Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
301
Posts
301
Users
0
Reactions
24
Views
Topic starter
27/03/2020 10:10 pm
Research reading room: a notebook of numbered synthetic discussion exercises. Each case has a question followed by up to six distinct responses.
The source question bank is finite. Later passes revisit a question with a named review focus, using short excerpts to examine scope, method, limitations or a summary. A new case number marks a separate exercise, not a new real event or a claim of historical community activity.
27/03/2020 10:57 pm
Case 1 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible
A subgroup finding was not the primary planned analysis. How should it be summarised?
Exercise RESEARCH-07820/1: address this question within its stated limits.
27/03/2020 11:57 pm
Case 1 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible
Clarification for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: the point beginning “State whether it was prespecified and how…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
28/03/2020 12:06 am
Case 1 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible
State whether it was prespecified and how many comparisons were considered. Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather than as established guidance.
28/03/2020 12:23 am
Case 1 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible
Method note for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: use “State whether it was prespecified and how…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
28/03/2020 1:23 am
Case 1 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible
Limit of the answer in “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: “State whether it was prespecified and how…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
28/03/2020 2:10 am
Case 1 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible
Correction note for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: retain the wording beginning “State whether it was prespecified and how…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
28/03/2020 2:44 am
Case 1 — Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible
Summary draft for “Exploratory subgroup analysis: keep the label visible”: the answer addresses “State whether it was prespecified and how…”; the related point is “Treat exploratory findings as hypothesis-generating rather…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
28/03/2020 3:17 am
Case 2 — Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured
A chart caption names a mechanism but omits the observed endpoint. How can the caption be made precise?
Exercise RESEARCH-07820/2: address this question within its stated limits.
28/03/2020 3:42 am
Case 2 — Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured
Clarification for “Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured”: the point beginning “Describe the measurement, population or model,…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
28/03/2020 3:47 am
Case 2 — Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured
Describe the measurement, population or model, units and uncertainty shown. Interpretive discussion belongs alongside the evidence, not in place of it.
28/03/2020 4:31 am
Case 2 — Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured
Method note for “Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured”: use “Describe the measurement, population or model,…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
28/03/2020 4:51 am
Case 2 — Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured
Limit of the answer in “Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured”: “Describe the measurement, population or model,…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
28/03/2020 5:23 am
Case 2 — Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured
Summary draft for “Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured”: the answer addresses “Describe the measurement, population or model,…”; the related point is “Interpretive discussion belongs alongside the evidence, not…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
28/03/2020 5:47 am
Case 2 — Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured
Correction note for “Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured”: retain the wording beginning “Describe the measurement, population or model,…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
Page 1 / 21
Next
Share: