Compared to what?

Original post:  June 25, 2015

One of the great controversies in parenting is the continuing debate over screen time for kids. The official line from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is that children under two should have none at all. In their opinion, they suggest limiting older children to an hour a day.

If your children are anything like mine, it's difficult to pry them away from screens. Whether it's the amazing allure of the television or the irresistible pull of the iPad, it's a struggle to keep them from that zombie-like state of complete absorption. At the same time, electronic babysitting also becomes something of a godsend at certain points in the day. How much is too much?

At points, I have to admit that the intense focus my boys can have for the TV is comical. They stare so intently at the TV that you can walk directly in front of them and they hardly notice (unless you stand still in their line of view and they shift to peer around your obstruction). This is even true for the commercials!

I personally have less of an issue with the iPad. Even if they are gaming, it's at least forcing them to have some interaction. I also try to justify their TV watching by forcing them to mix in a variety of quasi-educational shows instead of just a steady diet of cartoons or sports. I must admit that the quality of documentaries has improved tremendously over the years. I've personally learned a few things about such diverse topics as psychology, history, and manufacturing just from watching with them.

This article by Emily Oster at FiveThirtyEight discusses the issue. In her estimation, "'Screen Time' For Kids is Probably Fine." Here is her summary of the main line of attack against the practice:

The AAP statement on media seems opposed to screens per se (quote: “young children learn best when they interact with people, not screens”) without really differentiating among various uses and types of screens. But, not surprisingly, when you look at the research, the screen matters less than what you do with it.

Of all the possibilities for screen time, television watching clearly gets the most negative attention. It’s not hard to see why. Unlike educational games on a tablet, which at least can be argued to have some interactive value, television and movie watching are largely passive. Those who oppose TV for children worry about many downsides, but chief among them are declines in test scores (or other cognitive ability) and increases in obesity.

The article parses the studies that seem to show these correlations. It finds a major flaw in those that seem to tie screen time to negative outcomes:

....In the general population, kids who watch a lot of TV — especially at young ages — tend to be poorer, are more likely to be members of minority groups and are more likely to have parents with less education. All these factors independently correlate with outcomes such as executive function, test scores and obesity, making it difficult to draw strong conclusions about the effects of television from this research.

The article goes on to show that there doesn't seem to be any real data that link screen time to any major negative outcome. It may be a factor, but it isn't the only one and other factors may have far more impact. The author goes on to explain:

To judge what impact TV has on children, we have to think about tradeoffs — what would kids be doing with their time if they weren’t watching television? There are 24 hours in a day. If your kid watches one less hour of TV, she does one hour more of something else. The AAP guidelines imply that this alternative activity is something more enriching: reading books with dad, running on the track, discussing current events with grandma, etc.

But a lot of kids and families may not use an additional hour in these ways. An hour of TV may be replaced by an hour of sitting around doing nothing, whining about being bored. Or, worse, being yelled at by an overtired parent who is trying to get dinner ready on a tight time frame. If letting your kids watch an hour of TV means you are better able to have a relaxed conversation at the dinner table, this could mean TV isn’t that bad for cognitive development.

In my own opinion, screen time can be a force for intellectual stimulation if used the right way. I'll just have to work harder to moderate the time and keep my kids from turning into couch potatoes. I think I'm going to go home and force them to go outside and play for an hour!

Here is the link to the full article so you can decide for yourself:  ‘Screen Time’ For Kids Is Probably Fine | FiveThirtyEight

Rich data, poor data

Original post:  Mar 12, 2015

Yesterday, I posted about a math whiz who is trying to help clinicians understand who gets cancer and why (Dr. Data). I believe that there are many mysteries that are ultimately "solvable" with the proper application of statistical analysis. The trick is in getting to that proper analysis. Sometimes you don't have any data to analyze. Sometimes you have so much that it is difficult to tell the chaff from the wheat.

We have often heard that healthcare is different from other industries. It is, but it isn't always a positive. There have been many articles written recently that talk about the wide variance in cost between medical procedures. I plan to post next week about one article I saw that found the exact same blood procedure could be priced at $10 or $10,000 depending on where you had the procedure done.

When you have an industry that considers itself an outlier, one of the best ways to help it change is to use models developed in other industries and adapt them to fit to the specialized nature of healthcare. I believe that data analysis is similar.

This article from FiveThirtyEight by Nate Silver discusses the use of data analysis in sports. Sabermetrics in baseball helped pave the way for detailed analysis in all the major sports. Theories that once were held only by fringe elements are now considered mainstream. It's hard to believe that when I was a boy, only a handful of people understood what "on base percentage" was and, more importantly, why it figured so prominently in baseball! Today, we routinely accept nuggets of information like the distance each player is estimated to have run in the course of a soccer match ticking across the bottom of our screens.

Mr. Silver goes on to explain why statistical analysis has done so well in sports.

1. Sports has awesome data. There are not just reams of statistics everywhere you turn. It is also rich data. Silver defines rich data as accurate, precise, and subject to rigorous quality control.
2. In sports, we know the rules. With a common understanding of the goals and objectives, we can generally agree on those measures which show gains or losses.
3. Sports offers fast feedback and clear marks of success. "Winning", as defined by the rules of the game, becomes the ultimate arbiter of success. With regular intervals of games adding rich sources of new data, you can test theories quickly and determine whether or not they are achieving the results you expected.

Here is a link to the full article:  Rich Data, Poor Data | FiveThirtyEight

Starting off the New Year

Original post:  Jan 5, 2015

Over the holidays, I was reading an article on sports analytics. While it may seem as if the use of statistics to improve the performance of sports teams has no bearing whatsoever on the production of medical devices, I would challenge you to think about this excerpt:

At the end of the day, it boils down to this. The information is only as good as it is to the person receiving it. I’ll take a C+ piece of analysis communicated perfectly over an A+ piece of analysis that’s not communicated well. Only a small portion of the work is the analytics itself. The rest is putting it in a practical format so the salary-cap person and the coach can appreciate it and use it. Instead of trying to go overboard with analytics, focus on the practical: Focus on the things that have the highest impact on your organization.

Full text of the article here:  NFL Teams Are Analyzing Everything From The Salary Cap To Fan Loyalty | FiveThirtyEight

This one paragraph really highlights my own personal goal for 2015. I'll be searching for those few great pieces of analysis and insight that can truly impact our organization. I will then challenge myself to communicate it as perfectly as humanly possible.

What's your goal for the New Year?

There's no accounting for taste

Original post:  Jun 27, 2014

Over the years, I've grown very fond of fermented grape juice. It wasn't something I inherited. I've done lots of tours and tastings, but I haven't taken any formal classes. I would consider myself largely self-taught.

Wine can be intimidating for a novice. Some of that fear may stem from the sheer variety of grapes and styles. Much of the lore is written about the famous vineyards in France and Italy. Unfortunately, those regions also make it difficult for the newcomer. Their wines are generally labeled according to where they were grown, not the types of grapes in the bottle. This makes sense if you are steeped in the lore but can be utterly bewildering for someone who hasn't learned the system.

I used to be more impressed by labels and mystique. I thought I could tell the difference between an 89-point and a 90-point bottle of wine. Looking back, I realize that much of that may have been in my head. Maybe it's maturity. Perhaps it's just my taste buds going bad or my wallet getting tighter. Whatever the cause, I find myself generally lumping wines into three major categories:  decent, good, and great!

It turns out that taste is fiendishly difficult to quantify. It's hard to explain to someone else exactly what a strawberry tastes like. You can discern between smells, but can you describe the intensity of a smell? What happens when they mix together?

This article from FiveThirtyEight discusses how wine may need someone like a Nate Silver. There are famous wine critics like Robert Parker and all types of scoring system (generally based on a 100-point system). Unfortunately, it seems that there is no scientific basis for much of what they are saying. It just seems to be fancy ways of expressing what they like and don't like!

The article does say that professionals in the wine business (sommeliers) do have an extensive vocabulary and memory of tastes. In my experience, they do an excellent job of pairing the wines that they offer in a restaurant with the dishes. To me, there is something wonderful about that ability.

Maybe that's the best that we can hope for. Find the things that we like best and enjoy them when we can...

I can't wait until the end of the day to raise a glass!

Wine needs its Nate Silver: Can we quantify and more accurately describe how alcohol tastes? - Salon.com

Rockin' it old school

Original post:  Jun 25, 2014

When I was a wee lad, our music was a bit different. You might try to put together your favorite songs on a mixed cassette tape. If you worked an odd job and had a little free cash, you might be able to stitch it together from an album or 45. Otherwise, you had to wait for it to play on the radio (and hope the announcer wasn't one of those talkative types). If you were really cool, you could even carry it around with your Walkman.

Late in high school, the CD was introduced and it revolutionized the industry. I still remember carting around a carefully crafted collection of several hundred jewel cases for my many moves.

Today, CDs are a relic. Sales are slowly dying. It's hard to even find physical CDs in retail establishments. All of the music superstores have gone the way of the dinosaur. I still find myself buying a few. Even though I rip them to .mp3 files, there is still something about having the physical disc that appeals to me. I know that there are a lot of people who have gone completely to streaming services like Pandora or Spotify. While I will listen to them, I guess the failed artist in me still wants to reward the musical creators with some small share of value.

In an advice column from FiveThirtyEight, someone asks if they are normal because (like me) they still buy CDs. It turns out that we are becoming an endangered species:

More from the article:

Nielsen published data showing that 165.4 million CD albums were sold last year (down from 193.4 million in 2012). Once we subtract those CDs, as well as LPs and digital sales, from all albums sold, we’re left with almost nothing: That confirms how obsolete cassettes and minidiscs are. But more importantly, those CD sales confirm there aren’t many Americans like you: Just 0.5 CDs per person were sold in 2013.

Here is the link to the full article:  Dear Mona, I Still Buy CDs. Am I Normal? | FiveThirtyEight