It's a failed vegetable. Surface to volume ratio is too big causing it to cool on the plate too quickly becoming inedible. #Physics

Full disclosure: my wifi is called IckBroccoliAgain

They meant restitution I believe. Still, technically, the building has already resigned from being a Cathedral.

resignation! 😀

I am Paul. I've several RCTs under my belt as statistician. It is a simple point. That which changes in an RCT is the intervention. The intervention is always compared to the control.

I doubt it. It was a randomised trial (& seems to have been well run).

@universityofotago.bsky.social - please buy it... nowhere else for staff at UO Ōtautahi go. As it will be next door, it ensures rapid return to their emails.

I wonder if it is a typo - I see that 52% was also the number given as the proportion of patients in the Vit D arm that needed 5000IU daily doses to reach the target blood concentration.

There is something wrong with this claim. The rates of events were 15.7% in the vit D group & 18.4% in standard care a 14.6% or 2.7 percentage pts reduction. Either these rates are wrong or the 52% reduction claim is.

Funny you say that. ~25 years ago & had a qn asked along similar lines about politicians simultaneously in a church & in a mall about a km apart. Most mall goers didn't think home behaviour mattered for the politician to do their job.
Simply, you were old fashioned even then Richard. 🙂

Maybe because they are busy sending emails out to potential reviewers of the data asking them to give their time for free.

Sorry @erictopol.bsky.social it doesn't. All participants were normal coffee drinkers. Therefore, the coffee-drinker arm is the Control arm. The intervention of going cold turkey increased the hazard of AF by 64% (100/0.61). The whole report is written from the wrong perspective.

Please revisit this. The paper & media have the statistics around the wrong way. All participants normally drank coffee. This makes the coffee drinking group the Control arm & those who went cold turkey the Intervention arm. Correctly: Going cold turkey increased the hazard for recurrent AF by 64%!

Please revisit this. The paper & media have the statuistics around the wrong way. All participants normally drank coffee. This makes the coffee drinking group the control arm & those who went cold turkey the intervention arm. Correctly: Going cold turkey increased the hazard for recurrent AF by 64%!

Please don't say this. The paper has it all around the wrong way. The coffee drinkers were the Control group. The Intervention was going cold-turkey. So, NOT coffee may be beneficial, rather going cold turkey may be detrimental (64% increased in hazard).

This is shockingly poor science reporting. All participants normally drank coffee. The control was drink coffee as normal. The intervention was go cold turkey. Therefore the conclusion should be that going cold turkey increased the hazard of recurrent AF by 64%.
Advise people NOT to go cold turkey

So, stopping drinking coffee is harmful?

Or is that #AHA25? Both hashtags seem to be in use.