fresh_eyes
happy to be here
- Messages
- 900
- Location
- mountains of north carolina
This is great, gracenote! I hadn't seen it before.
-
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.
XMRV: exogenous and/or endogenous?
- Thread starter fresh_eyes
- Start date
This is great, gracenote! I hadn't seen it before.
Alice Band
PWME - ME by Ramsay
- Messages
- 175
- Location
- UK
In 12 of these cases the CFS relatives were maternal, and in 10 they were paternal
from
Underhill RA, O’Gorman R. Prevalence of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome within families of CFS patients. J CFS 2006; 13(1):3-13.
Also from the same document (sorry it has lost the formatting)
Family members with CFS n/total % Family members with CFS mean (95% CI) p-value †
Spouses/partners 6 /186 3.2 (0.7 to 5.8) < 0.001
Offspring 12/235 5.1 (2.3 to 7.9) < 0.001
Parents & siblings 8/730 1.1 (0.34 to 1.84) < 0.02
All 1st degree relatives 20/965 2.1(1.2 to 3.0) < 0.001
2nd & 3rd degree relatives 24/3216 0.8 (0.45 to 1.05) < 0.02
All blood relatives 44/4181 1.1 (0.75 to 1.3) < 0.001
Maybe someone else can extrapolate from the data in that study. I think it came from Dr Jason. There are some interesting graphs
I don't know (for instance) what the significance of this is (bit it is unusual so I will mention it), the graph shows % of children with CFS and is split into male and female (approx 4% male and approx 6% female), now that is very different to the % male and female reported ratio we see in non-obviously parent CFS isn't that?
The graph also shows the data for male and female relatives 1st and 2nd & 3rd degree and the male female split is again a lot more even than I would have thought but not as close as the "offspring". It's hard to tell on the chart as the data is too small for the axis.
from
Underhill RA, O’Gorman R. Prevalence of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome within families of CFS patients. J CFS 2006; 13(1):3-13.
Also from the same document (sorry it has lost the formatting)
Family members with CFS n/total % Family members with CFS mean (95% CI) p-value †
Spouses/partners 6 /186 3.2 (0.7 to 5.8) < 0.001
Offspring 12/235 5.1 (2.3 to 7.9) < 0.001
Parents & siblings 8/730 1.1 (0.34 to 1.84) < 0.02
All 1st degree relatives 20/965 2.1(1.2 to 3.0) < 0.001
2nd & 3rd degree relatives 24/3216 0.8 (0.45 to 1.05) < 0.02
All blood relatives 44/4181 1.1 (0.75 to 1.3) < 0.001
Maybe someone else can extrapolate from the data in that study. I think it came from Dr Jason. There are some interesting graphs
I don't know (for instance) what the significance of this is (bit it is unusual so I will mention it), the graph shows % of children with CFS and is split into male and female (approx 4% male and approx 6% female), now that is very different to the % male and female reported ratio we see in non-obviously parent CFS isn't that?
The graph also shows the data for male and female relatives 1st and 2nd & 3rd degree and the male female split is again a lot more even than I would have thought but not as close as the "offspring". It's hard to tell on the chart as the data is too small for the axis.
fresh_eyes
happy to be here
- Messages
- 900
- Location
- mountains of north carolina
Thanks for posting this, Alice Band - do we know what criteria were used to define CFS in that study?
Alice Band
PWME - ME by Ramsay
- Messages
- 175
- Location
- UK
CFS under the CDC 1994 revised case definition
The subjects came from the New Jersey CFS Association
Interestingly, it also says (about the CDC CFS group)
"
Significant differences were seen between the prevalence of CFS in all groups of family members relative to that in the Chicago community sample reported by Jason et al
"
Also
as the proportion of female and male patients with CFS relatives was found to be similar (18% vs. 19%).
The subjects came from the New Jersey CFS Association
Interestingly, it also says (about the CDC CFS group)
"
Significant differences were seen between the prevalence of CFS in all groups of family members relative to that in the Chicago community sample reported by Jason et al
"
Also
as the proportion of female and male patients with CFS relatives was found to be similar (18% vs. 19%).