In a survey conducted in September 2020 across India, 30 percent of the respondents believed cosmetic products and services to be the main source of misleading advertisements in the country. On the other hand, ads related to banking and financial services were found to be the least deceptive.

a, Frequently, variation in data from across the sciences is characterized with the arithmetic mean and the standard deviation SD. Often, it is evident from the numbers that the data have to be skewed. This becomes clear if the lower end of the 95% interval of normal variation, - 2 SD, extends below zero, thus failing the “95% range check”, as is the case for all cited examples. Values in bold contradict the positive nature of the data. b, More often, variation is described with the standard error of the mean, SEM (SD  =  SEM · √n, with n  =  sample size). Such distributions are often even more skewed, and their original characterization as being symmetric is even more misleading. Original values are given in italics (°estimated from graphs). Most often, each reference cited contains several examples, in addition to the case(s) considered here. Table 2 collects further examples.

A study held in early 2024 found that more than a third of surveyed consumers in selected countries worldwide had witnessed false news about politics in the week running to the survey. Suspicious or false COVID-19 news was also a problem. False news False news is often at its most insidious when it distorts or misrepresents information about key topics, such as public health, global conflicts, and elections. With 2024 set to be a significant year of political change, with elections taking place worldwide, trustworthy and verifiable information will be crucial. In the U.S., trust in news sources for information about the 2024 presidential election is patchy. Republicans and Independents are notably less trusting of news about the topic than their Democrat-voting peers, with only around 40 percent expressing trust in most news sources in the survey. Social media fared the least well in this respect with just a third of surveyed adults saying that they had faith in such sites to deliver trustworthy updates on the 2024 election. A separate survey revealed that older adults were the least likely to trust the news media for election news. This is something that publishers can bear in mind when targeting audiences with updates and campaign information. Distorting the truth: the impact of false news Aside from reading (and potentially believing) false information, consumers are also at risk of accidentally sharing false news and therefore contributing to its spread. One way in which the dissemination of false news could be stemmed is by consumers educating themselves on how to identify suspicious content, however government intervention has also been tabled. Consumers are split on whether or not governments should take steps to restrict false news, partly due to concerns about the need to protect freedom of information.

Misinformation can undermine a well-functioning democracy. For example, public misconceptions about climate change can lead to lowered acceptance of the reality of climate change and lowered support for mitigation policies. This study experimentally explored the impact of misinformation about climate change and tested several pre-emptive interventions designed to reduce the influence of misinformation. We found that false-balance media coverage (giving contrarian views equal voice with climate scientists) lowered perceived consensus overall, although the effect was greater among conservatives. Likewise, misinformation that confuses people about the level of scientific agreement regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW) had a polarizing effect, with political conservatives reducing their acceptance of AGW and political liberals increasing their acceptance of AGW. However, we found that inoculating messages that (1) explain the flawed argumentation technique used in the misinformation or that (2) highlight the scientific consensus on climate change were effective in neutralizing those adverse effects of misinformation. We recommend that climate communication messages should take into account ways in which scientific content can be distorted, and include pre-emptive inoculation messages.,Data for Cook, Lewandowsky & Ecker (2017)Data for Experiments 1 & 2 for Cook, Lewandowsky & Ecker (2017). Neutralizing Misinformation Through Inoculation: Exposing Misleading Argumentation Techniques Reduces Their Influence. PLOS ONE.Cook_data_anonymized.zip,

A June 2020 found that 48 percent of Democrat-identifying adults in the United States strongly approved of social media companies labeling posts on their platform from elected officials as inaccurate or misleading. In contrast, only eight percent of survey respondents who identified as Republican reported the same thing. This gap is another example of the increasing polarization of politics in the United States, and the erosion of the trust in news.

Context

Most publicly available football (soccer) statistics are limited to aggregated data such as Goals, Shots, Fouls, Cards. When assessing performance or building predictive models, this simple aggregation, without any context, can be misleading. For example, a team that produced 10 shots on target from long range has a lower chance of scoring than a club that produced the same amount of shots from inside the box. However, metrics derived from this simple count of shots will similarly asses the two teams.

A football game generates much more events and it is very important and interesting to take into account the context in which those events were generated. This dataset should keep sports analytics enthusiasts awake for long hours as the number of questions that can be asked is huge.

Content

This dataset is a result of a very tiresome effort of webscraping and integrating different data sources. The central element is the text commentary. All the events were derived by reverse engineering the text commentary, using regex. Using this, I was able to derive 11 types of events, as well as the main player and secondary player involved in those events and many other statistics. In case I've missed extracting some useful information, you are gladly invited to do so and share your findings. The dataset provides a granular view of 9,074 games, totaling 941,009 events from the biggest 5 European football (soccer) leagues: England, Spain, Germany, Italy, France from 2011/2012 season to 2016/2017 season as of 25.01.2017. There are games that have been played during these seasons for which I could not collect detailed data. Overall, over 90% of the played games during these seasons have event data.

The dataset is organized in 3 files:

• events.csv contains event data about each game. Text commentary was scraped from: bbc.com, espn.com and onefootball.com
• ginf.csv - contains metadata and market odds about each game. odds were collected from oddsportal.com
• dictionary.txt contains a dictionary with the textual description of each categorical variable coded with integers

Past Research

I have used this data to:

• create predictive models for football games in order to bet on football outcomes.
• make visualizations about upcoming games
• build expected goals models and compare players

Inspiration

There are tons of interesting questions a sports enthusiast can answer with this dataset. For example:

• What is the value of a shot? Or what is the probability of a shot being a goal given it's location, shooter, league, assist method, gamestate, number of players on the pitch, time - known as expected goals (xG) models
• When are teams more likely to score?
• Which teams are the best or sloppiest at holding the lead?
• Which teams or players make the best use of set pieces?
• In which leagues is the referee more likely to give a card?
• How do players compare when they shoot with their week foot versus strong foot? Or which players are ambidextrous?
• Identify different styles of plays (shooting from long range vs shooting from the box, crossing the ball vs passing the ball, use of headers)
• Which teams have a bias for attacking on a particular flank?

And many many more...

Deep learning-based models for predicting blood glucose levels in diabetic patients can facilitate proactive measures to prevent critical events and are essential for closed-loop control therapy systems. However, selecting appropriate models from the literature may not always yield conclusive results, as the choice could be influenced by biases or misleading evaluations stemming from different methodologies, datasets, and preprocessing techniques. This study aims to compare and comprehensively analyze the performance of various deep learning models across diverse datasets to assess their applicability and generalizability across a broader spectrum of scenarios. Commonly used deep learning models for blood glucose level forecasting, such as feed-forward neural network, convolutional neural network, long short-term memory network (LSTM), temporal convolutional neural network, and self-attention network (SAN), are considered in this study. To evaluate the generalization capabilities of each model, four datasets of varying sizes, encompassing samples from different age groups and conditions, are utilized. Performance metrics include Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Difference (MAD), and Coefficient of Determination (CoD) for analytical asssessment, Clarke Error Grid (CEG) for clinical assessments, Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test for statistical analysis, and generalization ability evaluations to obtain both coarse and granular insights. The experimental findings indicate that the LSTM model demonstrates superior performance with the lowest root mean square error and highest generalization capability among all other models, closely followed by SAN. The ability of LSTM and SAN to capture long-term dependencies in blood glucose data and their correlations with various influencing factors and events contribute to their enhanced performance. Despite the lower predictive performance, the FFN was able to capture patterns and trends in the data, suggesting its applicability in forecasting future direction. Moreover, this study helps in identifying the optimal model based on specific objectives, whether prioritizing generalization or accuracy.

COVID-19 rate of death, or the known deaths divided by confirmed cases, was over ten percent in Yemen, the only country that has 1,000 or more cases. This according to a calculation that combines coronavirus stats on both deaths and registered cases for 221 different countries. Note that death rates are not the same as the chance of dying from an infection or the number of deaths based on an at-risk population. By April 26, 2022, the virus had infected over 510.2 million people worldwide, and led to a loss of 6.2 million. The source seemingly does not differentiate between "the Wuhan strain" (2019-nCOV) of COVID-19, "the Kent mutation" (B.1.1.7) that appeared in the UK in late 2020, the 2021 Delta variant (B.1.617.2) from India or the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) from South Africa.

Where are these numbers coming from?

The numbers shown here were collected by Johns Hopkins University, a source that manually checks the data with domestic health authorities. For the majority of countries, this is from national authorities. In some cases, like China, the United States, Canada or Australia, city reports or other various state authorities were consulted. In this statistic, these separately reported numbers were put together. Note that Statista aims to also provide domestic source material for a more complete picture, and not to just look at one particular source. Examples are these statistics on the confirmed coronavirus cases in Russia or the COVID-19 cases in Italy, both of which are from domestic sources. For more information or other freely accessible content, please visit our dedicated Facts and Figures page.

A word on the flaws of numbers like this

People are right to ask whether these numbers are at all representative or not for several reasons. First, countries worldwide decide differently on who gets tested for the virus, meaning that comparing case numbers or death rates could to some extent be misleading. Germany, for example, started testing relatively early once the country’s first case was confirmed in Bavaria in January 2020, whereas Italy tests for the coronavirus postmortem. Second, not all people go to see (or can see, due to testing capacity) a doctor when they have mild symptoms. Countries like Norway and the Netherlands, for example, recommend people with non-severe symptoms to just stay at home. This means not all cases are known all the time, which could significantly alter the death rate as it is presented here. Third and finally, numbers like this change very frequently depending on how the pandemic spreads or the national healthcare capacity. It is therefore recommended to look at other (freely accessible) content that dives more into specifics, such as the coronavirus testing capacity in India or the number of hospital beds in the UK. Only with additional pieces of information can you get the full picture, something that this statistic in its current state simply cannot provide.

According to WHO 2019, Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth highest cause of cancer death worldwide. More precise diagnostic models are needed to enhance early HCC and cirrhosis quick diagnosis, treatment, and survival. Breath biomarkers known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled air can be used to make rapid, precise, and painless diagnoses. Gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GCMS) are utilized to diagnose HCC and cirrhosis VOCs. In this investigation, metabolically generated VOCs in breath samples (n = 35) of HCC, (n = 35) cirrhotic, and (n = 30) controls were detected via GCMS and SPME. Moreover, this study also aims to identify diagnostic VOCs for distinction among HCC and cirrhosis liver conditions, which are most closely related, and cause misleading during diagnosis. However, using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to quantify volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is time-consuming and error-prone since it requires an expert. To verify GC-MS data analysis, we present an in-house R-based array of machine learning models that applies deep learning pattern recognition to automatically discover VOCs from raw data, without human intervention. All-machine learning diagnostic model offers 80% sensitivity, 90% specificity, and 95% accuracy, with an AUC of 0.9586. Our results demonstrated the validity and utility of GCMS-SMPE in combination with innovative ML models for early detection of HCC and cirrhosis-specific VOCs considered as potential diagnostic breath biomarkers and showed differentiation among HCC and cirrhosis. With these useful insights, we can build handheld e-nose sensors to detect HCC and cirrhosis through breath analysis and this unique approach can help in diagnosis by reducing integration time and costs without compromising accuracy or consistency.

Summary of datasets with respective sample counts.

Medical misinformation relies on an ecosystem of actors as the global spread of health misinformation is encouraged by social media algorithms. According to industry estimates, top-ranked health misinformation spreader Realfarmacy.com accumulated an approximate 253.6 million views between May 2019 and May 2020. The top medical misinformation pages were identified by analyzing website credibility reviews based on credibility and transparency criteria.

The field of community ecology is evolving rapidly as researchers are able to tie functions of systems to variation in taxa. In inferring processes, functions, and causal taxa, common practice is to assume a ‘core’ community can be defined. The core refers to a group of taxa found across samples, and statistically, is the discretization or categorization of continuous data. Assuming thresholds in abundance exist, and that a core microbiome exists, has the potential to be misleading. Rather, the existence of a core set of taxa should be treated as a hypothesis with support from empirical observations. An additional challenge is that there is no standard set of criteria for core membership. Consequently, comparison across studies is often impossible. We considered four common methods for defining a core and applied them to 25 simulations that cover a range of plausible communities and two published microbial data sets. Next, we used hierarchical clustering and bivariate plots of mean taxon abundance and variance to evaluate each method. Assignment of taxa to the core varied substantially among methods. Across simulations and published data sets, hierarchical clustering of taxa based on their abundance and prevalence (variation) offered no support for a core set of taxa. The categorization of taxa into sets corresponding to a core community and other taxa has the potential to be misleading. Given that the concept of core communities received poor support from data, the concept is questionable and should not be used without testing its validity in any particular context.

According to WHO 2019, Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth highest cause of cancer death worldwide. More precise diagnostic models are needed to enhance early HCC and cirrhosis quick diagnosis, treatment, and survival. Breath biomarkers known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled air can be used to make rapid, precise, and painless diagnoses. Gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GCMS) are utilized to diagnose HCC and cirrhosis VOCs. In this investigation, metabolically generated VOCs in breath samples (n = 35) of HCC, (n = 35) cirrhotic, and (n = 30) controls were detected via GCMS and SPME. Moreover, this study also aims to identify diagnostic VOCs for distinction among HCC and cirrhosis liver conditions, which are most closely related, and cause misleading during diagnosis. However, using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to quantify volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is time-consuming and error-prone since it requires an expert. To verify GC-MS data analysis, we present an in-house R-based array of machine learning models that applies deep learning pattern recognition to automatically discover VOCs from raw data, without human intervention. All-machine learning diagnostic model offers 80% sensitivity, 90% specificity, and 95% accuracy, with an AUC of 0.9586. Our results demonstrated the validity and utility of GCMS-SMPE in combination with innovative ML models for early detection of HCC and cirrhosis-specific VOCs considered as potential diagnostic breath biomarkers and showed differentiation among HCC and cirrhosis. With these useful insights, we can build handheld e-nose sensors to detect HCC and cirrhosis through breath analysis and this unique approach can help in diagnosis by reducing integration time and costs without compromising accuracy or consistency.

Summary of the complexity metrics of the five models.