"The winners will have to prove by 2030 that their intervention can turn back the clock in older adults by at least a decade in three key areas: cognition, immunity, and muscle function."
"To win the competition, teams have to develop a “proactive, accessible therapeutic” that improves muscle, cognition, and immune function by an amount equivalent to a 10- to 20-year reduction in age in healthy people aged 65 to 80."
It's nice to have optimism, but the fact that the therapeutic has to be "proven" in healthy humans (not animal models) by 2030, makes this impossible.
It's an interesting idea, but I'm not aware of a tool that can allow you to organize papers in such a way. There might be, not sure. Also, if I understood you correctly, the tool would work in a way that would enable you to visualize the historical narrative leading to the latest paper. What would be really interesting, if not only could you manually organize papers in such a way, but have the software automate this process to delineate the most relevant papers.
I believe CPI is unchanged in October. I did not take a close look at the CPI numbers, but I believe the steady index is in part due to energy falling. But rents and food are increased. Not an economist, so I'm not sure how much to read into that.
PPI is a leading indicator for CPI, since it represents what producers are paying. A falling PPI would (probably) indicate lower CPI inflation in future releases.
> PPI is a leading indicator for CPI, since it represents what producers are paying. A falling PPI would (probably) indicate lower CPI inflation in future releases.
PPI and CPI historically are loosely correlated, but show no clear lead-follow relationship. PPI seems to swing harder, but not first.
Would they need to have 2 placebo arms to make this an optimal study design then? One for glucose (as sodium ascorbate was diluted using a glucose solution), and another placebo group for sodium chloride?
Honestly if they had balanced the sodium via almost any mechanism, I wouldn't have had much to say about it. The difficulty with 2 placebo arms is that you have to expand your study population which I think poses an ethical issue, but otherwise yes.
I understand. I meant "bit different" in the nuanced context of this study. As the authors note in their introduction of the paper [1]: "Regrettably, these studies used ascorbic acid, a compound associated with the induction of metabolic acidosis and acidemia [15]. This makes it uncertain whether the unclear effects in human sepsis were due to the administration of a suboptimal preparation of the study medication. In contrast, sodium ascorbate (NaAscorbate) has a physiological pH, does not contribute to acidosis, can be given at a much greater dose, and may carry a different efficacy profile."
Yeah to try to maybe draw an analogy, NaAscorbate vs Ascorbic Acid is a bit like CSV vs JSON encoding - you might be sending the exact same data but if the serialisation format isn't what the API expects, then you could get errors but that doesn't necessarily mean that you sent the wrong data.
The body can react differently to salt vs pure form for the same active ingredient - eg crack vs cocaine
"To win the competition, teams have to develop a “proactive, accessible therapeutic” that improves muscle, cognition, and immune function by an amount equivalent to a 10- to 20-year reduction in age in healthy people aged 65 to 80."
It's nice to have optimism, but the fact that the therapeutic has to be "proven" in healthy humans (not animal models) by 2030, makes this impossible.