240
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: + + + + + + +
Talk:Harvard abortion study (view source)
Revision as of 17:37, April 24, 2007
, 17:37, April 24, 2007scientific gobbledegook
:And here's an older NY Times story: [http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/FivePrecepts/AbortionBreastCancer.html] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
:And here's an older NY Times story: [http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/FivePrecepts/AbortionBreastCancer.html] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Can I point out, that although I think I have a scientific background, that I have no idea what:
::"Among parous women [the overwhelming majority of the study], the [hazard ratios] HRs were 1.58 (95% CI, 1.13-2.20) for PR- breast cancer and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05) for PR+ breast cancer (P for heterogeneity = 0.002) among women with induced a.."
actually means in real terms for women. If this is meant to be an informative article, than it fails because it makes the mistake of in attempting to be scientifically accurate, it actually presents scientific gobbledegook. The HR is presumably a hazard ratio. Does that mean that the increased risk represents a 1.58%, or 58% increase, and an increase on what? If the chance of developing breast cancer is 50%, then is the increase to 51.8% (hardly a significant increase) or to 76% (a pretty devastating significant). On the other hand if the risk is 0.05%, then and increase to 1.85% would be pretty significant, whereas one to 0.076% would not really be significant at all.
Please consider your audience. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)