avs733

so speaking for myself, but I had a medical provider (medical equipment rental company) falsify my signature. Among other medical billing misadventures. My wife and I both have Ph.D.s I say that not to gloat but to reinforce how broken a system we have.

You asked about consent - I recently had a hospital visit that included an ambulance trip. I was in no condition to provide consent, my wife didn't provide consent, but you better believe we got the bill (well insurance got the bills). That was just the start of the abject scams that exist throughout the medical system.

I needed a wheelchair to leave the hospital and they had me sign one page of something (on an ipad, while I'm high on opioids) and then replicated that signature onto other documents I didn't sign. They, on a recorded phone call, tell me I signed three documents, I note that they are pixel for pixel identical signatures - and that I only have one of the three documents as a hard copy. They still say I owe them $12, well the debt collectors do...I remind them each time they call that they are going to spend more trying to collect this than its worth. Its been sold at least four times.

Since then I have contacted:

* my health insurance company's fraud line - they don't take reports from patients

* state attorney general - no response

* CMS - no response (theory - if they are doing this to me they are doing this to others)

Broadly, from that one accident, I have had a lawyer send letters to two companies, filed suit against one, and simply decided I'm going to ignore 2 bills entirely because they are transparently fraudulent (IMHO). No one - short of an actual lawyer who used words like 'class action' has been any help in getting them to fix things. The other story, my health insurance company is repeatedly uninterested in being overbilled for every physical therapy visit...by hundreds of dollars per visit, across more than 20 visits.

Thats a fun story. Orthopedic surgeon prescribed PT, simplest way is to do PT through the in clinic PT clinic. I go in twice a week for a month and pay my normal PT copay. Then the insurance starts getting really high bills and I get a request for more money. They listed the orthopedic surgeon as providing the PT. I contact the company, they say that is their 'billing policy'. I point out that the orthopedist is not licensed to provide PT, 'thats our policy'. The difference for me is $10 per visit for a specialist rather than normal copay. THe difference for the health insurance was around $300 per visit. I contact my health insurance - they poke aroudn and find out that the orthopedist owns the PT clinic - which 'employs' no physical therapists. The PTs are all employees of a separate corporate entity so it doesn't through any red flags in billing. Insurance ghosts me - literally, I have a case number from the fraud department that they have no record of or notes on.

My wife and I had a conversation today about how we spend, between medical and general life bills, at least 3 hours per month ensuring we are not misbilled, or ripped off, or not provided the services we pay for. We find issues every month. There is a point where this is a generalized business model of fraud on customers and it needs to be stopped - there ought to be criminal charges.

Its not strictly satire...its meant as commentary

It is part of the 'Christmas edition' of the BMJ which is famous for things like this.

funny enough I actually use this article and others in a project when I teach stats.

This article is part of what is known as the 'BMJ Christmas Edition' which gone on for quite a while[0]. it is meant to be at the same time scientifically serious and practically silly [1]. Its...basically satire, but satire as specific scientific commentary. In this case, about the details and clarity of scientific reporting and the claims made from data.

There have been a couple notable problems...One is that satire and human don't always generalize culturally. The second problem though became much more insidious with the electronic shift in publishing. If you access a Christmas edition article electronically, nothing clearly indicates that anything is different about these articles. Nothing indicates 'Christmas edition'. Nothing indicates that they are meant to be light hearted scientific commentary. So they get cited...both as satire and as not satire. Either for cultural reasons or because people aren't being rigorous.

[0] https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-type...

[1] https://www.statnews.com/2017/12/13/bmj-christmas-issue-stud...

which makes me feel it is even more likely to be necessary for their children and enabling them to have the chance to escape from the developmental and educational favors foisted upon them by their parents.

I think you are basically looking for anti slapp laws

https://www.rcfp.org/anti-slapp-legal-guide/

I, and ugh I know the trope here, think there is a fundamental problem in this paper's analytic methodology. I love the idea of exploring the actual heuristics people are using - but I think in the focus on only the AI-generated text in the results is a miss.

Accuracy is not really the right metric. In my opinion, there would be a lot more value in looking at the sensitivity and specificity of these classifications by humans. They are on that track with the logistic modeling and odds ratio inherently but I think centering the overall accuracy is wrong headed. Their logistic model only looks at what is influencing part of this - perceived and actually ai generated text - separating those features from accuracy to a large extent. I think starting with both the AI Overall, the paper conflates (to use medical testing jargon) 'the test and the disease'

Sensitivity - the accuracy of correctly identifying AI generated text (i.e., your True Positives/Disease Positives)

Specificity - the accuracy of correctly identifying non-AI generated text (i.e., your True Negatives/Disease Negatives)

these are fundamentally different things and are much more explanatory in terms of how humans are evaluating these text samples. It also provides a longer path to understanding how context affects these decisions as well as where people's biases are.

In epidemiology, you rarely prioritize overall accuracy, you typically prioritize sensitivity and specificity because they are much less affected by prevalence. six months ago, I could have probably gotten a high overall accuracy, and a high specificity but low sensitivity, by just blanket assuming text is human written. If the opposite is true - and I just blanket classify everything as AI generated, I can have a high sensitivity and a low specificity. In both cases, the overall accuracy is mediated by the prevalence of the thing itself more than the test. The prevalence of the AI-generate text is rapidly changing which makes any evaluation of the overall accuracy tenuous at best. Context, and implications, matter deeply in prioritization for classification testing.

To use an analogy - compare testing for a terminal untreatable noncommunicable disease to a highly infectious but treatable one. In the former, I would much prefer a false negative to a false positive - there is time for exploration, no risk to others, the outcome is not in doubt if you are wrong, and I don't want to induce unnecessary fear or trauma. For a communicable disease - a false negative is dangerous because it can give people confidence that they can be around others safely, but in doing so that false negative causes risk of harm, meanwhile a false positive has minimal long term negative impact on the person compared to the population risk.

I may be wrong but...

ADP could always take it at 90%, figure out the expected return and everybody wins

AWS could take it plus some equity for credits? I imagine the incremental cost of providing the compute is worth the risk

No one forces the economy to operate on dollars - and both traditionally and currently a whole lot of it doesn't.

Oh I’m in no way suggesting it’s truth, just that it’s a more tangible reward in current system of academia.

I should have added the inevitable /s. When I transitioned from grad student to faculty, one thing that struck me most was when faculty candidates were discussed in my first year and the first slide about all of them was a histogram of citations. You can hear it all you want but seeing it just crushed my soul a little bit.

It would be far more effective if you got their citation count instead.

The BMJ is a very real and serious. This article is from the “Christmas Issue” which is a little different…obviously.

It is meant to be lighthearted and tongue in cheek - but no less serious of science. It often exists as a form of satirical critique of bad habits of science and science communication.

There are flaws in that model though that have been noted. Prime among them is that nothing clearly identifies an article as from the Christmas issue online, and even if it did that may not carry any meaning for a reader unfamiliar with the journal.

https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-type...

That is a fairly brave statement given some of the research looking at how failed attempts at ML modeling fall apart [1]

[1] https://ai.googleblog.com/2021/06/data-cascades-in-machine-l...

My suspicion in reading the abstract and intro is that this is a translation issue. Inference informed by:

1) All the authors have South Korean institutional affiliations

2) "Detection of human biofluids such as blood, tears, saliva, sweat, and urine is important for clinical analysis of various physiological patterns" (First sentence, seems to be missing a word)

3) "differentiate patients from the normal group with high sensitivity and specificity" (abstract, patients and normal group is an odd way of phrasing this)

That being said...it had never occurred to me that nueral networks might be a useful way of interpreting spectroscopy data, that is a really cool insight

Shouldn’t it be up to the company? Congress made no law, no on forced Twitter from what I’m reading, they made a choice. That is their right.

Demanding that people hold an antagonistic or untrusting view of government speech is no different than any other sort of speech code demand.

They are. This article is literally hyperbolic about parents being slow to get emails that their kid is special

As explained by others your interpretation of data is wrong.

That doesn’t stop this falsehood from being repeated and it is one of many points of intellectual dishonesty that characterize the anti abortion movement.

Assuming you brought this to the discussion in good faith I would encourage you to reflect on your information sources because one side of this debate has shown a willingness to lie, mislead, cheat, and commit violence in support of their ideology. Personally I have found that ideologies that behave like that do so consistently and will choose to mislead to get what they want. That is a helpful heuristic for guiding how I interpret their arguments and attempts to support them with data.

Why is there never an expectation that Christian’s engage in dialogue and civility about this issue? There is never a demand they convince the pro choice people just that they be allowed to control and threaten them. Calls for dialogue are just part of the intentional narrative created to undermine peoples rights.

Rights do not necessitate dialogue.

That’s the bad faith part. This has nothing to do with precedence and the current Supreme Court will do what it wants and invent new and incoherent forms of logic as needed to do so.

I mean… let’s not act like the 2nd amendment is interpreted in any serious way.

The Supreme Court invented a personal right to bear arms from a 250 year old amendment during my lifetime and is now not only ignoring words that are in there but adding words that aren’t

Anyone trying to apply logic to this is just facilitating nonsense because these decision are based in ideology not logic. Don’t launder it for them.

Your free to be Christian or be ruled by their beliefs

This is correct and illustrative of why the power centric version of Christianity in this country needs to be actively removed from all positions of influence.

All data shows that outlawing abortion does nothing to reduce abortion. It only makes it occur later in pregnancy and makes it more dangerous.

It’s time we just call religious fascism what it is because this month has shown the scorched earth approach it takes in this country to its demand of power.

Oh not this nonsense again. If this were true than it would be easy for the current court to write an alternative opinion upholding the right as a liberty interest.

They didn’t because the argument you are repeating is wrong, as well as made in bad faith to undermine obviously correct legal analysis.

You are a victim of propaganda and it makes me sad.

Exactly how our constitution is supposed to work - your rights are left up to the states to accept or reject/s

It’s a bad faith argument to undermine precedent.

I mean…no it doesn’t.

>Two doses of inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) are 90% effective or more against polio; three doses are 99% to 100% effective.

>It is not known how long people who received IPV will be immune to poliovirus, but they are most likely protected for many years after a complete series of IPV.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur...

So you can't really have sensitivity and specificity in the classic sense because you are not able to gold standard classify the infection of an individual. However, here is some research on the mater...

>The location and timing of poliomyelitis cases showed spatial and temporal variability. The sensitivity of AFP surveillance to detect serotype 1 poliovirus infection in a district and its neighbours per month was on average 30.0% (95% CI 24.8–35.8) and increased with the incidence of poliomyelitis cases. The average population sensitivity of a single environmental sample was 59.4% (95% CI 55.4–63.0), with significant variation in site-specific estimates (median varied from 33.3–79.2%). The combined population sensitivity of environmental and AFP surveillance in a given month was on average 98.1% (95% CI 97.2–98.7), assuming four samples per month for each site. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12879-018-3070-4

>Four quarterly visits were made to 78 ES sites in 21 states of Nigeria, and ES site characteristic data were matched to 1345 samples with an average enterovirus prevalence among sites of 68% (range, 9%–100%). A larger estimated catchment population, high total dissolved solids, and higher pH were associated with enterovirus detection. A random forests model predicted “good” sites (enterovirus prevalence >70%) from measured site characteristics with out-of-sample sensitivity and specificity of 75%. https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/225/8/1377/5818305?logi...

Other discussion of environmental surveillance for polio:

https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/AEM.07972-11

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12560-017-9314-4

To wildly summarize...for the same reason you are not CONSTANTLY sick. your stomach is a pretty good, but not perfect, immunodefense - i.e., the stomach is a pretty tough environment for survival.

whether it is worth the trouble also depends on the method of infection. The live attenuated oral polio vaccine creates gut immunity, which is helpful because polio is passed via ingestion of infected materials. Gut immunity is less useful if a disease is passed via inhalation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132247/

To clarify...you are referring to the method of vaccine administration not the type of vaccine.

Live attenuated viruses create viral shedding, which creates a chance of passing the virus and are administered using oral drops.

Inactivated virus vaccines, do not create viral shedding, cannot pass off the virus, and are administered using an injection.

In general, attenuated viruses have the potential to create viral shedding and by extension pass on an infection. The fact that the live attenuated polio vaccine is done via drops is a secondary design decision for , gut immunity, shelf stability, ease of administration, etc. That it is oral drops itself does not cause the chance of passing on the virus.

Ars technica had a fairly thorough article about all this: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/poliovirus-may-be-sp...

not really. It is a specific school of philosophical thought - and the basis of a lot of the critiques of science, positivism.

You are correct. This is clearly not the first…check out Rochester institute of technology…it’s just a branding exercise which is very in keeping with the current Purdue leadership.