= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on [Link] Anti-ageing compound set for human trials - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (11)
Nitpick: years gained is rather optimistic for mice. Months is more likely.
With Googling you seem to be right that mouse lifespan extensions seem to be reported in months. I personally would still prefer to report results that are less than a year in years. Months have the annoying habit of having either 19, 28, 29, 30 or 31 days in length.
In at least one paper I've seen on this subject, month was fixed as a 30 day period. But even without that, as an approximation, months work pretty well for reporting the rough increase. The difference between 29 and 31 days will get swamped in the error margin for anything less than six months or so. And since most months are 30 or 31, and many alternate, in practice, this will be very close to 30.5 days, so the difference will be negligible.