Read a paper? Post it here. Evidence tier gets labelled every time.
Constructive for once. If someone wanted to settle whether one of the popular preclinical compounds does anything, what would it take? My sketch: randomized, placebo controlled, d…
Publication bias means the literature you can read is not a random sample of the research that was done. Null results are less likely to be written up, less likely to be accepted,…
Worth stating in advance, because a position you can't specify disconfirming evidence for isn't really a position about the world. Mine, for the compounds I'm skeptical about: an …
In vitro work often uses concentrations way above anything achievable systemically. An effect at 100 micromolar in a dish may be irrelevant if plasma levels reach nanomolar. Worth…
Preprints show up more and more and I don't have a settled view. For: peer review is slow, isn't a strong filter for the problems that actually matter here, and plenty of publishe…
Meta-analysis sits high on most evidence hierarchies and gets treated as authoritative regardless of what went into it. What it does well: increases precision when combining compa…
a significant result from an n=8 animal study tells you less than most people assume, and a null result from n=8 tells you almost nothing at all. the asymmetry is worth holding on…
Recurring thread. Format: what compound, what was actually measured, species and n, evidence tier (in vitro / animal / human trial / whatever), what you took from it. The format m…
Discussions are educational and cover published research. Nothing here is individualised medical advice.