4 ms·
N=81, including the cohort of cognitively normal subjects, and those with dementia. Mounting evidence showed the self-reported levels of physical activity are
by IntronExon 9y ago
N=81, including the cohort of cognitively normal subjects, and those with dementia.
Mounting evidence showed the self-reported levels of physical activity are positively associated with white matter (WM) integrity and cognitive performance in normal adults and patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI)...
However, the objective measure of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) was not used in these studies.
Why even bother? At what point does the methodology of a study begin to so closely resemble some guy on a rocking chair saying “ahh reckon,” that we don’t call it science?
- DisruptiveDave 9y agoWhen we stop clicking.
- shoguning 9y agoYou don't necessarily need a massive sample size to make a solid conclusion, depending on the effect size. You can use statistics to control your error rates.
- IntronExon 9y agoI’ve grown more and more unconvinced by that, especially when it comes to neurobiology and behavior.
- ozborn 9y agoThere is nothing wrong with N=81 if the effect is large enough. They did use VO2Max to measure CRF.
- Jach 9y agoNever. Ever read a parapsychology paper? http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ib/parapsychology_the_control_group_for_science/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/1ib/parapsychology_the_control_group...
- IntronExon 9y agoNow that was interesting, and thought provoking. While I don’t know enough about the real standards of paranormal researchers, and so can’t really judge the validity of all the assumptions presented, it passes the sniff test. Besides, given the prevalence of things like p-hacking in the mainstream, maybe it doesn’t matter. How disturbing!
- pertymcpert 9y ago81?! Not bad at all.
- dang 9y agoOn HN, could you please not post this sort of shallow, predictable dismissal of other people's work? What we're getting on an internet forum is not informed professional critique of sample sizes, but a clichéd reflex that is well past its best-before date.
- IntronExon 9y agoI apologize, and I’ll make sure that future criticism is. Ore detailed and less cliche.