Can I clarify? -- If both numbers doubled, which is to say we had 248 of which 10 survived to age 100 or more, and the vast majority of them had high LDL, high HDL, and low TG from a decade and a half earlier, you'd consider that a statistical blip?
-
-
Replying to @DaveKeto @ethanjweiss and
Potentially. How many of the 248 had those same results? How many of them developed the results at/before age 85? What's the breakdown by gender, SES, ethnicity etc? Like I said, it depends on a lot of things!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @ethanjweiss and
I'm not disputing that it depends on a lot of things, but to be sure, LDL gets attention in singularity. Even in addressing it in combination with HDL and TG I get pushback. Certainly I'd want an even more robust dataset of inflammation markers, fasting insulin, thyroid, etc...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DaveKeto @ethanjweiss and
Oh man, I'm not even talking about the specifics of the biomarkers here, I'm just saying the minimum I'd want before analyzing the dataset to make any conclusions other than "this is interesting"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @ethanjweiss and
If the five surviving centenarians were all two pack a day smokers at 85 and this were unusual from their likewise cohorts, I'd find this more than interesting.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DaveKeto @ethanjweiss and
I wouldn't, to be honest. Large samples make unlikely things a given, there are lots of statistically unlikely people out there. If we're talking the US, there are at least 300 1-in-a-million people out there! That's what controlled studies are for imo
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @ethanjweiss and
Wow -- okay. We definitely differ there. Again, it is more than interesting not that the only survivors to that age all have something in common, it's that they all have something in common that is considered dangerous and life threatening.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DaveKeto @ethanjweiss and
Yeh but that's the issue with big datasets. Maybe 99% of people like this die at 65 but the 1% remaining are really hardy. Maybe we all develop this biomarker set eventually, so it's just a function of age
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK @ethanjweiss and
Hardy? (I need to find my cocked-eyebrow emoticon for this one...)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DaveKeto @ethanjweiss and
Lol, it's a better term than "medically unusual" or "statistically unlikely" don't you think?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Thought you might enjoy an example from my own work - of all the people aged over 100 in a sample of people who've had HbA1c tests, none of the most disadvantaged people (low SES) had diabetes. SES is a massive risk factor for diabetes, so it's very unusual
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.