: 2083: 2080: 2079:EBM I to II-1 2075: 2071: 2065: 2062: 2060: 2057: 2055: 2052: 2050: 2047: 2045: 2042: 2038: 2035: 2033: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2025: 2024: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2003: 1998: 1996: 1991: 1989: 1984: 1983: 1980: 1968: 1965: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1955: 1949: 1946: 1944: 1941: 1939: 1936: 1935: 1933: 1929: 1923: 1920: 1918: 1915: 1913: 1910: 1908: 1905: 1903: 1900: 1896: 1893: 1891: 1888: 1886: 1885:United States 1883: 1881: 1878: 1876: 1873: 1871: 1868: 1866: 1863: 1861: 1860:False balance 1858: 1857: 1856: 1853: 1851: 1848: 1846: 1843: 1841: 1838: 1836: 1833: 1831: 1828: 1826: 1823: 1821: 1818: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1809: 1806: 1804: 1801: 1800: 1798: 1794: 1788: 1785: 1783: 1780: 1778: 1775: 1773: 1770: 1768: 1765: 1763: 1760: 1758: 1755: 1753: 1750: 1748: 1745: 1743: 1740: 1738: 1735: 1733: 1732:Participation 1730: 1728: 1725: 1723: 1720: 1718: 1715: 1713: 1710: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1700:Psychological 1698: 1697: 1696: 1693: 1691: 1688: 1686: 1683: 1681: 1678: 1677: 1675: 1673: 1669: 1663: 1660: 1658: 1655: 1653: 1650: 1648: 1645: 1643: 1640: 1638: 1635: 1633: 1630: 1628: 1625: 1623: 1620: 1618: 1615: 1613: 1610: 1608: 1605: 1603: 1600: 1598: 1595: 1593: 1590: 1588: 1585: 1583: 1580: 1578: 1575: 1573: 1570: 1568: 1565: 1563: 1560: 1558: 1555: 1553: 1550: 1548: 1545: 1543: 1540: 1538: 1535: 1533: 1530: 1528: 1525: 1523: 1520: 1518: 1515: 1513: 1510: 1508: 1505: 1503: 1500: 1498: 1495: 1493: 1490: 1488: 1485: 1483: 1480: 1478: 1475: 1473: 1470: 1468: 1467:Fading affect 1465: 1463: 1460: 1458: 1455: 1451: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1441: 1438: 1436: 1433: 1431: 1428: 1426: 1423: 1421: 1418: 1416: 1413: 1409: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1401: 1399: 1396: 1394: 1391: 1389: 1386: 1384: 1381: 1377: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1369: 1367: 1364: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1352: 1350: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1342: 1340: 1337: 1335: 1332: 1330: 1327: 1325: 1322: 1320: 1317: 1316: 1314: 1311: 1306: 1302: 1295: 1290: 1288: 1283: 1281: 1276: 1275: 1272: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1235: 1220: 1216: 1210: 1208: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1182: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1158: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1133: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1117:(7069): 754. 1116: 1112: 1108: 1101: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1056:Risk Analysis 1050: 1042: 1036: 1032: 1025: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 970: 962: 958: 953: 948: 944: 940: 935: 930: 926: 922: 919:(7): e67912. 918: 914: 910: 903: 901: 892: 888: 883: 878: 874: 870: 866: 859: 857: 848: 844: 840: 836: 835:Technometrics 832: 825: 817: 811: 807: 800: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 757: 749: 745: 741: 737: 730: 728: 719: 713: 709: 708: 700: 692: 688: 683: 678: 674: 670: 663: 656: 648: 644: 640: 634: 630: 626: 621: 616: 611: 606: 599: 598: 590: 582: 578: 573: 568: 564: 560: 556: 549: 542: 537: 530: 525: 518: 513: 506: 501: 497: 486: 483: 480: 477: 474: 471: 468: 465: 462: 461:Sampling bias 459: 456: 453: 450: 447: 444: 441: 438: 435: 432: 429: 426: 423: 420: 417: 414: 411: 408: 405: 404: 394: 391: 388: 385: 384:meta-analyses 381: 377: 374: 373: 372: 364: 361: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 333: 324: 322: 317: 312: 311:is required. 310: 305: 295: 293: 289: 287: 283: 279: 275: 274:response rate 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 243: 239: 236: 233: 229: 228:meta-analysis 225: 224: 213: 209: 206: 202: 198: 195: 194: 192: 189: 186: 185: 174: 171: 168: 164: 161: 158: 154: 150: 147: 146: 145: 142: 141: 132: 128: 124: 120: 117: 116: 113:Time interval 110: 108: 104: 100: 95: 92: 88: 83: 81: 77: 73: 69: 68:biased sample 65: 64:random sample 61: 60:Sampling bias 55:Sampling bias 50:Types of bias 47: 45: 41: 36: 32: 19: 2495: 2488: 2481: 2448: 2270:Hazard ratio 2154:Cohort study 1845:In education 1812: 1796:Other biases 1782:Verification 1767:Survivorship 1746: 1717:Non-response 1690:Healthy user 1632:Substitution 1607:Self-serving 1403:Confirmation 1371:Availability 1319:Acquiescence 1244: 1241:Econometrica 1240: 1234: 1223:. Retrieved 1221:. 2017-11-17 1218: 1171: 1167: 1157: 1114: 1110: 1100: 1059: 1055: 1049: 1030: 1024: 983: 979: 969: 916: 912: 875:(1): 87–88. 872: 868: 838: 834: 824: 805: 799: 769:(3): 250–8. 766: 762: 756: 739: 735: 706: 699: 672: 668: 655: 596: 589: 562: 558: 548: 536: 524: 512: 500: 431:Funding bias 370: 362: 357: 353: 339: 330: 316:impact event 313: 304:Nick Bostrom 302:Philosopher 301: 290: 286:intervention 281: 277: 269: 265: 262:failure bias 253: 252: 172: 162: 148: 143: 96: 84: 79: 58: 39: 30: 29: 2464:Null result 2423:Replication 2318:Infectivity 2240:Association 2191:Case report 2181:Case series 2164:Prospective 1912:Publication 1865:Vietnam War 1712:Length time 1695:Information 1637:Time-saving 1497:Horn effect 1487:Halo effect 1435:Distinction 1344:Attribution 1339:Attentional 675:: 103–126. 270:nonresponse 242:data dredge 2513:Categories 2266:Odds ratio 2258:Risk ratio 2224:Prevalence 2210:Occurrence 2186:Case study 1875:South Asia 1850:Liking gap 1662:In animals 1627:Status quo 1542:Negativity 1445:Egocentric 1420:Congruence 1398:Commitment 1388:Blind spot 1376:Mean world 1366:Automation 1225:2020-10-29 980:The Lancet 841:(1): 1–3. 736:Cancer Res 493:References 358:unobserved 354:unobserved 350:regression 336:Mitigation 278:withdrawal 230:(see also 76:population 2326:Morbidity 2314:Virulence 2216:Incidence 1943:Debiasing 1922:White hat 1917:Reporting 1830:Inductive 1747:Selection 1707:Lead time 1680:Estimator 1657:Zero-risk 1622:Spotlight 1602:Restraint 1592:Proximity 1577:Precision 1537:Narrative 1492:Hindsight 1477:Frequency 1457:Emotional 1430:Declinism 1361:Authority 1334:Anchoring 1324:Ambiguity 1190:1660-2110 1000:0140-6736 943:1932-6203 677:CiteSeerX 615:CiteSeerX 610:0805.2775 346:exogenous 249:Attrition 2490:Glossary 2483:Category 2360:In vitro 2201:Measures 2020:Overview 1840:Inherent 1803:Academic 1777:Systemic 1762:Spectrum 1742:Sampling 1722:Observer 1685:Forecast 1597:Response 1557:Optimism 1552:Omission 1547:Normalcy 1517:In-group 1512:Implicit 1425:Cultural 1329:Affinity 1198:20407272 1141:16341005 1084:20626690 1016:27683727 961:23874465 913:PLOS ONE 891:15649954 791:25648490 783:17245804 400:See also 212:outliers 191:Post hoc 138:Exposure 127:variance 2365:In vivo 1962:General 1960:Lists: 1895:Ukraine 1820:Funding 1582:Present 1567:Outcome 1472:Framing 1261:1912352 1149:4390013 1119:Bibcode 1092:6485564 1064:Bibcode 1008:4164620 952:3706448 921:Bibcode 581:9504213 272:(lower 266:dropout 221:Studies 167:lagging 123:ethical 33:is the 1967:Memory 1880:Sweden 1870:Norway 1737:Recall 1507:Impact 1383:Belief 1301:Biases 1259:  1196:  1188:  1147:  1139:  1111:Nature 1090:  1082:  1037:  1014:  1006:  998:  959:  949:  941:  889:  812:  789:  781:  748:698947 746:  714:  679:  647:842488 645:  635:  617:  579:  2304:Other 1855:Media 1825:FUTON 1257:JSTOR 1145:S2CID 1088:S2CID 1012:S2CID 787:S2CID 665:(PDF) 643:S2CID 605:arXiv 601:(PDF) 74:of a 2143:vs. 2011:and 1194:PMID 1186:ISSN 1137:PMID 1080:PMID 1035:ISBN 1004:PMID 996:ISSN 957:PMID 939:ISSN 887:PMID 810:ISBN 779:PMID 744:PMID 712:ISBN 633:ISBN 577:PMID 280:and 182:Data 131:mean 35:bias 1902:Net 1787:Wet 1249:doi 1176:doi 1172:115 1127:doi 1115:438 1072:doi 988:doi 984:289 947:PMC 929:doi 877:doi 843:doi 771:doi 687:doi 673:519 625:doi 567:doi 378:or 276:), 2515:: 2340:, 2336:, 2332:, 2328:, 2324:, 2320:, 2316:, 2312:, 2294:, 2290:, 2286:, 2268:, 2264:, 2260:, 2256:, 2252:, 2248:, 2230:, 2226:, 2222:, 2218:, 2147:, 1255:. 1245:47 1243:. 1217:. 1206:^ 1192:. 1184:. 1170:. 1166:. 1143:. 1135:. 1125:. 1113:. 1109:. 1086:. 1078:. 1070:. 1060:30 1058:. 1010:. 1002:. 994:. 978:. 955:. 945:. 937:. 927:. 915:. 911:. 899:^ 885:. 873:34 871:. 867:. 855:^ 837:. 833:. 785:. 777:. 767:16 765:. 740:38 738:. 726:^ 685:. 671:. 667:. 641:. 631:. 623:. 613:. 575:. 563:22 561:. 557:. 288:. 268:, 234:). 2177:) 2173:( 2134:) 2130:( 2081:) 2077:( 2001:e 1994:t 1987:v 1293:e 1286:t 1279:v 1263:. 1251:: 1228:. 1200:. 1178:: 1151:. 1129:: 1121:: 1094:. 1074:: 1066:: 1043:. 1018:. 990:: 963:. 931:: 923:: 917:8 893:. 879:: 849:. 845:: 839:2 818:. 793:. 773:: 750:. 720:. 693:. 689:: 649:. 627:: 607:: 583:. 569:: 207:) 133:. 20:)

Index

Law of selection
bias
statistical analysis
Sampling bias
random sample
biased sample
statistical sample
population
external validity
internal validity
self-selection
length-time bias
lead time bias
ethical
variance
mean
postmenopausal
endometrial cancer
lagging
Post hoc
Cherry picking
confirmation bias
availability heuristic
outliers
meta-analysis
combinatorial meta-analysis
data dredge
survivorship bias
failure bias
response rate

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑