Well, here's the table. The bottom two rows are the interesting ones NO significant differences between reported proportions for pretty much any subgroup of lean vs obese peoplepic.twitter.com/BgYhKLu0J3
Epidemiologist. Writer (Guardian, Observer etc). "Well known research trouble-maker". PhDing at @UoW Host of @senscipod Email gidmk.healthnerd@gmail.com he/him
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.
| Country | Code | For customers of |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 40404 | (any) |
| Canada | 21212 | (any) |
| United Kingdom | 86444 | Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2 |
| Brazil | 40404 | Nextel, TIM |
| Haiti | 40404 | Digicel, Voila |
| Ireland | 51210 | Vodafone, O2 |
| India | 53000 | Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance |
| Indonesia | 89887 | AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata |
| Italy | 4880804 | Wind |
| 3424486444 | Vodafone | |
| » See SMS short codes for other countries | ||
This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.
Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
Well, here's the table. The bottom two rows are the interesting ones NO significant differences between reported proportions for pretty much any subgroup of lean vs obese peoplepic.twitter.com/BgYhKLu0J3
In fact, it appears as if the main finding of this paper completely contradicts the results of this analysis. There does not appear to be any statistically significant differences in the reported values when comparing lean and obese people at all!
Now, that's pretty bad. But it gets worse This study was probably not designed to test the question of obese vs lean How do we know? Look at the sample size calculationpic.twitter.com/NtOj1k7zwi
So, they've computed their sample size based on the idea that they want to detect an effect size of 0.25 between two groups But...they didn't include any indication of obese vs lean here. The eventual sample size (150) shows us that
Instead, it seems almost certain that the original study just looked at lying in fasted vs breakfasted people We can actually see this even more clearly because they ran 36 people through the entire procedure only to exclude them after the fact!pic.twitter.com/YcaJhAfNFh
This starts to get a bit murky, because I cannot find a pre-registration for the study That's worrying, because changing your hypothesis after running a study is a classic sign of p-hacking
Another sign is the statistical analysis. I count upwards of 100 comparisons (Fisher's exact test, chi squared etc) with no correction for multiple comparisons That's...worrying
If you apply a Bonferroni correction to the results, pretty much every statistically significant finding completely disappears, which is not surprising given that they ran SO MANY tests
Bringing it back home, we have this sentence in the discussion According to supplementary table 4, this simply isn't true!pic.twitter.com/zNm5GfENI8
Obese people had differences in behaviour, but the statistical comparisons DIDN'T SHOW A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE Pretty major issue, that
Anyway, the paper is abhorrent regardless, but I think it also shows some worrying signs of being constructed after the fact from a dataset of a trial with different aims
Oh, another issue - the paper makes an inherently misleading claim about causality. The primary findings were of a subgroup analysis of non-randomized groups (lean vs obese) and so it's not clear whether this was causal anyway
Because the randomization was simply fasted vs breakfast, the causal attribution for this study should be comparing those two groups, not the subgroups of obese vs lean
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.