Rociletinib Journal Analysis

Concerning the cohesiveness of an essay, Pyrczak (2008) avers that its Results segment should not only convey a study’s outcome in paragraphs that can each convey a particular component of its findings but it should also be arranged in a manner that provides an exclusive focus on the research’s hypothesis as well as supply its related statistics. While this author can commend the researcher’s inclusion of the coefficients of their instrumentations and the tables that demonstrate the study’s results (Lin et al., 2004), the Results section in this composition falls short of the previously listed expectations of what this segment should comprise. For this assayer has observed that though the 10 variables measured had been noted, the study’s authors had not expounded upon the constituents of their findings. The rating this investigator gives the coherency of this paper is ‘2’.

Morris, J., & Song, L. (2013, September 16). Study Delivers Good News, Bad News on

10. Was the sample for this study adequately described? Provide a rationale for your answer.

Part II introduces you to a debate in the field of education between those who support Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) and those who argue that NHST is poorly suited to most of the questions educators are interested in. Jackson (2012) and Trochim and Donnelly (2006) pretty much follow this model. Northcentral follows it. But, as the authors of the readings for Part II argue, using statistical analyses based on this model may yield very misleading results. You may or may not propose a study that uses alternative models of data analysis and presentation of findings (e.g., confidence intervals and effect sizes) or supplements NHST with another model. In any case, by learning about alternatives to NHST, you will better understand it and the culture of the field of education.

It can be a way for doctors to perform the ensure more personalized medicine for each specific NSCLC patient. It is also shown how effective and the ways the crizotinib may be used in the future for other mutations such as ROS1. This is very important to non-scientists because it can be a breakthrough in medicine for personalized cancer treatment and diagnostics. We may soon be able to determine each cancer patients’ specific mutation and put them on the correct treatment instead of trial and error. It is also shown that crizotinib may be used in other types of cancers aside from NSCLC which will effect everyone since this is another drug on the market that can preserve

3. Lancet’s editors should not have publish such a controversial study without further academic experiments and investigations.

However, I would like to discuss both the negative and positive attributes the work contains. One strength would be based on inclusion of specific hormone based data. The foundation of their argument is based on how the rise and fall of certain hormones causes people to react to situations differently. The methodology of presenting these participants with a risk that could go either way and showing a statistically significant response correlating with the poses was a crucial strength. However, one weakness would be the failure to include a control group. The researchers took baseline data of participants’ hormone levels, but this limitation is still problematic because without a control, the study has two independent variables being tested without a benchmark to measure against. Therefore, the data they collected cannot be adequately compared or trusted. I would also be skeptical as to the authors’ interpretations because if they fail to include a control group, then I might infer they already suspect particular results. So, as we have talked about in class, there could be researcher bias that skews these

The authors relied heavily on two studies to create their argument. The first study mentioned was the Pinto et al article. In this study, "Pinto and colleagues (5) assessed the

In order to know whether the evidence of research studies are accurate, one must be able to have a fundamental understanding in statistical analyses to determine if such descriptions and findings within manuscripts and articles are presented correctly and explicitly (Sullivan, 2012). Proper use of statistics begins with the understanding of both descriptive and inferential statistics. Correct organization and description of data characteristics from the population sample being studied leads the researcher to identify a hypothesis and formulate inferences about such characteristics. It is with inferential statistics that researchers conduct appropriate tests of significance and determine whether to accept or reject the identified null

In reviewing this article, this writer was able critique the study and the suitability that it can possess if applied to actual practice. An important factor on whether a study can be considered valuable is if it is transferable in other situation, that is, a study's results should also be reflective if duplicated on other samples (Polit & Beck, 2006). Thus, the statistical power, internal and external validity are important to observe and note (Polit & Beck). If this writer were to carry out this study, it would have to be reflective of how the researcher performed it originality.

4- Barry T. Hirsch and Albert N. Link’s study which provides neutral opinion and does not support Harvard Study

The Frye Test is used “determine whether or not the method by which that evidence was obtained was generally accepted by experts in the particular field in which it belongs (Cornell)”. The Frye standard was made to have a set of expectations that are set on the people and the evidence that is being presented. The test did not account for the fact the people

A. A three year study done by Boston College found that “tests profoundly shape what

1. What is the outcome of interest in this study? Describe how it would be important to patients.

While the methodology of the research seemed solid, there were factors which were out of the control of the researchers which made the process more difficult to verify. Because the researchers chose a public web forum, they were unable to verify the legitimacy