Excited to share our pioneer pilot crossover #RCT testing arketamine for treatment-resistant #depression (TRD). Racemic #ketamine is a mixture of #arketamine and #esketamine. Preclinical data and one open-label human trial suggest arketamine might exert a more potent and longer-lasting #antidepressant effect with fewer side effects. However, arketamine was not superior to #placebo for #TRD in our study.


#Psychiatry #ClinicalTrials #Fediscience #PsychMastodon

But, most rigor enhancing behaviors directly affect the evidence, and the "inevitable" trade-off does not occur. In fact, if the behavioral interventions work as intended, they should decrease both false positives AND false negatives by increasing the quality of evidence.

Show thread

RT @MushtaqBilalPhD
So, here's a template you can use for incremental prompts:

1. Establish context
2. Explain the topic
3. Specify the task
4. Ask follow-up question

1/2) How much do BOLD HRF properties in task FMRI vary? Just look at these shape properties: Time-to-peak, time-to-nadir, nadir-to-peak ratio, and more.

This is discussed, with ways to address the issue, here: "BOLD response is more than just magnitude: improving detection sensitivity through capturing hemodynamic profiles," by @gangchen6, myself, Richard C. Reynolds, Ellen Leibenluft, Daniel S. Pine, Melissa A. Brotman, David Pagliaccio, Simone P. Haller.

Publication bias revealed: mandatory trial registration grammatically cuts proportion of positive results

from Likelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased over Time journals.plos.org/plosone/arti a 2015 classic

10 years after we created Registered Reports, the thing critics assured us would never (in a million years) happen has happened: @Nature is offering them.

The Registered Reports initiative just went up a gear and we are one step closer to eradicating publication bias and reporting bias from science.

Congratulations to all involved in achieving this milestone.


Missing data. Usually we're on the defensive, trying to prevent and compensate for it.

But maybe we should be taking more offensive action by purposefully making it a part of our study design?

Benefits include:

- Reduced costs
- Reduced participant burden
- Increased quality of data collected

Article on the topic by @CharlieRioux et al. doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa042
#Statistics @academicchatter #AcademicChatter #DataScience


Nature, like many journals, has historically emphasized producing exciting, innovative outcomes as the basis for publication. Incentivizing researchers for rewards based on outcomes is a key contributor to many of the dysfunctional practices that the reform movement aims to address. Nature's adoption of Registered Reports is a powerful signal for the real opportunity to change the reward system. Culture change is a grind, but it is grinding on.


RT @DrAlfonsoFasano
The results of our sham-controlled unilateral #pallidotomy trial with #MRgFUS (MRI-guided focused ultrasound) for #Parkinson are finally out!
Looking forward to the next steps, bilateral lesions included.


@KBI_UHN @uhnfoundation @UofTNeuroSurge

RT @rosenlab
Wonderful article in @ScienceMagazine about @Hyperfine, the company I founded in 2014 with Ron Walsworth (@QTC_UMD) and @JMRothberg to change the world with portable MRI ideas from my lab @MGHMartinos @MGHImaging @MGH_RI! $HYPR

@kjbinstl One could obviously be more radical. Or focus on other parts (e.g. fraud detection would plausibly work better if we funded dedicated detection teams). More generally I find it extremely implausible that a we could not improve substantially over a system designed decades ago to ease editorial workload in big journals. The saddest part to me is that we are not even trying, not evaluating and experimenting as good scientists should.

Many scholars are leaving Twitter for #Mastodon, a public, decentralized alternative, impervious to private take-over:


Scholarly organizations are already supporting this migration:




There are analogous solutions for another public good in private hands: journals. There are even levers the scholarly community could pull to incentivize an analogous migration:


What are we waiting for?

RT @emollick
👀The basic infrastructure of science is breaking under the flood of research…

In 2020 alone, researchers spent 15,000 YEARS worth of time reviewing articles. In the US, the time cost for reviews is equal to $1.5B, in China it is $600M, the UK is $400M. researchintegrityjournal.biome

I can't think of a time that I have ever used the "confidential remarks to editors" field in journal reviews until recently. I now use that section to comment on their journal policies and tell them how to implement open science best practices AKA topfactor.org

It's here! "A Student's Guide to Open Science" has landed on my doorstep. A perfectly sized pocket guide to the replication crisis and #openscience reform. I am so proud of what this book represents ✨

A brief overview...🧵


@PeerCommunityIn cied as one potential solution for the problem of lack of peer reviewers, since this #openaccess initiative proposés pre-publication peer-review of #preprints and therefore to stop the submit/review/refuse/resubmit/re-review path nature.com/articles/d41586-023

Show more
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.