I can't remember when I've seen a less satisfactory paper, just from the standpoint of data presentation.
Have you seen the data?
How many cases are there, year by year, to correspond to the 45 percent in 1950 and 3 percent in 1960.
A binary division greater than 2500 g vs. less than or equal to 2500 g. is really treacherous. What might the actual weights
have been. One nurse's habits of how the weights are recorded (grams? ounces?) could alter the whole story.
But I am mainly concerned that only a handful of children constitutes the whole cohort of the 1950 swale [?], a matter
[END PAGE ONE]
[BEGIN PAGE TWO]
I may want to ask Science why they published a paper so deficient in elementary details. But before I stick my neck out it
would be good to see the raw numbers; and I ask you what is the best (most discreet) way to see them.