Search results

Yes I might be a typo because when trying to do a t-test of all participants' slope, I got the same results they report namely t =32 and p = 0.008. I think the most straightforward approach would be to use a linear mixed effect model that tests for the interaction of patient_group and blocks...

Their Sas code looks like this: https://github.com/docwalitt/National-Institutes-of-Health-Myalgic-Encephalomyelitis-Chronic-Fatigue-Syndrome-Code-Repository/blob/main/EEfRT/EEfRT%20Hard%20Task%20Choice%20Proc%20GEE.sas

So they did exclude those with a choice time of 5 seconds. @Nitro802 @andrewkq I reran the Python GEE analysis I did before and now got the exact same result as theirs: (OR) = 1.652 [1.029, 2.653], p = 0.038. So the minor difference (I previously got an OR of 1.60) was due to those with a...

I noticed that 2 weeks ago Walitt et al. have added new files on EEfRT to the code Github repository for the study that were not there before. https://github.com/docwalitt/National-Institutes-of-Health-Myalgic-Encephalomyelitis-Chronic-Fatigue-Syndrome-Code-Repository/tree/main/EEfRT The Readme...

If I try to do this using statsmodels in python I get: t = 3.1995698023875945, p-value = 0.007638634835067758 There is one NaN (for HV-5 blok 5) and in my calculation I simply ignored this value.

If you click on 'Source Data' in the Walitt et al. paper you find the data behind the figures. For figure 4B you get the data for each of the participants for 5 blocks (the first , the last before fatigue and the first three after fatigue). In the graph they seem to have plotted the means per...

These look like the main results:

These seem to be the main results: So the (small) ME/CFS group had lower hair cortisol than the healthy and arthritis but pervious studies have not found consistent results. The authors write:

In the data and graphs I used, no. I suspect Walitt et al. did not exclude them either because they don't mention this in the paper and the data sheet says that those with 5s choice time had valid data (Valid Data_is_1 = 1). If I remember correctly, Treadway et al. said that these should be...

No I initially used the number of hard task divided by the total number of trials because that is easier to interpret. I suspect they use this ratio because odds are easier to work with in statistical modelling but when plotting the raw data I think that dividing by the total number of trials...

There's also this graph that shows the mean of hard task choices per group as the trials progressed, originally posted here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/use-of-eefrt-in-the-nih-study-deep-phenotyping-of-pi-me-cfs-2024-walitt-et-al.37463/page-24#post-520344

Hope that this is what you mean:

I think so. Without excluding those 5, the controls would have a higher amount of 'virtual rewards': https://www.s4me.info/threads/use-of-eefrt-in-the-nih-study-deep-phenotyping-of-pi-me-cfs-2024-walitt-et-al.37463/page-33#post-537825

What do you mean by PHTC?

This seems like an important point. I think they should have done a sensitivity analysis and report in the discussion how the data looks like if they maintained the same requirements (might have overlooked this but couldn't find it in the paper). Hopefully we will get access to the data so that...

I've asked him the following: Could you explain why you think fitness matching is not a good idea? If many CPET measurements are collinear with VO2peak, doesn't this suggest that differences could be due to deconditioning rather than ME/CFS? I would think that fitness matching makes...

It would be interesting if we could analyze the data ourselves. The paper writes: Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the data at the mapMECFS repository: has anyone else found it?

Todd Davenport wrote on Twitter: I have no idea what he means by this. If many CPET measurements are collinear with sex and VO2peak, than this simply means that these difference in the measurements could be due to sex or deconditioning rather than ME/CFS. So it would mean that it is important...

Interesting study. Unfortunate that it was not published in a more prominent journal. The results and discussion sections are also quite extensive, making it is hard to find the main data. What I would like to see is a group comparison between the 55 ME/CFS patients and their matched controls...

Abstract Background: Many individuals without coeliac disease or wheat allergy reduce their gluten intake because they believe that gluten causes their gastrointestinal symptoms. Symptoms could be affected by negative expectancy. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the effects of expectancy...