That is an interesting situation. I believe I am responsible for a 'corrigendum' to this article: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31542391 Figure 5 looked suspect. I haven't looked into the corrigendum enough to decide if I buy it.
This was that crazy photonegative figure you mentioned in chat! The correction shows one figure depicting intensity change rather than before-and-after values. The figure now seems to match the change in before and after values. Using the raw change percent (not logâ‚‚) the pattern mostly matches, though I can't distinguish between a 400% increase and a 141% increase in the new Figure 5.In the article, we showed data after transforming the Day 0 and Day 14 values within subjects as %. Based on the advice of colleagues and readers, we show data and statistics without that transformation and show the raw data in the following Figures and Appendix. We present analyses of these data conducted and/or reviewed by professional statisticians (see acknowledgements).
