> "The researchers also noticed that few of those with the "bad" version lived beyond 85 while those with the "good" form were likely to live to 100. "
Without specific numbers, these claims are meaningless. Just how "few" people with the bad version died before 85? And how "likely" are people with the good form to live to 100?
This would be more credible if they linked to the actual research paper or study.
Edit: The title here is also somewhat misleading. The article didn't mention that hackers have a higher level of this gene than average
This is somewhat outside my field but I do have institutional access.
Based on my limited understanding of the area I would take issue with the quote. Although the data supports the statement that few people with the bad version lived beyond 85 (survival function was 0.1 at 75 and dropped to zero at about 87) it doesn't support the statement that people with the good version are likely to live to 100 (survival function was 0.75 at 75, 0.35 at 87 but still drops to zero at 102
Without specific numbers, these claims are meaningless. Just how "few" people with the bad version died before 85? And how "likely" are people with the good form to live to 100?
This would be more credible if they linked to the actual research paper or study.
Edit: The title here is also somewhat misleading. The article didn't mention that hackers have a higher level of this gene than average