I stand well-corrected. In fact, this study (as you point out) found no significant difference in mortality rates in the lowest quintiles, but in quintile 4 and quintile 5, patients with the highest risk adjusted mortality rates, female doctors had significantly lower rates than their male counterparts.
Thank you for your time
1 Like
In Table 3 we see the largest difference of note over 2% with sepsis.
The problem is we see 118623 patients in the grouping but we do not see how many died. Meaning if 10k died 200 more were attributed to male doctors. Or the numbers are 4900 to 5100 female to male doctors respectively. That is rolling the dice. The real world does not work on classical odds.
Again the real world does not work on classical odds. Risks are measured quite differently in the actual world.
The study boils it down to a classical odds presentation of sorts.
What if you got one of the female doctors who likes to mix up what she is doing with black magic? LOL There are doctors that crazy.
Why would you believe that? You claim a lot of very strange things.
3 Likes
I doubt you can provide support for that statement. I am married to an MD. MDs spend a lot of time trying to keep current on the newest findings in their field. It is a lot of work and colleagues are constantly sharing the information theyāve learned from scanning journals. The oneās that donāt do thisā¦well you probably donāt want them as your doctor.
From a 2014 survey of doctors.
- 98 percent of physicians reported that reading medical literature was important or very important to their practice.
- 16 percent of physicians reported that reading medical literature directly helped save the life of a patient in the last year, with medical news of rare immune disorders, new melanoma treatments and stroke guidelines cited in physician stories.
- When asked how often reading medical literature directly changed their clinical practice with patients, 14 percent of physicians reported changing weekly, 28 percent reported monthly, 44 percent reported quarterly and 14 percent reported yearly.
- 44 percent of physicians reported spending 1 to 2 hours a week reading news online on a smartphone, computer or tablet. 22 percent read news online 3 to 4 hours a week and 24 percent read more than 5 hours a week online. Only 10 percent read news online less than an hour a week. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140722005535/en#.U86Ys4BdVRy
This is just one survey so take it with a grain of salt. But it does suggest that keeping up with the medical literature is important and that your statement is bumpkus.
4 Likes
Classical odds apply to dice. That is not how the rest of the world operates.
Note you are not saying she read it.
You might at least want to force her to read it. LOL
It is garbage but if you like it okay.
As far as doctors reading medical literature? Really you think my position is they donāt? Doctors study nonstop.
If classical odds apply to dice, they also apply to the rest of the world.
Beats me. Your position doesnāt concern me (it tends to change depending on how badly you are doing in the argument). I just donāt like you giving out misinformation about physicians and medical research. Staying current with the medical literature is important to optimize medical care and so the good doctors do their best to read the major medical journals in their field. Thatās why younger doctors tend to have better patient outcomes despite having less experience than older doctors. Medical technology is moving so quickly that being current on new therapies is more important than experience with old therapies.
Wow. Iām guessing you donāt have many friends.
4 Likes
That is not how that works.
But good luck at the casino.
You are too busy with your own nonsense to follow other parts of the discussion.
Actually my humor gains me a lot of friends. I also do not constantly try for character assassination any time someone disagrees with me. I discuss the issues which is something you do not have a give and take on. You avoid understanding other points of view.
Casino classical odds are not how the world operates.
Not really. The only reason I participate on TMF is learn other POVs. Albaby and Goofy for example have influenced my thinking on NFTs and crypto, and albaby has changed my mind about the practicality of mass transit in cities without sufficient population density. Iāve had numerous run-ins with the Captain on climate change but he has impacted my thinking about Tesla and certain investment strategies. Even Drbob has some good stuff when he isnāt preoccupied with promoting the fossil fuel economy.
You are just upset because I find your POVs consistently ridiculous.
Just want to add in edit that the above is obviously just my opinion. Others might find your insights brilliant and wit scintillating. I hope so for your state of mind as you do seem to be a sensitive sort. But I am not quite so positive about what you write and frankly find your tantrums alarming at times, so I fully understand if you want keep to your promise of ignoring me and, in fact, strongly suggest you do if it helps your mental health.
Mental health is important and life is too short to be angry so often.
I should quit this thread but I am curious (there is a high probability that I will regret this). How is whatever you call āclassical oddsā different from how the world operates? However, feel free to ignore this.
5 Likes
Classical odds are for gambling. Six-sided dice 5 to 1 payout.
That is all classical odds are.
If you are driving down the street you can not roll the dice to figure out where a child would chase a ball into the center of the street. You have to slow down wisely in case you need to brake.
In investing you have business risk, financial risk, and economic risk. No one tosses the dice. No one should throw a dart with his monkey at the stock ticker page.
In medicine, you learn the side effects of 2 or 3 major medications for one problem or illness. You might not specialize in every med for the problem.
The doctor treats the patient one-on-one. You can not roll the dice because you do not have a 1 in 6 chance of a side effect. That would be unethical to use such a drug. Instead, the doctor sets up appointments to monitor the patient. The odds fall out. The doctorās experience comes forward.
That might not be the issue here because these were more critical cases.
Something on sepsis to think aboutā¦
Sepsis-related death rates among men were higher than those among women in each age group: 232.7 versus 173.0 (65ā74 years), 477.3 versus 349.8 (75ā84 years), and 1,037.8 versus 755.5 (ā„85 years).Sep 22, 2023
The more ignorant someone is the less likely to take care of themselves the higher the mortality rate. The more likely such a man would insist on a male doctor. Regardless of the study, the doctors by law would need to oblige the request. It is not all males but marginally this would change the outcomes slightly. It would not matter that the female doctors saw more males percentage-wise.
Suddenly that is not a six-sided dice or a doctor getting to make the decisions that would save someone that sick. Some of them had been unsavable obviously.
I will ask. Do you blame the doctors who had the deaths?
At one point you asked in the other thread if would you see a doctor with 54% odds of mortality. First, that is not how the odds stack up because most patients survived. Second classical odds do not apply unless you blame the doctors.
That is pure nonsense. I get you never ever want to admit you are wrong or lose any argument.
Instead of discussing things you get into adhominem attacks.
I am simply ignoring them.
Your ideas on classic odds show a poorer education in stats.
I have seen your blurbs posted here from the study and poke a larger hole in the study. Plus asked who you blamed the doctors because of that study.
I knew I would regret asking the question. An irrational answer and an insult to boot. Have a good life Leap. I doubt we will be interacting again, at least not if I can help it. There are rabid dogs I can have more productive discussions with.
3 Likes
You have feelings of inadequacy.
That is no one elseās fault.
That sort of study blames the doctors if read wrong. For a while that was your reading of it.