> Results from additional trials, including the identical EMERGENT-3 trial and the 52-week, open-label EMERGENT-4 and EMERGENT-5 trials, will provide additional information on the efficacy and safety of KarXT in people with schizophrenia.
EMERGENT-4 and EMERGENT-5 concluded last year [1], which was the reason for the approval. EMERGENT-2 was mostly a milestone Karuna Therapeutics used to get enough funding for the rest of the trials and inform their design.
Thanks for the info - curious to look at these trials and see if there are sustained long term positive outcomes on the PANSS or these are just safety /tolerability studies.
edit: "The underlying trait that makes people allistic is a dysfunction of
the parts of the brain dealing with emotion. Allistic people lack the
capacity to independently experience emotions. That is not to say they
lack emotions: far from it, the allistic mind experiences emotions
just like any other. The dysfunction is that the allistic person's
emotional state is not determined by eir own thought processes but
instead is borrowed from other people that are expressing emotion nearby.
Emotional cues in tone of voice, posture, facial expression, and so on,
cause the allistic person to automatically and unavoidably experience
the same emotion being expressed."
Quick Google of "DSM-2300" yields some vibration monitors and carpets, and I'm only aware of DSM-1 through 5 when it comes to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
I’ll admit that I just skimmed it but it seemed to read like a paper describing autism but with the script flipped such that it’s written from the perspective of someone with autism writing about their observations about people without autism. It appears the same upon closer reading; in the post script it calls itself a parody. (It also claims to invent the term “allism” for the purpose of the paper, which is good to know as someone who’s heard the term, presuming its innocence. I don’t think its use is intended to be particularly kind. Kind of a bummer: I like words and that’s a good one.)
> If you haven't already worked it out: allism is the condition of not
being autistic. In current psychiatric practice, it is autism rather than allism that is considered pathological. This article, up to the postscript, has been a parody of conventional psychiatry; the parody would be a serious article in a fictional world where what what we in the real world call autism is considered normal.
Anyway, I seem to have confabulated this, but I got the idea of the paper being written in some hypothetical future where DSM-2300 would kinda make more sense, hence being part of the joke. After looking for it, I found that the page actually mentions DSM-IV specifically, so I really have no clue where 2300 came from. (I do notice that the digits add up to 5 but it’s not clear whether or not that was intentional, nor why it would be written as a set of digits which sum to 5.)
All that said, I think it’s actually worth a read but it is a bit inflammatory. Indeed, that seems to be the point.
Maybe someone can provide a better understanding, I'm a clinical psych doctoral student, but this is outside my area of research + methods.
On very quick review, it looks like there are is significant association between HERV genetic factors and specific diagnoses given PIP. However, what's not clear to me is effect size or correlation coefficient.
I'm not sure if I'm missing this or it's not reports. There might be a relationship, but at a very small percentage.
2nd year clinical psychology doctoral student, have an “ADHD” diagnosis since high school, it’s also an area of academic interest.
In my very humble opinion, the diagnostic category of ADHD isn’t particularly helpful, it’s too broad, one person with ADHD looks completely different from another. Additionally it’s very easy to identify and over-identify with diagnosis to the detriment of your personal potential. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy and all to common trap.
As other have said, you can go see a psychiatrist and they’ll evaluate you and maybe you end up with stimulant meds. Attentional issues are not just due to ADHD, they can be part of anxiety, depression, PTSD, etc.
If you do get an ADHD diagnosis, The meds help some people (actually they make everyone focus, i.e. why they gave them to fighter pilots). They also suck for other people.
What I believe will be helpful is learning how to live your life with your unique mind. If you can find a therapist who practices mindfulness-based interventions, (ACT, MBCT, DBT) it could be incredibly beneficial. Good luck on your journey!
This article is nuts and the citations of "compelling studies" are by the authors themselves AND pre-print without peer review... Even at first pass, the following statement is bonkers:
"Then they ignored natural immunity. Wrong again. The vast majority of children have already had Covid, but this has made no difference in the blanket mandates for childhood vaccines. And now, by mandating vaccines and boosters for young healthy people, with no strong supporting data, these agencies are only further eroding public trust."
What the fuck is "natural immunity" when we have had 5 variants of omnicron and infection doesn't provide immunity to the other variants?
The real crime IMO, is that... U.S. Public Health Agencies Aren't ‘Following the Science,’... the science of how we could actually reduce spread and decrease the 350~ DEATHS per day adding to the more than 1 Million dead already.
> What the fuck is "natural immunity" when we have had 5 variants of omnicron and infection doesn't provide immunity to the other variants?
It still provides a very high degree of protection against severe disease, which is already vanishingly rare in children without comorbidities. And is also all you get from the vaccines, along with all their attendant known and unknown risks.
Articles like this keep cropping up here and they're always flooded with comments that admit ignorance or uncertainty but then indulge the article with personal opinions. It's weird.
I think this is a good move – the cloning UX experience was a nightmare. I've moved many shared files to Team Drives because the language is easier for most of understand.
I imagine this was a tough call for a PM, with a lot of cases to consider and account for given this is so embedded in the Drive product DNA.
The walking times are from my apartment building at 45 Park Ln S. I timed my walk from my apartment door to the train door a few times and added a bit of buffer. I might be able to make these walk times configurable using URL parameters; I will update this thread if I do that. Or you could self-host this: it’s just a static site with a few HTML, JavaScript, and image files.
I think I understand now – while I saw the adjustable walk time variables in the JS, I just wasn't sure which station your timer were relative to.
Looking at your building location, I see you're near the Hoboken stop. That's why you have the Hoboken departure times hard-coded in the departure_times.js.
I thought the file was just the line schedule and then you'd have to pick a station, but I see now it's just the schedule for the Hoboken station?
This article follows the classic rule: If a question is asked in the headline, the answer is "no"...
"There is no evidence that sleep was universally segmented, and there is also little evidence that segmented sleep is better. A 2021 meta-analysis of studies on biphasic sleep schedules found that segmented-sleeping subjects actually reported “lower sleep quality … and spent more time in lighter stages of sleep.” One reasonable takeaway is that biphasic sleep is like anarchical foraging: Both might have well served some ancient populations some of the time, but neither of them offers a clear solution to modern problems."
This essentially the same argument that Judson Brewer makes using insights from behavioral + buddhist psychology – https://drjud.com/book/
The insight is also to use mindfulness to understand the "true" experience of the addictive behavior and come to internalize that it is no longer valuable.
My understanding is that one of the major critiques of statistics, especially its use in psychology, has been the use of models which are derived from the mean.
There are inherent flaws/assumptions to this approach which Peter Molenaar has done extensive work to critique (See Todd Rose's book on the subject). For anyone who understands the technique presented in this paper, does it also depend on the mean as a model like when calculating Pearson's r?
Isn't Molenaar looking at networks of symptoms over time? Yes, in any multi-variate time series, when one is searching for relationships between the variables (and allowing that you may have multiple sets of time series which may have some type of grouping, i.e. observations from a set of people with one diagnosis vs observations from a set of people with a contrary or with no diagnosis), then yes, any attempt to find co-relations in the multivariate signal need to account for the underlying statistical distribution of the signal components. The normal distribution isn't a bad first a priori approximation, but you really need to check.
side note- it also isn't clear that you can group by diagnosis, see, for example, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29154565/, which shows that even within diagnostic groups there is substantial individual variation.
This is an order-based algorithm, so it is more related to the median than the mean.
Another very useful consequence of being order-based, is that this new coefficient is much more robust to noise/outliers than the canonical correlation coefficient.
I think there are far bigger problems with the lack of theoretical foundations and abuse of p-values rather than with ergodicity or whatever is the pet peeve of Peter Molenaar.
Here is the drug trial results for EMERGENT-2 which was one of the two phase-3 trials that lead to the approval.
I think its striking that the trial is only 5-weeks long and this medication gets approval.