3 ms·
Actual study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2844764 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/28447... ”After adjusting f
by jader201 7mo ago
Actual study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2844764 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/28447...
”After adjusting for potential confounders and pooling results across cohorts, higher caffeinated coffee intake was significantly associated with lower dementia risk (141 vs 330 cases per 100 000 person-years comparing the fourth [highest] quartile of consumption with the first [lowest] quartile; hazard ratio, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.76 to 0.89]) and lower prevalence of subjective cognitive decline (7.8% vs 9.5%, respectively; prevalence ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.93]).”
So about 18% relative reduction. But if your risks are already low (e.g. active and healthy diet) the relative reduction is less impactful (e.g. 4% to 3.28%).
- weird-eye-issue 7mo ago> the relative reduction is less impactful (e.g. 4% to 3.28% That's also an 18% reduction
- Xunjin 7mo agoI think what he means is a reduction of 18% based on 4% is way less than 18% based on 80%.
- infinitewars 7mo agoPercents of percents always felt kludgey. Log probabilities (like decibans) unify this to say there is a -0.86 dB risk reduction for everybody. https://rationalnumbers.james-kay.com/?p=306 https://rationalnumbers.james-kay.com/?p=306 It makes the math of combining risks easier and works the same even if we're operating near 99.999% or 0.0001%
- jader201 7mo agoThat’s exactly my point. If someone is high risk, say 20%, then an 18% drop from that is 14.4%. That may justify picking up caffeine. But if you’re otherwise healthy, picking up caffeine has diminishing returns, and the downsides may not be worth it.