Search results

  1. G

    basic question: surely that his graph is visually misrepresenting the data?

    for example the distance on the graph between 0-1 is 1cm; so the ratio of 1:1 is 1cm into the graph. the ratio of 10:1 is 9cm distant away from 1:1 on the graph, but the reverse ratio is only ~0.7cm away from the 1:1, this gives a skewed perspective?
  2. G

    basic question: surely that his graph is visually misrepresenting the data?

    it was not a deliberate mislead, but surely having the ratios <1 being intrinsically logarithmic and the >1 being not logarithmic makes the data appear skewed?
  3. G

    basic question: surely that his graph is visually misrepresenting the data?

    the way it is results in the gradient/steepness of the rise prior to 1:1 appearing to be steeper than after 1, as it is all bunched up between 1 and 0. surely this effect has a name
  4. G

    i don't understand: mice ate 30% less calories but ate the equivalent amount of protein

    i am just wrecking my brain to understand this, but the issue is how is it possible to eat 30% less kJ (in the low energy group versus the high energy diet group) and yet eat the equivalent kJ in protein in a pellet diet (consisting of all the ingredients mixed together not separable)? for...
  5. G

    basic question: surely that his graph is visually misrepresenting the data?

    visually the data in the graph preceding 1:1 is skewed relative to the rest of the graph; it is bunched up before 1, therefore it is disproportionate
  6. G

    basic question: surely that his graph is visually misrepresenting the data?

    if a graph has ratio on one axis and is not logarithmic in scaling between 0-1 then surely the graph is misleading right? that is, the ration between 0-1 are infinite, logarithmic, but after 1 to ∞ the ration is not logarithmic. for example the distance on the graph between 0-1 is 1cm; so the...
  7. G

    i don't understand: mice ate 30% less calories but ate the equivalent amount of protein

    yes i also thought through the issue in that context but still the issue remains
  8. G

    i don't understand: mice ate 30% less calories but ate the equivalent amount of protein

    yes i also thought through the issue in that context but still the issue remains
  9. G

    i don't understand: mice ate 30% less calories but ate the equivalent amount of protein

    (definition of: statistic noun -a fact or piece of data obtained from a study of a large quantity of numerical data.) In a scientific study they say that the low energy diet mice ate 30% less calories but ate the same amount of protein as the high energy diet mice, but the protein intake was...
  10. G

    i don't understand "Relative Risk" in this study

    right, thank you, so that just leaves me a bit perplexed as to scenarios that have the value close to (CI 1) being so different as to be significant and not, for example that (RR 4.9; 95% CI 0.99-9.00) would be not considered significant and (RR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01-1.02) would be significant, but...
  11. G

    i don't understand "Relative Risk" in this study

    I think i understand now; so if a CI contains 1 it will not reject the null hypothesis and therefore will not be significantly different from 1? is that even if it was a CI width of (RR 4.9; 95% CI 0.99-9.00)?
  12. G

    i don't understand "Relative Risk" in this study

    i think that the range of the intervals is summed up in the means, right? but i'm trying to figure out how can RR of 1.19 be an increase, and the RR 1.26 and RR 1.68 is not an increase when the latter are larger?
  13. G

    i don't understand "Relative Risk" in this study

    hi, but are not all 3 results 95% CI? so as far as CI, they are all even? and yet the higher ones are somehow less of an increase. i must be missing some basic knowledge
  14. G

    i don't understand "Relative Risk" in this study

    hi, how can this be, that they say that the RR of 1.19 is an increase, and the RR 1.26 and RR 1.68 in not an increase? "elevated serum PTH concentration increased the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.08–1.30) but not for cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.26; 95% CI 0.96–1.66)...