I had a quick look at the paper and couldn't see anything about correction for multiple comparisons, or even a section on statistical analysis. I don't know how papers get published like this when it's easy to generate huge numbers of comparisons.

Happy birthday, Wilhelmina! And thanks for all you do

It's been used for a long time to treat MS. There is anecdotal support, and it is available at some MS therapy centres, but studies haven't found good evidence for it.
mstrust.org.uk/a-z/hyperbar...?

Thanks

Got you.

I thought that if psychologists started recognising their limits as helping people cope with a chronic illness, that would be a good thing.

Sorry, where does it say that? I didn't read the full piece.

Did they say why they took this fundamentally flawed approach?

Hi Anna. Thanks for sharing – I've just donated. Enjoy the big birthday, it's what they are for

Long ago, when Francis Collins was head of the NIH and briefly taking an interest in this illness, he said he thought that when ME/CFS was finally solved, it would be through discovering a previously unknown biological mechanism (didn't say fatigue specifically).

This paper claims neuroticism and other personality disorders in CFS and its methodology is exceptionally flawed. There is a thread on PR from way back, if you're interested. Probably not worth the effort. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...

They seem to use a lot of parameters in the logistic regression model, as well as not correcting for multiple comparisons in the standard comparison. I wonder if the small number of cases they have (particularly for males) is sufficient to support looking at that number of parameters.

In his presentation, Robert Phair said they didn't find a difference in gene expression for ACOD1, so modified the hypothesis to use post-translational modification (prm) to explain the bio differences. But many genes/proteins are involved in ptm, and we might expect a GWAS signal for that.