argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →

Signal present in diabetics, absent in general population

forThis argument, if it holds, bears in favour of the claim.constitution →Positive egg–cardiovascular disease associations are concentrated among people with diabetes.

The argument

Because linked claim while linked claim, the positive egg–cardiovascular disease signal is concentrated in the diabetic subgroup rather than spread across the whole population.

Does it work?

Does it follow?: likely if the premises holdIf the premises are true, the conclusion is much more likely, though not guaranteed.constitution →
Do the premises hold?: 2 inconclusive

Granting both premises, a positive association within diabetics alongside a null one in the general population would make concentration in the diabetic subgroup very likely. It falls short of certain because separate subgroup findings are not a formal interaction test, and differing study designs or adjustment could produce the contrast. The argument stands or falls with linked claim and linked claim, both of which the evidence currently leaves unsettled, so it is not decisive.

Premises

InconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →Among people with diabetes, higher egg consumption is associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk.
InconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →Prospective cohort studies find no significant association between egg intake and cardiovascular events in healthy adults

Where it is made

Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.

No source is recorded as making it.