2 ms·
It's unfortunate that the researchers didn't perform the same analysis on control samples, i.e. brain tissue from similar individuals without an ASD diagnosis.
by biocomment 9y ago
It's unfortunate that the researchers didn't perform the same analysis on control samples, i.e. brain tissue from similar individuals without an ASD diagnosis.
They say that the method of measuring aluminium is "established and fully validated", but this a weak claim. Really, they should have simultaneously performed the same method on non-ASD brain samples, to eliminate the effect of any experimental mishaps, and to find the background level of the binding of the stain to non-aluminium compounds.
With its lack of any control data to compare against, this study sounds like a waste of valuable brain samples.
- calebm 9y agoIsn't this referencing a control group? "Previous measurements of brain aluminium, including our 60 brain study [13], have allowed us to define loose categories of brain aluminium content beginning with ≤1.00 μg/g dry wt. as pathologically benign (as opposed to ‘normal’)."
- biocomment 9y agoNo, this is referencing a previous study. A control group in this study is needed to demonstrate that the particular method they used, and the experimental environment they used it in, can actually show a difference in aluminium concentrations between ASD and non-ASD samples.
- calebm 9y agoAh, good point.