4 ms·

I have particular issue with “diseases” defined as done for osteopenia. Rather than define an objective measure of the problem, they (by definition) effectivel

I have particular issue with “diseases” defined as done for osteopenia. Rather than define an objective measure of the problem, they (by definition) effectively define the percentage of the population affected. In other words, osteopenia is defined in such a way that it is not curable, preventable, etc. What is the point saying, “disease X affects 5% of the population by definition”. It’s like throwing away half the resumes for a job position and saying we don’t hire unlucky people…

isbwkisbakadqv 1y ago
That’s not accurate in the case of osteopenia. It’s defined by a T score. The quantile of the distribution of bone density measurements of young, healthy people that matched the bone density of this patient. Treatments for osteopenia are basically making sure you’re getting enough calcium, vitaD, and high impact exercise…if everyone did all those things (and they worked), the rate of osteopenia would drop to zero.
- BobbyTables2 1y ago
  Yeah, and the T score doesn’t seem to have any medical basis. Between 1.0 and 2.5 standard deviation is something like 15% of the population. “1.0” and “2.5” are ridiculously round number. What is the medical significance of such? Sure, at some point, it will be correlated with fragile bones. Adult male height is roughly 5’9” with standard deviation of 2.8”. We DON’T say adult males under 5’2” are diagnosed as having medical disease.
  - DiabloD3 1y ago
    We don't, but TikTok and other pro-Russian/pro-Chinese/anti-West propaganda platforms sure as hell do. They made up a word for it, "manlet". People are, on average, fucking shitty people.
  - autoexec 1y ago
    > We DON’T say adult males under 5’2” are diagnosed as having medical disease. If males under 5’2” were having clear difficulty functioning and outcomes were measurably worse for most of them and large numbers of them were seeking treatment and we actually had safe and effective treatments which measurably decreased or eliminated the problems caused by the fact that they are under 5’2” for most of them, then I'd expect that we would consider it a medical disease/disorder. Why shouldn't we?
creata 1y ago
> What is the point saying, “disease X affects 5% of the population by definition”. As a heuristic for identifying when something deserves attention?

isbwkisbakadqv 1y ago

That’s not accurate in the case of osteopenia. It’s defined by a T score. The quantile of the distribution of bone density measurements of young, healthy people that matched the bone density of this patient. Treatments for osteopenia are basically making sure you’re getting enough calcium, vitaD, and high impact exercise…if everyone did all those things (and they worked), the rate of osteopenia would drop to zero.

BobbyTables2 1y ago
Yeah, and the T score doesn’t seem to have any medical basis. Between 1.0 and 2.5 standard deviation is something like 15% of the population. “1.0” and “2.5” are ridiculously round number. What is the medical significance of such? Sure, at some point, it will be correlated with fragile bones. Adult male height is roughly 5’9” with standard deviation of 2.8”. We DON’T say adult males under 5’2” are diagnosed as having medical disease.
- DiabloD3 1y ago
  We don't, but TikTok and other pro-Russian/pro-Chinese/anti-West propaganda platforms sure as hell do. They made up a word for it, "manlet". People are, on average, fucking shitty people.
- autoexec 1y ago
  > We DON’T say adult males under 5’2” are diagnosed as having medical disease. If males under 5’2” were having clear difficulty functioning and outcomes were measurably worse for most of them and large numbers of them were seeking treatment and we actually had safe and effective treatments which measurably decreased or eliminated the problems caused by the fact that they are under 5’2” for most of them, then I'd expect that we would consider it a medical disease/disorder. Why shouldn't we?

creata 1y ago

> What is the point saying, “disease X affects 5% of the population by definition”. As a heuristic for identifying when something deserves attention?