Autism linked to excessive amounts of folate and B12

[Illuminance]

It's less that there are so many bad studies, and more that the news/media has learned that science can be twisted into sensationalism. The average person doesn't have the background or doesn't have the time to sit and think about what the study actually means. Science in the news has a lot of bullshit, but science in science is usually quite good.

[hrugner]

I've seen that claim quite a few times, but I never found any reliable source on it. Would be great if you could not be lazy and dig it up.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...articleResults

There you go.

edit: I opened it and looked at it to make sure this is what he was talking about. I haven't really gone through it and made sure it wasn't bullshit or looked at later developments. As stated in the study, it was exploratory in nature, does not identify a cause, there were too few controls on the brains as they were not preselected, and the age range was really too broad.

[Ripster42]

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...articleResults

There you go.

edit: I opened it and looked at it to make sure this is what he was talking about. I haven't really gone through it and made sure it wasn't bullshit or looked at later developments. As stated in the study, it was exploratory in nature, does not identify a cause, there were too few controls on the brains as they were not preselected, and the age range was really too broad.

It wasn't, but I'll look. That study is largely looking for the expression of genes and the study I'm talking about was solely about gross anatomy.

[Kasierith]

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/significant.png

Pretty much sounds like grasping bullshit. That they don't link the actual study strongly suggests this.

[Deleted]

How much shit has Autism been linked to now?

[roent]

Not going to read through every page to see if someone else said this already, but seeing as it's not on the front page, a defect of folate / B12 leads to neural tube defects. Google image search that if you don't know what it is.

[Ripster42]

How much shit has Autism been linked to now?

With the broad brush they use to diagnose autism anymore it's not really a surprise. I was diagnosed when I was 28, but didn't meet the diagnosis requirements when I was young. They've greatly expanded the criteria in the past 30 years.

- - - Updated - - -

How much shit has Autism been linked to now?

With the broad brush they use to diagnose autism anymore it's not really a surprise. I was diagnosed when I was 28, but didn't meet the diagnosis requirements when I was young. They've greatly expanded the criteria in the past 30 years.

[Themius]

"Science is true, whether you believe in it or not."

I'm not sure what John is on about here. There has literally never been a bad study.

Literally never been a bad study?

[Osmeric]

Literally never been a bad study?

Yeah, that. It's quite likely that most published scientific results (particularly in medicine) are wrong. It's a systemic problem in science that's getting a lot of attention right now. Fields like physics are much more rigorous about what they require to claim a discovery (> 5 sigma).

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicin...l.pmed.0020124

[Illuminance]

Yeah, that. It's quite likely that most published scientific results (particularly in medicine) are wrong. It's a systemic problem in science that's getting a lot of attention right now. Fields like physics are much more rigorous about what they require to claim a discovery (> 5 sigma).

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicin...l.pmed.0020124

It's less that results are wrong in medicine, but more that they're highly context-dependent. Biological systems involve thousands+ of variables that can't be neatly controlled for. In the case of folate and autism, once it passes peer-review, if it's a believable effect there will be many more studies to try and corroborate what was observed. It is likely that what they saw is a real effect, but who knows for what reason and to what significance?

Medical studies in particular are cautious about this, as they know from the outset they aren't trying to establish some fundamental truth of the universe. Truth in that field comes from a pattern of similar studies, not one single hyper-controlled particle collision chamber that generated 10 zillobytes of data.

[Heladys]

Literally never been a bad study?

Science is like fucking. If it's done right by all the participants, lessons are learned and good "conclusions" are reached. if one or more of the participants do it half-assed, the results are suboptimal.

That's not fucking's problem, nor is it science's.

[hrugner]

It wasn't, but I'll look. That study is largely looking for the expression of genes and the study I'm talking about was solely about gross anatomy.

Gross anatomy? Heh, yeah I don't think I could find a study like that without dipping into ancient physiognomy texts. That's been a dead science for years and for good reason.

[Ripster42]

Gross anatomy? Heh, yeah I don't think I could find a study like that without dipping into ancient physiognomy texts. That's been a dead science for years and for good reason.

I mean like, not genetic assays. But stuff you can see with a scope.

That's pretty gross in comparison to what that linked study was talking about.

Edit: well, not the neuron density, you can see that on a scope, but that wasn't the sum of that study.