4 ms·
not my area of experise, but I wouldn't call 2 pieces of up to 1 cubic centimeter "minor". Looks significant to me
by thiagoeh 2y ago
not my area of experise, but I wouldn't call 2 pieces of up to 1 cubic centimeter "minor". Looks significant to me
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jonnycomputer 2y agoApparently the IRB approval was for up to 1 cubic cm, but according to Mt. Sinai, the average actually obtained is 0.04cc, far less.
- GrantMoyer 2y agoNote that 0.04 cm³ is the volume of a cube with side length ≈ 0.34 cm, so in the way we usually think of scale, the average was about ⅓ of the approved maximum.
- jonnycomputer 2y agoYes, but its about 4% of the total maximum volume, not a third. Its just that the "sides" of the cube are about a third of the maximum. Like, if it had a constant density, it'd be 4% of the mass of the maximum, not a third.
- ars 2y agoAccording to the article the amount of brain tissue lost is the same either way. With this study they cut it out, remove, and study it, without the study they burn it away. If that's really the case, then this seems like a non story to me.