Causal evidence that Alzheimer's may be caused by an infection

Re:Causal evidence that Alzheimer's may be caused by an infe... by shkkmo on Friday May 26, 2023 @02:03PM (#36087644)

>Are you ignoring the fact that it might have a negative effect, rather than a protective effect?

Nope. We can be 95% confident that there is an effect for women but we can't be 95% certain that there is no effect for men.

Given that the error ranges overlap, we don't even have a high level of certainty that the effect for men doesn't equal the effect for women.

> The range for men is -1.9 to +2.1 -- which averages out to +0.2

Technically it averages out as +0.1

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Causal evidence that Alzheimer's may be caused by an infe... by A_D_E_P_T on Friday May 26, 2023 @02:11PM (#36087736)

> we can't be 95% certain that there is no effect for men.

They're at P=0.93 right now. So they're very close.

Whereas, for women, P=0.0013.

Taking everything into consideration, that's exactly what I'd call "a high level of certainty that the effect for men doesn't equal the effect for women."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Causal evidence that Alzheimer's may be caused by an infe... by shkkmo on Saturday May 27, 2023 @03:52AM (#36092863)

> They're at P=0.93 right now. So they're very close.

A big P value is bad.

> that's exactly what I'd call "a high level of certainty that the effect for men doesn't equal the effect for women."

Then you are operating off a non-standard cutoff for certainty because the paper explicitly states that the difference between the effect on male vs female is only statistically significant for the sub category of Alzheimer's.

[ Parent | on HN ]