{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiahnavc6k5tcqqptrp2v7ikzeoyqs7fuerqqhuhnbmoh7f4okwati",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3meszhtz2fe52"
  },
  "path": "/t/statin-related-side-effects-the-recent-lancet-publication-is-biased-toward-false-negatives/28635#post_9",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-13T18:23:55.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "tags": [
    "well-understood"
  ],
  "textContent": "f2harrell:\n\n> I’ve always thought that absolute risks should be emphasized much more.\n\nProviding absolute risks differences would help contextualize AE info. Another form of contextualization (not sure a Fundamentalist Bayesian would agree tho’) would be _substantive knowledge about mechanism_ : is this rare AE well-understood, or is it (so far) just a data artifact lacking a plausible mechanistic explanation?",
  "title": "Statin-related side effects: the recent Lancet publication is biased toward false-negatives"
}