Apparently we should add "in mice", "single study", "small study" and about 14 other disclaimers to every HN title about science.
If you care desperately about "in mice" find a less "general interest" news source.
Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging
231–240 of 314 posts
Re: Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging
#232No offense to everybody upvoting this type of thing, but claims like this seem to outweigh any actual tangible result by 100 or 1000 to 1. I think it's a better use of everybody time to say "Well, let's just wait until it's replicated in humans until we share articles"
Nah, surely we found a room temperature super conductor and solved one of the most major aspects of aging all in 1 week!
Re: Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging
#233> Researchers using mouse models found that altering the CaMKII brain protein caused similar cognitive effects as those that happen through normal aging. This should be the title of the article. Honestly these supposedly dissemination articles do not offer much more than reading the abstract or skimming a bit through the article itself. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.ade5892
Realistically, with the title you suggest nobody would have read the post. A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity. I understand that we don't want misleading titles but this obsession on titles is not very helpful. I am participating in this useless conversation but I couldn't help myself. Now every single HN post has a comment…
> A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity.
Are you advocating clickbait?
Re: Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging
#234Those kind of articles (and papers) would be far more impactful if they were used only when they actually referred to some major real breakthrough.
As opposed for us to read 1000s of them in the span of 10 years, and nothing ever coming out of them - except 200 more articles like that from other teams, on other competing mechanisms.
What about a more real title: "Scientists found a potential mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging, but it's more likely that they have not, the area of study is very complex and ill-understood still, and it will take decades at best to discover and verify any definitive mechanisms. More likely this study also has methodological errors or these guys are even padding their numbers to get a paper published and secure more grants".
Yes, it's a mouthful.
How about "Researchers find a way to induce cognititive decline in lab animals. Don't hold your breath for human relevance".
Re: Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging
#235Apparently we should add "in mice", "single study", "small study" and about 14 other disclaimers to every HN title about science. If you care desperately about "in mice" find a less "general interest" news source.
> Apparently we should add "in mice", "single study", "small study" and about 14 other disclaimers to every HN title about science.
That would be nice, yes. Otherwise there's an endless stream of "revolutionary" discoveries that turn out to be nothing.
Re: Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging
#236> Researchers using mouse models found that altering the CaMKII brain protein caused similar cognitive effects as those that happen through normal aging. This should be the title of the article. Honestly these supposedly dissemination articles do not offer much more than reading the abstract or skimming a bit through the article itself. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scisignal.ade5892
Realistically, with the title you suggest nobody would have read the post. A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity. I understand that we don't want misleading titles but this obsession on titles is not very helpful. I am participating in this useless conversation but I couldn't help myself. Now every single HN post has a comment…
>A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity.
It shouldn't have to do the latter. That's clickbait. People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not. If they are not, they shouldn't be "stimulated" with BS. That "media/advetising" attitude is the cause behind many issues with science in society today.
Re: Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging
#237Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging, but there shall, in that time, be rumors of things going astray, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia work base that has an attachment that one may confuse with clickbait.
Alternative medicine salesmen touting BS loosely based on the research: Behold the gourd!
Re: Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging
#238The article suggests that decline in nitric oxide availability as you age under pins the effect studied. Citrulline has been found to be an effective route for improving nitric oxide levels by synthesizing into arginine, which is destroyed in the gut while citrulline is not and readily converts into arginine. https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1... … in humans
[deleted]
Re: Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We can all prompt ChatGPT. I'm largely blind to this. If they're not wordy and overly polite, pasted ChatGPT answers just don't appear on my radar. Can someone help me out? What points to this answer in particular being from ChatGPT?
Some tell-tale signs (I work with GPT a lot as I mentioned in a sibling comment): - It's a list, it's numbered, it's got pretty consistent markdown formatting. This is especially present with ChatGPT - Title Casing In Each List Item - Strong usage of the passive voice - Strong CYA tone. "might promote", "studies suggest", "has been associated", "can convert", "possibly lowering", "thought to increase" The general str…
Well, considering it was trained from content created from how people actually write, yes?
Re: Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can all prompt ChatGPT. Littering the web with its output is against good netizenship. I understand it's inevitable and a matter of time, but it's still aggravating.
> We can all prompt ChatGPT. I'm largely blind to this. If they're not wordy and overly polite, pasted ChatGPT answers just don't appear on my radar. Can someone help me out? What points to this answer in particular being from ChatGPT?
[deleted]