Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Puzzle-solving 'doesn't slow down mental decline in older people'

nhs.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 111 posts

Re: Puzzle-solving 'doesn't slow down mental decline in older people'

#41

Post by flatline »

ojbyrne wrote: post #28
tannerc wrote: post #4

This is a fascinating share, if not for the results—"None of the measures of intellectual engagement was linked to the speed of decline of people's mental abilities over time"—but for the study itself. "Many people also dropped out of the study. Only 96 of the 498 people recruited took part in the last round of testing. The researchers lost touch with 13 people, while 57 people died and 332 declined to take part." Do…

This is a cohort study conducted over 15 years. You can't really criticize it only based on those numbers, at least not without looking at similar numbers from other cohort studies with the same length. I tend to ascribe some value to "It was published in the peer-reviewed British Medical Journal." Additional thought: Especially because it is essentially supporting the null hypothesis.

There is nothing more frustrating than doing things you are bad at, regularly, especially if you are bound to get somewhat worse as time goes on. To your point, even if that were the reason for a significant number of departures, it would not go against the conclusion.

Re: Puzzle-solving 'doesn't slow down mental decline in older people'

#42

Post by sandworm101 »

joe_the_user wrote: post #17
tannerc wrote: post #4

This is a fascinating share, if not for the results—"None of the measures of intellectual engagement was linked to the speed of decline of people's mental abilities over time"—but for the study itself. "Many people also dropped out of the study. Only 96 of the 498 people recruited took part in the last round of testing. The researchers lost touch with 13 people, while 57 people died and 332 declined to take part." Do…

Wow, a rate of drop-out like that would certainly make me doubtful of the results of the study. It seems reasonably likely that people dropped-out in a fashion that would be weighted in one way or another.

Have you ever taken these sorts of tests? They are not fun. Many questions are childish. Others make you feel stupid for not getting them right. Both extremes are necessary to the study.

I'm reminded of a study using the Nintendo Wii to help keep elderly people mobile. 90+% of them stopped playing immediately, within days, of the researchers leaving.

Re: Puzzle-solving 'doesn't slow down mental decline in older people'

#43

Post by newname2018 »

You can ask dang why I'm still banned but anyway , I'll say from personal experience that once a person is even in the beginning of AZ the" puzzles" thing doesn't work anymore and the person afflicted is kinda aware of this more or less some of the time and it just causes them to realize it even more. Oh yes HN mods you can silence this username but you should realize that you can't silence the truth. Hey dang why don't you get a real job like the rest of us

Re: Puzzle-solving 'doesn't slow down mental decline in older people'

#44

Post by danieltillett »

mjfl wrote: post #8
TrainedMonkey wrote: post #3

But exercise does: https://www.news-medical.net/news/20160324/Exercise-slows-do...

I got my genes sequenced recently and it turns out I have a mutant gene that predisposes me to Alzheimers - APOE e4. it's a cholesterol shuttling gene! Very important to keep low fat, it effects your entire body.

It is not really a mutant gene, just one of the variant genes found in the human population. Unfortunately the APOE4 variant is rather bad to have and a major risk factor for Alzheimers.

Are you homo or heterozygous for E4?

Re: Puzzle-solving 'doesn't slow down mental decline in older people'

#47

Post by joe_the_user »

sandworm101 wrote: post #42
joe_the_user wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, a rate of drop-out like that would certainly make me doubtful of the results of the study. It seems reasonably likely that people dropped-out in a fashion that would be weighted in one way or another.

Have you ever taken these sorts of tests? They are not fun. Many questions are childish. Others make you feel stupid for not getting them right. Both extremes are necessary to the study. I'm reminded of a study using the Nintendo Wii to help keep elderly people mobile. 90+% of them stopped playing immediately, within days, of the researchers leaving.

Have you ever taken these sorts of tests? They are not fun. Many questions are childish. Others make you feel stupid for not getting them right. Both extremes are necessary to the study.

So you're saying it's logical that a lot of people dropped out? Seems reasonable.

But that doesn't mean that you wouldn't have the problem of the high drop-out rate implying the final people remaining are biased sample. When you are filtering a large number of people down to a small number, making sure that small number is representative of the large number is a hard problem.

Maybe there's no solution or no easy solution. Doesn't change the problem.

Re: Puzzle-solving 'doesn't slow down mental decline in older people'

#48

Post by georgeglue1 »

joe_the_user wrote: post #17
tannerc wrote: post #4

This is a fascinating share, if not for the results—"None of the measures of intellectual engagement was linked to the speed of decline of people's mental abilities over time"—but for the study itself. "Many people also dropped out of the study. Only 96 of the 498 people recruited took part in the last round of testing. The researchers lost touch with 13 people, while 57 people died and 332 declined to take part." Do…

Wow, a rate of drop-out like that would certainly make me doubtful of the results of the study. It seems reasonably likely that people dropped-out in a fashion that would be weighted in one way or another.

There are some ways to adjust and counteract these effects (it's an issue with every clinical trial on serious illnesses and older populations though).

A reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3227332/

Sometimes, you have to trust the quality of the journal and biostatistician if you aren't able to read everything yourself.

Re: Puzzle-solving 'doesn't slow down mental decline in older people'

#49

Post by joe_the_user »

ojbyrne wrote: post #28
tannerc wrote: post #4

This is a fascinating share, if not for the results—"None of the measures of intellectual engagement was linked to the speed of decline of people's mental abilities over time"—but for the study itself. "Many people also dropped out of the study. Only 96 of the 498 people recruited took part in the last round of testing. The researchers lost touch with 13 people, while 57 people died and 332 declined to take part." Do…

This is a cohort study conducted over 15 years. You can't really criticize it only based on those numbers, at least not without looking at similar numbers from other cohort studies with the same length. I tend to ascribe some value to "It was published in the peer-reviewed British Medical Journal." Additional thought: Especially because it is essentially supporting the null hypothesis.

You can't really criticize it only based on those numbers, at least not without looking at similar numbers from other cohort studies with the same length.

Well, one can't criticize the quality of the study without looking how well other studies did. But even if all studies involve a massive drop-out rate, the drop-out rate still seems like something to look at in evaluating the accuracy of the study.

I mean my concern, looking from the outside, isn't relative accuracy, but absolute accuracy. Not "is it as good as other studies?" but "it is good enough that I can rely on it?"

Re: Puzzle-solving 'doesn't slow down mental decline in older people'

#50

Post by mjevans »

joe_the_user wrote: post #49
ojbyrne wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a cohort study conducted over 15 years. You can't really criticize it only based on those numbers, at least not without looking at similar numbers from other cohort studies with the same length. I tend to ascribe some value to "It was published in the peer-reviewed British Medical Journal." Additional thought: Especially because it is essentially supporting the null hypothesis.

You can't really criticize it only based on those numbers, at least not without looking at similar numbers from other cohort studies with the same length. Well, one can't criticize the quality of the study without looking how well other studies did. But even if all studies involve a massive drop-out rate, the drop-out rate still seems like something to look at in evaluating the accuracy of the study. I mean my concer…

15 -years- is a LONG time for a study. I'm not sure about the dropout rates, but it is a real statistical issue. I'm just not sure there's anything that can reasonably be done about it. You'd have to have something like federally mandated participation / continued participation. That's also very unlikely to pass ethics boards.

BTW, it would also be an issue if the subjects were compensated to the point that they differed from the actual population at large.

Fundamentally having more respect for doing things right, the right way, over the /long/ term, including the STEM fields, would be a 'good thing' for any society, but particularly western ones (where often the bad/evil antagonist is based on science or a cold lack of emotions; but the protagonist is based mostly on emotion and feeling instead of logic).

Post reply on HN