undefined | Better HN

0 pointsProjectBarks4y ago0 comments

Those bounds are fairly wide. Also, my other frustration was an article that has provocative headline, great for sending to your friends, but doesn't do anything but link the study. What are the odds someone is going to read the study? What are the odds they are going to go and learn what HR rate is?

Seems to me all good things for this article to do.

0 comments

bduerst4y ago

What would be a good boundary here, in your opinion?

The 95% CI lower boundary for most of the cancer risks are still > HR 1.00, which seems significant enough to call out an increased risk correlation.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsProjectBarks4y ago0 comments

Seems to me all good things for this article to do.

0 comments

bduerst4y ago

What would be a good boundary here, in your opinion?

The 95% CI lower boundary for most of the cancer risks are still > HR 1.00, which seems significant enough to call out an increased risk correlation.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse