Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

In case anyone is curious, this is the actual study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44184-024-00075-w.pdf

"AKL-T01 was linked with improvements on the Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA®) Attention Comparison Score (ACS) of 2.6 (95% CI: 2.02, 3.26; p < 0.0001) in adolescents and 6.5 in adults (95% CI: 5.35, 7.57; p < 0.0001)"

I would read that as: Focusing on this specific video game helps you to learn how to focus on things in general.

But "Mean overall compliance in the Efficacy Population was 72.4%", which kind of suggests that this game isn't that much fun to play. Or else, why would 1 out of 4 kids not play the mandatory 25 minutes per day?

What I find a bit shady, though is that https://www.endeavorrx.com/the-research/ says "There were no serious adverse events seen in any clinical trials of EndeavorRx" with a big 0% above it, but the study did have adverse events, like headache and nausea, they just didn't classify those as "serious".



"Nature" used to be well respected according to academics. However, Academia isnt science, its authority.

I've now seen 2 studies that should never have been published in Nature in the last year.

I am science based, so I never really cared about what organization published, look to the data. However, if you hang out with academics, they unanimously read the journal + abstract. Its so weird. I feel like there is some sort of Dunning Kruger where I'm the idiot... But really... I know the scientific method. I know the quality of the people I'm talking to.

Happy to see you didn't just accept it like my academia pals!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: