News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Man given genetically modified pig heart dies by phkahler on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @05:32PM (#30620858)
That's why I'm noticing studies that use "all cause mortality". In other words, some people receive X treatment and a similar control group does not. Then you look at how many died in each group regardless of cause because it's just too difficult (and death is pretty much a binary measure). For example, cholesterol lowering drugs (I don't have a source) seem to have no impact on all-cause-mortality, suggesting a failure in our understanding.
Re:Man given genetically modified pig heart dies by rurp on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @05:47PM (#30620979)
Certain invasive cancer treatments can look a lot more effective than they really are, if all cause mortality isn't measured. It's possible to reduce the risk of a patient dying from the particular cancer they have while also lowering their overall life expectancy, since the procedure itself can be extremely harmful.
Re:Man given genetically modified pig heart dies by Fomite on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @06:14PM (#30621235)
I have a slide in a lecture somewhere noting that no one would ever die of a healthcare-associated infection if, when admitted to the hospital, they were put in a room full of ozone or hydrogen peroxide fog and intense UV light, while never being seen by a nurse or doctor.
Re:Man given genetically modified pig heart dies by ncmncm on Thursday March 10, 2022 @08:02AM (#30626427)
Dying from lung damage is discounted in that scenario.
Re:Man given genetically modified pig heart dies by Fomite on Thursday March 10, 2022 @07:24PM (#30634540)
Indeed. That's the point of the example. "You will almost certainly die in this room, but you won't die of an infection. So if we just look at infection-related mortality, everything is fine."