2 ms·

Another good reason why you should learn how to read studies: https://peterattiamd.com/ns001/ https://peterattiamd.com/ns001/ https://biolayne.com/reps/how-to

Another good reason why you should learn how to read studies: https://peterattiamd.com/ns001/ https://peterattiamd.com/ns001/ https://biolayne.com/reps/how-to-read-research-a-biolayne-guide/ https://biolayne.com/reps/how-to-read-research-a-biolayne-gu... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7392212/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7392212/ And as a bonus, read books by controversial figures who talk about these challenges through their own published studies and decided it isn't worth fighting. What would be cool is to see "trust indicators" as part of a study's metadata as it is reviewed through time and continually shared by others. Could be a "study health score" or a checklist showing the study isn't biased heavily by sponsors, methods, or misleading language. Especially given that medicine is becoming more personal with the advancements of AI and accessibility of tests, someone should be able to understand the health of a study at-a-glance reviewed by peer reviews rather than disclosed only by the authors.

randcraw 3y ago
A primary trust indicator of any research result is the reputation of the journal publishing the paper. Better journals demand more, not just in terms of the impact/insight of the results, but also the rigor of the experimental methodology used and how well the data was curated and the confounding variables identified and isolated. And of course, the criteria for observational-based research differ a lot from mechanism-based, especially since the former can't control for nearly as many variables. The same goes for simulations or interpretive modeling, where experimentation is minimal. Research studies differ quite a lot in how precisely the mechanism of action is identified, isolated, tested, and results interpreted. IMHO, blackening the trustworthiness of all of science is unhelpful, especially when some models and methods are surely more trustworthy and replicable than others. Better to identify and catalog specific sources of error (or imprecision) in order to remedy them than to just toss the baby.

randcraw 3y ago

A primary trust indicator of any research result is the reputation of the journal publishing the paper. Better journals demand more, not just in terms of the impact/insight of the results, but also the rigor of the experimental methodology used and how well the data was curated and the confounding variables identified and isolated. And of course, the criteria for observational-based research differ a lot from mechanism-based, especially since the former can't control for nearly as many variables. The same goes for simulations or interpretive modeling, where experimentation is minimal. Research studies differ quite a lot in how precisely the mechanism of action is identified, isolated, tested, and results interpreted. IMHO, blackening the trustworthiness of all of science is unhelpful, especially when some models and methods are surely more trustworthy and replicable than others. Better to identify and catalog specific sources of error (or imprecision) in order to remedy them than to just toss the baby.