{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreih3rj7doqbprjeg57re4otrnmiastxrqossci7bdyumtftj7qng5y",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3mfxcdhzxiwq2"
  },
  "path": "/t/change-the-range-not-the-language-on-confidence-intervals/27740?page=2#post_35",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-27T17:07:47.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "tags": [
    "this"
  ],
  "textContent": "I would very much like to see a resurgence of multiple-bias modeling (see this for a simple Bayesian attempt). The fact that it is very difficult to do should not prevent us from setting the stage for better, more careful analysis. It will get researchers to for once ask the question of whether a treatment effect from observational data is even trying to estimate the same parameter as treatment effect from a randomized trial. By adding a second parameter (bias of treatment effect from observational data) one can learn just how severe a restriction you can put on the prior for the bias for the observational data to have an effective sample size that is even 1/4th as large as the randomized sample size. Uncertain intervals for the treatment effect will be far more honest. They wouldn’t account for all forms of uncertainty, but would account for some of the most important ones that are largely ignored today.",
  "title": "Change the range not the language on confidence intervals"
}