3 ms·
this isn't necessarily true. if the study had 1000 women and 100 men, it would be a lot more likely that the result in men was wrong. similarly, if the effect w
by adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
this isn't necessarily true. if the study had 1000 women and 100 men, it would be a lot more likely that the result in men was wrong. similarly, if the effect was 20x weaker in men than women, but still existed you would be much more likely to see no effect in men even though effects existed for both.
- A_D_E_P_T 3y agoNot necessarily true in a theoretical sense, sure. But there's absolutely no indication that they enrolled 10x (or even 2x) more women than men. Nor is there any indication of any effect in men, 20x weaker or otherwise. (If we're charitable, it's pretty much a flat zero.)
- sbierwagen 3y agoTotal study size was 282,541 people, 128,322 men and 154,218 women. From supplementary material 1, page 27: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.23.23290253v1.supplementary-material https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.23.23290253v...