sameeee I wrote way too fucking much and then had zero time for the seven markers
my response for the epidemiological study was literally:
THIS IS NOT A GOOD STUDY
- Small sample size (500)
- Moderate time frame (12 months) not enough to develop symptoms
- Large variety in participants (male and female within an age range of 20yrs)
- No control group
- Data is not consistent and doesn't make a clear conclusion
- Incidence is somewhat measured but it isn't clear when in the period they showed symptoms (also mortality/prevalence isn't mentioned)
- IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE
- increase sample size to 10,000
- get a more controlled cohort with less random variables
- introduce a control variable like having a baseline city
AND THEN I HAD TO MOVE ON TO THE OTHER SEVEN MARKER
I didn't spend much time on improvements but i was like
This study is invalid, innacurate and unreliable
- Small sample size with too broad of a demographic (same thing you said)
- Too short of a time frame
- No measurement of the air pollution so impossible to link results to air pollution
- No control over where the people lived and their exposure to the cities
and like 5/6 other points there was so much to shit on it was great
