• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

"QMUL releases the PACE data" (news piece with commentary from #MEaction)

JohnCB

JohnCB

Immoderate
Messages
351
Location
England
Hi Tom, has there actually been confirmation that Alem Mathees or any one else has received the data that Alem requested under the FoI? The statement from QMUL doesn't actually say that the data has been released.

QMUL statement said:
In complying with the Tribunal’s decision
Click to expand...

This rather tortured language they used does neither say the data has been released nor that the data will be released at any particular time. As I understand it the paper posted on the QMUL website is a PACE reanalysis, not a release of the data points requested by Alem and ordered by the tribunal.
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
JohnCB said:
Hi Tom, has there actually been confirmation that Alem Mathees or any one else has received the data that Alem requested under the FoI? The statement from QMUL doesn't actually say that the data has been released.

This rather tortured language they used does neither say the data has been released nor that the data will be released at any particular time. As I understand it the paper posted on the QMUL website is a PACE reanalysis, not a release of the data points requested by Alem and ordered by the tribunal.
Click to expand...

I think that they have an extra 1-2 weeks to release the data. I don't think that there's any chance they're going to appeal after that statement.
 
A

Amused

Messages
65
Location
UK
I should imagine there's a few statisticians who would be interested. There's been stuff about it in their area including a conference in USA somewhere recently. Alem might have someone lined up?
 
alex3619

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Esther12 said:
Compared to White & co? Anyone.
Click to expand...
Even these guys?


4d9af45d5f380b01610a6018ee4bd391.jpg
 
U

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Marco said:
Joking aside. It's likely to be a very large data set. Someone needs the appropriate software and to know how to use it. Not to mention being sufficiently motivated to put the (unpaid) time in.
Click to expand...


These days it is a very small dataset. I think 12 variables were requested over 640 patients. In these days of big data that is very small. No need for a hadoop cluster!. Excel will deal with that with no problems (but not a great tool)

R offers a free stats package that is good and widely accepted by statisticians. I tend to like octave which is an open source version of matlab but that just reflects my technical background.
 
Marco

Marco

Grrrrrrr!
Messages
2,386
Location
Near Cognac, France
user9876 said:
These days it is a very small dataset. I think 12 variables were requested over 640 patients. In these days of big data that is very small. No need for a hadoop cluster!. Excel will deal with that with no problems (but not a great tool)

R offers a free stats package that is good and widely accepted by statisticians. I tend to like octave which is an open source version of matlab but that just reflects my technical background.
Click to expand...

Excel/Access might handle it but it would be a major pain especially if the data is held in multiple files and you need a certain amount of nous to know how to deal with missing values. Is there a freeware version of SPSS?

Other issues are the need to understand the various scoring methods used for the metrics not to mention the non-normal distribution of the general population from which they claim to have derived their definition of 'normal'. Plus you need a background in the original PACE protocol and how it was changed. Not to mention an appreciation of how it doesn't make a lot of sense to have subjective dependent variables in a population where diagnosis is subjective and the therapies under test are designed to change subjective perceptions.

We could possibly pull this together ourselves but what credibility would that have?

PS - Any idea what the 12 variables are?
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Marco said:
PS - Any idea what the 12 variables are?
Click to expand...

• SF-36 physical function scores (range 0-100 points) [baseline and 52-week followup];

• CFQ fatigue Likert scores (range 0-33 points) [baseline and 52-week followup];

• CFQ fatigue bimodal scores (range 0-11 points) [baseline and 52-week followup];

• Oxford criteria CFS caseness (does participant meet criteria, yes or no) [52-week followup only];

• Participant-rated CGI scores (range 1-7) [52-week followup only];

• Doctor-rated CGI scores (range 1-7) [52-week followup only];

• 6MWT walking distances (in meters) [baseline and 52-week followup];

• The group which each participant was allocated to after randomisation (i.e. either to APT, CBT, GET, or SMC).

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/selected_data_on_pace_trial_part

Looks like the bare minimum to allow recovery rates to be calculated, and 6mwt as an extra.
 
U

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Marco said:
Is there a freeware version of SPSS?
Click to expand...

R is a freeware version of s plus which is similar to spss but academics develop new algorithms in it. The alternative is something like using python and pandas which is commonly used by data scientists.

Marco said:
Other issues are the need to understand the various scoring methods used for the metrics not to mention the non-normal distribution of the general population from which they claim to have derived their definition of 'normal'. Plus you need a background in the original PACE protocol and how it was changed. Not to mention an appreciation of how it doesn't make a lot of sense to have subjective dependent variables in a population where diagnosis is subjective and the therapies under test are designed to change subjective perceptions.

We could possibly pull this together ourselves but what credibility would that have?
Click to expand...

I think people like Alem and @Tom Kindlon have looked at the PACE protocol and the changes in detail and commented in letters to journals about the changes. So there is the expertise within the patient community. Of course people like White will dismiss anything done by patients forgetting that patients can be intelligent people with education including PhDs in a huge variety of different subjects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.