Except these were all taken at baseline. Moreover, none of this would explain the primary outcome of interest, ACM
-
-
ACM numbers are irrelevant, as you can't get a valid conclusion from junk data, and the data here is junk.
-
Quite. Epidemiologists try to sweep GIGO under the rug in an act of misdirection, like a parlour-trick conjurer. "Ignore the fact I obviousky palmed it: look instead at my whizzo math flim-flam!"
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sorry, for some reason I didn't see this reply until now. The criticism of the statistical analysis stands even though the association with diabetes was at baseline. It's not as though everyone started their diets from a common washout diet or something.
-
No, that's the point of correcting for confounders! To put it another way, correcting for baseline results reduces the likelihood that people's characteristics at the start of the study caused the results
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.