Search results

Others with access to the data will be able to graph things for you better than I ever could! I think the standard deviations and numbers in ranges 0-29, 30-59 and 60-100 give some of the info you would like. Here they are again:

The IDs in the EEfRT data (eg HV A, PI-ME/CFS B) do not appear in the mapMECFS data at all. The IDs in the publicly available data have been made more user-friendly. The IDs in the mapMECFS data are different. I don't think it would be safe to assume that the order in which they appear in the...

The IDs are different in the publicly available data and the mapMECFS data. So I don't think you will be able to do this, unless I'm missing something.

I looked at a few things you might expect to differ between groups if one group were having difficulty with the task. I hypothesised that a group having difficulty with doing a task would have: Longer choice time Lower recorded presses Higher completion time Lower button press rate compared to...

I've made a correction to one of my posts above. 47% of patients had a lower success rate for hard tasks than all healthy volunteers.

Correction: My original post stated that 7/17 (41%) of patients had a lower success rate for hard tasks than all healthy volunteers. This should have been 7/15, making the correct percentage 47%. No wonder there were so many zeros on that p-value. Surely the major finding of this task should...

Sorry I was editing my post as realisation dawned that Murph's point could apply. I'll leave that to others to check.

I thought patient B might have been purposely giving himself breaks, as he had four tasks in the second half of his 53 trials where he only pressed the button a few times - no-one else did this (unless Healthy F did it), and he did it four times, interspersed with successfully completed tasks...

My second attempt, which addresses @Simon M 's 2nd point, but not his first, because his first is beyond me. Hopefully one or other of us will be able to make it better at some point.

Ooh I managed to do this bit.

Glad it made some sense. My brain can't follow this after chart-exertion, but other brains will and I trust they will reply and do what needs doing!

I've sent you a message! I wanted to do number 2 but my brain imploded at the thought of patients and healthies being mixed and at the thought of how to separate them. You clearly have skillz. So maybe we can collaborate?

Does this help to visualise the fundamental problem with the effort task's validity when used to compare pwME and healthies? To me, it helps me see that while, yes, the blue lines are a little lower for the patients than the healthies, the real issue is the difference between the red lines, ie...

Yes, they are reassuring - I felt it would be helpful to get clarity as there was speculation about the severity of patient participants. No, according to the user agreement, I can only share data with others who have registered with mapMECFS. I did that by clicking on the link under Data...

Short Form 36 Physical Function scores were not reported in the Walitt et al. 2024 “Deep phenotyping” paper, but I find them helpful to get a sense of how mild or severe one study cohort is compared to others. I requested access to the data, and have calculated means (SDs) for the healthy...

I'd add: - a belief that you can tell when the individual person in front of you is improving or deteriorating due to therapy versus when they're improving or deteriorating due to spontaneous change/other factors.

And to further clarify, all of the studies that have used a 2- or 3-point decrease in Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire score to indicate clinically useful improvement in fatigue have used the 33-point Likert scale. e.g. PACE, Crawley et al 2013, GETSET Here are links to the Collin & Crawley 2017...

You’re right to point this out – I realised in the middle of a rest last week that it would have been helpful if I had clarified that Adamson et al were using the 33-point Likert scale for the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire. Collin & Crawley 2017 also used the 33-point Likert scale. As far as...

When you click on the link to the letter (below) you'll see "Access options". On the right, beneath "Purchase content", it says "Rent with DeepDyve". If you click on "Rent article", it should come up for free. (No renting required!)...

So sorry you're not able to access the letter and thanks for kind words. I can view it in Google Chrome but not in Microsoft Edge, so perhaps it's worth trying a couple of different browsers? I'll sign in here tomorrow when my brain's functioning and see what I can do. Others may have...