|
|
|
|
|
|
by fxtentacle
703 days ago
|
|
|
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". |
|
|
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!