Annoying pedant. I spot errors. In the past, for a living. Now, just for kicks (it's a compulsion).
Interests: #Climate #Science #Nature #Statistics #Data #Immunology #Pathology #MECFS #Botany #Wildflowers #Gardening #Knitting #Sewing #Astronomy #Chaos #Mathematics #Art #Music
she/her (cis)
| BSky | https://bsky.app/profile/lucibee.bsky.social |
| Xitter | https://twitter.com/_Lucibee |
The shenanigans over at Xitter and consequent migration over to BlueSky have left me feeling really quite discombobulated.
Twitter was the SM platform I got on with the best. I made lots of friends there, none of whom I knew IRL. Now they are scattered to the wind - BlueSky is much harder to connect on. This place (Masto) is next to impossible too.
SM is all about content and volume. It's not great for quiet thinky people. :(
Everyone is talking about the AI-generated images in this review, but not the potentially AI-generated text. To me (as a (former) editor), that's much more concerning.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a389b/ai-midjourney-rat-penis-study-retracted-frontiers
TL;DR
I'm pretty sure this review is AI/LLM generated.
This is concerning because of the high-profile people who are currently promoting it (Eric Topol), and the fact that, if it is LLM-made, it doesn't clearly state that it is.
Is this the future???
Link to Threadreader digest: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1719780431044735264.html
"A short note on Long Covid" - Prof Chris Whitty - 31 May 2021
From the UK Covid Inquiry (13 Oct 2023).
The short answer:
Stop people getting COVID;
no COVID, no Long COVID.
First, "uninfected" actually means no PCR-positive result recorded on the national database before the start of the study (1 Jan 2021).
So possible that some of those infected in 1st wave(s) will be included in this group.
cf survivorship bias too.
Most of those in the "infected" group were "first" infected during the main omicron wave.
However, nearly all of that group will contribute ~1 year's data to the "uninfected" group too.
See suppl fig s1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.03.23288102v1.supplementary-material
Reports suggest that the potential long-lasting health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection may involve persistent dysregulation of some immune populations, but the potential clinical implications are unknown. In a nationwide cohort of 2,430,694 50+-year-olds, we compared the rates of non-Covid-19 infectious disease inpatient hospitalizations (of ≥5 hours) following the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 930,071 individuals with rates among SARS-CoV-2 uninfected from 1 January 2021 to 10 December 2022. The post-acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an incidence rate ratio of 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.88-0.92) for any infectious disease hospitalization. Findings were similar for upper- (1.08, 0.97-1.20), lower respiratory tract (0.90, 0.87-0.93), influenza (1.04, 0.94-1.15), gastrointestinal (1.28, 0.78-2.09), skin (0.98, 0.93-1.03), urinary tract (1.01, 0.96-1.08), certain invasive bacterial (0.96, 0.91-0.1.01), and other (0.96, 0.92-1.00) infectious disease hospitalizations and in subgroups. Our study does not support an increased susceptibility to non-Covid-19 infectious disease hospitalization following SARS-CoV-2 infection. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement There was no specific funding for this study. No funder had any role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The analyses were performed as surveillance activities analyses as part of the advisory tasks of the governmental institution Statens Serum Institut (SSI) for the Danish Ministry of Health. SSI's purpose is to monitor and fight the spread of disease in accordance with section 222 of the Danish Health Act. According to Danish law, national surveillance activities conducted by SSI do not require approval from an ethics committee. Both the Danish Governmental law firm and the compliance department of SSI have approved that the study is fully compliant with all legal, ethical, and IT-security requirements and there are no further approval procedures required for such studies. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes No additional data available. Owing to data privacy regulations in Denmark, the raw data cannot be shared.
Reminiscing about that time a tweet of mine (albeit a QT of an interaction) went viral.
I miss Jeremy 😢
And I'll miss the random interactions we all had on that place.
What Chalder et al. seem to have done, is to take that one item, which consists of a short series of questions. Then use that as their "gold standard" (pseudo 'objective' measure) against which the CFQ is validated.
It's all complete nonsense!
Why has no-one spotted that???
Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a disabling long-term condition of unknown cause. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published a guideline in 2021 that highlighted the seriousness of the condition, but also recommended that graded exercise therapy (GET) should not be used and cognitive–behavioural therapy should only be used to manage symptoms and reduce distress, not to aid recovery. This U-turn in recommendations from the previous 2007 guideline is controversial. We suggest that the controversy stems from anomalies in both processing and interpretation of the evidence by the NICE committee. The committee: (1) created a new definition of CFS/ME, which ‘downgraded’ the certainty of trial evidence; (2) omitted data from standard trial end points used to assess efficacy; (3) discounted trial data when assessing treatment harm in favour of lower quality surveys and qualitative studies; (4) minimised the importance of fatigue as an outcome; (5) did not use accepted practices to synthesise trial evidence adequately using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations trial evidence); (6) interpreted GET as mandating fixed increments of change when trials defined it as collaborative, negotiated and symptom dependent; (7) deviated from NICE recommendations of rehabilitation for related conditions, such as chronic primary pain and (8) recommended an energy management approach in the absence of supportive research evidence. We conclude that the dissonance between this and the previous guideline was the result of deviating from usual scientific standards of the NICE process. The consequences of this are that patients may be denied helpful treatments and therefore risk persistent ill health and disability.
However, as this extract from the MEA newsletter of Summer 1989 shows, Ho-Yen had a vast amount of experience working with patients clinically and as a haematologist and microbiologist over the previous decade.
Not only that, but he clearly recognised the importance of support groups early on, whereas other actors tried to demonise them, and blame them for perpetuating disability. :(
(link to original tweet: https://twitter.com/RFH1955/status/1508378793681031175)
The "recent survey" was this one: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1371754/
And yet, in Table 1, GPs thought that <10% of patients had "excessive" amounts of time spent on them.
In order to examine the prevalence of patients with symptoms fulfilling the criteria for the chronic fatigue syndrome an extensive survey was carried out of general practitioners on 10 local government lists in two health boards (91% response rate). At ...
