3 ms·

So let's ignore all possible confounders, don't even start asking questions, and focus on some random detail because my supervisor is a huge fan of it.

neuroma 4y ago
They did adjust for confounders available in the Framington heart study. Observational studies are less good at showing causation, sure. Whilst I can't see the original article, the news summary insinuated a dose related effect. A sample size of >2000 is also decent. Naturally in an ideal world you'd want a 3 arm, 20 year long, randomised placebo controlled double blinded study. But who would ever 1. Pay for it, 2. Wait that long.
- stewbrew 4y ago
  The problem with large sample sizes is that random deviations show up as significant difference unless you have a responsible statistician in the team.
garrettgrimsley 4y ago
>We used linear regression models to relate Omega-3 fatty acid concentrations to brain MRI measures (i.e., total brain, total gray matter, hippocampal, and white matter hyperintensity volumes) and cognitive function (i.e., episodic memory, processing speed, executive function, and abstract reasoning) adjusting for potential confounders. https://n.neurology.org/content/early/2022/10/05/WNL.0000000000201296 https://n.neurology.org/content/early/2022/10/05/WNL.0000000... Unless you have good reason you ought not be so uncharitable. Have you good reason?
- stewbrew 4y ago
  I cannot access the original paper and I don't have the time for it. Was the study registered in advance? Did they also test other outcome variables and then did cherry picking? Which potential confounders did they test? How do they cope with the problem that they measured something at the end of a longer process? When I see such studies, on closer inspection, they often turn out to be crap. It could be this really is a gem among a pile of gravels (my apologies if that were the case) but I'm sceptical.
nextlevelwizard 4y ago
This is pretty much how most studies work. People get an idea that X is good or Y is bad and then set out to proof their hypothesis. That is why many papers are never even written - since the study wasn't positive.
dang 4y ago
"Don't be snarky." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- LoveMortuus 4y ago
  Do the Dang~
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

neuroma 4y ago

They did adjust for confounders available in the Framington heart study. Observational studies are less good at showing causation, sure. Whilst I can't see the original article, the news summary insinuated a dose related effect. A sample size of >2000 is also decent. Naturally in an ideal world you'd want a 3 arm, 20 year long, randomised placebo controlled double blinded study. But who would ever 1. Pay for it, 2. Wait that long.

stewbrew 4y ago
The problem with large sample sizes is that random deviations show up as significant difference unless you have a responsible statistician in the team.

garrettgrimsley 4y ago

>We used linear regression models to relate Omega-3 fatty acid concentrations to brain MRI measures (i.e., total brain, total gray matter, hippocampal, and white matter hyperintensity volumes) and cognitive function (i.e., episodic memory, processing speed, executive function, and abstract reasoning) adjusting for potential confounders. https://n.neurology.org/content/early/2022/10/05/WNL.0000000000201296 https://n.neurology.org/content/early/2022/10/05/WNL.0000000... Unless you have good reason you ought not be so uncharitable. Have you good reason?

stewbrew 4y ago
I cannot access the original paper and I don't have the time for it. Was the study registered in advance? Did they also test other outcome variables and then did cherry picking? Which potential confounders did they test? How do they cope with the problem that they measured something at the end of a longer process? When I see such studies, on closer inspection, they often turn out to be crap. It could be this really is a gem among a pile of gravels (my apologies if that were the case) but I'm sceptical.

nextlevelwizard 4y ago

This is pretty much how most studies work. People get an idea that X is good or Y is bad and then set out to proof their hypothesis. That is why many papers are never even written - since the study wasn't positive.

dang 4y ago

"Don't be snarky." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
LoveMortuus 4y ago
Do the Dang~
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]