Bridging the gap between research and real life
Artificial intelligence (AI) is ubiquitous in modern society. While it may seem like a brand-new technology to many, computer scientists have been building and testing AI models—albeit simple ones initially—since the 1950s. You likely have been using AI in your daily life for much longer than you realize—it’s used in chatbots on websites, robotic vacuums that learn floorplans, digital assistants such as Amazon’s Alexa, and much more. [Read more…]
Here at EBL, we’re written before about the pitfalls of science reporting in popular media. Even well-researched, comprehensive scientific reports often draw conclusions that we later learn are inaccurate. [Read more…]
Do you ever find it hard to accomplish what you set out to do? I know it’s a problem I encounter sometimes, especially in this era of instant communication where there is so much distraction. So what’s the best way to get something done?
Last week, we summarized a literature review that explained how stress leads to overeating and ultimately contributes to weight gain.
This information didn’t come from a meta analysis, but from a different kind of large-scale study called a literature review. We asked Janis Whitlock, a research scientist in the Bronfenbrenner Center for Transnational Research and Director of the Cornell Research Program on Self-Injury and Recovery, to explain the difference. Here’s what she had to say: [Read more…]
For decades, health and nutrition experts have built weight-loss programs around the commonly-accepted notion of balancing calories in and calories out. In other words, to lose weight, one simply needs to burn more calories than he eats. But there is growing evidence that’s only part of the equation for losing and maintaining a healthy weight. [Read more…]
This blog was founded more than four years ago with the a focus on one key idea: Today, there more research available than ever before. So we set out to help readers separate the good scientific information from the bad. One great resource for that is the systematic review. [Read more…]
If you’re a regular reader here at Evidenced-based Living, you know of our love for the systematic review. The concept of analyzing all of the evidence on a given topic before drawing a conclusion ensures you’re making the best decision possible. But systematic reviews do have one problem: they can quickly become out-dated.
Contradictory tips and strategies about how to improve our health fill the airwaves, magazines and newspapers year-round. Drink coffee; don’t drink coffee. Eat whole grains; avoid carbohydrates of any kind. Vitamin supplements are good for you; wait, no they’re not. All of these news stories claim they are based on “evidence.” So what’s the deal?
Happy Holidays from all of us at EBL. We’re signing off until the New Year. In the
meantime, we’re reposting this piece on charitable giving.
It’s that time of year when many people think about giving to charities. Some make donations for tax-purposes before the end of the calendar year. Others incorporate giving into Christmas traditions, or make an effort to spread some holiday cheer to the less fortunate.
[Read more…]
Here at EBL, we’ve written before about the impact of volunteering on public health. In fact, Cornell gerontologist Karl Pillemer has conducted research that found that older adults who get involved in creating a sustainable society are not only helping the environment, they are also helping themselves. So we were interested to find a new systematic review on the health and survival of people who volunteer.
Teenagers and young adults represent only 25 percent of the sexually active population in the U.S., but they acquire nearly half of all new sexually transmitted infections, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. [Read more…]
Evidence-based Living is built around the idea that scientific study should guide our lives – in decisions we make for our families, in community initiatives, and of course in choosing medical treatments.
A new review this month is the Journal of Oncology raises important questions about the validity of medical studies. The report reviewed 164 trials of treatments for breast cancer including chemotherapy, radiation and surgery conducted from 1995 to 2011.
It concluded that: most of the studies were clouded by overemphasizing the benefits of the treatment, or minimizing potential side effects.
For example, they reported on 92 trials which had a negative primary endpoint – which essentially means the treatment was not found to be effective for the main goal of the study. In 59 percent of those trials, a secondary end point – another goal – was used to suggest the experimental therapy was actually beneficial.
And only 32 percent of the studies reported severe or life-threatening side effects in the abstract – where medical professionals who are scanning the report might miss them. Studies that reported a positive primary endpoint – meaning the treatment was effective for the problem that researchers were targeting – were less likely to report serious side effects.
What does all of this mean?
Elaine Wethington, a medical sociologist at the College of Human Ecology, says the review reveals some important findings about medical studies.
“I would speculate that the findings are due to at least three processes,” she explained.
“First, trial results should be published even if the primary outcome findings are negative, but it can be difficult to find a journal that will publish negative findings,” she said. “As a result, there is a tendency to focus on other outcomes that are secondary in order to justify the work and effort.
“Second, presentation of findings can be influenced by a variety of conflicts of interest. There is a lot of published evidence – and controversy — that scientific data collection and analysis can be affected by the source of funding, private versus public.
“Third, this could also be explained as a problem in scientific peer review. Reviewers and editors could insist that this type of bias in reporting be controlled,” Wethington said.
In short, she sees the publication of this review as an important step in improving the scientific review process.
This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
