Whoa. or LOL. This sounds like a typical in vitro diagnostic validation study from 20 years ago (although some are still performed today). Modern IVD practitioners know never to compare a diseased group with normal controls (even matched). The performance of tests investigated that way can approach 100% specificity and 100% sensitivity (c statistic of 1.0), but end up a coin toss (c statistic of 0.5) in a prospective all-comers study.
This should not have passed the first round of peer review, perhaps triaged to not even be sent to reviewers. It is just not science. It's wishful thinking.
I went to https://www.phosp.org/ and looked at the list of participants and funding sources. Looks like money from U of Leicester and U of Loughborough, NIHR, and MRC-UK is funding studies like this. Is it possible there's pharma money involved? My guess is yes.
It is increasingly common to see “cargo cult science” - that is, build it like real scientists do - a control group, statistical analysis, methods section, discussion, conclusions - with no understanding of the underlying issues, IOW why planes landed at the real control towers but not the wooden replicas.
This unfortunately is endemic in medical research - choose your desired outcome and then design a study guaranteed to produce that outcome. Ive spoken a couple of times at conferences with one of the authors and he’s a bright guy - he knew exactly what he was doing here with this control group. Even the fact that it was published in one of the lancet journals says it all - the reviewers arent idiots either, just turning a blind eye to allow a narrative enhancing paper to be published in a high profile journal where it’s sure to get picked up by the media
I heard this article mentioned on NPR last week, and my immediate reaction was "Well that just doesn't sound right". Glad to get a little more information regarding this
Consider the following hypothesis: hospitalization causes multi-organ dysfunction that is visible on MRI imaging. This paper shows conclusively that it does. The authors recommended multidisciplinary care pathways. Suppose we simply stop admitting people to the hospital?
Control group cherry picked which means results are not valid. Sad that what could have been a good study was a waste of time!! But that is today's science.
That this got published in Lancet should tell you a LOT.
Why the fear mongering do you think?
Whoa. or LOL. This sounds like a typical in vitro diagnostic validation study from 20 years ago (although some are still performed today). Modern IVD practitioners know never to compare a diseased group with normal controls (even matched). The performance of tests investigated that way can approach 100% specificity and 100% sensitivity (c statistic of 1.0), but end up a coin toss (c statistic of 0.5) in a prospective all-comers study.
This should not have passed the first round of peer review, perhaps triaged to not even be sent to reviewers. It is just not science. It's wishful thinking.
I went to https://www.phosp.org/ and looked at the list of participants and funding sources. Looks like money from U of Leicester and U of Loughborough, NIHR, and MRC-UK is funding studies like this. Is it possible there's pharma money involved? My guess is yes.
It is increasingly common to see “cargo cult science” - that is, build it like real scientists do - a control group, statistical analysis, methods section, discussion, conclusions - with no understanding of the underlying issues, IOW why planes landed at the real control towers but not the wooden replicas.
This unfortunately is endemic in medical research - choose your desired outcome and then design a study guaranteed to produce that outcome. Ive spoken a couple of times at conferences with one of the authors and he’s a bright guy - he knew exactly what he was doing here with this control group. Even the fact that it was published in one of the lancet journals says it all - the reviewers arent idiots either, just turning a blind eye to allow a narrative enhancing paper to be published in a high profile journal where it’s sure to get picked up by the media
I thought journal reviewers were supposed to be smart enough to see these study flaws and either have the authors fix the problem or not publish.
“I thought journal reviewers were supposed to be smart enough to see these study flaws…”
I see you had some training in the Before Time…
I heard this article mentioned on NPR last week, and my immediate reaction was "Well that just doesn't sound right". Glad to get a little more information regarding this
Waiting for you, Vinay or others to publish a study that correlates Altmetric scores, Covid scaremongering and poor methods.
Grade would be a D minus. Points only for knowing a control group is needed, not for the study design.
Similar scientific integrity in this study as a one where the placebo has 8 ingredients!
Thanks for the terrific breakdown, appreciate the story and the lesson.
This not only makes my brain hurt, but makes it want to explode just thinking about it and other studies being manipulated through gross ineptitude!
The one shocking aspect of this paper: it was NOT sponsored by Siemens. Philips, and GE
Consider the following hypothesis: hospitalization causes multi-organ dysfunction that is visible on MRI imaging. This paper shows conclusively that it does. The authors recommended multidisciplinary care pathways. Suppose we simply stop admitting people to the hospital?
They created the control group to get the answer they wanted. Brilliant. 🙃
Control group cherry picked which means results are not valid. Sad that what could have been a good study was a waste of time!! But that is today's science.
Wow. How do they live with themselves?
“How do they live with themselves?”
The green enzyme must be playing a role…
Easy. Look at all the peer validation they got!