News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Rare genital defects seen in sons of men taking major dia... by golem14 on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @01:34AM (#30839116)
I don't get why this is called rare in the article. It's not called that in the actual study, so the article seems to do some editorializing:

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-4389

Looks like of the kids taken from dads taking metformin, .9% had a genital defect, which seems pretty high to me (defect in control is 0.24%). Granted, not as high as Thalidomide, but still, 9 in 1000 are not great odds.

Re:Rare genital defects seen in sons of men taking major dia... by pxeger1 on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @04:30AM (#30840168)
I think it means the genital defect is normally rare, but is much more common in these kids?
Re:Rare genital defects seen in sons of men taking major dia... by golem14 on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @04:59AM (#30840333)
Even .24% isn't that rare.

From NIH.gov:

"In the United States, a rare disease is defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 people in the US."

Re:Rare genital defects seen in sons of men taking major dia... by ianai on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @07:00AM (#30841015)
That works out to 6.0341E-06%
Re:Rare genital defects seen in sons of men taking major dia... by eMSF on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @09:52AM (#30842519)
A condition which would affect 6e-6%, or 0.000006% of the US population (330M) would affect 20 persons. 200000/330M = 0.0006 = 0.06%.
Re:Rare genital defects seen in sons of men taking major dia... by ccalloway on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @11:06AM (#30843541)
The deformity in the general population affects 0.24% of male babies, so 0.12% of the population.
Re:Rare genital defects seen in sons of men taking major dia... by InitialLastName on Tuesday March 29, 2022 @12:25PM (#30844655)
GGP is still 4 orders of magnitude off.