344
How to read science news
Ninety five million nine hundred nine thousand eight hundred forty three
Still from the film "heart of a Dog" (1988) Director: Vladimir Bortko
The dog that starred in the film named Karai, she was in the service of the police
and the beginning of filming on account of the dog were 38 arrests
A brief list of questions to ask yourself when you once again read that was opened by "British scientists" — from YEGOR VORONIN, who for many years engaged in the study of HIV and other retroviruses.
1. What organism was the study? Studies on cell cultures, mice, monkeys can yield great results and be very informative, but they very rarely recur in the person without further research (most is not repeated at all).
2. What exactly was measured and what is extrapolation? If the drug kills the cancer cells, it means that "the drug kills cancer cells" this does NOT mean that "medicine cures cancer". If the first stage of clinical tests of the vaccine is successful, it means that the "vaccine is safe", but says nothing about whether it causes the desired immune response, and especially that "the vaccine is effective."
3. What is the effect size? Often news is reporting that "people who X are significantly more likely to experience Y" but "substantially" can refer to statistical significance of results, and not to its size. For example, it is possible very reliably to show that any diet reduces cancer risk, but if risk reduction is only 1%, it may have no practical value.
4. Can you trust the REP? Where a study was published? Facebook? On the personal page of the scientist? In a respectable scientific journal? Who did the study and who commented? If and those and others — are regularly published in scientific journals, scientists, you trust them more than if the researcher is known mainly as the author of books about diet, and comment on the results of a famous actress who swears by that diet works.
5. If your research is on people, what was its size? This is an isolated case, a group of 10 people from 100, from 1000? As a rule, the larger the size, the greater the accuracy of the result. The flip side of the coin is that the larger the sample, the smaller difference you can detect and then see point 3.
6. What is the study design? Are there proper controls? Double blind studies usually can be trusted more, especially if we are talking about the symptoms, where assessment of effectiveness is subjective. Often, in order to answer this question, we need to be an expert in the subject, but sometimes the man in the street could understand.
7. Was done such investigations before, and what did they find? The results obtained in several studies and by different groups, can be trusted more than a single study. The same results obtained by different methods, can be trusted more than simple repetition. Unfortunately, not being an expert in the field, it is difficult to answer this question, but if the news tells of previous studies, it is a good sign.
8. Is there any explanation of the mechanism of the observed phenomenon, based on current knowledge of biology chemistry? This is not a mandatory requirement, but to inexplicable results should be treated with great skepticism (Yes, homeopathy is for you).
9. What is the General tone of the message? Identifies any weaknesses or areas for future research? If it is alleged that something is 100% working and there are no nuances, you either journalists distorted, or this is bullshit. If it is alleged that something treats different unrelated diseases (cancer and Ebola), it is 100% bullshit. If the news has restrained comments (even in a generally laudatory) from the scientists, you trust more.
источник:livejournal.com
Source: /users/1077
Still from the film "heart of a Dog" (1988) Director: Vladimir Bortko
The dog that starred in the film named Karai, she was in the service of the police
and the beginning of filming on account of the dog were 38 arrests
A brief list of questions to ask yourself when you once again read that was opened by "British scientists" — from YEGOR VORONIN, who for many years engaged in the study of HIV and other retroviruses.
1. What organism was the study? Studies on cell cultures, mice, monkeys can yield great results and be very informative, but they very rarely recur in the person without further research (most is not repeated at all).
2. What exactly was measured and what is extrapolation? If the drug kills the cancer cells, it means that "the drug kills cancer cells" this does NOT mean that "medicine cures cancer". If the first stage of clinical tests of the vaccine is successful, it means that the "vaccine is safe", but says nothing about whether it causes the desired immune response, and especially that "the vaccine is effective."
3. What is the effect size? Often news is reporting that "people who X are significantly more likely to experience Y" but "substantially" can refer to statistical significance of results, and not to its size. For example, it is possible very reliably to show that any diet reduces cancer risk, but if risk reduction is only 1%, it may have no practical value.
4. Can you trust the REP? Where a study was published? Facebook? On the personal page of the scientist? In a respectable scientific journal? Who did the study and who commented? If and those and others — are regularly published in scientific journals, scientists, you trust them more than if the researcher is known mainly as the author of books about diet, and comment on the results of a famous actress who swears by that diet works.
5. If your research is on people, what was its size? This is an isolated case, a group of 10 people from 100, from 1000? As a rule, the larger the size, the greater the accuracy of the result. The flip side of the coin is that the larger the sample, the smaller difference you can detect and then see point 3.
6. What is the study design? Are there proper controls? Double blind studies usually can be trusted more, especially if we are talking about the symptoms, where assessment of effectiveness is subjective. Often, in order to answer this question, we need to be an expert in the subject, but sometimes the man in the street could understand.
7. Was done such investigations before, and what did they find? The results obtained in several studies and by different groups, can be trusted more than a single study. The same results obtained by different methods, can be trusted more than simple repetition. Unfortunately, not being an expert in the field, it is difficult to answer this question, but if the news tells of previous studies, it is a good sign.
8. Is there any explanation of the mechanism of the observed phenomenon, based on current knowledge of biology chemistry? This is not a mandatory requirement, but to inexplicable results should be treated with great skepticism (Yes, homeopathy is for you).
9. What is the General tone of the message? Identifies any weaknesses or areas for future research? If it is alleged that something is 100% working and there are no nuances, you either journalists distorted, or this is bullshit. If it is alleged that something treats different unrelated diseases (cancer and Ebola), it is 100% bullshit. If the news has restrained comments (even in a generally laudatory) from the scientists, you trust more.
источник:livejournal.com
Source: /users/1077
The hackers posted in free access passwords from 1.2 million mailboxes Yandex
Products from your kitchen, an overdose of which is harmful to health