 |
 |
Janet , don't worry about it. I have at one time or the other been knee deep in statistics and epidiemology. What I did not understand was the different numbers used. But it onset starts 10 (or is thought to) years earlier, your reply cleared it up. The best I remember the median means that 1/2 occurred under 57 (or 47) and 1/2 below that. The average is when you take all cases , add them up and the divide by the number of cases.. IF that is wrong I will get out some books and read up again. You didn't goof, or I don't think so. I just wanted a clear figure to use when writing Orphan, that's all. but as I told you I want to say something with out my husbands and brother in law coming into it. I will just concentrate of the devastation of the disease and the entire family. Love, Nita Janet Paterson wrote: > Hi Dennis, Marling, Phil, Nita, et al [who's Al ?]; > > I goofed. I should never have equated 'median' and 'average'. I think I even > knew better at the time. I certainly know better now, having looked up both > terms in my dictionary. Maybe instead of 'median', I meant to say 'medium' or > 'close to middling'. The clarification that Nita was looking for in re 'ages' > seems a tad murky. But maybe this is a fair indication of the status of > statistics in re PD in general anyway. Irregardless, the stereotypical image > of a Parkie in the eye and mind of Josephina Public needs to be changed, > howsomever we tackle the job and scrunch the numbers. > > Just your average cyber-sibling > > Janet > > diagnosis at age 41 > onset of symptoms at age 37 > > [log in to unmask]