5 ms·

It's always encouraging to see progress in disease prevention. As a young person, I'm looking forward to what the medical field will be like when I'm 70.

ekianjo 3y ago
its not disease prevention its correlation.
- thfuran 3y ago
  Finding a novel correlate that precedes the other observed effects of the disease in question is progress in prevention.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    people thought for years that amyloid plaques were driving the disease only to be proven utterly wrong you might want to have a bit of humility when dealing with complex systems
    - zamfi 3y ago
      Hmm. Are you saying that the fact that some knowledge is wrong means that it doesn’t represent progress? Correlation isn’t “cure” — we don’t even know if it’s predictive — but that doesn’t mean it’s not progress.
      - ekianjo 3y ago
        progress is measured by: - identifying mechanism of action - identifying therapeutic levers - testing drugs and ahow that they can do something we are not even at the first step with these biomarkers. observational studies are super noisy
        zamfi 3y ago
        How can you identify a mechanism of action if you don't have any idea of what the possible agents are? Don't you first have to identify some of the molecules that may be involved, before you figure out which ones are causal and how that causality plays out? That seems to be the point of this paper.
    - steve_adams_86 3y ago
      I agree with you. I think being proven utterly wrong is a huge accomplishment nonetheless. We shouldn’t be sure of ourselves, but we should treasure any progress even if it’s in the form of negating causes rather than isolating them.
    - BenFranklin100 3y ago
      ‘Utterly wrong’ is a harsh conclusion. You may want a touch of humility yourself. Amyloid plaques are the defining feature of AD and assuredly provide vital clues about the biomolecular processes driving AD across the brain. There is renewed interest in the what causative role amyloid plays [1]. Whether plaques are causative or a byproduct is an open question, especially when we consider the heterogeneity in neurodegenerative diseases. AD itself probably is an umbrella term capturing several subtypes (such as CAA). Whatever role amyloid plays, the OP is correct: correlates open interesting research avenues and this is an interesting paper if for no other reason we have few predictors of who will develop AD. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01484-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01484-7
    - dang 3y ago
      Can you please not post in the flamewar style? You've broken the site guidelines here and we've already had to ask you not to do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: actually, since your recent comments look like this, I've banned the account: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341578 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341578 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39308894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39308894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39281272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39281272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39249635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39249635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39238628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39238628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39237978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39237978 That's completely unacceptable on HN. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - jcims 3y ago
        Thank you for all of the work you do to keep this as civil a place one could possibly expect to find that’s open to the general public on the internet.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

ekianjo 3y ago

its not disease prevention its correlation.

thfuran 3y ago
Finding a novel correlate that precedes the other observed effects of the disease in question is progress in prevention.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  people thought for years that amyloid plaques were driving the disease only to be proven utterly wrong you might want to have a bit of humility when dealing with complex systems
  - zamfi 3y ago
    Hmm. Are you saying that the fact that some knowledge is wrong means that it doesn’t represent progress? Correlation isn’t “cure” — we don’t even know if it’s predictive — but that doesn’t mean it’s not progress.
    - ekianjo 3y ago
      progress is measured by: - identifying mechanism of action - identifying therapeutic levers - testing drugs and ahow that they can do something we are not even at the first step with these biomarkers. observational studies are super noisy
      - zamfi 3y ago
        How can you identify a mechanism of action if you don't have any idea of what the possible agents are? Don't you first have to identify some of the molecules that may be involved, before you figure out which ones are causal and how that causality plays out? That seems to be the point of this paper.
  - steve_adams_86 3y ago
    I agree with you. I think being proven utterly wrong is a huge accomplishment nonetheless. We shouldn’t be sure of ourselves, but we should treasure any progress even if it’s in the form of negating causes rather than isolating them.
  - BenFranklin100 3y ago
    ‘Utterly wrong’ is a harsh conclusion. You may want a touch of humility yourself. Amyloid plaques are the defining feature of AD and assuredly provide vital clues about the biomolecular processes driving AD across the brain. There is renewed interest in the what causative role amyloid plays [1]. Whether plaques are causative or a byproduct is an open question, especially when we consider the heterogeneity in neurodegenerative diseases. AD itself probably is an umbrella term capturing several subtypes (such as CAA). Whatever role amyloid plays, the OP is correct: correlates open interesting research avenues and this is an interesting paper if for no other reason we have few predictors of who will develop AD. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01484-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01484-7
  - dang 3y ago
    Can you please not post in the flamewar style? You've broken the site guidelines here and we've already had to ask you not to do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: actually, since your recent comments look like this, I've banned the account: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341879 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341602 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341585 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341578 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39341578 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39308894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39308894 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39281272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39281272 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39249635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39249635 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39238628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39238628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39237978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39237978 That's completely unacceptable on HN. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - jcims 3y ago
      Thank you for all of the work you do to keep this as civil a place one could possibly expect to find that’s open to the general public on the internet.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]