Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Frank E Harrell Jr <f.harrell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 13:17:32 -0500
John Uebersax wrote:
Frank E Harrell Jr wrote:
Anything is better than a binary variable. The more levels the better.
Then should we scrap cancer staging systems and replace them with
100-point scales?
In some cases, yes. But a 4-stage grading on an attribute is pretty good.
Frank
.
John
--
John Uebersax PhD
- References:
- Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Roland
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Bruce Weaver
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Ray Koopman
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Roland
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: Frank E Harrell Jr
- Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- From: John Uebersax
- Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- Prev by Date: Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- Next by Date: Re: multivariate Cox model p values
- Previous by thread: Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- Next by thread: Re: Are graded clinical signs more reliable than dichotomized?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
