37 degrees Celsius, 98.6 Fahrenheit. That's normal body temperature, right?
Wrong.
New data suggests true "normal" is 98.0 degrees. (thread)
We get 98.6 degrees from this guy Karl Wunderlich, who measured 1,000,000 temperatures from 25,000 Germans in the mid 1800s. He was really the first to realize that "fever" was not itself a disease, but a symptom of a disease.
He took the average, got 98.6, and that was that. UNTIL NOW.
(Ok honestly, people have known this was wrong for a while, but the new data is cool).
From @JAMAInternalMed:
Thanks to the electronic health record, we have access to countless temperatures taken during clinical visits. Can we just average those?
Of course not. People see their docs for reasons, and some of those reasons cause fever. Before the new paper, people estimating normal would just exclude people with diagnosis codes associated with fever (infections, etc).
But that's sort of arbitrary. What the authors do here is use an algorithm called LIMIT that identifies diagnosis codes disproportionately present in the tails of distribution. Not arbitrary at all.
That's a data-driven way to find a diagnosis that does something to body temperature. And a lot of these were predictable (cough, UTI), but actually diabetes was MUCH more prevalent in the low outliers body temp-wise. So ALL people with diabetes were dropped from the "normal" pop
Once you drop all people with codes that, according to the data, might affect temperature, you can (finally) take the mean. And you get... 36.6 C, 98.0 F.
Of course, this varies by age, sex, and time of day as you can see here.
They even created a little web calculator that you can visit which will tell you YOUR normal temperature based on these parameters. Here's mine for 2pm. normaltemperature.stanford.edu
So, yup, humans are colder-blooded than we thought. And now (for once) Fahrenheit gets the nice round number. Sorry metric bros.
More detail in my column on @medscape here. medscape.com/viewarticle/99…
A million tweets echoing the headline "#sucralose is toxic to your DNA" but, like, has anyone read the actual study this is based on? Let's dig in. (thread/)
This is the study that the articles are based on, appearing in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
The culprit agent in the article is actually sucralose-6-acetate, not sucralose. The authors note that lab testing has shown that there is "up to 0.67%" of sucralose-6-acetate in commercially available sucralose. I can't verify this. Their citation doesn't lead anywhere.
This week - in my ongoing series "Is That Thing You Eat Everyday Secretly Killing You?!" - #Erythritol!
I want to dig into a nice @NatureMedicine paper that suggests the sugar substitute might increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. (Thread/)
Erythritol is a non-nutritive sweetener used in all sort of products - toothpaste, gum, especially "keto friendly" stuff. Also monkfruit sweetener. It does NOT need to be labeled "artificial" since it can be found (in small quantities) in nature.
Data all comes from this paper @NatureMedicine - definitely a cut above your usual nutritional epidemiology fare - multiple lines of evidence here to tease out. nature.com/articles/s4159…
You have probably heard that CBD "mellows" the effects of THC in edibles. That is takes the edge off, decreases anxiety, etc.
According to this study in @JAMANetworkOpen, CBD makes THC much stronger. Thread/ jamanetwork.com/journals/jaman…
I wrote about this in more detail in my @medscape column here, but briefly this is a small, but cleanly designed, randomized pharmacokinetic study. medscape.com/viewarticle/98…
18 adult participants (who had abstained from cannabis for at least a month) were exposed to three conditions, each at least a week apart, in random order. The exposure? A "special" brownie, with varying amounts of THC and CBD.
Two years ago, I started writing "How Medicine Works and When It Doesn't" to help people understand the insidious nature of medical misinformation.
That's how it started. It's not where I ended up. (thread) grandcentralpublishing.com/titles/f-perry…
To be sure, we live in the disinformation age. We are awash in facts - some true, some false. We can literally pick and choose which we want to believe. I open the book with a chapter on motivated reasoning for just this reason.
And dig into the broad concept of causality to help explain why we are so quick to rush to judgment.
Very nice, systematic study of WHY covid mRNA vaccines (rarely) cause myocarditis from @LaelYonker in @CircAHA.
Points the finger squarely at "free spike protein". Here's a brief thread (1/N). ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.116…
This is a case-control study looking at 16 kids with post-vaccine myocarditis and 45 kids who had no adverse reaction to vaccine. Match was ok, though more boys in myocarditis group (2/N).
The study, one-by-one, eliminates potential mechanisms. We'll go through them here. (3/N)
Excited to share our new study in the Journal of Hypertension examining the effect of IV antihypertensives on hospitalized patients with severe htn. Outstanding work from @lama_ghazi on this.
Brief thread (1/N)
Over a four-year period, we identified 20,383 inpatients who were NOT admitted for hypertensive urgency / emergency and were not in the ICU but had SBP>180 or DBP>110.
(2/N)
Some didn't get treated, some got IV anti-hypertensives (mostly hydral / metop / labetalol - median 2 within 3 hours of severe htn). Some got orals (often meds they had been receiving already).
(3/N)