Jeremy Labrecque

@jeremylabrecque.bsky.social

Epidemiologist and causal inference person at Erasmus Medical Center. Québécois living in Rotterdam. jeremylabrecque.org

I'm so happy to announce version 2.0.0 of my #Rstats package WeightIt is out on CRAN! New features: censoring weights, multilevel propensity scores, improved weights for continuous treatments, bias-reduced ordinal and multinomial models, M-estimation in subgroups Check out the website below!

Weighting for Covariate Balance in Observational Studies

Generates balancing weights for causal effect estimation in observational studies with binary, multi-category, or continuous point or longitudinal treatments by easing and extending the functionality ...

ngreifer.github.io

It's the "I'm just asking questions" of observational research. I'm just sharing my results! People can interpret as they see fit!! Never mind that you need several years of epi training to identify the problems with your analysis (which may or may not be gestured at in three lines of limitations).

I'm looking to develop some (internal lab group) guidelines for lab notebooks for epi/biostats/stats projects. Does anyone have good resources on this? There is lots of wet-lab stuff, but I have seen less for epi research (but I think that record keeping is important to do)

I recently wrote about how applied causal inference can align with what Feynman called "cargo cult science"; namely, when we state identification assumptions without interrogating them. I use an example from nutritional epidemiology to convey the problem: miceandtigers.substack.com/p/cargo-cult...

Cargo Cult Causal Inference

Identification is a proof; real-data analysis is an inverse problem. Reciting causal assumptions instead of interrogating them is cargo cult causal inference.

miceandtigers.substack.com

I often come across: expressing the effect estimate in terms of SD makes it more interpretable. But I rarely find that this is actually the case unless we're talking about a latent variable or some scale that is really uninterpretable.

Like every research tool, the problem is not the tool but the human. LLMs are compatible with whatever kind of science *you* believe in and practice. If you believe in being patient and self-critical, LLMs can help you do that. If you believe in rushing to publish more beans, they do that too.

Georgia Tomova@georgiatomova.bsky.social · 2mo ago

Are LLMs ever compatible with slow science? Even if they aren’t used to necessarily “produce more”, don’t they remove the friction that would normally make us stop, think, and slowly figure things out? And isn’t slow science mostly about taking the time to think?