Relationship between pineal gland, sleep and melatonin in fibromyalgia women: a magnetic resonance imaging study, 2021, Leon-Llamas et al

[Andy]

Abstract

A total of 80% of fibromyalgia (FM) population have reported poor sleep. In this regard, the pineal gland, involved in circadian rhythm processes as a key neuroendocrine organ which mainly synthesises and secretes melatonin, has never been studied before in this population. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the parenchyma pineal volume and its relation to sleep hours, sleep quality index and melatonin level at night. A total of 50 participants, 30 women with FM and 20 healthy control women underwent cranial magnetic resonance imaging. The total pineal volume, cyst pineal volume and parenchyma pineal volume were manually calculated in cubic millimetres. Also, the total pineal volume was estimated using Hasehawa method. Parenchyma pineal volume was significantly correlated with sleep hours (p-value = 0.041) and nocturnal melatonin level (p-value = 0.027). Moreover, there was also a non-significant correlation between parenchyma pineal volume and sleep quality index (p-value = 0.055). Furthermore, a mean parenchyma pineal volume of 102.00 (41.46) mm³ was observed, with a prevalence of 29.60% cyst in FM group. This is the first study that has reported pineal gland volumes, cyst prevalence and correlative relationships between parenchyma pineal volume and sleep hours and melatonin levels in women with FM.

Open access, cambridge.org/core/journals/acta-neuropsychiatrica/article/relationship-between-pineal-gland-sleep-and-melatonin-in-fibromyalgia-women-a-magnetic-resonance-imaging-study/E384DD97AB79BC5DD2ABD7D75CBB5CF4

 

[Arnie Pye]

non-significant correlation

To any statisticians out there... Does this sequence of words make any sense at all? If any correlation is non-significant then there isn't a correlation. Is there?

 

[Kitty]

If any correlation is non-significant then there isn't a correlation. Is there?

I read it as a correlation that doesn't reach statistical significance. But then again I haven't mastered long division yet, so I'm not exactly the go-to person on anything to do with maths...

 

[CRG]

To any statisticians out there... Does this sequence of words make any sense at all? If any correlation is non-significant then there isn't a correlation. Is there?

It is the kind of thing you have to say in a report; mathematically the numbers show correlation so the authors need to comment on that, and then explain what the statistical measures they are using show about that correlation. In this case the correlation does not stand up to the statistical measures as having significance, i.e it is more than likely the result of chance as opposed to showing something real.