[jmward01]

Yeah, how many studies are done a year? Random chance is the #1 explanation with that small of a sample size. It doesn't take a degree in stats say that the next thing that needs to be done is to replicate the study a few times before making any claims or searching for any publicity. This subject is so emotional for the families involved that publicizing without more confirmation is a bit irresponsible especially if it is easy to do follow-up studies.

[jfengel]

Follow-up studies cost money, and you don't get any of that if you don't publish.

[jmward01]

Agreed. Publish, but don't publicize. My remarks were aimed at the article, not the paper. This sounds like a promising, very initial, study that needs a lot more data before making claims about having found anything. Qualified headlines like 'Early study hints at..' Or 'Initial research potentially shows a promising....' would be better but even then a study with this little data should be very cautiously approached by any type of science reporting. More than mentioning it in passing as promising is probably not warranted until the n value is a lot higher and involves other teams and other methods.

[slashdave]

It's a university press release. Hyperbole in practice.

Wish I could read the paper.

[robwwilliams]

The reduction of mGluR5 was reported 10 years ago in postmortem tissue.

doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2015.05.009