Rough draft.This research track is under review with Dr. Atit's lab. Content and sequence may still change.

Here's an example of what's due today

What Could Fool Us Into the Wrong Conclusion?

Experimental Design domain · Lesson 16 of 20 · Biomedical Innovations (BI)

Today's goal: Identify bias, confounding, and the surgeon-as-confounder problem in a real cleft study, and name the design defenses (matching, randomization, blinding).

Learn first

What a finished product looks like

This is a model of the work you should turn in. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your wording should be your own.

Biostatistician's review note

Completes: A skeptic's note that names the confounder, a defense, and a publish-or-revise call.

1. Confounder: Surgeon skill. If the more skilled surgeons happened to use Technique A more often, the better results could be the surgeon, not the technique, exactly what happened in the real UCLP trial.

2. Defense: Balance surgeons across both techniques (have each surgeon perform both, or treat surgeon as a stratifying or random-effect factor), and keep outcome judges blinded.

3. Advice to the PI: Do not publish as written. The claim credits the technique without ruling out the surgeon-as-confounder; revise to balance surgeons across arms and report the analysis that adjusts for surgeon before making any technique claim.

Learn first

How this was built, step by step

The finished product above did not appear all at once. Here is the path from the question to the turned-in work, so you can follow the same steps.

1Start from today's question: What could fool us into thinking we found the right cause, when we did not?
2Work the Model and the Explore questions to reason it out before writing anything.
3Pull the specific evidence the product needs from the reading and any database you used.
4Write it up in the required format: You are reviewing a draft claim about Mateo's care: 'Technique A repairs palates better than Technique B.' As biostatistician, do three things: (1) name one confounder that could fake this result (hint: think surgeon); (2) name one design step that would defend against it; (3) decide whether the team should publish as written or revise, and write one sentence of advice to the PI.
5Check it against the rubric, then submit.

How this is graded (rubric)

For: You are reviewing a draft claim about Mateo's care: 'Technique A repairs cleft palates better than Technique B.' As biostatistician, do three things: (1) name one confounder that could fake this result (hint: think surgeon); (2) name one design step that would defend against it; (3) decide whether the team should publish as written or revise, and write one sentence of advice to the PI.

Criterion	Proficient	Developing	Beginning
Complete	Every required part of the artifact is present and filled in.	Most parts are present, but one is missing or left blank.	Several parts are missing.
Accurate	The science and data are correct and match the evidence.	Mostly correct, with a small factual slip.	Key science or data is wrong.
Scientific reasoning (CER)	States a claim, backs it with specific evidence, and explains the reasoning.	Has a claim and evidence, but the reasoning is thin or missing.	Gives an answer with no evidence or reasoning.
Professional communication	Clear, organized, and labeled the way a clinician or scientist would write it.	Readable but disorganized or missing labels.	Hard to follow.
Submitted	Turned in the right way (Schoology for routine work) and confirmed.	Turned in, but in the wrong place or unconfirmed.	Not turned in.

How the model answer scores against this rubric

CompleteProficient: Nothing is left blank: the model fills every part of "You are reviewing a draft claim about Mateo's care: 'Technique A repairs cleft palates better than Technique B.' As biostatistician, do three things: (1) name one confounder that could fake this result (hint: think surgeon); (2) name one design step that would defend against it; (3) decide whether the team should publish as written or revise, and write one sentence of advice to the PI.".
AccurateProficient: Every number and claim matches the case evidence.
Scientific reasoning (CER)Proficient: It names a claim, cites the specific evidence, and explains the reasoning, not just the answer.
Professional communicationProficient: It is organized and labeled like a real chart note.
SubmittedProficient: It would be turned in on Schoology and confirmed.

Check yourself

WebXam problem for today's skill

One exam-style question that uses exactly what you practiced today. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.

WebXam-style domain: Experimental design and data analysisSelf-check skill: Distinguishing confounding from measurement bias and matching the right defense

In a surgical trial, the better dental-arch outcomes turned out to track with which surgeon operated rather than which technique was used. What kind of problem is this, and which design step best defends against it?

Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.

Back to this lesson