I've noticed some things running slower too, but I wasn't sure if my computer was getting older. As for the interface/asthetic, it's pretty terrible in every regard.
As an MD/PhD I wish all MD researchers read this book. Heck, I wish all neuro researchers read it. If you are already established in in stats and math and your interest is just another math book to casually read or reference, this is a bad choice
Statistical Rethinking is an immensely practical book, and probably the best book for anyone interested in the practice of statistics.
However, it is a bit too cautious about scaring readers away from the details of how things work. Honestly, I disagree with the parent that it's a bad book for the more mathematically inclined, since I can't think of any other book that gets you solving practical problems faster. But, if you have a strong math (or computational) background, you will be craving a deeper look under the hood.
ET Jaynes' Probability Theory: the Logic of Science is, imho, the best book for someone who wants to really understand the theory and reasoning behind statistics and is comfortable lots of mathematical thinking.
For a more practical (than Jaynes) but still more detailed book on statistics then I would recommend Bayesian Modeling and Computation in Python. Not quite as easy reading as Statistical Rethinking but there will be no mystery as to what's happening.
It's just very conversational. If you are comfortable with stats and just need a reference it can be obnoxious. I think I went through the first edition in my PhD and it was better than a stats course. But when I want a quick reference for something it is to much reading to get to the point. It might be more well organized now though.
Usually we test against best current treatment and not just always against placebo. If something clearly improves outcomes for a patient, it's unethical to not give them a treatment so that you can test your new intervention against a placebo.
Stress increases cortisol and cortisol for a long time wrecks the immune system. There are a lot of other things that effect cortisol levels, but it's at least on very plausible pathway for some getting sick more easily.
Article says this has been done other places already. Has this specifically been campaign ads or does it also involve things that are considered politically motivated messaging? For example, is there danger of vaccination PSAs getting banned because some politicians say bizarre things about them?
There are all kinds of presentations for seizures. Ones in the frontal lobe are particularly hard to catch based on external presentation. If one is suspected of having seizures they will get a continuously monitored EEG where times associated where the seizure like state is monitored electrically. Sometimes it's a really weird presentation of a seizure or sometimes it's psychogenic. Either way it's good to have these people get some help I'd it keeps happening.
1. Blood brain barrier and CSF should be separate for all but tiny molecules. It's why CT angiograms are able to visualize distinct vessels. So it is pretty hard to directly interact with this sort of thing in vivo
2. A good chunk of the neuro community have been operating under the assumption that some of those mouse model findings are mechanisms in humans too. Since we couldn't easily prove it, people used a bunch of next best tools with fancy imaging that demonstrated it was very likely. On top of furter proof, this sort of study allows us to begin pinpointing exactly how close our next best tools are at estimating in vivo processes without opening up the head.
I had a neuroscience professor in undergrad who did a bunch of experiments where the only variables were things like the material of the cage, bedding, feeder, etc. He systematically tested variations in each separately. Outcomes varied in mice no matter what was changed. I would love to tell you what outcomes he measured, but it convinced me not to go into mice research so it's all just a distant memory.
On the other hand, I've worked with people since then who have their own mice studies going on. We are always learning new ways to improve the situation. It's just not a very impressive front page so it goes unnoticed by those not into mice research methods.
I wish I could, but in addition to this happening over a decade ago, he changed his lab's focus afterwards. He went into neurotransmitter research in skin since it has some overlapping embryological origins with the brain.
I'm not convinced the result is as important here as the methods. Separating language from complex cognition when evaluating individuals is difficult. But many of the people I've met in neuroscience that study language and cognitive processes do not hold the opinion that one is absolutely reliant on the other in all cases. It may have been a strong argument a while ago, but everytime I've seen a presentation on this relationship it's been to emphasize the influence culture and language inevitably have on how we think about things. I'm sure some people believe that one cannot have complex thoughts without language, but most people in speech neuro I've met in language processing research find the idea ridiculous enough they wouldn't bother spending a few years on that kind of project just to disapprove a theory.
On the other hand, further understanding how to engage complex cognitive processes in nonverbal individuals is extremely useful and difficult to accomplish.
