iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Experimental Physiology @expphysiol.bsky.social · 07/02/2025

How does ageing impact type I and type II myofibre properties in human muscle? Oscar Horwath, Marcus Moberg, Sebastian Edman, @willapro.bsky.social (The Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences) and Andrew Philp (@centenaryinstitute.bsky.social) investigate. 📜https://buff.ly/40tFBJG

033

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Lauren Ross @laurennross.bsky.social · 21/01/2025

New book "Explanation in Biology" with Cambridge University Press is out & open access! Covers (1) causal explanation & (2) non-causal/mathematical explanation in life sciences--bio, neuro, etc 🌿🧬🧠 Introduction to philosophical work on scientific explanation! www.cambridge.org/core/element...

1027199

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Kevin Parry @kevinbparry.bsky.social · 10/01/2025

Chair Stop-Motion 🪑💨 Made with 444 pictures taken over 10 days

443320798430

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Joe Ketterling @jketterling.bsky.social · 20/12/2024

Just a reminder that SMART goals are not as empirically sound as you might think they are (at least for physical activity and exercise). Full article: The (over)use of SMART goals for physical activity promotion: A narrative review and critique www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....

tandfonline.com

The (over)use of SMART goals for physical activity promotion: A narrative review and critique

The SMART acronym (e.g., Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound) is a highly prominent strategy for setting physical activity goals. While it is intuitive, and its practical value h...

2177

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Matthew Hayek @matthewhayek.bsky.social · 19/12/2024

The field of "ultra-processed" food research & its media coverage are littered with poor definitions & comparisons, w misleading conclusions. This creates an illusion that UPFs provide new insights, but it's all slight-of-hand. @mbolotnikova.bsky.social takes a deep dive www.vox.com/future-perfe...

vox.com

You’re being lied to about “ultra-processed” foods

Coverage of the latest nutrition buzzword is overly broad, arbitrary, and misleading. The problem goes deeper.

310237

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Elisabeth Bik @elisabethbik.bsky.social · 15/12/2024

Charles Piller’s new book ‘Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s’ will come out in February. A fantastic read about those who discover science fraud and the lack of response by institutions and publishers. www.publishersweekly.com/9781668031247

publishersweekly.com

Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s by Charles Piller

Alzheimer’s research is a cesspool of faked results and moneygrubbing, according to this hard-hitting exposé. Science magazine j...

614531

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Dax Kellie @daxkellie.bsky.social · 09/12/2024

If you missed my talk but still want to learn how to make your R code more reproducible, my slides are here 🙂: daxkellie.quarto.pub/will-your-co... All the links to packages and resources I mentioned are there, so hopefully this can be a nice reference, too! #ESAus2024 #rstats #quartopub 🧪🌏

Title slide: Will your code run again? Tips for making code reproducible in R

15347107

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Julia M. Rohrer @dingdingpeng.the100.ci · 03/12/2024

Myth 1: Re-iterating this point over and over again improves psychologists' understanding of statistics in a practically relevant manner.

From Stanley & Spence (2024): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/25152459241285885.
"Myth 1: There is a 95% chance your true score is in your interval
Some authors correctly understand that the Standard Error of Measurement can be used to construct a confidence interval for a specific individual’s true score. This type of interval is an SEM-Single-Test-Taker Interval. Unfortunately, however, sometimes these authors then go on to misinterpret the information provided by the confidence interval. For example, Kaplan and Saccuzzo (2013)"

1410618

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Jem Arnold @jemarnold.bsky.social · 02/12/2024

Bas van Hooren et al recently published a comprehensive review of metabolic equipment With rigorous calibration & operation, and taking out all possible biological variation with *simulated* gas exchange, the error between carts is still ±10+% onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

A figure from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sms.14490 showing percentage error for simulated VO2 and VCO2 in 15 different metabolic carts across ranges of 1000-4000 mL/min. The error between carts ranges from -25 to +25%, with most devices clustered around ±10%
"FIGURE 4 Relative percentage error for V̇O 2 (top) and V̇CO 2 (bottom), as a function of the simulated V̇O 2 and V̇CO 2 for each device. Errors are averaged over each step of the “Std” (i.e., RER = 1.00) and “CPX” (i.e., RER increases with increased V̇O 2 ) protocols. Because the simulated V̇CO 2 differed between the “Std” and “CPX” protocols, the average simulated value is depicted on the x-axis in the figure. MC, mixing chamber; RER, respiratory exchange ratio; V̇CO 2 , rate of carbon dioxide production; V̇O 2 , rate of oxygen uptake."

141

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Darren Dahly @statsepi.bsky.social · 24/10/2024

Clinical Researchers: I am here to warn you about a meteor hurling towards us. That meteor represents increasing scrutiny of clinical research; and in particular how we approach data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting. Prepare now, or face the consequences. 1/

Title slide: Acting as if our research might matter - Analyzing data

Image: A meteor about to strike the earth.

2415569

Ian M Lahart @imlahart.bsky.social · 01/12/2024

Yes, I’m religious. I believe in the holy trinity.

000

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Darren Dahly @statsepi.bsky.social · 27/11/2024

So look. I've given about 20 talks where I highlight clinical research waste, and I now always ask the audience if they recognize that figure below. The answer is *always* the same - overwhelmingly No. If *you* recognize it, because you are here and informed, you must help spread the word. Please.

32310

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

mattiaquattro.bsky.social @mattiaquattro.bsky.social · 26/11/2024

Comprehensive and timely new review on muscle regeneration impairment by diabetes www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti... of note: interesting angle on the synergy between intrinsic and extrinsic detriments of diabetes on muscle stem cells @myoblue.bsky.social

sciencedirect.com

Muscle regeneration and muscle stem cells in metabolic disease

Skeletal muscle has a high regenerative capacity due to its resident adult muscle stem cells (MuSCs), which can repair damaged tissue by forming myofi…

1123

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Charlotte Pennington 🌻 @drcpennington.bsky.social · 26/11/2024

✨ PREPRINT 📖🤩 "Study Preregistration: A How-To Guide" Written for students, this guide outlines the 'what, why, and how' of preregistration, perceived barriers and their solutions, and 10 top tips to adopting and/or critically evaluating this open research practice. osf.io/preprints/ps...

osf.io

OSF

712248

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Stuart Ritchie @stuartjritchie.bsky.social · 26/11/2024

Some said it couldn’t be done. That it was impossible; ridiculous; absurd. But @tomchivers.bsky.social and I have done it: recorded a whole podcast episode about collider bias. www.thestudiesshowpod.com/p/episode-57...

thestudiesshowpod.com

Episode 57: Collider bias

Listen now | Does smoking prevent COVID? Is being obese actually healthy? Or is something funny going on?

99117

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Nick Tiller, Ph.D. @nbtiller.bsky.social · 26/11/2024

Ultra-Runners: Help researchers understand more about NSAID use in racing and perhaps find a viable (safer) alternative. #running #ultramarathon

064

Reposted by Ian M Lahart

Nick Tiller, Ph.D. @nbtiller.bsky.social · 19/11/2024

Left, a non-randomized study showing that saunas significantly decrease arterial stiffness. Right, a randomized, crossover study, showing no benefits on arterial stiffness/blood flow. Note the colossal difference in media attention. In the media, sensational studies > robust ones. #science #media

17319