Contributor score: 23

Comments ...

sunshinesweetheart
ugh, I feel like a child could misuse their insulin by accident without proper supervision. Totally thought she had T1DM and not enough guidance on how to use the meds. annoying
+3

peqmd
I couldn't rule out if the child was trying to get swole and had a shady dealer.
+3

alwaysdivs94
Sorry, where doesn't it talk about insulin abuse in the question? I thought she was administered for an acute exacerbation of heart failure?
+

Subcomments ...

submitted by stapes2big(12),

unscramble the site ⋅
remove ads ⋅
become a member
($39/month)

mI’ not urse tbuao sthi one but teh ywa I thought obuta ti wsa thta ciens het ceeindncfo ailvrnte cnieuldd 1, ti asw *not fgitiicnnas*. Adn usht p auvle umts eb voaeb `0.50`

jkan
nvm, it's can't be greater than 1 because then it would have a negative% confidence interval which cannot happen (Think if p>0.05 means at least 95% within confidence interval)
+9

charcot_bouchard
p=0.05 means theres 5% chance null hypothesis is true. p=1 means theres 100% chance null hypothesis is true. >1 means >100% chance which isnt possible.
+13

noname
@charcot_bouchard, that is not a good interpretation of p-value.
A better interpretation of p=0.05 would be: If in reality there is no increase in risk (RR=1), and if we replicated the same study of the same sample size many different times, then we would expect to find a risk ratio of (X) only about 5% of the time.
+2

submitted by stapes2big(12),

unscramble the site ⋅
remove ads ⋅
become a member
($39/month)

m’I tno usre abuot siht eno btu teh way I uttghho tubao it asw ttah cenis hte nidcenecfo ivrnealt dceundil ,1 it asw *nto tcansifinig*. dnA shut p evlau tmus eb bevao `005.`

jkan
nvm, it's can't be greater than 1 because then it would have a negative% confidence interval which cannot happen (Think if p>0.05 means at least 95% within confidence interval)
+9

charcot_bouchard
p=0.05 means theres 5% chance null hypothesis is true. p=1 means theres 100% chance null hypothesis is true. >1 means >100% chance which isnt possible.
+13

noname
@charcot_bouchard, that is not a good interpretation of p-value.
A better interpretation of p=0.05 would be: If in reality there is no increase in risk (RR=1), and if we replicated the same study of the same sample size many different times, then we would expect to find a risk ratio of (X) only about 5% of the time.
+2

piedp-cet is low ihwt xseegunoo si.linun etedpp(c-i adme sa a uctypdrbo fo lunnisi tnocopdiru in het ydetoebpae )dr sviist+ ghih li+nulnoisw dpcpee-t=i ogoxueens lnsiiun b.usea nI a tch-;d&ilg tifciuosat by pxryo