Keep thinking about this myself! Seems logically inconsistent that X1 and Y1 would be each other's causes and consequences at the very same time. But I'm curious what the people think 🤓
@tformanek
MSCA Fellow @ Aarhus University and Visiting Researcher @ University of Cambridge studying the mental-physical health interface. I focus on the aetiology of co-occurring mental and physical health conditions and the consequences of such co-occurrences.
Keep thinking about this myself! Seems logically inconsistent that X1 and Y1 would be each other's causes and consequences at the very same time. But I'm curious what the people think 🤓
Conclusions in our study: "X really does not seem to by doing Y"
Paper citing our study: "X is certainly doing Y"
OK, then 🥲
"Casual" instead of "causal" all the time 😬
Many congratulations, Eiko 🎉🤗
A day in the life with Deutsche Bahn 😳
The streets of Amsterdam are asking crucial epidemiological questions!
Any contexts in which it *can be* beneficial? 🥸
Love this 😂
A bit late, but please consider donating to the cause of these magnificent and majestic creatures! 🦍🥺
I’M IN BERLIN 🇩🇪 for the WFSBP Congress this week, and would love to catch up for coffee, lunch, dinner! Give me a shout if around ✋
Reading a co-reviewer's comments who suggests that the authors should have ideally conducted an RCT to establish causality between mental disorders and premature mortality. Now I've seen it all!
His tempo at the end was furious! Will probably not run that fast in any context, not to mention after 50km in the Alps 😄
"Protective causal factor" feels like the one I was looking for! It is succinct and feels intuitive. Thanks a lot for sharing it 🤓
It's challenging to be technically 100% correct but also succinct 😬 My problem is that saying "negative association" or "inverse association" is neither 100% correct but also not really casually understandable 🥲
It always depends 😄
Your example would work nicely for reporting the actual results. However, imagine that you want to succinctly describe the character of the association. Positive and null results are fairly clear labels for standard purposes. Inverse association seems difficult to grasp, though.
What terminology does #episky prefer for "X decreasing the risk of Y"? Negative association? Inverse association? Dissociation? Others?
I recently used this meme for illustration 🤡
No RStudio either!
If ever wondered, it seems that giraffes are not immune to lightning (onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...) 😱
Hope this little fella will come back – would be the coolest neighbour!
I'm delighted that Amadeus returns to the cinemas – I'm going to see it tonight! A total cinematic treat!
#tidyverse purrr 1.1.0 is out - now with parallel processing!
Scale your #rstats map operations reliably and efficiently across multiple cores and even distributed systems.
Powered by the mirai framework, this unlocks new levels of performance.
Read more at:
www.tidyverse.org/blog/2025/07...
Any peeps in Lisbon 🇵🇹 currently? Will spend the next month there – would be happy to grab a coffee or something 🤗
Brilliant – I can hear the swearing when making typos trying to call the package 😆
indiscrete? But cheekycont sounds pretty good 😄
ConTreat? Or ContinueR? 🤡
Ah, that one is on hazard ratios, here are two specifically on odds ratios: academic.oup.com/esr/article-... academic.oup.com/aje/article/...!
I'm not a statistician, but I think interpreting odds ratio magnitude is particularly tricky. Here is a nice discussion: www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti....
Last couple of weeks to apply!