stanford professor balaji s. srinivasan's peer review of the santa clara seroprevalence study indicates that its high reported positive rate results cannot be explained by the false positive rate of the test and/or by sample recruitment issues.
stanford professor balaji s. srinivasan's peer review of the santa clara seroprevalence study indicates that its high reported positive rate results cannot be explained by the false positive rate of the test and/or by sample recruitment issues.
the use of such certificates may therefore increase the risks of continued transmission. one of the most well-known attempts to justify sending workers back to offices and factories based on a supposed antibody count comes from the controversial santa clara study, as it has come to be known.", "the stanford researchers acknowledged as much in the study and used test performance weights to scale results, but rutherford was skeptical of these weights, as well as the population weights the researchers used.", 


































"in a peer review of the antibody study published to medium, former stanford lecturer balaji srinivasan, who specializes in statistics and computational biology, argued the selection methods could have overstated the prevalence of the disease in the county.", "dr. natalie e. dean, a professor of biostatistics at the university of florida, tweeted that she had concerns with the adjustments made for clustering (some participants brought children and other household members with them to the test) and test characteristics (researchers assume no false positives but some false negatives)."


































)