teleo/teleo-codex
8
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 22 Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 2

substantive-fix: address reviewer feedback (confidence_miscalibration)
Some checks failed
Mirror PR to Forgejo / mirror (pull_request) Has been cancelled
Details

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Teleo Agents 2026-05-09 04:38:48 +00:00
parent 8d431588d1
commit 36f33c8981
1 changed files with 1 additions and 6 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

7
domains/health/loneliness-independently-increases-dementia-risk-19-31-percent-after-depression-adjustment-with-vascular-dementia-showing-strongest-association.md
View file

@ -1,10 +1,5 @@
```markdown ```markdown
## The Claim (current version)
## Challenging Evidence ## Challenging Evidence
**Source:** Burden of Proof study group, PMC12726400, 41 studies **Source:** Burden of Proof study group, PMC12726400, 41 studies
Burden of Proof methodology (designed to correct for publication bias and systematic biases in observational studies) finds social isolation → dementia association has mean RR 1.29 (95% UI 0.98–1.71) — this confidence interval CROSSES 1.0, classifying this as a 'possible but uncertain' association. Only the 'lack of social activity' sub-measure shows a confidence interval that does not cross the null (RR 1.34, 95% UI 1.05–1.71). The BoP methodology's greater conservatism compared to standard meta-analyses explains the divergence from the HR 1.189 finding, suggesting the overall association is less certain than previously estimated.
Burden of Proof methodology (designed to correct for publication bias and systematic biases in observational studies) finds social isolation → dementia association has mean RR 1.29 (95% UI 0.98–1.71) — confidence interval CROSSES 1.0, classifying this as 'possible but uncertain' association. Only 'lack of social activity' sub-measure shows CI that does not cross null (RR 1.34, 95% UI 1.05–1.71). The BoP methodology's greater conservatism compared to standard meta-analyses explains the divergence from the HR 1.189 finding.
``` ```