Fashion, History, Science, Nabokovia
Install Theme
fashioninquality:

Detail at Chanel Couture Fall Winter 2014 | PFW

Oh Uncle Karl <3

fashioninquality:

Detail at Chanel Couture Fall Winter 2014 | PFW

Oh Uncle Karl <3

submariet:

VAN EYCK

(Source: cheekygeekymonkey, via caravaggista)

johnskylar:

thespineanditstingle:

Freerice sure attracts an interesting crowd.

I used freerice to study for my GRE, as it has the same vocabulary list as the exam and the same adaptive scoring methods.
I do not now, nor have I ever, felt that Hitler did nothing wrong.

I believe it&#8217;s a reference to this cockup - but then it&#8217;s a hell of a lot of effort to put into a troll account, if that&#8217;s indeed what it is. It&#8217;s not the first incredibly offensive/stupid handle I&#8217;ve seen pop up on the site, even if most of them don&#8217;t last very long (either the trolls run out of steam or the accounts get deleted). This one is just remarkable for its sheer dedication. It registered just today and is already the top player this month and the 56th player this year. 

johnskylar:

thespineanditstingle:

Freerice sure attracts an interesting crowd.

I used freerice to study for my GRE, as it has the same vocabulary list as the exam and the same adaptive scoring methods.

I do not now, nor have I ever, felt that Hitler did nothing wrong.

I believe it’s a reference to this cockup - but then it’s a hell of a lot of effort to put into a troll account, if that’s indeed what it is. It’s not the first incredibly offensive/stupid handle I’ve seen pop up on the site, even if most of them don’t last very long (either the trolls run out of steam or the accounts get deleted). This one is just remarkable for its sheer dedication. It registered just today and is already the top player this month and the 56th player this year. 

awkwardsituationist:

photos by uda dennie of eusocial ants in batam island, indonesia. (more ants and other insects posts

(Source: awkwardsituationist)

Freerice sure attracts an interesting crowd.

Freerice sure attracts an interesting crowd.

Doctors flunk quiz on screening-test math | ScienceNews →

mediiolab:

thespineanditstingle:

mediiolab:

This headline depresses me.

It comes from a research letter recently published in JAMA Internal Medicine. In this study, the researchers asked a convenience sample of 61 attendings, residents, and med students the following question:

If a test to detect a disease whose prevalence is 1 out of 1,000 has a false positive rate of 5 percent, what is the chance that a person found to have a positive result actually has the disease?

Depending on how stringently you define a ‘correct answer’ [1], at best, only 40% of the respondents got it right. The most common answer was 95%. [2]

Why do I find these results depressing? Because understanding this concept is fundamental to the practice of medicine. We are talking about test characteristics, more specifically positive predictive value (PPV). PPV is dependent on the prevalence of a disease—the higher the prevalence, the greater the PPV. This is why we gather patients’ histories and physicals. By asking a few questions and examining a patient, we can identify risk factors—that place the patient in a group with higher prevalence of a condition—that allow us to choose appropriate tests with a good chance that a positive result will actually mean the patient has the disease.

I truly believe if we had a better understanding of this concept, we would order fewer diagnostic tests and save both some anguish and money.


  1. That is, if you define having a correct answer as being exactly correct, only 14 (23%) provided such a response. The researchers, in their Methods, have a little bit looser (but, in my opinion, acceptable) definition of the correct response.  ↩

  2. To be fair, this was not the most rigorously conducted study. It wasn’t a random or complete sample, nor was the sample very large. The question they posed was not validated, nor did they pose more than one question about this concept. But, how rigorous of a study do we need? The best data might be on biostats and epi questions from board exams, except reviewing such concepts is a routine part of prep for those exams.  ↩

Of every 1000, 1 will have the disease.

Dock .5 false positives, so .95 actually has it.

Of the remaining 999 who don’t have the disease, 5% (that is, 49.95) - get a false positive.

Total positive tests = .95+49.5 = 50.45

Of those 50.45 people, only 1 actually has the disease. 

So 1/50.45 = 0.0198

Which is close to 2, but not 1.96%. What am I doing wrong?

Nice work! One suggestion—round your numbers.

Hopefully this will lead you to the exact answer and good for you for not being satisfied with “close”. Let me know if you still have trouble!

Rounding. Of course. .95≈1 and 49.5≈50.

(Thanks!)

omgthatdress:

Karolina Kurkova showing us all how to wear a structured dress!

omgthatdress:

Karolina Kurkova showing us all how to wear a structured dress!

houghtonlib:

Tagliacozzi, Gaspare, 1545-1599. De curtorum chirurgia per insitionem, 1599.

Typ 525.97.820

Houghton Library, Harvard University

16th century surgeon Gaspare Tagliacozzi was particularly known for his skill in the method of reconstructing an amputated nose by grafting a flap of skin from the patient’s arm. The patient would have to spend three weeks with the arm immobilized in this position for the graft to take.

Remember kids, this was in an age when they used chamber pots and emptied them into nearby gutters; when not very far away, one guy proposed (okay, not seriously) wiping with the luxurious, downy neck of a goose. This dude would have been forced to smell his armpit the whole time.

(via eyecrow)

Doctors flunk quiz on screening-test math | ScienceNews →

mediiolab:

This headline depresses me.

It comes from a research letter recently published in JAMA Internal Medicine. In this study, the researchers asked a convenience sample of 61 attendings, residents, and med students the following question:

If a test to detect a disease whose prevalence is 1 out of 1,000 has a false positive rate of 5 percent, what is the chance that a person found to have a positive result actually has the disease?

Depending on how stringently you define a ‘correct answer’ [1], at best, only 40% of the respondents got it right. The most common answer was 95%. [2]

Why do I find these results depressing? Because understanding this concept is fundamental to the practice of medicine. We are talking about test characteristics, more specifically positive predictive value (PPV). PPV is dependent on the prevalence of a disease—the higher the prevalence, the greater the PPV. This is why we gather patients’ histories and physicals. By asking a few questions and examining a patient, we can identify risk factors—that place the patient in a group with higher prevalence of a condition—that allow us to choose appropriate tests with a good chance that a positive result will actually mean the patient has the disease.

I truly believe if we had a better understanding of this concept, we would order fewer diagnostic tests and save both some anguish and money.


  1. That is, if you define having a correct answer as being exactly correct, only 14 (23%) provided such a response. The researchers, in their Methods, have a little bit looser (but, in my opinion, acceptable) definition of the correct response.  ↩

  2. To be fair, this was not the most rigorously conducted study. It wasn’t a random or complete sample, nor was the sample very large. The question they posed was not validated, nor did they pose more than one question about this concept. But, how rigorous of a study do we need? The best data might be on biostats and epi questions from board exams, except reviewing such concepts is a routine part of prep for those exams.  ↩

Of every 1000, 1 will have the disease.

Dock .5 false positives, so .95 actually has it.

Of the remaining 999 who don’t have the disease, 5% (that is, 49.95) - get a false positive.

Total positive tests = .95+49.5 = 50.45

Of those 50.45 people, only 1 actually has the disease. 

So 1/50.45 = 0.0198

Which is close to 2, but not 1.96%. What am I doing wrong?

Decades of Scientific Research May Be Ruined Because Mice Are Afraid of Men →

Mice are crucial part of lab research. Everything from their cells and their behavior are dissected in the name of science. Some of the biggest medical breakthroughs owe thanks to mice, but all that may come into question due to a shocking new discovery that threatens to blow apart decades of research.

Mice are more scared of male researchers than of female ones.

It sounds almost too comical to be true, but a new study published in the journal Nature Methods argues that mice’s aversion to men is all too real — and it may have had incalculable impact on past research.

Read more

Could rather seriously skew the tail suspension and forced swim and that other test. (I mean, if this turns out to actually be a thing)

(Source: micdotcom)

historicaltimes:

Black man drinking at white only fountain, ca 1964

historicaltimes:

Black man drinking at white only fountain, ca 1964

Audrey Hepburn costume sketches by Edith Head

(Source: ourfairlady, via oldfilmsflicker)