It should be noted that any inference using the log-likelihood from the marginal method is potentially misleading, since the likelihood function assumes best and worst choices are made independently.
The study's authors, which included NHS England's medical director, Prof Bruce Keogh, specifically warned against this "rash and misleading" interpretation because the greater likelihood that patients admitted at a weekend are medical emergencies and have a higher risk of death are important explanatory factors, alongside a dearth of both senior doctors and backup medical services.
The likelihood ratio test may give misleading results if the assumptions about the sampling distribution are violated.
The pattern of results associated with emphasizing details is consistent with those reported by Eslick, Fazio, and Marsh (2011), who found that highlighting correct and misleading general knowledge details in fiction stories resulted in an increased likelihood of using those incorrect details to answer questions on a subsequent general knowledge test.
Simply examining the best-fit model may be misleading, because when there are several similarly fitting models small differences in the likelihood may lead to different models being chosen.
Producing categorisations of short and long 'delay' based upon data for multiple cancer sites can be misleading, since individual cancer sites have different biological and symptomatic progression, and also have a different likelihood of 'delay' [ 10, 52].
These results suggest that likelihood ratios and other test accuracy statistics derived from clinical studies have the potential to be misleading when applying them in practice.
Likelihood ratios allow the data to speak for themselves, without regard for the probability of observing weak or misleading evidence, and decisions to stop, or continue, a trial can be made at any time, with all of the available information.
The strange, misleading clues.
