Talk:Rare disease assumption

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Okay, seriously, you guys have pages and pages of trivia on the Mutant X TV series and you're marking up a legitimate math and science article that might actually bear on peoples' lives, just because, what, it passed across your screen as a new article?! watdahel?! Niels Olson (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the case-control study page, which was also of terrible quality. This page is, quite simply, wrong. I don't have time to correct it now but will try to do so in future (I do have a background in epidemiology). Alic D (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be deleted, and the topic moved to be a section in the general article on case-control studies. But first it needs to be totally rewritten, as the current page is not really helpful or correct., HarveyMotulsky (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rare disease assumption not only applies to case-control studies. But this part is missing from the page. Ndevln (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the maths incorrect too? Using the numbers provided I calculate OR and RR to be 0.05 and 0.5 respectively. Where do 16 and 8.4 come from in the article? - I may have made a mistake, of course Harveyjamesm (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]