Search results

The corrected proof has been uploaded. Note this is basically just a journal typeset of the paper—there's no actual corrections as far as I can tell.

I think this is the way forward. Focus on ME. It will limit the scope and make the proposal more targetted, but the method/results could be generalised and applied to other illnesses.

Obviously, this is an NIHR proposal and there's no NIHR highlight notice for ME/CFS, but I am aware of projects where part of the funding comes indirectly from other sources (i.e., a mix of MRC and NIHR). Have you seen this...

I think that's probably worthwhile. My question is how much is your proposal specific to ME/CFS? It seems the overall concept of the research is more general, but you would use ME/CFS as a sort of case study?

Personally, I don't think we should be using unproven hypotheses to explain illnesses to patients. We had this with the dysregulation model stuff for ME/CFS back in late 2021. I happen to think it matters whether the explaination is true (or not)!

Honestly, I hate all this stuff. We don't even understand the basics of fatigue or brain fog and we're playing around with neurofeedback devices and AI. This just feels like researchers playing with toys of their choice. Also, the way this project is framed makes me think that this is motivated...

I didn't know that they outsourced it. This seems like the sort of work that could be done in-house, especially if your org has 25+ staff.

Minutes for the 2023 AGM. The minutes for the regular meeting that followed the AGM will be published once they are approved at the June APPG meeting.

Standard deviation shows spread, but standard error is used to compare means between groups, usually via significance testing using confidence intervals. But in this case, as the numbers in the two arms are essentially the same, we can just use standard error as a proxy for standard deviation.

Is there a stray 'Reports' in the title, @dave30th? Before 'Proves'.

Thank you.

Thanks, but I've got that one, @Dolphin, I'm looking for the Liverpool CFS service document mentioned in the previous few posts.

Does anyone have a copy of this document? The above link won't let me download.

ME Research Annual Report 2022 (published May 2023)

One of Sarah's main criticisms is on the purpose of the paper: What exactly is the take home message? What are the main results? I agree with her that this needs work. The paper is essentially an initial overview of the questionnaire respones and some 'association fishing', but people want clear...

I've just seen the first review, from Prof. Sarah Tyson, has been posted, and is a 'Not Approved'. There are some good points in there that I agree with, and some stuff I don't.

It's a sarcastic joke, based on the prevalent stereotype (at least in the late 80s/90s) of ME being an illness that afflicted only (or primarily) young professionals (yuppies), who were middle-class, socially mobile, with a well-paying job. So yes, I'm juxtaposing that stereotype with the result...

There is some information on the current situation with Scotland and the NICE guideline, here: https://meassociation.org.uk/medical-matters/items/nice-guideline-northern-ireland-scotland-wales/

I think he's saying (b), but I don't agree that's what we need.

I have added some tweets to that thread. I don't agree that we need hypothesis-driven proposals (quite the opposite—we have too many dispararte hypotheses in ME/CFS research, IMO). I also would like to know how many proposals the Morten group have submitted to MRC.