linzayearst.bsky.social
Digital mental health innovation and research. Talks about diagnosis and treatment of mental health disorders and digital health solutions.
80 posts
170 followers
435 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
@cos.io
comment in response to
post
Interesting experiment…we can have a bunch of AI generated proposals submitted alongside human-written proposals and see which ones get accepted.
comment in response to
post
Thus by definition if there is an immediate practical application it is no longer basic research.
But certainly the aim is to inform applied work at some point and I suspect that speaking to that goal is reasonable, however far off.
comment in response to
post
“Basic research” refers to the kind of scientific investigation that aims to increase our understanding of fundamental principles and phenomena without immediate practical application in mind. It’s driven by curiosity and the desire to expand knowledge.
comment in response to
post
www.davidtopping.ca/workshops/
comment in response to
post
Choice of journal matters too, I think some of those selected are less likely to be popular among clinicians. Love your idea @jdmiller.bsky.social re: follow up study. Would be eye-opening.
comment in response to
post
Also think they go to conferences to “stay up to date” more than read journal articles. But overall researchers do a good job of dissemination to each other and no one else - needs attention for sure. Love that this also asks whether the research is asking the right questions for applied settings.
comment in response to
post
$800+ was among individuals who would likely be seen as among the leading KOLs on the topic worldwide.
comment in response to
post
Depends on the private sector. Small startup or pharma for example? Big range out there - USA is highest -$200-500 is pretty common, have seen some as high as $800-1250.
comment in response to
post
It wasn’t perfect. It has a long way to go still. Reviewers identified issues with the literature review, incorrect references, etc. But it still received a higher score than some human-submitted papers. Something for us all to keep an eye at least…👀
comment in response to
post
Concering or intriguing?
It perhaps represents a step forward in AI-assisted scientific writing, rather than just another case of GPT-style text generation slipping through weak editorial oversight. It fuels serious questions about AI’s place in research and authorship ethics.
comment in response to
post
What I think makes this case different is it wasn’t just AI being misused to churn out low-quality content, but rather an intentional experiment where an AI system was designed to generate a research paper that meets legitimate academic standards.
comment in response to
post
For sure lower-tier or predatory journals are flooded with AI-generated nonsense. 1/2
comment in response to
post
And for those wondering….there was no human in the loop!
comment in response to
post
I’m looking for rallies in Toronto. This isn’t a USA 🇺🇸 only issue - all researchers need to stand up globally in solidarity. @uhnresearch.bsky.social
comment in response to
post
9-part blog series - aka online course! 👏🏻
comment in response to
post
One that includes the Estimand Framework and that it was formalized in the ICH E9 (R1) addendum to improve the clarity and consistency of statistical inference, particularly in clinical trials.
comment in response to
post
Thanks for sharing. That it is in Psych Methods an obstacle to accessibility- it’s an intimidating journal for some. Maybe a more general reach paper is needed that is simplified?
comment in response to
post
@dingdingpeng.the100.ci for real - want to collaborate on this? Happy to get the ball rolling…can work on a draft for your review…. Others in the chat welcome to contribute as well if interested.
comment in response to
post
Enter the Estimand Framework and why it matters:
It helps researchers clearly define their research question before choosing statistical methods.
comment in response to
post
Do I see a paper coming out of this? Estimand vs estimate vs parameter vs construct vs true score vs outcome vs endpoint & all other terms - when to use them and why it matters… a back to basics primer - where you were trained & in what discipline may impact your use & familiarity with these terms.
comment in response to
post
Seconded. I’m 15 years post doctorate (personality psych) and only heard the term estimand last year as I started talking regularly with European measurement experts and those in Pharma. Is there a difference in language use by training region: 🇺🇸 🇨🇦 vs Europe?
comment in response to
post
📌
comment in response to
post
Great 🧵. I’d add ROI - no longer science for science sake, but instead everything is framed in terms of ROI. Also the thinking is backwards - we want to be able to say X, and results are buried if they don’t result in the desired outcome.
comment in response to
post
Can’t wait to read! Unfortunately behind a paywall…trying to get my hands on it.
comment in response to
post
I have recently learned that FDA requires data files be in SAS format for submission. Not sure why government is in bed with a statistical software company. Should be able to submit from any program as they all read each others file formats. But for academics moving to industry it’s worth noting.
comment in response to
post
Nearly 20 years old - feel the scale recommendations are still valid or newer measures or versions now available?
comment in response to
post
Ah! Missed that - thought it was. Thanks for sharing all the same!
comment in response to
post
Wondered if you would mind me sharing on LinkedIn to extend reach - with full credit to you of course!
comment in response to
post
Agree - the critique was an interesting alternative perspective in their specific area of expertise. And your response was equally respectful reflection on where differences would or would not make a impact your papers intended goal. Well done by all.
comment in response to
post
This is what scientific discourse should look like. Well done to all. I miss real scholarly discourse. There is so much right fighting and defensiveness in response to critiques. This was refreshing.
comment in response to
post
Definitely wish I hadn’t learned this the hard way.
comment in response to
post
OMG. 😂 This ⬆️⬆️