Discussion in 'BioMedical ME/CFS Research' started by strategist, Nov 27, 2018.
At the moment, the full article is not yet available.
This was published in a "top journal" by the way. I am not sure whether that is good or bad. I'll take it as a sign that ME/CFS is getting a little more of the respect it deserves.
Since we're allowed to post complete abstracts, I've posted it here, broken into shorter paragraphs for easier reading.
Happy to see Ron Davis publishing
More to say on this one in this month's research roundup for sure!
It's nice to see an article in a top-tier journal. I'm not a journal snob, but I'm not a fan of the amount of ME/CFS papers in the 'Frontiers' journals...
I'm curious what sort of scenario might make it 'bad' to publish a finding of this sort in a top journal?
This looks very interesting, but I am eager to see the full text.
The P values are astonishing low for such a small sample size (n = 9). For example:
“ME/CFS patients had higher entry time (~12%, p<0.0001)”
Normally, a mere 12% difference would not lead to such an extreme P value. This implies very low variance ( patient data clusters close together, and the same for control data). If that’s the case, then it could prove to be an excellent bio marker - if this replicates on a larger sample.
But last time I heard Ron talk about this (which I think was before the Stanford symposium) he said they didn’t have clean separation and more work was needed – but that information might be out to date.
Hope the journal posts full data soon.
The bit about ESR is also interesting. Low ESR has been said to be typical of ME/CFS. Others have disputed this.
Byron Hyde and others have mentioned ESR before too. 5 is considered the ideal 'low' ESR, I think I read. So 3 or lower would seem to support a diagnosis of ME, which is also what Hyde says.
"Finally, preliminary studies show that RBCs from recovering ME/CFS patients do not show such differences in cellular physiology, suggesting a connection between RBC deformability and disease severity".
I wonder what criteria points to 'severity'?
Mine tested at 2 several times.
I read that findings reported in top journals are less likely to be replicated.
A few errors and oddities (at least to me).
Well, I'll just wait it out then...
Not that they impact on what they seem to have found but it doesn't look great.
Regarding the ESR, did anyone notice differences testing that when PEMcrashed vs rested?
I vaguely remember him talking about the size of the microfluidic device and saying he needed a different size.
But again, I don't know if that was before or after this study.
Not sure about that bit though. Several years?
ETA: I see @Andy got there before me.
This is interesting.
I wonder what a recovering patient is defined as - someone who was severe and now moderate or moderate and now mild or just any mild patient, or any patient who says they are better? Also wonder if recovering patients had no differences or just less differences.
Also, this section refers to preliminary results, does that mean these results are not part of the n=9?
Regardless, if they can link magnitude of differences to severity it would definitely be a good thing.
Yes, I thought that was interesting too.
Some of the original authors are ESL. Obviously someone should have been there to review the language, but this shouldn't affect the quality of the science.
I have, there was no difference.
Separate names with a comma.