zlacker

>>geox+(OP)
> odds were tripled for autism (OR = 3.1; 95% CI: 1.02, 9.7)

This is scientific malpractice! The most ridiculous confidence interval I've ever seen! 1.02 to 9.7, reported as "tripled", seriously? And of course the data is non-blinded, self-reported survey responses recalling events that occurred many years ago, and the analysis is not preregistered and splits the cohort in an arbitrary way to eke out so-called "statistical significance" (by the slimmest imaginable margin, 1.02 > 1.00, just barely).

How can this dreck be published? Everyone involved should be sanctioned. And everyone who took this headline at face value should seriously reconsider their approach to consuming science news.

>>modele+fd
What was it Kurt Vonnegut said? "Pity the reader." The average person has little to no understanding of statistics. The study is coming from a (seemingly) reputable university source. What reason would the uninformed have to be skeptical?

>>Admira+Pj
Yet, on other topics, people have “trust science” drilled into them, and are made to feel like heretics when they’re skeptical. They can’t win.

>>dimal+Qn
One should trust science, just dont trust scientists.

I was "around" science for a good chunk of my life (both mom and that used to be academics, and I spent 8 years in academia myself doing a phd and postdoc).

The amount of crap studies, politics and bullshit that happens in those circles will make you realise how sad the state of the "advancement of science" is. And my experience was in 3 very different countries. We desperately need something like AI to be able to synthesize and filter scientific publications