jeffmold.bsky.social
American/Swedish Biomedical Scientist studying immunology and cancer. My favorite cell atlases say “here be dragons” on the UMAPs. @karolinska institute
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=_owb98cAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
786 posts
1,408 followers
2,144 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
How could they know!?
comment in response to
post
www.google.com/url?sa=i&url...
comment in response to
post
I guess that could work if it’s explicitly stated in the paper right 😃
comment in response to
post
Journals should make a “flat” co first and co-last authorship for authors from distinct fields to clarify and incentivize this
comment in response to
post
I’d argue it’s more than great - it’s essential
comment in response to
post
That’s why I always collaborate with experts in math/stats on projects with huge datasets
comment in response to
post
Is it willful ignorance or just ignorance with an effort to justify it once it was called out? Biologists are often pretty bad at stats - me included
comment in response to
post
It’s not the first time I’ve witnessed the argument that stats aren’t important despite all figures employing stats to make their point: www.nature.com/articles/s41...
comment in response to
post
Is it a slippery slope - and what counts as validation? Do we use stats to assess that too? I get it but it seems like stats are sort of keeping us from completely going off the rails no?
comment in response to
post
I was trying to figure out if it’s all cd4 or cd4 and cd8?
comment in response to
post
But in random blood samples too?!
comment in response to
post
It is hard to tell how many cells were sampled - but I would be amazed if I took 10-100,000 random blood cells from a person and 10-100k random gut cells and happened upon clones that had not only >10 cells but also cells shared between tissues. Anyone else find that surprising? Very interesting
comment in response to
post
They are just mimicking the worst of us 😃
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
It’s no wonder the vast majority of science published now is unreadable gobblygook. It’s produced not to be read and understood but to allow the producer the opportunity to produce more of the same because that’s what they’ve been told to do. Why not outsource it to AI
comment in response to
post
The inevitable end to the industriotechnorevolution seems to be a world where production and consumption are maximized and in the absence of spiritual beliefs what’s the point. People are maximizing efficiency to climb a ladder with no end just because the ladder exists
comment in response to
post
Behold professor - here is a thing! But why have you produced this? Well professor, it’s because I need to make this thing such that I can make the next thing of course!
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
I think it’s time to draw a line between producing something and the act of producing… learning and scholarship isn’t about delivering a product. Take away the process and nothing is left but rotting corpse which never suffered the joy of living
comment in response to
post
Did EAE get rebranded as “MS like disease”?
comment in response to
post
Remember when you were 18 and some of your peers loved to argue against widely accepted beliefs just to be contrarian dickheads (or because they thought they knew better because they didn’t realize yet how little they knew? Now those people are in charge of the social discourse….
comment in response to
post
“First off we would like to express our undying gratitude to reviewer 2 for the 5 hours of effort put into critiquing figures 1-3 and the 5 minutes spent on the John for figures 4-7 when they got the 4th automatic email alerting them their review was past due”
comment in response to
post
www.nature.com/articles/d41...