Omission bias

Miller" identifies two forms of bias associated with subset selection (1) omission bias and (2) competition bias, both of which will be discussed here. 

To describe omission bias, we assume that the true model linking Y to the descriptors is that which consists of all k descriptor variables. To begin with, we will assume that the number of observations n exceeds the number of available descriptor variables k, so that if we wanted to include all variables... 

These omissions will not cause bias only under some circumstances. In particular, subjects in each of the treatment groups should receive equal scrutiny for protocol violations and all such violators should be excluded, in relation to the first point. For the second and third points, the fact that patients do not take study medication or do not provide any post-baseline data should be unrelated to the treatments to which such subjects were assigned. Any potential bias arising from these exclusions should be fully investigated. 

The measurement of systematic error is carried out by taking the differences of replicate results. From a statistical standpoint, to detect a systematic error, it is necessary to reduce the precision limits of the mean to a value less than some multiple of the standard deviation of the differences. To be classified as bias, systematic error must be of a magnitude that is of practical importance. Without proper experimental design, the systematic error may be of a magnitude that is of practical importance because of the various errors. These errors (errors of omission) render the data confusing or misleading and indicate the unreliability of the test method(s). 

Wojick D.E. (2001). The UN IPCC Artful Bias, Glaring Omissions, False Confidence and Misleading Statistics in the Summary for Policymakers. Available at www.john-daly. comjquestslun ipcc.htm... 

The topics discussed here reflect their significance, current interest, limitations of space in this book, and the bias of the author. Other authors would have made different selections. Omissions do not reflect adversely. 

Reports of therapeutic trials should contain an analysis of all patients entered, regardless of whether they dropped out or failed to complete, or even started the treatment for any reason. Omission of these subjects can lead to serious bias (Laurence D R, Carpenter J 1998 A dictionary of pharmacological and allied topics. Elsevier, Amsterdam). 

Difference maps phased with simulated annealing refined structures often show more details of the correct chain trace [23]. However, the omission of some atoms from the computation of a difference map does not fully remove phase bias towards those atoms if... 

Fcaic( )> such as occurs for example in low-angle terms when the solvent has not been included in the calculations (i.e., F aicfli) is considerably overestimated), then the map will contain errors. Omission of the low-angle data will destroy the continuity of the electron density and the distinction between the solvent and the protein. Secondly, although the phases acomb have been suitably weighted to minimise bias from the calculated structure, no such weighting has been applied to the amplitude coefficients. These problems have been considered by Stuart and Artymiuk [147], who have shown that a map based on coefficients... 

If there are systematic errors of a known form, including them in the model will increase the variance of y (where y is any one of the original parameters). This addition will also remove that part of the bias of f due to the absence of these systematic error terms in the model. To rid f of the systematic error (due to their omission), we must add the systematic error terms to the model, thus raising the variance of < . We cannot have it both ways To exclude these systematic errors from f, we must accept a larger variance. A better f has to be harder to estimate. 

The Note column refers to the footnotes collected in Tables A.4 and A.5, which refer to Thbles A.l and A.2 respectively. These contain additional information as follows (a) notable features of the distribution of distances, e.g. likely bias due to dominance by one structure or substructure, skewness, bimodality (subdivisions of the entry usually follow, which remove these features whenever possible) (b) further details of the chemical substructure (c) details of exclusion criteria used for a given entry or group of entries (d) references to other relevant surveys of crystallographic results. We do not claim that these entries are in any way comprehensive, and we would be grateful to readers for notification (to FHA or AGO) of any omissions. 

A few words about the calculation. The term pt Q, which is constant, drops out when taking the derivative. The constant factor RT remains. The derivative of the logarithmic function y = htr yields the reciprocal of its argument, meaning 1/x, whereby a constant factor there (in this case, the factor 1/cb,o) can be omitted. The reason for this omission is simply that ln ax) = bia + Inx, and in taking the derivative, the constant expression Ina disappears. The intermediate result is RTIc ix). According to the chain rule, we must still multiply this result by the derivative of the inner function Cb(x). This means multiplying by dcB(x)/dx, as in Eq. (20.8) above. 

I have tried to eliminate any bias from the final entry selection, and apologies are offered in advance for any omissions that individual researchers might have chosen to include. Overall I hope that this collection represents a practical middle ground that allows for the greatest use to the widest range of people. 

Reviewing a field as active as the chemistry and biochemistry of alkaloids in the space allotted must necessarily result in the omission of considerable material of merit. It was the author s intention to cover the advances of most Interest to the general reader with the recognition that it would involve an unavoidable personal bias. 

As discussed in Chapter 1, accidents happen when people under pressure make mistakes. The mistakes may have either immediate or delayed consequences. They may be mistakes of commission (doing something in error) or omission (not doing something they should have done). They may be cognitive errors ( I didn t know that ), or confirmation bias ( I misunderstood the situation ), which can lead to overconfidence. 

In the rest of the paper, we present an overview of the human factors literature on automation bias and related concepts (section 2) a brief description of a case study in the area of computer-assisted cancer detection, which has motivated many of the analyses and conclusions presented in this paper (section 3) an outline of the mechanisms contributing to errors of omission by computer-assisted operators (section 4) a discussion of the uses and limitations of this descriptive approach (section 5) and conclusions (section 6). 

Skitka and colleagues [13] focused on the misuse of automation, in particular on the automation bias effects occurring when people used wrong computer advice for monitoring tasks in aviation. They distinguished two types of computer-induced error a) errors of commission decision-makers follow automated advice even in the face of more valid or reliable indicators suggesting that the automated aid is wrong b) errors of omission decision makers do not take appropriate action, despite non-automated indications of problems, because the automated tool did not prompt them. 

Errors of omission are more likely to bias audit results... 

This bias in safety audits, through errors of omission, is very counterproductive. Although it may be useful and important to identify what is done well, it is much more important to know what is not being done well. If an audit is to faciUtate continuous improvement, the auditors need to have a good knowledge of what is working and what is not working to advise the... 

---