Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Alter: title, template type. Add: chapter-url, date, chapter. Removed or converted URL. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Headbomb | Linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Sandbox3 | #UCB_webform_linked 1678/2306 |
m →History |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 10:
==Online randomized controlled experiments==
Web sites can run randomized controlled experiments<ref>{{cite book
| last = Kohavi
| first = Ron
Line 58 ⟶ 57:
| publisher = ACM
| ___location = Chicago, Illinois, USA
| doi = 10.1145/2487575.2488217
| isbn = 9781450321747
Line 78 ⟶ 76:
| publisher = ACM
| ___location = New York, New York, USA
| doi = 10.1145/2623330.2623341
| isbn = 9781450329569
Line 96 ⟶ 93:
{{main|History of experiments}}
A controlled experiment appears to have been suggested in the Old Testament's [[Book of Daniel]]. King Nebuchadnezzar proposed that some Israelites eat "a daily amount of food and wine from the king's table." Daniel preferred a [[Vegetarian cuisine|vegetarian]] diet, but the official was concerned that the king would "see you looking worse than the other young men your age? The king would then have my head because of you." Daniel then proposed the following controlled experiment: "Test your servants for ten days. Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat the royal food, and treat your servants in accordance with what you see". ([[Daniel 1
| last = Neuhauser
| first = D
Line 130 ⟶ 127:
==Empirical evidence that randomization makes a difference==
Empirically differences between randomized and non-randomized studies,<ref>{{cite journal| doi=10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2|vauthors=Anglemyer A, Horvath HT, Bero L | title=Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials| journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev|date=April 2014| pmid=24782322| volume=2014|issue=4 | pages=MR000034| pmc=8191367}}</ref>{{Update inline|reason=Updated version https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38174786|date = February 2024}} and between adequately and inadequately randomized trials have been difficult to detect.<ref>{{cite journal| doi=10.1002/14651858.MR000012.pub3| vauthors=Odgaard-Jensen J, Vist G, etal |title=Randomisation to protect against selection bias in healthcare trials.| journal=Cochrane Database Syst Rev| date=April 2011| volume=2015 |pmid=21491415|pages=MR000012| issue=4| pmc=7150228}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal| doi=10.1186/1745-6215-15-480|vauthors=Howick J, Mebius A |title=In search of justification for the unpredictability paradox| journal=Trials| year=2014| volume=15| pmid=25490908|
== Directed acyclic graph (DAG) explanation of randomization ==
Randomization is the cornerstone of many scientific claims. To randomize, means that we can eliminate the confounding factors. Say we study the effect of '''A''' on '''B.''' Yet, there are many unobservables '''U''' that potentially affect '''B''' and confound our estimate of the finding. To explain these kinds of issues, statisticians or econometricians nowadays use [[directed acyclic graph]].{{Needs update|date=July 2024}}
==See also==
| |||