Project description:BackgroundIn medical research and practice, the p-value is arguably the most often used statistic and yet it is widely misconstrued as the probability of the type I error, which comes with serious consequences. This misunderstanding can greatly affect the reproducibility in research, treatment selection in medical practice, and model specification in empirical analyses. By using plain language and concrete examples, this paper is intended to elucidate the p-value confusion from its root, to explicate the difference between significance and hypothesis testing, to illuminate the consequences of the confusion, and to present a viable alternative to the conventional p-value.Main textThe confusion with p-values has plagued the research community and medical practitioners for decades. However, efforts to clarify it have been largely futile, in part, because intuitive yet mathematically rigorous educational materials are scarce. Additionally, the lack of a practical alternative to the p-value for guarding against randomness also plays a role. The p-value confusion is rooted in the misconception of significance and hypothesis testing. Most, including many statisticians, are unaware that p-values and significance testing formed by Fisher are incomparable to the hypothesis testing paradigm created by Neyman and Pearson. And most otherwise great statistics textbooks tend to cobble the two paradigms together and make no effort to elucidate the subtle but fundamental differences between them. The p-value is a practical tool gauging the "strength of evidence" against the null hypothesis. It informs investigators that a p-value of 0.001, for example, is stronger than 0.05. However, p-values produced in significance testing are not the probabilities of type I errors as commonly misconceived. For a p-value of 0.05, the chance a treatment does not work is not 5%; rather, it is at least 28.9%.ConclusionsA long-overdue effort to understand p-values correctly is much needed. However, in medical research and practice, just banning significance testing and accepting uncertainty are not enough. Researchers, clinicians, and patients alike need to know the probability a treatment will or will not work. Thus, the calibrated p-values (the probability that a treatment does not work) should be reported in research papers.

Project description:Strategies concerning thyroid anomalies in patients confirmed with psoriasis, either on clinical level or molecular levels, and their genetic findings remain an open issue. Identification of the exact subgroup of individuals that are candidates to endocrine assessments is also controversial. Our purpose in this work was to overview clinical and pathogenic data concerning psoriasis and thyroid comorbidities from a dual perspective (dermatologic and endocrine). This was a narrative review of English literature between January 2016 and January 2023. We included clinically relevant, original articles with different levels of statistical evidence published on PubMed. We followed four clusters of conditions: thyroid dysfunction, autoimmunity, thyroid cancer, and subacute thyroiditis. A new piece of information in this field was the fact that psoriasis and autoimmune thyroid diseases (ATD) have been shown to be related to the immune-based side effects of modern anticancer drugs-namely, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICP). Overall, we identified 16 confirmatory studies, but with heterogeneous data. Psoriatic arthritis had a higher risk of positive antithyroperoxidase antibodies (TPOAb) (25%) compared to cutaneous psoriasis or control. There was an increased risk of thyroid dysfunction versus control, and hypothyroidism was the most frequent type of dysfunction (subclinical rather than clinical), among thyroid anomalies correlated with >2-year disease duration, peripheral > axial and polyarticular involvement. With a few exceptions, there was a female predominance. Hormonal imbalance included, most frequently, low thyroxine (T4) and/or triiodothyronine (T3) with normal thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), followed by high TSH (only one study had higher total T3). The highest ratio of thyroid involvement concerning dermatologic subtypes was 59% for erythrodermic psoriasis. Most studies found no correlation between thyroid anomalies and psoriasis severity. Statistically significant odds ratios were as follows: hypothyroidism: 1.34-1.38; hyperthyroidism: 1.17-1.32 (fewer studies than hypo); ATD: 1.42-2.05; Hashimoto's thyroiditis (HT): 1.47-2.09; Graves' disease: 1.26-1.38 (fewer studies than HT). A total of 8 studies had inconsistent or no correlations, while the lowest rate of thyroid involvement was 8% (uncontrolled studies). Other data included 3 studies on patients with ATD looking for psoriasis, as well as 1 study on psoriasis and thyroid cancer. ICP was shown to potentially exacerbate prior ATD and psoriasis or to induce them both de novo (5 studies). At the case report level, data showed subacute thyroiditis due to biological medication (ustekinumab, adalimumab, infliximab). Thyroid involvement in patients with psoriasis thus remained puzzling. We observed significant data that confirmed a higher risk of identifying positive antibodies and/or thyroid dysfunction, especially hypothyroidism, in these subjects. Awareness will be necessary to improve overall outcomes. The exact profile of individuals diagnosed with psoriasis who should be screened by the endocrinology team is still a matter of debate, in terms of dermatological subtype, disease duration, activity, and other synchronous (especially autoimmune) conditions.

Project description:A frail 79-year-old lady with dementia presented with a 2-year history of frequent falls. Recurrent hypoglycaemic episodeswere diagnosed and treated with continuous glucose infusion in multiple hospital admissions. Hypoadrenalism andhypothyroidism were ruled out. Whilst hypoglycaemic (blood glucose 1.6 mmol/L), both plasma C-peptide and proinsulinconcentrations, were inappropriately elevated at 4210 pmol/L (174–960) and >200 pmol/L (0–7) respectively with plasmainsulin suppressed at 12 pmol/L (0–180). Whilst reported cases of proinsulinoma are typically pancreatic in origin, radiological investigations of the pancreas in this patient did not identify abnormalities. Unexpectedly contrast CT identified aheterogeneously enhancing mass (6.6 cm) at the lower pole of the left kidney consistent with renal cell carcinoma. Non-isletcell tumour-induced hypoglycaemia has been associated with renal malignancy; however, a serum IGF2:IGF1 ratio measured at <10 effectively excludes this diagnosis. Concomitantly on the CT, extensive peripherally enhancing heterogeneous mass lesions in the liver were identified, the largest measuring 12 cm. A palliative approach was taken due to multiple comorbidities. On post-mortem, the kidney lesion was confirmed as clear cell renal carcinoma, whilst the liver lesions were identified as proinsulin-secreting neuroendocrine tumours. In conclusion, the diagnosis of proinsulinoma can be missed if plasma proinsulin concentration is not measured at the time of hypoglycaemia. In this case, the plasma insulin:C-peptide ratio was too high to be accounted for by the faster relative clearance of insulin and was due to proinsulin cross-reactivity in the C-peptide assay. In addition, the concomitant malignancy proved to be a challenging red herring.Learning points:•• Even in non-diabetics, hypoglycaemia needs to be excluded in a setting of frequent falls. Insulin- or proinsulinsecretingtumours are potentially curable causes.•• Whilst investigating spontaneous hypoglycaemia, if plasma insulin concentration is appropriate for thehypoglycaemia, it is prudent to check proinsulin concentrations during the hypoglycaemic episode.•• Proinsulin cross-reacts variably with C-peptide and insulin assays; the effect is method dependent. In this case, thediscrepancy between the insulin and C-peptide concentrations was too great to be accounted for by the fasterrelative clearance of insulin, raising the suspicion of assay interference. The C-peptide assay in question (Diasorinliaison) has been shown to be 100% cross reactive with proinsulin based on spiking studies with a proinsulinreference preparation.•• Whilst reported cases of proinsulinoma and 99% of insulinomas are of pancreatic origin, conventional imagingstudies (CT, MRI or ultrasound) fail to detect neuroendocrine tumours <1 cm in 50% of cases.•• The concomitant renal mass identified radiologically proved to be a red herring.•• In view of the rarity of proinsulinoma, no conclusive association with renal cell carcinoma can be established.

Dataset Information

The chronic kalaemia conundrum.

Publications

The chronic kalaemia conundrum.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets