News USADA: "Technical issue" caused Brocks missing sample

[Tuf_guy]

Data scientists look for new ways to analyze "big data" to extract new types of information from said data. This could be in fields such as:
-epidemiology
-physics
-population dynamics
-biology/biochemistry/genetics
-economics (trying to predict the stock market)

So we might take Census data on populations and try to generate new methods to predict trends, such as which cities will have the highest percentage population of elderly in 20-30 years, which might indicate that more hospital beds will be needed. We use established techniques like hierarchical clustering, PCA, t-SNE plots, and of course statistics, to try and draw these conclusions and estimate our certainty. Sometimes entirely new algorithms are developed, but most of the time it's just making improvements on existing methods.

Another big problem we often encounter is how to deal with missing data for some of your points. Do you eliminate them? Do you impute the data?

And then the big one is harmonizing different datasets. In biology, one big problem is how to interpret things like RNA-seq, ChIP-seq, and mass spectrometry. RNA-seq measures transcription and transcript expression, ChIP-seq measures transcription factor binding at promoters, and mass spectrometry measures protein levels (not for all proteins, but for some isoforms). Can we integrate the 3 types of data to draft Gene Regulatory Networks (GRNs)?


Basically, we develop new techniques to harmonize, filter, and analyze data, but we also very often do more derivative work such as simply improving established methods.

I see. Do psychologists ever use your services?

 

[Alpha_T83]

I see. Do psychologists ever use your services?

No one really "uses the services" of a data scientist. We pick our own problems and study them, and publish peer reviewed papers. Then we apply for grants from the government based on our publication history and proposed research, and the government hands out money that pays for salaries of research staff, as well as any resources needed.

Although, sometimes there are partnerships between industry and academia, such as if someone wants to patent their research to produce a product. This doesn't happen too often, though.

 

[Deleted member 347815]

So no one has ever entered anything into a database "in production" in error, and had to correct that error later? Lol

I like how production databases are impervious to error, as if the DB knows it's the production DB.

I really don't know why you're trying to argue. This whole situation doesn't seem suspect to you in any way?

I'm not implying a production DB is impervious and 100% safe from any and all data malignancies or corruption.

I'm trying to say that from my experience doing this professionally for a living, that any changes to a production DB should involve a thorough QA processes and go through a deployement pipeline that is stable, tested and signed off on.

If you want to argue that USADA is unprofessional and sloppy and don't have these processes then fine, because I can't prove it either way.

Im saying that as an organization conducting something as serious as drug testing that holds athletes livelyhoods stake and their reputations, they should have a professional development process.

 

[Deleted member 347815]

Fwiw my SO works for a company that has very high security data, the kind that costs tens of millions just to compile, and while issues are rare, they do happen. Over the years there's been the occassional inaccurate data entry, and more problematic the rare fundamental computational error. When the largest companies/governments in the world hire you to do something, by necessity screwups tend to be pretty rare, but when they happen they're a big deal.

And according to another of my family members, here's a certain Florida based governmentally contracted defense firm, that's had a few internal glitches that have required scrambling.

Basically what I'm saying is that even in super high stakes, high cost, super-secure databases, there are occasionally an off entry.

Again, I'm aware I do this for a living ... Why people are quoting me I'm not sure. This isn't that difficult guys.. I'll have to be even more clear apparently.

- Yes, errors can happen in production databases
- Yes, I underatand the above
- Yes, I find this suspect because of who is involved and the timing
- Yes, again, production DBs are not safe against human error
- Yes, any somewhat professional (especially one handling sensitive data) should not have this kind of issue happening in prod

When editing existing database data you usually run a query/migration and if you do it through a GUI instead, you are prompted before any changes occur and you click that Accept button.

So why were they editing Brock specifically?

Edit: I regret leaving that off with a question, forgot this was in the heavies total waste of time

 

[Make Sherdog Great Again]

It's all good for the GOAT HW.

 

[Tuf_guy]

No one really "uses the services" of a data scientist. We pick our own problems and study them, and publish peer reviewed papers. Then we apply for grants from the government based on our publication history and proposed research, and the government hands out money that pays for salaries of research staff, as well as any resources needed.

Although, sometimes there are partnerships between industry and academia, such as if someone wants to patent their research to produce a product. This doesn't happen too often, though.

I see. I wondered because there is a lot of research involved in psychology. I imagine others eyes wouldn't hurt. Some on the clinical side might want the benefit of research without having to crunch the numbers (although research is pretty big - particular for people on the doctorate level).

 

[Unfinished Sentenc]

 

[20falarVerdades]

I'm trying to say that from my experience doing this professionally for a living, that any changes to a production DB should involve a thorough QA processes and go through a deployement pipeline that is stable, tested and signed off on.

What actually happens: USADA interns fat-fingers data from Excel into WordPress

 

[Madmick]

I'm missing something. What's the problem? Are you saying someone got paid off to bury a positive?

Sure looks like it to me.

I'm happy to sit right next to Eddie Bravo in this thread.

 

[therealdope]

Sure looks like it to me.

I'm happy to sit right next to Eddie Bravo in this thread.

It's always possible. there is definitely documented evidence of testing labs going against their own rules. THe French lab worker who took Lance's 9 samples from the '99 tour to spot check the new EPO test was within the rules. What they weren't allowed to do is go back and look at sample coding to see who the numbered sample belonged to.

 

[FrontNakedChoke]

lol @ USADA

 

[Prutfis]

 

[Madmick]

It's always possible. there is definitely documented evidence of testing labs going against their own rules. THe French lab worker who took Lance's 9 samples from the '99 tour to spot check the new EPO test was within the rules. What they weren't allowed to do is go back and look at sample coding to see who the numbered sample belonged to.

After the appalling failure with Bones I'm more cynical than ever. Don't get me started on Serena, these days.

The IOC just revised the Oly lifting weight classes, recently, which is confusing as hell, and terrible for the sport's lineal tradition, in order to "punish" the sport for all the positive tests at the last Olympics, and it makes you wonder which decade they stopped paying attention to that sport to react with such artificial indignation.

Of course Icarus really blew the curtain back on Russia, but Putin is just clumsier than most due to the intensity of his ambition. Britain did it the smart way.

Everywhere you look money and power finds a way to purchase clean tests for dirty vials.