[tgv]

19 patients completed, according to the article.

And List Sorting, Oral reading, and Flanker only? The first and last are part of global and fluid composites, so those have to be excluded from comparison. That leaves us with 3 improved scores out of 12 tests. So 9 did not improve, or got worse. Figure 3 (of the original article) shows that the changes aren't big. Just "significant". Since the participants were in the early stages of dementia, this seems well within expectations.

So I can't see those numbers as impressive.

[joenot443]

I can’t help but feel that the participants being in the early stage of dementia is a lede being buried. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding.

[rzz3]

Sounds like something we should study more rather than dismiss.

[tgv]

This study holds little promise at first sight. Remember that there is a lot to study, and only limited research capability.

> Sounds like something we should study more rather than dismiss.

Ignoring the implication of your use of "dismiss", why? How is this pilot promising?

[jstummbillig]

Sounds like something that should fly under a different headline until then.

[ChuckMcM]

Interesting that you are hearing "dismissal" in the antecedent response. I read it as the poster "studying more" the data, and finding a lot of flaws in both the experimental design and the data analysis.Typically things a reviewer would do when a publication was submitted (or in our case posted here). The author, then goes back and answers the questions raised to show that the effect they are suggesting is durable in face of the flaws. Or perhaps they run an additional experiment and augment their data. After a bunch of back and forths either the effect is sufficiently well expressed in the data or the paper is withdrawn for more work.

When I go through the process of reading the entire paper, analyzing the data myself, and the experimental design. That is the opposite of dismissing the claim. That is me, positing that the claim as stated is 'true,' and then asking the questions if the claim is supported by the provided evidence. If it isn't, then doing the work to express what evidence would be needed to support the claim is the feedback needed to help prove the science.

[spiralcoaster]

Don't waste your time responding to people like this. Their post is not much more than a passing thought where they take the headline fully at face value, and therefore are convinced it must be worth something and we should continue to study it. They will never read the paper or have a critical thought of their own.

[salad-tycoon]

I don’t really leave thank you notes as they don’t add anything but just to balance out the opinions here:

Thank you for taking the time for that wonderful explanation, may it teach some of us/me to think before we shoot. I found it very enlightening and am sure many other drive by casuals do as well.

[econ]

Creatine effects vary a lot from person to person. It isn't all that harmful and easy to notice. Best test it yourself.

I apparently produce much less than I can use. Effect is in the, how is this even legal? range.