Gordon H. Guyatt ✓

@GuyattGH · Hamilton, On. Canada · joined 10 Jun 2014

Promoting use of the best evidence and patient values and preferences to inform optimal clinical and health policy decisions. https://t.co/JxbX7cZMgy

15 345Followers

483Following

4 385Posts total

187.5KViews on collected posts

โพสต์ล่าสุด

Gordon H. Guyatt ✓@GuyattGH15 Sep

@GuyattGH @JAMAPediatrics Haha. This "paper" treats “uncertainty” as ethically neutral or even as a reason to proceed with puberty blockers and hormones. This is manipulative framing. Multiple independent systematic reviews (Cass, NICE, Sweden, Finland) rate the evidence of lasti 1.8K views · 104 likes · 16 reposts · 7 replies Open on X →

Gordon H. Guyatt ✓@GuyattGH15 Sep

@GuyattGH @JAMAPediatrics Just leaving this here. Patient autonomy is the right of a patient to refuse treatment, not to demand dangerous treatment. 1.5K views · 167 likes · 8 reposts · 0 replies Open on X →

Gordon H. Guyatt ✓@GuyattGH14 Sep

@GuyattGH @JAMAPediatrics You were already exposed as mistaken by Mia Hughes. Now it seems you are elevating that mistake into a lie. There is no evidence for ‘gender identity’. It is a made up category that establishes the basis for tooth fairy medicine. Your reputation can’ 3.4K views · 203 likes · 10 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Gordon H. Guyatt ✓@GuyattGH14 Sep

Just published @JAMAPediatrics brilliant, deeply insightful paper from ethicist and academic pediatrician specializing in adolescent medicine. Authors vividly demonstrates how #EBM has been unconscionably misused by #antitrans forces wishing to deny #GenderAffirmingCare. 120.8K views · 22 likes · 6 reposts · 118 replies Open on X →

Gordon H. Guyatt ✓@GuyattGH7 Sep

Intransitivity and incoherence are the two GRADE domains most NMA software ignores. Both demand structured judgment. Neither reduces to a p-value. CoreSR implements both, and guards against the common error: a double downgrade for one problem. https://t.co/iv5AnOM8WE 1.1K views · 13 likes · 5 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Gordon H. Guyatt ✓@GuyattGH4 Sep

NMA has meant handing the analysis to whoever on the team writes R. Methodological review stays shallow. Few co-authors can check work they cannot reproduce. CoreSR puts frequentist and Bayesian engines behind an interface a methodologist can drive. Disclosure: co-founder, I hold 3K views · 30 likes · 6 reposts · 3 replies Open on X →

Gordon H. Guyatt ✓@GuyattGH3 Sep

One of my mutuals is a mom who has a son with mental illness so severe that he ate a pack of cigarettes. About the same time, she found out that he had been approved for facial feminization surgery. Whenever I see a like from her, I tear up thinking about what she is going 17.5K views · 423 likes · 38 reposts · 37 replies Open on X →

Gordon H. Guyatt ✓@GuyattGH2 Sep

3,434 held-out Cochrane reviews. Median specificity 0.902 at 99% recall. The model runs locally: no per-abstract cost, no data leaving the machine. Method paper in press at JCE. Screening no longer decides what a small team can attempt. Disclosure: co-founder, I hold equity. 5.9K views · 49 likes · 11 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

Gordon H. Guyatt ✓@GuyattGH31 Aug

A systematic review takes one to two years. Very little of that time goes to thinking. It goes to moving citations between disconnected tools. We built CoreSR to strip that out and return the reviewer's time to judgment. https://t.co/iv5AnOM8WE https://t.co/eszXttb0Jk 28.5K views · 234 likes · 57 reposts · 8 replies Open on X →

Gordon H. Guyatt ✓@GuyattGH31 Aug

Sample size must align with statistical design – explanatory vs pragmatic – and with the #MinimalImportantDifference. Flaws in estimating parameters leads to underpowered trials. This paper describes a novel method for calculating sample size for pragmatic #RCTs. 3.9K views · 57 likes · 13 reposts · 1 replies Open on X →

เทียบกับบัญชีขนาดเดียวกัน

10 โพสต์จาก 90 วันที่ผ่านมา เทียบกับช่วง 10K–100K ผู้ติดตาม แสดงต่อคนมากกว่าบัญชีขนาดเดียวกัน.

ยอดดูมัธยฐาน3 644บัญชีนี้935ค่ามัธยฐานของ 10K–100K

การเข้าถึง, %23.74%บัญชีนี้3.66%ค่ามัธยฐานของ 10K–100K

การมีส่วนร่วม, %1.76%บัญชีนี้1.52%ค่ามัธยฐานของ 10K–100K

ตัวชี้วัด	บัญชีนี้	ค่ามัธยฐานของ 10K–100K	อัตราส่วน
ยอดดูมัธยฐานต่อโพสต์	3 644	935	3.90×
การเข้าถึง (ยอดดู ÷ ผู้ติดตาม)	23.74%	3.66%	6.49×
อัตราการมีส่วนร่วม	1.76%	1.52%	1.16×

บัญชีอื่นในช่วงนี้ → เปรียบเทียบกับบัญชีอื่น → ค่าอ้างอิงเหล่านี้คำนวณอย่างไร →

Growth & engagement

How the posts we collected actually performed: views and reaction rate post by post, what the audience did with them, and where the follower count goes.

Views per post

3.9K31 Aug

28.5K

5.9K2 Sep

17.5K3 Sep

3K4 Sep

1.1K7 Sep

120.8K14 Sep

3.4K

1.5K15 Sep

1.8K

Last 10 collected posts, oldest on the left. The scale is logarithmic: one post can outrun the rest a hundred times over.

Engagement rate per post

1.83%31 Aug

1.06%

1.03%2 Sep

2.88%3 Sep

1.29%4 Sep

1.69%7 Sep

0.14%14 Sep

6.29%

11.54%15 Sep

7.24%

Reactions — likes, reposts, replies and quotes — divided by views. Median for 10K–100K accounts is 1.52%.

What the audience does

Likes64.6%1 302 in total

Reposts8.4%170 in total

Replies8.8%177 in total

Quotes1.6%33 in total

Bookmarks16.5%332 in total

Share of every reaction we collected for this account. Replies mean argument, reposts mean endorsement, bookmarks mean the post was worth keeping.

Followers by day

7 Sep

Daily snapshots since 07 Sep 2026; the dashed line is the starting count.