Oh for cryin' out loud!
The new lesion data shows that both the 3 and 6 mg groups are p<.001 different from controls. In the abstract available for free on the NEJM website, no SD or SEM data was provided. Hence my 'read' was an intelligent estimation based on the level of significance (a level that can ONLY be achieved with a VERY sufficient sample size or a tremendous difference between treatment and control group) and the proximity of the two means. Based on the data provided, a reasonable assumption, which was the tenor of my post, was, and remains, that the two groups were not statistically different.
As to whether the response has maxed out, based on the same rationale (to REPEAT, using the data provided, which is, to REPEAT the obvious, highly restricted on dose regimes) I stated the data SUGGESTED the dose had already maxed out at 3 mg.
As to whether the study was 'insufficiently powered': that's a vague, useless, and altogether non-scientific term ( descriptors unbecoming someone with your background) to convey a comment regarding a study published in arguably THE leading US medical journal. Did you mean the n was too small? If so, you must have known the sample size and the statistical foundation it confers prior to placing your post. What was the total sample size? IF your 'power' was indeed referring to sample size, then precisely what sample size would confer 'power' (and provide the statistical basis for your claim) to this study?
Your parsing my words is excessive to say the least ...especially since my post was a wholly reasonable educated guess. Furthermore, if you had asserted your own POV by writing,
'Scott's post makes some inferences that are indeed consistent with the data. However, not only may other inferences be made that would differ from his, but I would be cautious in drawing too many conclusions from such a small sample size (???) and limited dose-sampling points. So while there is nothing out of sync with the data and Scott's statements, I would simply couch those conclusions somewhat differently in light of my interpretation of the limitations of the study.' (and provide the necessary data)
your message would have carried some thrust.
Rather your post, in its brevity and total absence of substantiation, comes across as some sort of neurotic impulse to inflect a GOTCHA! in contrast to a desire to engage in constructive dialog. |
