this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
10 points (81.2% liked)

Crappy Correlations

429 readers
1 users here now

Post your correlation, but it better be funny damn it.

Note: Please keep it funny, and not political . There are plenty of other places on Lemmy to post more serious type of content.

This is a community just for some fun based on the spurious correlations website made by a university student.

https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious/random

I have no relation to him, but you can visit the link above and see any random correlation that you want.

You can make your own with no graphics or programming knowledge from imgflip here

If you do actually follow the link you will see not only the graph but an ai generated explanation and an AI scholarly paper that supports these correlations.

Who knows what is going to happen when the AIs pick up these hundreds of scholarly papers and put them in their training data. Anyone who wants to post a better blank graph can do so.

founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/44981911

See the study here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(25)00111-5/fulltext > >

May 22, 2025 | Open access > > Prevalence of myopia in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from 14 countries > > Although myopia prevalence increased in East Asian countries, the burden of myopia in Europe is less known. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of myopia in Europe and at the country level. > > We screened 2074 records and included 22 studies (from 14 European countries; n = 128,012) in the meta-analyses. The pooled prevalence of myopia was 23.5% (95% CI: 18.5–29.3; I2 = 99.7%), ranging from 11.9% in Finland to 49.7% in Sweden. In cycloplegic studies, myopia prevalence was 18.9% (95% CI: 13.2–26.5%; I2 = 99.7%) vs. 31.2% (95% CI: 24.9–38.3%; I2 = 99.3%) in non-cycloplegic studies. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses exploring sources of heterogeneity showed a lower prevalence in children (6–11 years; 5.5%) compared with adolescents (12–17 years; 25.2%) and adults (18–39 years; 24.3%) in cycloplegic studies. No significant differences in prevalence were observed between sexes. Myopia prevalence increased significantly between 2000–2010 and 2011–2022 (p = 0.040), although age-specific trends remained stable.

all 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

borders are drawn with the same tools as penises are

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

Maybe freud was right.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

*mindstroked.gif