 |
 |
I should have 1/2 cases below 57 and 1/2 above that age.NIta Nita Andres wrote: > 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]