Search results

I think it’s short enough to post here: Thank you for your interest in our systematic review. We have with interest read your suggestion that the certainty of evidence could have been rated as 'low' or 'very low' due to imprecision and inconsistency...

Am I correct in saying that this ‘review’ is mostly just a summary of their previous work?

I believe you’re correct. They say this:

I wonder what we would get it if we could feed that data from DecodeME into one of these models? Also, this warning will always be appropriate: No model is infallible, Dr. Zitnik said. A.I. can sometimes make predictions “based on evidence that isn’t sufficiently strong.” Dr. Colvis said...

I wonder how many people with ME/CFS or LC that gets an initial diagnosis of depression? I can certainly see how lockdown and a pandemic would have a negative impact on mental health, so some increase to depression is expected.

So out of touch, people don’t watch Flintstones today! /s

Another terrible summary of what ME/CFS is. But the article itself is free of any BPS.

So nice to see that everyone are able to come together to work towards the noble cause of smothering the bothersome sick people.

I fear they are just going to perpetuate the bad practices from elsewhere. If you want to learn from others, it might be a good idea to ensure that they know what they are doing. Industry standard doesn’t make it scientifically sound.

They looked a 977 patients in total. Of those, 82 had biopsies after LC and 3 had from before LC. I don’t know why they had biopsies, maybe they hade the worst symptoms?

Can we say that based on 50 patients?

Good point! But they could spin it to argue that it’s possible to keep up your activity level despite of the symptoms, and that the symptoms will eventually be unlearned if they keep at it.

This section reads like a business management report! It seems like they are trying to position themselves for grants and funding. The article is among the top 1 % on terms of readers and it was cited twice on the day it was published: Evolving concepts in sepsis: we are making progress...

Thank you! So they only looked at first time infections? Am I correct in saying that only 137 out of 7839 individuals with persistent symptoms after an infection reported both fatigue and shortness of breath? This would certainly indicate that the category of ‘persistent symptoms’ included...

Why did they only study 350 out of the 20,000+ participants?

Lol, that has some funny implications: Ants have an expectation of death, but certain jellyfish and lobsters don’t. Dogs live shorter lives than us because they expect to die sooner. We should never tell anyone they have a terminal diagnosis because that might speed things up.

Ugh, I don’t believe she has a good understanding of LC or ME/CFS at all. It looks a lot like what I thought of both diagnoses after around one year, and I was wrong about pretty much everything. It seems to me like she’s had some kind of PVF based on how she says that she didn’t fit some of...

It looks like they might have only done a submaximal CPET: Current optimal treatment to avoid PEM in patients with long COVID includes avoiding overexertion, and as such, long COVID participants were instructed to avoid exercise above the heart rate at the first ventilatory threshold. This was...

They are essentially saying: We accepted the model as true without actually checking. We’ve now checked, and we concluded that it isn’t true. But we still want to use it. So they’ve essentially showed that they have no integrity at all.

It seems like they just put the set of genes into something calles ToppGene Suite and reported to result.