Search results

'Preparing for tomorrow’s threats by enhancing our ability to help patients today.' 'For decades, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) research has focused on three areas: HIV, biodefense/pandemic preparedness, and all other immunological and infectious diseases...

The example you post below doesn't look like it set the bin width to 1 though. And if you have more than 2 groups, it becomes harder to see if they are all overlapping.

Think what you show is called a dot plot. Histograms are normally used to group different values on the x-axis. It turns continuous x-values in categories or bins so that each data point is no longer visible, just the frequency of each bin.

Well spotted, thanks. Looks like there might have been a small effect for complex working memory (2-Back Task; TWOB). But not for the Digit Span Backward Not sure why this paper wasn't included. They review said "Database searches were conducted on 18 April 2024 and on 6 November 2024" and...

Think this Dutch ME/CFS study will look into this but they plan to do measure a lot of things so perhaps the neurocognitive testing will not be very elaborate. https://projecten.zonmw.nl/en/project/investigating-metabolic-and-neuropathological-interactions-address-cognitive-symptoms-mecfs

There is quite a lot of heterogeneity itself though, goes to minuscule to enormous. A lot of older studies as well. I think it would be good to have a newer, bigger study to pinpoint where cognitive deficits in ME/CFS lie exactly. My guess is that the tests needs some endurance aspect, that...

I prefer these jitter plots because they show each datapoint, which isn't the case with a histogram.

Disappointing to see. They did not account for lack of blinding and subjective outcomes as a limitation. Same with all the other issues with the PACE trial. I also wonder how they ended up with a short-term effect of 6.93 points on the Chalder Fatigue Scale (CFQ), because the Cochrane review...

Biological diseases can also cause mental and emotional problems. Think causation and symptom presentation are best seen as separate things.

Reminds me of that Cochrane review on exercise for chronic low back pain. There were like 270 trials already and new ones kept coming so the authors couldn't keep up and review them all. In total there were like 400 trials on this topic! This obviously has nothing to do with science. Exercise...

The main theory seems to revolve around the concept of abortive lytic replication, which is explained in these sections:

Thanks, I haven't looked at this in depth, but noticed this in the introduction: Doesn't the score you calculated then mainly reflect the (arbitrary?) weights you gave to the categorical variables 'minor', 'moderate', 'major'? For example, I don't see why the gap between minor and moderate is...

Any updates from this? Does anyone know what the current status is?

Interesting study. Suspect it's mainly due to not having a control group. When looking up Vasopressin, it seems that it is difficult to measure due to low levels and a short half life. The main finding of this paper was that 82% of patients did not have detectable levels of Vasopressin...

Thanks very much, means a lot coming from you. Your posts and analysis really help me in understanding complex studies. Also thanks for highlighting the empty spaces - fixed it.

Not familiar with this: is it a measure of how well datapoints have clustered into separate groups? EDIT: and do the most left points corresponded to M9 (degradation of ubiquitinated proteins) and M20 (synaptic function)?

Haven't read these studies but noticed that most found substantially higher estimates than 18% for Long Covid. It's mainly the Xie 2024 Veterans Affairs study that is dragging the estimate down because it had almost half a million participants.

What kind of antibody theory are you thinking of then for this distinction to matter, the FcγRI hypothesis by Jo? In the later section we also focus on CD20, CD38 and immunoadsorption trials, so these would affect all antibodies.

Autoantibodies are just antibodies that target one of your own proteins, rather than a pathogen. So think it's also correct to just say 'antibody theory'. Yes but with negative results there will never be 100% certainty that a hypothesis is refuted so suspect that some group will not give up on...

Thanks everyone. I've corrected the spelling errors.