moon161
Mechanical
- Dec 15, 2007
- 1,183
For discussion of the primary matter of this thread, but the stubborn dissagreements can remain there.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cool digitization tool. Yes, I believe your r^2 =0.0884 a lot more than their r^2 = 0.98. And yet this is a peer-reviewed article in a prestigous journal (PNAS - an initialism, not an acronym). I can't help but wondering if we're missing something somehow. Too bad we can't ask the authors to explain how the heck they came up with their number.IRStuff said:I suspect they were clutching at straws. Linear regression is sensitive to extrema, so BMI*yr potentially moves some datapoints around enough to get the 0.98 regression coefficient. Nevertheless, the fit is pretty awful, and correlation does not equal causation.
Even worse, I think they fudged the data. I digitized the superspreader datapoints and got a similar regression line, but R^2 = 0.0884, which is essentially no correlation. Image I used and spreadsheet attached. I used to digitze