Ah yes, you read it more carefully than I did. Though I think it's possible it would have passed multiple test correction if they had considered all the other original proteins for the second analysis as well. In the first depleted protein analysis, haptoglobin was significantly decreased after...
I looked through all the references. Other than 31 through 34, the rest seem to be referring to real sources. The ones that do not appear to be real are all of the citations from the section "Biopsychosocial complexity and the role of the initial infection".
Interestingly, four other citations...
I'd be surprised if it was not AI. I can't think of a good reason to just make up the title of a paper, and it's something AI is very much known to do:
Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT, 2023, Nature
Forbes: The Irony—AI Expert’s Testimony Collapses...
The first several references seem real, so I looked at the last three, after the one you referenced, which also have issues:
Wrong DOI, journal, and date. Actually a preprint.
Title doesn't appear to exist.
Title doesn't appear to exist.
Oh what about IGHV3-30? Two or three studies have found small but significant increases in this gene on B cell receptors.
I don't even know if making a tracer specifically for a small section of a BCR is possible. But if so, it might point us to where exactly these odd B cells are active...
First is raw scores, so basically the same as figure 3D, but with consistent intervals on the x-axis. Second is absolute change from timepoint 0 (how many points up or down). Third is fold change from timepoint 0 (e.g. doubling the score would be 2).
I'm not totally sure what this means and I...
Here's the change as a ratio of each time point to the start of the study.
A ratio with the 85-112 timepoint (when the dara was administered) would be kind of misleading because the first dara injection was 5 days into this 28 day range, so the reference point for the start would mostly be data...
I'd say the top four look pretty good. The paper was saying participants 2 (red) and 5 (green) were also responders based on questionnaires, with participant 5 not sustaining the improvement.
Participant 2's (red) subjective improvement does seem really close to the other four sustained...
It's kind of hard to make out what's going on in the chart of steps vs. time (fig. 5A) because they all start from a wide variety of baseline steps. So I plotted change in steps from start of study to make it easier to see the timeline of improvement.
Each position on the x-axis is an average...
I don't know. It'd be great to have large effect sizes, but the next best thing is at least being significant. Until we have a reason to forget about it, like a study that finds the opposite, I think it's fine to speculate about. Small but significant can still be biologically meaningful.
You...
No, it'd be log2(x mg/dL) = [number on y axis]
So reverse the calculation. To go from the y axis to the real measurement, you do 2^number. So a value of 8 on the chart equals 2^8=256 mg/dL.
I think it's normally done when the data is skewed. Taking the log makes it more normally distributed...
Ok thanks. How did you select traits to highlight? For example, BTN3A2 has 97 traits, some with even lower p values than some of the traits in your table, such as height or teeth issues.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.