The paper starts pretty oddly - that's a higher prevalence range than I would bet on and even with that, they suggest it's a rare condition? Perhaps compared to obesity or heart disease... But it's nice to see a paper treat 'CFS' as just another disease, one that has the problems of no diagnostic test, with genetic expression (mRNA) studies being small and from a range of sample types (e.g. whole blood; PBMCs). I suspect the real answers are replication, larger sample sizes, and lab technique improvements rather than transformation functions. But still, it's nice to see scientists using CFS datasets in this way, trying to make the existing data more useful.