January 18, 2017

Recognising te reo

Those of you on Twitter will have seen the little ‘translate this tweet’ suggestions that it puts up. If you’re from or in New Zealand you probably will have seen that reo Māori is often recognised by the algorithm as Latvian, presumably because Latvian also has long vowels indicated by macrons.   I’ve always been surprised by this, because Latvian looks so different.

It turns out I’m right.  Even looking just at individual letters, it’s very easy to distinguish the two.  I downloaded 74000 paragraphs of Latvian Wikipedia, a total of 6.5 million letters, and looked at how long the Latvians can go without using letters that don’t appear in te reo: specifically, s,z,j,v,d,c, g not as ng, the six accented consonants, and any consonant at the end of a word. On average, I only needed to wait five letters to know the language is Latvian rather than Māori, and 99% of the time it took less than 21 letters.

Another language that Twitter often guesses is Finnish. That makes more sense: many of the letters not used in Māori are also rare or absent in Finnish, and ‘g’ appears mostly as ‘ng’.   However, Finnish does have ‘s’, has ‘ä’ and ‘ö’, and ‘y’, and has words ending in consonants, so it should also be feasible to distinguish.


Update: Indonesian is another popular guess, but it has ‘d’,’j’,’y’,”b”, and it has lots of works ending with consonants.  The average time to rule out te reo is slightly longer, at nearly 6 characters, and the 99th percentile is 22 letters.  So if the algorithm can’t tell, it should probably guess it’s not Indonesian.

Update: For very short tweets, and those in mixed languages, nothing’s going to work, but this is about tweets where the answer is obvious to a human.

January 17, 2017


  • There’s a planned course at the University of Washington “Calling Bullshit in the Age of Big Data”. Here’s the website with syllabus and readings, and the Twitter account.
  • Via a tweet from ‘Calling Bullshit’, there’s a computer science preprint looking at distinguishing ‘criminals’ from ‘normal people’ using photographs.  I usually wouldn’t comment here on research papers that haven’t made it to the news, but this sentence was irresistible
    “Unlike a human examiner/judge, a computer vision algorithm or classifier has absolutely no subjective baggages, having no emotions, no biases whatsoever due to past experience, race, religion, political doctrine, gender, age, etc.
    An aim of both the course and this blog is to increase the number of people who find this sort of claim ridiculous.
  • For map nerds: a detailed cartographic comparison of Google Maps and Apple Maps.
  • Data journalism: the Guardian looks at the spatial concentration of gun violence in the US.
  • There’s a quote circulating widely now on social media “Journalism is  printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations.” It’s being attributed to Orwell. He didn’t say it — which I think matters in this context.
    According to Quote Investigator, versions of it described as an ‘old saying’ were around in US journalism in the early 20th century. Later, in 1930, Walter Winchell attributed a version to William Randolph Hearst. More recently, it has been attributed to Lord Northcliffe, a UK pioneer of tabloid journalism. It wasn’t attributed to Orwell until the 1990s, decades after he died.

And finally: this is actually true

January 16, 2017

Stat of the Week Competition: January 14 – 20 2017

Each week, we would like to invite readers of Stats Chat to submit nominations for our Stat of the Week competition and be in with the chance to win an iTunes voucher.

Here’s how it works:

  • Anyone may add a comment on this post to nominate their Stat of the Week candidate before midday Friday January 20 2017.
  • Statistics can be bad, exemplary or fascinating.
  • The statistic must be in the NZ media during the period of January 14 – 20 2017 inclusive.
  • Quote the statistic, when and where it was published and tell us why it should be our Stat of the Week.

Next Monday at midday we’ll announce the winner of this week’s Stat of the Week competition, and start a new one.


January 12, 2017

Measuring what you care about: turmeric edition


There’s a story on Stuff, with more detail at either Nature News or Scientific Americanthat turmeric doesn’t work. The original paper in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry isn’t open access (actually, is), but its abstract is. It’s not new chemical research; it’s a review of what’s known about curcumin, the allegedly-active ingredient of turmeric, and why they don’t believe it.  In the opposite of the academic cliche, the point of the paper is to argue that less research is needed on curcumin and similar compounds.

StatsChat isn’t MedChemChat, but the paper is relevant for two reasons. First, turmeric is one of the foods that attracts low-quality, over-publicised research, which does end up on StatsChat. Second, the reason they don’t believe in turmeric is relevant.

Turmeric, if you believe the stories, appears to have pretty much every interesting biochemical effect anyone’s ever looked for.  That phenomenon has been seen before in medicinal chemistry, and the experience is that compounds which pass a huge range of screening tests tend to do it by cheating.

In 2010, two Australian chemists wrote a paper about “Pan-Assay INterference compounds” (PAINs) (abstract, story, blog post by another chemist). Most biologically interesting properties a compound might have aren’t visible to the naked eye. A lot of work goes into devising subtle and precise assays to measure them. A compound can mess up the assay and appear to pass the test without having the specific effect you’re looking for.  One important reason for PAIN is a compound that reacts with a wide range of proteins.

Turmeric, as you will no doubt have guessed, looks like a PAIN.  This nicely explains its excellent test-tube performance with its generally disappointing performance given as food to whole animals or people.  The researchers are arguing that turmeric seems to work in the lab because it cheats, and that it seems safe but less useful than hoped in people and animals mostly because it’s not absorbed well.

As the stories are careful to note, none of this definitively implies that curcumin (or some other tumeric ingredient) couldn’t have a beneficial effect, just that most of the evidence isn’t credible.   The same argument applies to some other trendy antioxidants.

It’s a recurrent theme on StatsChat that most data aren’t the real thing you care about. The speedometer needle position isn’t the same as speed; saliva THC concentration isn’t the same as impairment; methamphetamine traces on a wall aren’t the same as use — or manufacture– by a tenant; having a Chinese name isn’t the same as being an overseas housing speculator.  The map isn’t the territory.



Photo by Flickr user saptarshikar

January 11, 2017

If you’re a house

From the Herald

Nationwide 63.2 per cent of people today live in their own home – the lowest rate since the 61.2 per cent recorded at the 1951 Census – whereas 33 per cent live in a rental.

From Newstalk ZB

A shade over 63 percent of people today are living in their own home. 

That’s the lowest rate since 1951 when it was 61 percent.

From Newshub

Dwelling and household estimates data released on Tuesday shows that as of December 2016, 63.2 percent of people live in their own home.

One News don’t have text up yet, but their story has the same claim.

As David Welch points out in a stat-of-the-week nomination, that’s not what the number means: 63.2% is the percentage of homes occupied by at least one of their owners.  It’s the home ownership rate if you’re a house, rather than if you’re a person.

The proportion of people living in those households isn’t easy to work out — on one hand, single-person households tend to be renters; on the other hand, overcrowded households are often renters too.  StatsNZ does provide the proportion of individuals who own their home, which is rather lower, at about 50%. But that’s not the number the news stories want, either.  That’s the proportion of people 20 and older who, personally, own or part-own their homes. Living in a home owned by your parents, or your partner, or your child, doesn’t count.

That last sentence also illustrates why ‘home ownership’ is harder to define than you might think, just like unemployment.  Should a 22-year-old living with parents count towards home ownership? If not, should they count in the denominator as not home ownership, or should we just be looking at owning vs renting? How about an elderly person living with one of their children?

It would be helpful if the proportion of people living in owner-occupied households was published regularly, but it wouldn’t answer all the questions.  As an easier step, it would also be useful if the media accurately described the number they used.

Bogus poll stories, again

We have a headline today in the HeraldNew Zealand’s most monogamous town revealed“.

At first sight you might be worried this is something new that can be worked out from your phone’s sensor data, but no. It’s the result of a survey, and not even a survey of whether people are monogamous, but of whether they say they agree with the statement “I believe that monogamy is essential in a relationship” as part of the user data for a dating site that emphasises lasting relationships.

To make matters worse, this particular dating site’s marketing focuses on how different its members are from the general population.  It’s not going to be a good basis for generalising to “Kiwis are strongly in favour of monogamy

You can find the press release here (including the embedded map) and the dating site’s “in-depth article” here.

It’s not even that nothing else is happening in the world this week.

January 9, 2017

News to look forward to

Last year, we had a bunch of early-stage Alzheimer’s trials in the news. I thought I’d look at what’s due out in the clinical trial world this year.

Perhaps most importantly, in March we should see the first real results on a new set of cholesterol-lowering drugs.  The ‘PCSK9’ inhibitors are one of the first drugs outside the cancer world to come from large-scale genetic studies without a particular hypothesis in mind. As the gene name ‘PCSK9’ indicates to those in the know, the gene was originally named just as the ninth in a series of genes that looked similar in structure.  It turned out that mutations in PCSK9 had big effects on LDL (‘bad’) cholesterol levels. Also, importantly, there is at least one person walking around alive and healthy with disabling mutations in both her copies of the gene — so there was a good chance that inhibiting the protein would be safe.  At least three companies have drugs (monoclonal antibodies) that target PCSK9 and reduce cholesterol by a lot; though the drugs need to be given by intravenous injection.

Although the drugs have been shown to reduce cholesterol, and have been approved for sale in the US for people with very high cholesterol not otherwise treatable, they haven’t been shown to prevent heart attacks (which is the point of lowering your cholesterol). The first trial looking at that sort of real outcome has finished, and there’s a good chance the results will be presented at the American College of Cardiology meeting in March.  For people in NZ the main interest isn’t in the new treatments — it’s hard to see them being cost-effective initially — but in the impact on understanding cholesterol.  If these drugs do prevent heart attacks, they will increase our confidence that LDL cholesterol really is a cause of disease; if they don’t, they will give aid and comfort to the people who think cholesterol is missing the whole point.

What else? There are some interesting migraine trials due out: both using a new approach to prevention and using a new approach to giving the current treatments.  The prevention approach is based on inhibiting something called CGRP in the brain, which appears to be a key trigger; the drug is injected, but only every few months.  The treatment approach is based on a new sort of skin patch to try to deliver the ‘triptan’ drugs, which they hope will be as fast as inhaling or injecting them and less unpleasant.

Also, there’s an earlier-stage New Zealand biotech product that will have results early in the year: using cells from specially bred pigs, coated so the immune system doesn’t notice them, to treat Parkinson’s Disease.


Stat of the Week Competition: January 7 – 13 2017

Each week, we would like to invite readers of Stats Chat to submit nominations for our Stat of the Week competition and be in with the chance to win an iTunes voucher.

Here’s how it works:

  • Anyone may add a comment on this post to nominate their Stat of the Week candidate before midday Friday January 13 2017.
  • Statistics can be bad, exemplary or fascinating.
  • The statistic must be in the NZ media during the period of January 7 – 13 2017 inclusive.
  • Quote the statistic, when and where it was published and tell us why it should be our Stat of the Week.

Next Monday at midday we’ll announce the winner of this week’s Stat of the Week competition, and start a new one.


January 8, 2017

The drug-driving problem

The AA are campaigning again for random drug tests of drivers. I’m happy to stipulate that in NZ lots of people smoke cannabis, and some of these people drive when stoned, and sometimes when drunk as well, and this is bad. As the ads say.

On the other hand, science has not yet provided us with a good biochemical roadside test for impairment from cannabis. For alcohol, yes. For THC, no. That’s even more of an issue in the US states where recreational marijuana use is legal, since the option of just taking away driving licences for anyone with detectable levels isn’t even there.

This isn’t just a point about natural justice. There’s empirical reason (though not conclusive) to believe that many people who might fail a biochemical test are reasonably careful about driving while high.

First, there hasn’t been any evidence of an increase in road deaths in the US states where medical or recreational marijuana use is legal, even though there has been an increase in people driving with detectable levels of the drug.

Second, if you look at the 2010 ESR report (PDF) that the AA are relying on, you find (p20)

The culpability of the drivers using cannabis by itself was determined and odds ratios have been calculated as described in the alcohol section and in Appendix two. The results are given in Table seven. The odds ratio calculated for cannabis only use is only slightly greater than one, implying that cannabis does not significantly impact on the likelihood of having a crash.

Now, the report says, correctly, that this disagrees with other evidence and that we shouldn’t assume driving while stoned is safe. But they tried quite hard to do alternative analyses showing cannabis was bad, and were unsuccessful.

In 2012, there was another AA campaign, and a story in the Herald

But Associate Minister of Transport Simon Bridges said the Government would wait for saliva testing technology to improve before using it.

A government review of the drug testing regime in May concluded the testing devices were not reliable or fast enough to be effective.

It ruled the saliva screening takes at least five minutes, is unlikely to detect half of cannabis users, and results are not reliable enough for criminal prosecution.

“The real factor is reliability … we can’t have innocent people accused of drug driving if they haven’t been.

“But as the technology improves, I’m sure in the future we will have a randomised roadside drug test.”

That seems like a sensible policy.


  • Graphics, overquantified life: Andrew Elliott’s graph of his baby’s first six months of sleep
  • Graphics: Bird migrations in the Americas (click for animation)bird_map
  • Public policy: Graeme Edgeler has better numbers on the three-strikes law, and a new post
  • Graphics: Weather forecast around the British Isles, shipping
    from the people who tweet the Shipping Forecast
  • From the Washington Post: more people die between Christmas and New Year than you’d expect. It’s true in NZ, so it’s not the weather.
  • The alt-right movement finds more dumb things to do with genetic testing: the Atlantic
  • A (moderately technical) short course on Fairness and Transparency in Machine Learning.
  • “Missing Datasets”: a partial list of useful and important public datasets that don’t (and won’t) exist.
  • Surash Venkat explains why modern data-based ‘algorithms’ aren’t at all like recipes — which is why they need to be studied statistically, not just by looking at the code or asking if the developers were pure of heart.
  • “The Great AI Awakening”. From the NY Times, on Google, the revolution in machine translation, and big data.
  • Companies Ponder a Rating of Workers’ Health”. From the Wall St Journal.  One one hand, having big companies report summaries of their employees’ health might give them better incentives.  On the other hand, they’d need to get the data, and if you think about what else they might do with it…