On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:02:23 +0100, Paul Jones
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"David C. Ullrich" wrote:
>>
>> >considerable benefit for neurogenic bladder problems,
>>
>> I did not know that, but I know that the topic is of considerable
>> interest to people with various other conditions.
>
>Yes, recent work at the National Hospital of Neurology and
>Neurosurgery in London, UK has shown that two cannibinoids
>administered in a spray considerably reduce urinary
>frequency and the number of time PwMS have to get up to pee
>during the night (a big problem). The researcher I was
>talking to said that there are cannibinoid receptors in the
>bladder and the cortex but not in the micuration control
>areas of the brainstem nor in the spinal cord.
>
>> As is the
>> fact that the Supreme Court seems to have decided that pi = 3
>> again...
>
>More like -6.
>
>> Here I get a little lost again. Exactly what does it mean
>> to say the "relative risk" is 4.8?
>
>I assumed it meant event A happened 4.8 times as much as
>would be expected if the two events were unrelated.
>
>> And here again I'm _totally_ lost.
>
>Okay, put it like this:
>
>Of 1086240 trials, A happened in 17484 of them, B happened
>in 124 and both A and B happened in 9.
But analyzing it this way simply makes no sense. Those
"trials" you're talking about are _far_ from independent;
each "trial" is associated with a particular person, and
there will be a very strong correlation between various
"trials" for the same person at different hours.
>I really need to know how to how to calculate the
>statistical implications here. Please someone help me!
I know that the way you've been putting things makes
no sense. I suspect, but I don't know for sure, that
to get the sort of information you want you need more
data than what you've told us - you also need data on
how many people in the general population, without
heart attacks, do and do not smoke evil weeds.
>> >What I want to know is what is the correlation between these
>> >two event?
>> >Most importantly, how statistically significant is the
>> >result?
>> >Can any reasonable conclusions be drawn from these data -
>> >esp, in view of the small dataset size?
You keep asking this. The size of the dataset is not the
reason we cannot draw the sort of inferences you're
interested in.
>Take care,
>Paul
>All About MS - the latest MS News and Views
>http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/
David C. Ullrich
*********************
"Sometimes you can have access violations all the
time and the program still works." (Michael Caracena,
comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc 5/1/01)
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
