upvote

points

by cowsandmilk13 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby tokai13 hours ago|
next
[-]
It wasn't even funded in the way funding a study usually means. That an entity handed over money to a research group. The study was done by employers in their work time for their salary. Its a Novo Nordisk study, and as you say its right there in the open. Pointing an llm against the paper to (wrongly) realize this is a real tragedy of literacy.
reply
upvoteby SecretDreams11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think it rubs plenty of laymen the wrong way to not make it a bit more explicitly known.

The world could use a bit less nuance in our headlines these days.

reply
upvoteby Topfi10 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> [...] not make it a bit more explicitly known.

Honest question, how could it be made more explicitly known? It's literally under ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, in the most clear language possible.

reply
upvoteby SecretDreams10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The article title is fine. The title posted to HN (and other forums) should have outro or intro:

In a study funded by X, "Semaglutide linked to lower predicted dementia risk"

Or

"Semaglutide linked to lower predicted dementia risk", in a study funded by X.

This is a fair addendum that should be added when cross posting across websites. It need not be in the original link title. And this type of declaration should really follow most cross posted titles where a perceived bias/skepticism might otherwise be triggered without that knowledge being included. It's an explicit declaration upfront of potential conflicts.

reply
upvoteby ambicapter11 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It's never enough for purity tests.
reply
upvoteby mattdeboard11 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
You seem to be arguing that people shouldn't be skeptical, by default, of studies of products that are funded by the companies that make the products.

They funded this study as a prospective way of increasing the adoption and market share of their trademarked medication. It deserves skepticism.

reply