{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreif6goeryuvrixepkntnohbwcwzpl6hvvyclzk2ezidmttk474gzwm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3medcd6lrrz72"
  },
  "path": "/t/dichotomization/26337?page=4#post_76",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-07T22:12:44.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "tags": [
    "@Stephen"
  ],
  "textContent": "@Stephen has discussed that many times. I don’t think you can conclude that. But you can predict the distribution of the final response for an individual patient conditional on her starting point and do that for both treatments.\n\nThe irony of responder analysis is that it fails at its original goal, and the mean 6 point difference is more clinically relevant than any single-number responder analysis summary. The reason it fails is exemplified by this: Suppose that for a “responder” definition you find that 45% of control and 55% of treated patients have a satisfactory response. Is the difference between 45% and 55% clinically significant? You’re just replacing one metric with another one, and losing power and precision all along the way.",
  "title": "Dichotomization"
}