zlacker

>>geox+(OP)
> odds were tripled for autism (OR = 3.1; 95% CI: 1.02, 9.7)

This is scientific malpractice! The most ridiculous confidence interval I've ever seen! 1.02 to 9.7, reported as "tripled", seriously? And of course the data is non-blinded, self-reported survey responses recalling events that occurred many years ago, and the analysis is not preregistered and splits the cohort in an arbitrary way to eke out so-called "statistical significance" (by the slimmest imaginable margin, 1.02 > 1.00, just barely).

How can this dreck be published? Everyone involved should be sanctioned. And everyone who took this headline at face value should seriously reconsider their approach to consuming science news.

>>modele+fd
What was it Kurt Vonnegut said? "Pity the reader." The average person has little to no understanding of statistics. The study is coming from a (seemingly) reputable university source. What reason would the uninformed have to be skeptical?

>>Admira+Pj
It's published in Nutrients.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Resignations_of_editors

In August 2018, 10 senior editors (including the editor-in-chief) of the journal Nutrients resigned, alleging that MDPI forced the replacement of the editor-in-chief because of his high editorial standards and for resisting pressure to "accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance.