• ArtVandelay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “found a link between”? Please demonstrate statistical significance via null hypothesis rejection.

    Downvotes all you want, this is standards statistics for demonstrating correlation

    • WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Compared with those in the lowest quintile of UPF consumption, those in the highest quintile had an increased risk of depression, noted for both strict definition (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.26-1.76; P < .001) and broad definition (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.20-1.50; P < .001) (Table). Models were not materially altered after inclusion of potential confounders. We did not observe differential associations in subgroups defined by age, BMI, physical activity, or smoking. In a 4-year lag analysis, associations were not materially altered (strict definition: HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.54; P < .001), arguing against reverse causation.

      “Found a link between” typically is pop science speak for small p value. Not that I would take it for granted that it does, so you should just read the paper if you have a question about the details: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10512104/