Search results

This is the data I'm using: HVA includes trials from Trial 1 to Trial 44, but only 38 observations, missing Trials 3, 6, 8, 11 and others. PI-ME/CFS A includes trials from Trail 1 to Trial 47, but only 33 observations; missing Trials 4, 6, 8 and others. Edited to add: There are other examples...

Very disappointing but I guess not surprising. The paper directly cautions that the test could conflate ability and choices. The culture seems very protective of the published.

Thank you. I am compiling a list of concerns based on what I’ve seen so far. Many do not require further modeling/analysis. But may support/expand critique of logic/rigor. Others are areas of suspicion where strange data modeling/statistical practices may be distorting or misrepresenting...

Will you tag me as well? I'm not able to commit, but I'd love to support as I'm able.

2b - Just noticed that they included easy versus hard as a variable. Your model filters to include only hard tasks selected. Note: It seems strange to me to add in a three way interaction effect variable. They did not reveal the selection process for variables as they did for the choosing...

1. As I shared earlier, see notes under Figure 3a - "The Odds Ratio for the probability of choosing the hard task at the start of the task is 1.65 [1.03, 2.65], p = 0.04 using Fisher’s Exact test." (As I've shared in other comments, this is very odd. And is the only statistic they share for...

Do we know if NIH declared how many trials were to happen before the official "start" of trial 0? This graph shows more PwME selecting hard trials than HV's. With higher failure rate. ( See my comments above about them only using the first trial in the statistic they shared in the paper...

@ME/CFS Skeptic - I looked at your results today and rusty tired brain didn’t see anything to help you out yet. Sorry. Will look more with fresher brain whenever that happens. Lol - Re:My earlier comment I hadn’t looked at your results as closely yesterday and thought NIH hadn’t gotten a...

@andrewkq (Edit to add my enthusiasm and fatigue conspired against me. May not be as bad a liar as I thought - at least for this particular statistic.) From the notes of Figure 3a - "The Odds Ratio for the probability of choosing the hard task at the start of the task is 1.65 [1.03, 2.65], p =...

I’d love to. Reminder that: Rusty and severe and new terrain. lol! But very motivated. Ironically.

“Unambiguously biological” but also "Rather than physical exhaustion or a lack of motivation, fatigue may arise from a mismatch between what someone thinks they can achieve and what their bodies perform."

I’m reviewing some older comments and this still seems relevant. Given standard process for eefrt is specifically for motivation not fatigue & cautions that fatigue can confound results - falsification by design. & Speaks to intent. Falsifying by data omission. Just noting these may be...

:emoji_dart::emoji_trophy::sun:

Do you mind sharing your complaint?

wow. wowowowowow. Still digesting but so far it seems like this amounts to : Walitt et al. recklessly* failed to calibrate equipment for EEfRT test, causing misleading results. This failure is tantamount to falsification of results via manipulation of process and equipment. Y'all's work is...

Wow. I’ve just found this and am digesting it. Thanks so much for sharing. FWIW - I’m severe, but have masters in statistics and spent 21 years working with scientists and business teams. My background isn’t medical or research. And I’m rusty on stat details. Happy to collaborate or support as...

Thank you! I believe this was in the list of other studies you sent and I found it very notable. I'd say that once you find physical evidence that explains the symptom - there is no evidence for keeping the FND diagnosis. No overlap and no Venn. It's ironically maddening their tea party of...

Thanks so much Gachaman!

Thanks so much! Thanks so much, Andy.