Scientific Science
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:
CRS - scientifically called Alzheimer's
CRS != Alzheimer's. Alzheimer's is certainly a cause of extreme CRS, but there are many reasons for CRS that are not remotely related to it. Even full-blown dementia isn't necessarily due to Alzheimer's; e.g., it could be due to stroke.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
CRS != Alzheimer's.
Yes. CRS are more likely to be Parkinson's i.e. uncontrollable tremors of, say, the hand that holds the baton.
not those CRS?
-
@remi No no no. When you shout swear words all time, that is Parkinson's.
Or wait,....
How can I be sure? Suffering from all of them, I don't give a fuck which one is which one.
-
Reproducibility... is a strange idea. Look, 246 biologists were given the same dataset for analysis. And arrived at quite different results.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:
No no no. When you shout swear words all time, that is Parkinson's.
You're thinking of Tourette's Syndrome. But most Tourette's patients don't have the swearing part.
-
@jinpa said in Scientific Science:
You're thinking
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:
Reproducibility... is a strange idea. Look, 246 biologists were given the same dataset for analysis. And arrived at quite different results.
It would be great if the popular vision of science could shift from the idea of a huge building where every study adds in a new tiny brick, and instead view it as a storm that lifts grains of sand and randomly deposits them here and there, sometimes accumulating into weird shapes, sometimes destroying previous shapes, and all the while slowing and irremediably shaping the landscape.
-
@remi Ah, Remi Notre Grand Poète du WDTWTF....
-
@jinpa said in Scientific Science:
@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:
No no no. When you shout swear words all time, that is Parkinson's.
You're thinking of Tourette's Syndrome. But most Tourette's patients don't have the swearing part.
The swearing part is called Hiperhidrosis.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:
When you shout swear words all time, that is
ParkinsonPolygeekery's.
-
@remi
most of these shapes look like turds
-
@Luhmann wants to express their embarrassment.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:
@remi Ah, Remi est Notre Grand Poète du WDTWTF....
Corrigé ça pour moi.
-
Giving the X link rather than directly to the article so you can get your own token rather than using mine.
-
Nice punchy headline
But the actual article is of course much more reserved and in particular they're very clear that they "only" did simulations showing that the impact could have generated some present-day anomalies (large areas of low seismic velocity at the limit between the mantle and the core).
It's a nice study in showing that the hypothesis that these anomalies are remnants of the proto-moon is a viable hypothesis, but it doesn't really proves it (which few studies ever do, anyway). I'm not familiar enough with the field to say for sure, but I also think that it tightens a bit the constraints on some unknowns such as the density (and therefore composition) of that proto-moon.
-
They missed a trick not writing the “Impact Factor” in Impact.
-
-
Nice onebox there. Anyway.
Association Between Apple Consumption and Physician Visits
Abstract
IMPORTANCE
Fruit consumption is believed to have beneficial health effects, and some claim, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”
OBJECTIVE
To examine the relationship between eating an apple a day and keeping the doctor away.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
A cross-sectional study of a nationally representative sample of the noninstitutionalized US adult population. A total of 8728 adults 18 years and older from the 2007–2008 and 2009–2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey completed a 24-hour dietary recall questionnaire and reported that the quantity of food they ate was reflective of their usual daily diet.
Conclusion
Evidence does not support that an apple a day keeps the doctor away; however, the small fraction of US adults who eat an apple a day do appear to use fewer prescription medications.
-
@Zecc said in Scientific Science:
Evidence does not support that an apple a day keeps the doctor away
Earlier evidence includes Steve Jobs refusing to treat cancer.
-
@Zecc said in Scientific Science:
Fruit consumption is believed to have beneficial health effects, and some claim, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”
An apple a day, combined with a normal diet, would most likely exceed my allowed sugar intake and increase my already high risk of diabetes. That apple would be half of my total allowed sugar.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@Zecc said in Scientific Science:
Fruit consumption is believed to have beneficial health effects, and some claim, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”
An apple a day, combined with a normal diet, would most likely exceed my allowed sugar intake and increase my already high risk of diabetes. That apple would be half of my total allowed sugar.
I miss apples...
-
@dcon said in Scientific Science:
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@Zecc said in Scientific Science:
Fruit consumption is believed to have beneficial health effects, and some claim, “An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”
An apple a day, combined with a normal diet, would most likely exceed my allowed sugar intake and increase my already high risk of diabetes. That apple would be half of my total allowed sugar.
I miss apples...
There are other fruits I miss even more, but yes.
-
The Dana Faber Cancer Institute in Boston ( ) has to retract 6 papers and "correct" further 31 papers:
-
@BernieTheBernie Nitpicking at others papers when their data is dodgy is science.
-
@dkf said in Scientific Science:
@BernieTheBernie Nitpicking at others papers when their data is dodgy is science.
Ideally, it should be done by peer reviewers before the papers are even published (and sometimes should prevent them from ever being published). Of course, not all errors can be caught before publication.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Scientific Science:
@dkf said in Scientific Science:
@BernieTheBernie Nitpicking at others papers when their data is dodgy is science.
Ideally, it should be done by peer reviewers before the papers are even published (and sometimes should prevent them from ever being published).
Publication ought to check for obvious problems like obvious plagiarism or failing to meet acceptable standards of readability, but replication studies (necessary for actually accepting anything properly, and the point where faked results often show up) can't be done until afterwards, as reviewers certainly aren't going to commit that level of resources to anything earlier. Expecting reviewers to pick everything up is entirely unrealistic.
-
According to the article, we're not talking replication studies, but spotting duplicated images in the same article, like this:
-
That is a bit on the nose…
-
@kazitor But in case of this snippet, we are sure that we can identify the faker: .
-
To be fair, the photos being arranged when the article was written probably had file names like
rats(2)-new-journal (edited-final).bak.tif
-
@Watson That might have been the reason, but that would still mean their record keeping was trash and that means the results shouldn't be trusted anyway.
-
What a surprise!
Mathematicians found a way to game the system of university rankings by citations: they just teamed up with methematicians from other universities, and cited each other's papers vigorously.
https://www.science.org/content/article/citation-cartels-help-some-mathematicians-and-their-universities-climb-rankings
Who could off thought that?
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:
Mathematicians found a way to game the system of university rankings by citations: they just teamed up with methematicians from other universities, and cited each other's papers vigorously.
That is neither a new idea, nor is it not classified as academic misconduct. The analysis is still interesting, and the scale of the problem appears to be new.
Other researchers say citation manipulation is simply a symptom of a flawed system of evaluation. [...] Holden agrees: “The bottom line is that citations are not a good measure of scientific quality.”
This might be a place for Goodhart's law, but it was probably never a good measure to begin with.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:
methematicians
Walter White couldn't be reached for comments
-
More bad news for Harvard:
-
@Luhmann said in Scientific Science:
@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:
methematicians
Walter White couldn't be reached for comments
Is that Hunter's brother?
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:
@Luhmann said in Scientific Science:
@BernieTheBernie said in Scientific Science:
methematicians
Walter White couldn't be reached for comments
Is that Hunter's brother?
Mentor.
-
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Scientific Science:
@jinpa said in Scientific Science:
33 page paper with 5154 authors.
Everything from Boson is terrible.
Yes. The Boson Red Sox finished in last place the last two seasons. Although the Boson Celtics have been doing much better.
-
@Gern_Blaanston said in Scientific Science:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Scientific Science:
@jinpa said in Scientific Science:
33 page paper with 5154 authors.
Everything from Boson is terrible.
Yes. The Boson Red Sox finished in last place the last two seasons.
The Feel Good Stories thread is .
Also don't forget the Pariots' precipitous decline.
-
@boomzilla said in Scientific Science:
More bad news for Harvard:
I wonder when Harvard alumni from the '80s and '90s will start forming re-certification associations in an effort to keep their diplomas from turning into fancy toilet paper.
-
-
-
This is supposedly a "single anonymous peer review" journal.
For the foreseeable event of the article disappearing, here are the figures:
-
@LaoC Hey, some of those are real words. Others, the bad AI drawing thread is .
-
Figure 3:
An expression of concern on:
‘Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway’
by Guo X, Dong L and Hao D (2024) Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 11:1339390. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2023.1339390
With this notice, Frontiers states its awareness of concerns regarding the article "Cellular functions of spermatogonial stem cells in relation to JAK/STAT signaling pathway" published on 13 February 2024. An investigation is currently being conducted and this notice will be updated accordingly after the investigation concludes.You mean someone is going to look at it?!
EDIT:
Edited by
Arumugam KumaresanNational Dairy Research Institute (ICAR), India)
National Dairy Research Institute? Why does that name sound familiar?
-
-
It has of course been retracted
It's amusing to see how much impact it has had since its publication
-
Proceedings of the SIGBOVIK (is|are) plusgood and thus recommended.
Edit: also, "Quantum disadvantage, Or, simulating IBM’s ‘quantum utility’ experiment with a Commodore 64"
-