I guess Google wasn't satisfied with the level of disappointment a Rockies loss typically gives me, so they had to briefly get my hopes up so they have farther to fall.
The spoilers on this subreddit are out of control. It's not even posts, it's random comments that aren't marked with spoiler fonts, such as >! spoiler!<. Posting spoilers are fine, but including it on random comments without any method for someone who doesn't want to read a spoiler is bad form.
Like there's the recent post about Decision Day predictions. Some people make predictions and then other people, unprompted, say what they read in an article. Like what the fuck guys? Not only does that give spoilers to other random readers, but it shoves it into someone's notifications, so they have no chance to ignore it.
I say we report every spoiler comment, and hopefully they get banned. Fuck 'em.
Edit: I'll show you all what I mean. WARNING, POTENTIAL SPOILER: this fucking comment.
The preview for next week where Felipe (?) says, "Have you guys tried just calling it?", is going to be about someone losing their phone. That's my prediction for next week.
I just saw the press release for the article that came out yesterday from the Boston University group: ["Neurodegenerative mortality among National Football League players"](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(26)00304-4/fulltext). I provided the link to The Lancer article about it.
I'm wondering about everyone's thoughts here on the article, its methods, its interpretation, its findings, etc. I know that the research by the Boston University Group is controversial (to say the least), especially among the field of neuropsychology, so I wanted to see what everyone's opinions are. Statistical methods and the like are definitely not my strength (especially when it comes to non-psychometric topics), so I had a difficult time determining if the methods they used were actually appropriate and not just cherry picking. Here's some of my questions:
>Sensitivity analysis assessed whether the observed excess neurodegenerative mortality could be attributed to competing risks using a cause-specific hazard simulation.
Are "competing risks" the same as confounding variables, or is it something completely different? I also don't see more details about what these "competing risks" are, so the point may be moot anyway.
In the same vein, is comparing to the expected death rate an adequate measurement for a control group? I know it's not the best, but does it suffice for the purpose/conclusion?
I know prior research in this area has suffered from selection bias (e.g., brains are usually only donated for CTE research if the family had concerns for CTE), which in my opinion is the biggest threat to the validity of this area of research, but this one seems to avoid that (at least when selecting athletes). Is there any possible selection bias here that I'm missing?
At first I thought that age in relation to neurodegenerative condition may be (i.e., that the sample is skewing younger and younger-onset neurodegenerative conditions are more aggressive, so the likelihood of death is higher), but the average of mortality is ~75 for all cause dementias. That's not crazy unreasonable. It is weird that they don't provide a breakdown of the ages of the sample, just the average (and SD) age of death for various groups. It makes it really hard to tell if the sample does skew a certain age.
I have more to talk about with this article, but this post is already far too long lol.
Now I just need an orange scarf for him.
Sorry for the long post. What cognitive abilities/factors does everyone use to help inform recommendations about driving? This question is mostly focused on when to recommend that a patient stop driving, but a discussion about driving in general works too. Of course there are clear cut cases - no impairments mean that we don't recommend anything about driving and global impairments mean that we recommend they completely stop driving - but what about less clear cut cases.
​
For example, someone who has normal* processing speed, impaired EF (possibly only assessed through TMT-B and FAS [if you count that] due to time constraints), impaired verbal learning and memory, normal visual memory, split VS skills (some impaired, some normal), and normal auditory attention/WM. Would the conceptualization change if they receive a major NCD instead of a mild NCD diagnosis, but only have IADL difficulties in something like managing their finances/myriad of medications?
*^(normal = low average or above)
​
How would you all decide what abilities/factors to prioritize and integrate in a case like this? We know our tests aren't necessarily predictors of driving ability and aren't even close to a replacement for a formal driving test, but they do assess abilities correlated with driving. Also, you obviously don't want to recommend that someone completely stop driving at the first sign of cognitive decline, since it's such a major life change and loss of independence, but you also don't want to be overly permissive and put the patient and the public in unnecessary danger. In other words, where do you draw the line?
​
Also, how do you present the recommendation to stop driving? As psychologists and not MDs, we have no actual power in taking away their keys or license; we just make recommendations. However, we still have a duty to discuss our recommendations during feedback, particularly if it's one like this. Thank you for your input on this if you made it this far!
​
**Disclaimer: This case I described is a completely made up case to illustrate my point and is not consultation on a specific case and will not inform my clinical practice for a particular patient.**
I work in health care and write a lot of evaluation reports. By nature of my job, these always include a section for medications and assessments that I administered during my evaluation. I've always chosen to write the lists of both horizontally to save space (or else it'd be like a page for each), but I've never known how to appropriately punctuate it. Do I add a period to the end of each, even though it's literally just the nouns and maybe an "and?" Example (off the top of my head, not a real list):
>Medications:
Alprazolam, atorvastatin, empagliflozin, lisinopril, cetirizine, fluticasone, ibuprofen, and ascorbic acid.
The assessments are listed the same way but with semicolons since they usually include commas in their names. It's APA style if it matters. Thank you!
Why are all the questions about US politics and half of them are just, "How can Republicans still support Trump?" It's a valid question, it's just not a valid question to ask 100 times per week lol. 9 other questions start with, "How could Republicans..." and the other 10 are "How could Democrats..."
Maybe everyone else likes it, so delete this post if you want. It just feels like a haven for bot karma farming rather than an actual sub.