3 ms·

> The researchers divided 500,000-plus cases into four categories: male doctors treating men; male doctors treating women; female doctors treating men; and fema

> The researchers divided 500,000-plus cases into four categories: male doctors treating men; male doctors treating women; female doctors treating men; and female doctors treating women. “All of those are statistically indistinguishable except for male doctor–female patient,” says Brad Greenwood, an author on the study and a data scientist at the University of Minnesota. If a heart attack patient is a woman and her emergency physician is a man, he says, her risk of death suddenly rises by about 12 percent.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
I wanted to look at the actual numbers and see how close the findings were, but I don't see the study linked nor the title of the study (I do see a different study, but it isn't the one those numbers are from). A different article someone else linked seemed to have the study, but it is behind a pay wall. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1800097115 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1800097115 This seems to have the actual numbers though. http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/07/31/1800097115.DCSupplemental/pnas.1800097115.sapp.pdf?bcsi_scan_e37e3cdb4dc1fe17=guyu7gXOKbf8P6pHGjl97AiZQwMPAAAA9MepTg==&bcsi_scan_filename=pnas.1800097115.sapp.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/07/31/1800097115... I'm having trouble grasping how to read the tables (especially given it seems Female Physician Female Patient is repeated twice on tables S2 and S3, but I think that is just a title error. Here are the numbers, best as I can grasp. S2 is full, S3 is matched Mean then standard deviation. M/MS2:.881/.114 M/MS3:.870/.124 M/FS2:.854/.353 M/FS3:.861/.121 F/MS2:.887/.120 F/MS3:.867/.130 F/FS2:.857/.116 F/FS3:.862/.112 Figure S2 looks interesting (M/F and F/F seem equal while M/M seems better than F/M), but I'm not sure what the real axis are. Edit: formatting

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

I wanted to look at the actual numbers and see how close the findings were, but I don't see the study linked nor the title of the study (I do see a different study, but it isn't the one those numbers are from). A different article someone else linked seemed to have the study, but it is behind a pay wall. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1800097115 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1800097115 This seems to have the actual numbers though. http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/07/31/1800097115.DCSupplemental/pnas.1800097115.sapp.pdf?bcsi_scan_e37e3cdb4dc1fe17=guyu7gXOKbf8P6pHGjl97AiZQwMPAAAA9MepTg==&bcsi_scan_filename=pnas.1800097115.sapp.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2018/07/31/1800097115... I'm having trouble grasping how to read the tables (especially given it seems Female Physician Female Patient is repeated twice on tables S2 and S3, but I think that is just a title error. Here are the numbers, best as I can grasp. S2 is full, S3 is matched Mean then standard deviation. M/MS2:.881/.114 M/MS3:.870/.124 M/FS2:.854/.353 M/FS3:.861/.121 F/MS2:.887/.120 F/MS3:.867/.130 F/FS2:.857/.116 F/FS3:.862/.112 Figure S2 looks interesting (M/F and F/F seem equal while M/M seems better than F/M), but I'm not sure what the real axis are. Edit: formatting