advertisement


Intense exercise can give higher risk of mnd

Joe Hutch said:
It's one risk I've managed to avoid completely from the age of 13 or so, which is when I decided that cross-country running was not really my thing. Several of us would run out of sight of the games field, hide behind a bush, and then re-join the poor sods who'd run the five miles or so. Then we got a new, younger, keener games master who decided to run the course as well, so we cut games completely and went round to Sean's house for a cup of tea and a read of the Daily Mirror and the Birkenhead News.
Click to expand...
You were clearly in with a bunch of intellectuals. We just hid in an adjacent field smoking and practicing on our mouth organs, trying to sound like Bob Dylan.

God how I hated, and still hate, all that running and football crap. And I've never understood cricket and I'm 72.
 
It's all from one database, but it comes from various source data feeds. The dna analysis is central, the data is multiprovider. So it's not even a meta analysis.

The BBC headline is pointless hyperbole
 
I wonder why this particular story has got so much traction? I can’t think of any media outlet that doesn’t run a couple of these sort of stories every week.
Did they check the incidence in couch potatoes with a similar genetic disposition? It would be more relevant…
 
sq225917 said:
It's all from one database, but it comes from various source data feeds. The dna analysis is central, the data is multiprovider. So it's not even a meta analysis.
Click to expand...

It is ok to admit when you are wrong.

Meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines previously published statistical analyses. It is completely, 100% unrelated and irrelevant to what was published here. All statistical analyses in this publication were primary analyses of the source data.

The analysis only used the DNA genotyping and the questionnaire carried out by the UK Biobank. The transcriptomic analysis in this publication used data generated by the researchers themselves. So your "various source data feeds" comment is nonsense (and still 100% unrelated to meta-analysis). And in any case, integrating data from different sources is routine and powerful, so I fail to understand why even if that were the case here (which it's not) it would be grounds for complaint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top