Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
278
Posts
278
Users
0
Reactions
7
Views
Topic starter
18/10/2020 9:11 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.
18/10/2020 10:09 pm
Case 1 — A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation
A paper proposes a mechanism but the summary describes it as an established clinical effect. How can the note be corrected?
Exercise RESEARCH-09822/1: address this question within its stated limits.
18/10/2020 11:07 pm
Case 1 — A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation
State the study design and what was actually measured before discussing the proposed mechanism. Keep speculation explicitly labelled and avoid translating it into treatment advice.
18/10/2020 11:18 pm
Case 1 — A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation
Clarification for “A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation”: the point beginning “State the study design and what was actually measured…” 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.
18/10/2020 11:31 pm
Case 1 — A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation
Method note for “A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation”: use “State the study design and what was actually measured…” 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.
19/10/2020 12:09 am
Case 1 — A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation
Limit of the answer in “A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation”: “State the study design and what was actually measured…” 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.
19/10/2020 12:37 am
Case 1 — A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation
Correction note for “A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation”: retain the wording beginning “State the study design and what was actually measured…” 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.
19/10/2020 12:53 am
Case 1 — A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation
Summary draft for “A literature note that separates hypothesis from observation”: the answer addresses “State the study design and what was actually measured…”; the related point is “Keep speculation explicitly labelled and avoid translating…”. 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.
19/10/2020 1:57 am
Case 2 — Correlation in a small observational dataset
Two variables move together in a small sample. What would a careful discussion acknowledge?
Exercise RESEARCH-09822/2: address this question within its stated limits.
19/10/2020 2:17 am
Case 2 — Correlation in a small observational dataset
Report sample size, potential confounders and measurement uncertainty. Association does not identify direction or causation, and exploratory results need independent evaluation.
19/10/2020 2:21 am
Case 2 — Correlation in a small observational dataset
Clarification for “Correlation in a small observational dataset”: the point beginning “Report sample size, potential confounders…” 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.
19/10/2020 3:13 am
Case 2 — Correlation in a small observational dataset
Method note for “Correlation in a small observational dataset”: use “Report sample size, potential confounders…” 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.
19/10/2020 3:33 am
Case 2 — Correlation in a small observational dataset
Limit of the answer in “Correlation in a small observational dataset”: “Report sample size, potential confounders…” 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.
19/10/2020 4:01 am
Case 2 — Correlation in a small observational dataset
Correction note for “Correlation in a small observational dataset”: retain the wording beginning “Report sample size, potential confounders…” 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.
19/10/2020 5:07 am
Case 3 — Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error
Two figures use different units and one axis is logarithmic. How should a comparison be documented?
Exercise RESEARCH-09822/3: address this question within its stated limits.
Page 1 / 19
Next
Share: