NTS! www.nts.live
28.02.2026 23:22
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
"Pooling data across many trials could also help answer questions about studies’ operational characteristics: How does remote monitoring compare with on-site testing? Which trial sites reliably deliver high-quality data? Which eligibility criteria slow down recruitment?"
an inclement man
well luckily I love to systematically gain knowledge of pertinent characters
this might be the thing that gets me to watch star trek
behold, we found great variation in how people think! Many activities that we thought would be “gaming” weren't & vice versa, eg half of the participants interpreted ‘gambling’ to be ‘gaming’. Ergo: surveying ‘gaming’ without defining it creates data mess
The New World asked me to speak to some British trans women about what life has been like for them over the past few years - here's what they had to say, in their own words: www.thenewworld.co.uk/marie-le-con...
I kept reading EMA studies claiming to test etiological theories of AUD, but I realized they never actually measured how people experience AUD in their daily lives. So we set out to see what we could learn with existing data.
1/19
journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...
but what if there's loads of it really fast? makes you think
indeed! and an interesting binary
yep
a tan coloured Alpaca is lying down on a hill in its enclosure, stretching its neck in the air as it yawns
a pink sign shows a rough line drawing of a four legged animal with a speech bubble saying "I feel sick"
the energy of this new year
Systematic reviews often guide policy and theory, but they can become quickly outdated. Almost 10% of systematic reviews are out of date even *before they are published*.
Living systematic reviews (LSRs) continuously integrate new evidence, therefore they offer a solution to this problem.
2/8
Free online Intro to INSPECT-SR workshop in January - this one was designed to be convenient for Australian colleagues but may work for others too: www.trybooking.com/uk/FPDL
Congratulations to @simine.com well deserved winner of the Einstein Foundation Individual Award for Promoting Quality in Research 2025 🎉 www.einsteinfoundation.de/en/media/pre...
they don't know how to make things better but they do know how to make it a lot worse, so by god will they
Gonna need the general public + journos to properly reckon with how much of the social/legal policing of space is done purely on vibes. Invoking a 'common sense' approach to who deserves to be in a space, only serves to reinforce who is thought of as the 'common' body and who is seen as aberrant.
since April a trans bathroom ban has been government guidance in the UK -- the attempts to make it law are as aggressive as anticipated
the right menu makes all the difference
linking post-publication reviews to manuscripts is a priority for a more self-correcting science, as is targeting high-impact papers, using and creating tools for checking stats -- all this is great, as is lowering the bar for open review and making the tools to do it well available to all
reviewing preprints by writing down discussions we were already having! open review is nice, open review together is nicer (imo)
I think this is an overly pessimistic take from the @bmj.com.
Sharing data does not inherently increase trust, rather it enables verification which allows for trust calibration.
This example is a win. Serious issues were rapidly detected that would not have been without mandatory data sharing.
at the point of thesis writing where ideas are really starting to flow. for instance, I have decided that today I am going to get to the bottom of positivism
On the power and injustice of the foreign gaze: “But it is also about power – the kind that distances people. That foreign audience might be a powerful policymaker, a set of academics, or a philanthropist. The question is always: who is looking, from where, and what gets distorted in the process?”
@bmj.com Please look at PubPeer comments on an article you published last week. pubpeer.com/publications...
I think your research integrity dept shld act swiftly on this one, given clinical significance.
I'm aware of even more evidence of problems so let me know if this is not sufficient.
PsyArXiv's amazing team of 100+ moderators has now approved all preprints that meet the requirements outlined in the updated PsyArXiv policies (is.gd/paxpolicy). Thank you to everyone who volunteered, this was a true community effort! #PsychSciSky
www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...
INSPECT-SR: A tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials.
adding "coeliac" to the list of woke words
