Re:No person who was born blind has ever been diagnosed with...
by ocfnash on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @08:39AM
(#22308697)
Great job; we need more good citizens like you!
I was unaware that they do at least have the implied 620 figure for the entire US correct, so there is hope that this is just a localised typo.
I can't get over how stunningly-similar this is to the infamous Verizonmath!
Re:No person who was born blind has ever been diagnosed with...
by harryh on Thursday February 13, 2020 @08:12AM
(#22317417)
Well it's been a day and, sadly, I've received no response. The error also still appears on the publication's own website:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.0015...
Re:No person who was born blind has ever been diagnosed with...
by eyeundersand on Wednesday February 12, 2020 @01:30PM
(#22311330)
Thank you for your effort.
For someone who is in academia and a firm believer in the advancement of knowledge via peer-review, these things matter. Cheers!
Subject: elementary math error in journal article
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3615184/ was linked to and discussed today from Hacker News (a popular discussion board for software engineers) here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22307445.
In the ensuing discussion a poster noticed that the journal article contains an elementary math error:
"if schizophrenia occurs at a rate of 0.72% in the population (McGrath et al., 2008) and congenital blindness occurs at an estimated rate of 0.03% in people born in the 1970s and 1980s (based on Robinson et al., 1987), then the joint probability of a person having both conditions, if the two are independent, would be 0.02% or 2 out of every 10,000."
0.72% * 0.03% is actually .0002% or 2 out of every 1,000,000.
Despite the article being several years old, I thought you might want to know.
-harryh