51–60 of 102 posts
Is it possible that prior to 2000, the studies that found a null result, were simply not published? Hence why they are underrepresented in that chart? My understanding is that it's very hard to get null results published in scientific journals, though I'm not sure if that applies to clinical studies as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardly equivalent "for all intents and purposes." The purposes of the layman are nothing like those of the research community.
If you put it in the public domain it is your responsibility to ensure it is digestible by the audience you publish it to. So yes... public posted information should be layman ready
More importantly, I can make whatever I want public, and I can do so with whatever audience I have in mind.
I 100% agree with the headline; especially for research papers even more than clinical trials. However, I'm a bit puzzled by the weird direction the journalist ran with this, which is straight to his preconceived notions that are not that supported by the data he's looking at. But there's a bit more to this than just that one chart. In addition to self-correction (e.g. beginning to require pre-registration of trials)…
> With the advances in treatments for cardiovascular disease couldn't the problem just be harder? I'm pretty sure we have no significant advances in the treatment of cardiovascular disease. And given the alarmingly climbing rates of chronic diseases, e.g. cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer, I'm also pretty sure that the health care industry has done more harm than good when it comes to chronic diseases…
I mean, can't this be attributed to other things too? (The way people live has changed in the past 20 years...)
I'd rather see some studies to show if/why those things have spiked rather than disavowing attempts to help it.
What else are we supposed to do?
> Then, in 2000, the rules changed. Researchers were required before the study started to say what they were looking for. They couldn’t just mine the data afterward looking for anything that happened to be positive. They had to report the results they said they were going to report. And guess what? Out of 21 studies, only two showed significant benefits. Why is this considered good? Isn't this just a counterproductiv…
"Significant" here doesn't mean what you think it means, but rather it has a technical meaning. Basically, it means that if the intervention has absolutely no effect, then there's less than 5% probability that measured "benefit" is just a random fluke -- thus, since you actually measured benefit, you are now left wondering whether the intervention actually has an effect, or you just happen to be in 5% of possible uni…
That still seems a good first step. It may also be curious to find out what were the things that have actually lead to the effect if not the one we were checking. E.g. it may happen that it the substance researched only affects subjects with particular features or that something else they were doing has produced the result on itself and knowing any of these still seems useful (some really important discoveries were made this way AFAIK).
I 100% agree with the headline; especially for research papers even more than clinical trials. However, I'm a bit puzzled by the weird direction the journalist ran with this, which is straight to his preconceived notions that are not that supported by the data he's looking at. But there's a bit more to this than just that one chart. In addition to self-correction (e.g. beginning to require pre-registration of trials)…
I would say that not all research needs to be held to the pre-registering standard of clinical trials. Some research is more exploratory, and should be interpreted that way.
I 100% agree with the headline; especially for research papers even more than clinical trials. However, I'm a bit puzzled by the weird direction the journalist ran with this, which is straight to his preconceived notions that are not that supported by the data he's looking at. But there's a bit more to this than just that one chart. In addition to self-correction (e.g. beginning to require pre-registration of trials)…
> Is it not possible that the low-hanging fruit had been found earlier, in the 1970s-1990s, and the problem got harder? The problem of "problems getting harder" is a continuous phenomenon. Why would that be the case suddenly after 2000, and not before? > However, I'm a bit puzzled by the weird direction the journalist ran with this, which is straight to his preconceived notions that are not that supported by the data…
Well, there was that whole dotcom boom and a lot of things changed for computers & the internet which led to researchers being able to share more information, use more powerful computer techniques, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you put it in the public domain it is your responsibility to ensure it is digestible by the audience you publish it to. So yes... public posted information should be layman ready
Do you apply this reasoning to articles or comments discussing kernel development? Some topics have higher irreducible complexity than others. More importantly, I can make whatever I want public, and I can do so with whatever audience I have in mind.
So inciting panic online is fine but not in a theater ?
I 100% agree with the headline; especially for research papers even more than clinical trials. However, I'm a bit puzzled by the weird direction the journalist ran with this, which is straight to his preconceived notions that are not that supported by the data he's looking at. But there's a bit more to this than just that one chart. In addition to self-correction (e.g. beginning to require pre-registration of trials)…
> With the advances in treatments for cardiovascular disease couldn't the problem just be harder? I'm pretty sure we have no significant advances in the treatment of cardiovascular disease. And given the alarmingly climbing rates of chronic diseases, e.g. cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, cancer, I'm also pretty sure that the health care industry has done more harm than good when it comes to chronic diseases…
Recent US outcomes: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...
US & New York State outcomes 1980-2007, Figure 2: https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/cardiovascular/heart_dise...
I haven't hit the major mortality sources, but these bits match everything else I've heard.
I'd also like to know the basis for asserting that the health care industry doing more harm than good.