
Research Papers That Caught the Public's Attention in 2019 - ArtWomb
https://www.altmetric.com/top100/2019
======
js8
> Out of 330 Game of Thrones characters, 186 die by the end of season 7, with
> survival ranging from 11 seconds to 57 hours and 15 minutes. This study of
> their characteristics reveals great potential for preventing violent deaths
> in the Game of Thrones world.

Looking forward to a follow-up study which will hopefully include season 8..

~~~
sadjad
Season 8 with plot armors thicker than The Wall...

------
jimbob45
>A Randomized Trial of E-Cigarettes versus Nicotine-Replacement Therapy

Seems like this is going to be the most cited and controversial paper here.

>Association Between Push-up Exercise Capacity and Future Cardiovascular
Events Among Active Adult Men

They had the push-ups done to a metronome but I don't see anywhere that it
states that the participants were made to use one strict form of push-up. Not
all push-ups are created equal (get your butt down!).

~~~
agumonkey
Odd, never thought to use a metronome on push ups.. regular rhythm often
helps. Thanks for the indirect tip.

------
alexfromapex
What’s wrong with statistical significance?

~~~
NPMaxwell
Here's paper that explains the current objections:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9)

There is nothing wrong with statistical significance as long as no one is
misled by it. Unfortunately, there is plenty of confusion around it and lots
of people being misled. Here are two of the concerns mentioned in the article:

1) P > 0.05 is mistakenly taken as evidence of no effect. Tradition is that P
> 0.05 should be interpreted as no evidence of anything. For example, run your
study with two people and you will find that p > 0.05 for a relationship
between exercise and obesity or between teeth brushing and cavities.

2) 0.05 is mistakenly perceived as an indicator of whether things are 100%
likely to exist or 0% likely to exist. The challenge here is that the user is
not comfortable thinking about probabilities. So a study finding that the
difference in cholesterol between Seinfeld fans and Chris Rock fans is
statistically significant at 0.0499 is reported as "Seinfeld raises
cholesterol."

I think that the central issue here is an objection to having to participate
in a research community with people whose training in statistics did not allow
them to understand the statistical tools they use in their work.

~~~
yellow_lead
Then these articles saying scientists are "Against statistical significance"
are misleading. It sounds like scientists are more pro statistical
significance than ever, so much so that they want it to be defined and
interpreted correctly.

I guess many people would benefit from taking a high school statistics class.

~~~
scarejunba
Well, in isolation p is problematic. For instance, without hypothesis pre-
registration you have the obvious problem with negative results and
publication bias.

------
louis8799
TLDR of 100 researches:

1) Work out 3+ hour/week with as lease 2 weight training sections.

2) No processed food, no added sugar. More nuts, fruit, vegetables.

3) The world is fxxked because of climate change.

4) Sleep more.

