I wonder what the statistical power of the study was.
With n = ~2000, and dementia rates being relatively low, and there either being no controls or some lame half-missing linear controls (even worse than no control, because it makes you think the control worked), and the treatment being seemingly arbitrary ,I basically am going to assume this is meaningless information.
It’s turning an uncontrolled correlation in a low power sample into a causal story of protection.
Anyway, I didn’t actually read the paper so maybe I’m being unfair. I somehow doubt that’s the case though.
I wonder what the statistical power of the study was.
With n = ~2000, and dementia rates being relatively low, and there either being no controls or some lame half-missing linear controls (even worse than no control, because it makes you think the control worked), and the treatment being seemingly arbitrary ,I basically am going to assume this is meaningless information.
It’s turning an uncontrolled correlation in a low power sample into a causal story of protection.
Anyway, I didn’t actually read the paper so maybe I’m being unfair. I somehow doubt that’s the case though.
Thinking along basically the same lines, I tried to access the actual paper via its DOI link and got redirected to a “Production in progress” page. So we have what looks suspiciously like an embargo!