Search results

I’m mildly optimistic that all this blood truffling will eventually result in a biomarker, and deeply pessimistic that it will result in a cure. We have a rough idea of how MS and myasthenia gravis and Parkinsons and Alzheimers all work, without the first clue about how to deliver anything other...

To be fair, he might have to publish some findings before getting ethical approval for further tests on inactive controls (tetraplegics? teenagers?), but the showmanship is definitely irksome.

That’s a pretty good list of signatories and a solid letter. As far as I can see, part two (with the CLoCK response) is promised but isn’t actually available online yet. Has anyone else found a live version?

It’s a good point, though, and is particularly relevant to us, as an eponym (or toponym) is our best option in the absence of a biomarker.

Oh god, imagine if the “brain retraining” evangelists lean into the software analogy and start borrowing buzzwords from tech. They’ll be wittering about agile, iterative cognitive design, and neural dev ops for hot-deploying health affirmations, probably attracting stacks of venture capital...

According to Kell, it’s available as a powder so you could just do a couple of healthy lines.

I doubt that the headline is the writer’s fault; the copy is otherwise unobjectionable and the news itself is of course great.

It’s the core problem with exploiting large language models to predict meaningful outputs. It’s not necessarily the core problem with machine-trained pattern recognition or with trial-and-error brute-force solution design. It’s definitely a future problem for AI regulation that many people will...

At least they will be safe from 5G mast covid rays.

Also of interest because the abstract’s first line implies that some red-haired mice are not naturally red-haired. The vain little monsters must go on daring nocturnal missions to steal hair dye.

I’d certainly be interested in following one! A field rife with inflated claims and wild promises, though, presumably.

Your imaginary AI could perhaps consider those connections if all that data was collected and stored for a sufficient number of pwME and controls for a sufficient amount of time to train an algorithm to predict pwME. And if the data chosen happened to be the right sets, and if the diagnosis was...

I can’t help feeling that the blurb doth protest too much. Surely it’s overkill to invoke Popper, Newton and Moore?

Although this is very comprehensive, I can’t find an account of eminence bias: the weight that is attached to pronouncements by persons of high repute, even when they are operating outside of their normal field. All’s-well bias and confirmation bias are the closest I could find. The “industry...

Neither. Anyway, AIs don’t in any meaningful sense act independently, so the answer for pretty much any future research endeavour would always be “humans, assisted by tools that scale up trivial classification and correlation”. But there’s no reason to think that ME is a conundrum particularly...

Except for Babar.

Lese-majeste is frowned upon there. Although it only applies to their monarch, and you can be as rude as you like about the Mountbatten-Windsor clan while staying in Bangkok.

Raspberry? In the context of disability-inducing illness? We’re reclaiming it, then?

It may not be a formally substantial weighting factor but it informs the prejudices and assumptions of GPs, assessors and policymakers, which in turn have been given more scope for discretion by the policy changes you mention. It’s a vital part of the realpolitik underlying fitness-to-work...

^ This. But also: there’s never been greater need for an ME biomarker, to protect us from inevitable squeezes on claimants with invisible conditions.