3 ms·
Has anyone actually read the paper? I have some pretty serious qualms with the topology traversal routes over the DOSI vs age manifold — they seem unfounded.
by alextheparrot 5y ago
Has anyone actually read the paper?
I have some pretty serious qualms with the topology traversal routes over the DOSI vs age manifold — they seem unfounded. This isn’t inherently problematic, but that seems like a core assumption - that the steepness and thus likelihood of falling off the DOSI associated cliff increases with age. The idea being once you fall off the cliff you die.
I don’t think it is a bad hypothesis, it just isn’t a result?
They renamed DOSI from “Age independent mortality” and changed the traversal examples since their 2018 paper [0] - honestly I don’t know how this paper has gotten so much press this week. It is only interesting for the title (Might’ve answered my own question there), but once you dig into it isn’t all that rigorous.
[0] https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2018.00483/full#B37 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2018.0048...
- bionhoward 5y agoI disagree with the paper because it neglects the possibility of engineered approaches to reverse the mechanisms of ageing
- alextheparrot 5y agoThey’d probably argue that this same model works for that - you just update the manifold. That’s probably fair, the model isn't really powered to be predictive just correlative. It still embeds some of the same problems, though, mainly how an individual actually interacts with it and why their interpretation is correct.
- nradov 5y agoThat's like disagreeing with a paper on orbital mechanics because it neglects the possibility of inventing a warp drive. So far there is no clear engineering path for reversing the mechanisms of ageing; that remains in the science fiction realm.
- bionhoward 5y agoIt's real -- look at biogerontology
- nradov 5y agoIt's an area of research. So far it hasn't produced any practically useful results.