It sounds like it could be an interesting case but the weird AI slop writing is a bit much to trudge through. I mean really: > What improved (reported) > Spe

It sounds like it could be an interesting case but the weird AI slop writing is a bit much to trudge through. I mean really: > What improved (reported) > Speech, recognition, dressing, continence — multiple functional domains, not a single symptom. > What we cannot conclude > No control group, no formal neuroimaging, no established causality. Spontaneous fluctuation and context cannot be ruled out. Oh gee, thanks for the reminder on how the scientific method works, Claude. That's most certainly not something you can count on your audience being familiar with already if you're writing about a...medical case study, of course. And why are these two points formatted as two cards with excessively long subheadings instead of something normal like a "paragraph?!"