{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiae3v2ypqmuah7iqdwtoeyfu3gqoojknjbgzh3eyhib22og3nusvu",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3mnfnullt7mw2"
  },
  "path": "/t/generalizability-vs-transportability-in-trials/28551?page=4#post_67",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-03T14:20:09.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "tags": [
    "related presentation here",
    "here",
    "is also increasing"
  ],
  "textContent": "evidenceinthewild:\n\n> If practitioners can’t articulate _why_ they are randomizing when there is no comparison, that itself reflects exactly the misunderstanding of Fisher’s framework you’re describing, and may even strengthen rather than soften your point.\n\nCorrect. See also related presentation here to the International Society for Biopharmaceutical Statistics (ISBS) with practical examples how understanding Fisher’s inferential machinery can lead to practice-changing RCTs. Connection with information theory here (more extended discussion here). We have also shown here that the quasirandomness fallacy occurs in more than half of oncology phase 3 RCTs and it is _increasing_ over time. Concurrently, the incidence of RNCTs is also increasing.",
  "title": "Generalizability vs. Transportability in Trials"
}