Search results

Thanks a lot @forestglip and @Nightsong Will send a message to the authors asking for a clarification. Let's hope it just some minor error that they uploaded the wrong Excel sheet or used the wrong SNP identifiers or something like that. Everything else in the paper seems plausible: they cite...

Trying to understand where they extracted the data from. The paper refers to reference 8, a meta-analysis by Howard et al. 2019 of the three biggest GWAS studies on depression. The supplementary material of this study shows the 102 SNPs that reached statistical significance (P < 5 × 10-8)...

This seems like quite an important study. Hopefully, it will get some more discussion and analysis. @Jonathan Edwards @Simon M @Chris Ponting @chillier The major limitation is the risk of misdiagnosis but the results look so strong that they might be immune to even large rates of...

Important update from the European ME Coalition: The results of the Horizon Europe call on high-burden, under-researched conditions have been made public. 3 (out of 4?) projects from the call have already been announced, receiving approximately 7 million each. They focus on endometriosis...

Yes, hard to see how misdiagnosis would bias the results towards no association, I would expect rather the opposite. It also seems that the authors did not exclude many SNPs because they were associated with ME/CFS confounders, so that probably also isn't an explanation for the lack of...

I suspect it refers to lifetime diagnosis, not prevalence. EDIT: the study it refers to writes: The Epidemiology of Major Depressive Disorder: Results From the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) | Depressive Disorders | JAMA | JAMA Network

Thanks for sharing. Doesn't seem to be much consideration that all three interventions may be losers rather than winners.

Thanks, had a look at and it mostly argues that because common and specific effects are correlated, it is incorrect to say how much % of the treatment is due to one over the other. Even if that is true, it doesn't refute the dodo bird effect or why it has been so difficult to demonstrate that...

Anyone know recent publications on this: does the conclusion still hold? Most papers discussing seem to be more than 10 years old. I found this one, but did not find it that good: The Dodo Bird Verdict--controversial, inevitable and important: a commentary on 30 years of meta-analyses - PubMed

There's also a commentary on this paper by Ioannidis but is mostly shows that he doesn't get the basic things right: https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC7137590&blobtype=pdf He writes things like:

Thanks Trish and the S4ME Committee, much appreciated. We will think about it some more and take our time to decide. Perhaps do a poll with the 4 best options.

I'm not quite sure how your system works but regarding cherry picking it depends on how many findings it predicts, for example if there are predictions that were not confirmed or perhaps contradicted by subsequent research. I suppose you would have to publish all the predictions beforehand...

Thanks for all the useful comments and suggestions! Very much appreciate all your help. We still prefer a short and neutral name such as ME/CFS Science or ME/CFS Insights (any thoughts on that one?). Something that briefly informs the reader that the blog will give info, analysis and updates...

Thanks for writing this. I hope the problems with the ME Association will get sorted.

We've written a blog post highlighting the most interesting ME/CFS studies of 2024: https://mecfsskeptic.com/2024-looking-back-on-a-year-of-me-cfs-research/ Curious to know if we missed any important ones. Twitter/Bluesky summary here:

Thanks Trish. It would be good to get some more feedback on this: would this name ('ME/CFS Science') be acceptable or not for S4ME staff? It's currently the one we prefer but we want to avoid picking a problematic name again!

Thanks so much for all the useful comments and feedback. Here on S4ME it's 50/50 but on Twitter, Bluesky, and Facebook the vast majority does find the name confusing. So we will probably make the change. We prefer a short and neutral name. @Simon M 's excellent blog is named 'ME/CFS Research...

Should we change our name: 'ME/CFS Skeptic'? Some people said it's confusing because it gives the impression that we are skeptical of ME/CFS (the illness) rather than claims and flawed research on ME/CFS. Feel free to suggest alternative names in the comments below.

Not sure if these plasma leptin measurements are related to the proteomics analysis but here's another one that found higher levels in ME/CFS patients compared to controls although the difference was not statistically significant: Plasma leptin in chronic fatigue syndrome and a...

Leptin was also increased in plasma of ME/CFS patients in this Spanish study: Association of circulating biomarkers with illness severity measures differentiates myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and post-COVID-19 condition: a prospective pilot cohort study - PubMed...