Journal club: SUSTAIN 6 and its retinopathy signal posts 31–60
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Collapsed as off-topic by two members at trust level 3 or above
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
The disagreement above is smaller than it looks once the terms are fixed.
This is the sort of exchange that makes the archive worth searching.
Adding what did not work for me on SUSTAIN 6, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.
Post hidden by community flags
Staff rationale: Hidden by community flags. Described a research-use-only compound as approved for human use after a correction earlier in this topic (R4).
SUSTAIN 6 has a well-known answer and a correct answer, and the interesting work is establishing that they are the same. Nobody has done that here yet.
The corresponding entry is in the public moderation log. Hidden posts are never deleted.
Coming back to post #35, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Sessions on negative or null results are consistently the most instructive and the hardest to get anyone to attend.
The conclusion is tentative; the arithmetic underneath it is not.
The claim about SUSTAIN 6 upthread is stronger than its source supports. I have read the source. The source says "associated with" and the post says "causes".
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
If this contradicts something upthread, the upthread version may well be the better one.
Filing a mild objection to the consensus on SUSTAIN 6. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.
Agreed on SUSTAIN 6, with one qualification that I think matters. The reasoning holds for the case as described. Change the starting assumption and it does not, and the starting assumption is the part nobody states.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.
Narrowing post #42, because the general version has more than one answer.
Two people in this thread mean different things by SUSTAIN 6 and are disagreeing about the definition while believing they are disagreeing about the facts. Worth pausing to define it.
Everything in post #40 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
The figures usually contain the finding and the text usually contains the interpretation. Separating them for the first twenty minutes is a discipline worth keeping.
The rule of thumb is fine; the edge cases are where it earns its keep.
I have no financial interest in anything named in this thread and I want to say so before I comment on SUSTAIN 6, because it is the sort of subject where it matters.
Thank you — that answers what I came here to find out.
The arithmetic in post #45 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Genuine question rather than a rhetorical one: has anyone here actually observed SUSTAIN 6, as opposed to read about it? The thread is long and I cannot tell.
Post #47 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
The most common failure mode is spending fifty minutes on the effect size and ten on the population. Reversing that ratio would improve most sessions.
A weak preference rather than a position.
I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about SUSTAIN 6 than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.
Reading order that works for these sessions: registry entry, methods, baseline table, primary result, then abstract last. Reading the abstract first anchors everything that follows.
Narrowing post #51, because the general version has more than one answer.
The baseline characteristics table is the single most useful page for the questions that get asked here, because it tells you who the result applies to.
Take the reasoning and check the arithmetic; I do not always get it right.
Two claims get bundled together under SUSTAIN 6 and they need separating. The descriptive one — this is what was observed — is usually well supported. The causal one — this is why — usually is not.
Almost every disagreement in threads like this one dissolves once you say which of the two you are making.
Where the group cannot agree, record the disagreement rather than resolving it by seniority. The recorded disagreement is more honest and more useful later.
On SUSTAIN 6, the part that usually goes wrong is that the question is asked as though it has one answer. It has a range, and the width of the range is the interesting bit.
If you can post the two or three numbers you are working from, several people here will check the arithmetic rather than argue about the conclusion.
Confirming post #59 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.
Speaking only to SUSTAIN 6 as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.