Shiningc t1_j8340xa wrote
No, AI is not some magic that can magically fix everything. Treatments are ineffective because we have no idea how they work. What they typically do in medicine and psychology/psychiatry is that first they label and categorize a disorder, and do all sorts of blind trial-and-error to see what "works". Obviously this is a very inefficient way of doing things. What they need to be doing is to figure out how a disorder works.
Corsair4 t1_j834sid wrote
>What they need to be doing is to figure out how a disorder works.
And the difficulty with this is that the field is sharply limited on what data we can gather from humans. The highly sensitive research techniques looking at protein function, or electrophysiological data or whatever have 2 things in common. A) They are highly invasive. B) The are either terminal procedures, or highly damaging. For obvious reasons, we don't do these in humans. This research happens in animal models, typically rodents.
But that brings us to problem 2: How do you know that your mouse model of psychosis is actually experiencing psychosis? We can't ask a mouse about it's perception on reality.
And then problem 3 happens: Sure, you may have a reasonable mouse model of psychosis, but treating psychosis in 1 species is exceptionally different than treating it in humans. Protein expression is very different, and what works in a mouse does not work in a human.
Medical research is limited by the measurements we can take, and the model systems we use. Biggest advancements will happen when we can mechanistically define a condition rather than looking at the overlap of subjective symptoms, and THAT requires better measurement techniques.
stevedonovan t1_j83apdg wrote
Even then, the actual genetic differences (and hence protein expression) can be scattered all over the genome - only a few conditions are definitely linked to a single bad gene. There are studies which show that there are about ten genes directly implicated, and that it is mostly an inherited condition. Not an easy target for drug discovery, so mostly we put a lid on the symptoms with antipsychotic drugs, which are not fun and have neurological side effects.
Also, you can have the bad genes and not end up inflicted, just be 'functionally eccentric' or even very creative. (Not so uncommon for talented families to have the curse of madness). So, there's environment and epigenetics and all that.
Tlr;dr: the mechanisms are complex, treatment has been palliative.
Corsair4 t1_j84cu1x wrote
I was just using protein changes as an example, since that's what I'm most familiar with.
My main point was that the research techniques we use for establishing mechanisms and pathways are not compatible with humans, since they tend to be very destructive to the individual.
mojoegojoe t1_j86nu1a wrote
Exactly. What I suspect, that AI will help us vastly with data aggregation.
As these sample sets grow so to will the insite we have about how these conditions are formed. As such I believe we will alter our definition of these structures to include all the abstract interactions that go into the individual expressing the gene. We will gain better understanding as to the not so obvious, the more nunoncied structures that manufacture these symtomes like anxiety and environment.
Shiningc t1_j83dmn1 wrote
Well again the problem is thinking that science is about gathering data and doing measurements. That doesn't really help with figuring out how things work.
Corsair4 t1_j83gay9 wrote
>Well again the problem is thinking that science is about gathering data and doing measurements.
It literally fucking is?
You propose a hypothesis: EG - I believe that Schizophrenia is caused by changes in X protein, or alterations in Y function in the brain.
You design experiments to test the hypothesis. You gather data to support or disprove that hypothesis: Maybe you look at western blots to see if there are changes in protein expression. Maybe you collect ephys data to see if there are changes in electrical activity due to changes in this protein. Maybe you analyze biomarkers of particular metabolic processes. You analyze that data and determine if there is a significant change between the control condition and experimental (schizophrenic) condition.
>That doesn't really help with figuring out how things work.
How do you think this works? Because if you go to any graduate school or any academic, research, or medical institution and make the argument that science and research isn't about data collection and experimental design, you will be laughed out of the room.
Explain to me precisely how someone establishes a mechanistic pathway WITHOUT gathering data and collecting experimental measurements please. Be as specific as you can.
Shiningc t1_j83gjl3 wrote
And how did you exactly come up with that hypothesis? It certainly wasn’t just gathering “data”.
Einstein barely gathered data and instead did a lot of thought experiments to come up with relativity.
Corsair4 t1_j83gvh0 wrote
>And how did you exactly come up with that hypothesis? It certainly wasn’t just gathering “data”.
You look at previous literature, and previous data? Science is iterative. No one is coming up with completely original ideas that have no grounding in previous experimentation. Either A) You notice something interesting in previous data and design a experiment as an extension of that idea or B) You notice something anomalous in previous experiments, and design experiments to challenge that data.
Every single funded grant has significant preliminary data. Every hypothesis, every question has data to back it, and data is the ONLY way to test a hypothesis.
>Einstein barely gathered data and instead did a lot of thought experiments to come up with relativity.
What relevance does Einstein have to biomedical and life sciences research? You're right of course, if we ignore all the experimentation to validate the theory of relativity, there really isn't a huge emphasis on data gathering.
How do you establish a mechanistic pathway WITHOUT gathering data and collecting experimental measurements? How do you reject or accept a biomedical hypothesis without data? Be as specific as you can.
Shiningc t1_j83unok wrote
And what does that exactly have to do with “data”? If you go all the way down then science started with myths and legends. We thought maybe the earth was flat, maybe the earth was round, etc.
There is not a single scientific theory that contains “data”, because if it did, then by definition it stops being a theory and it just becomes data.
Of course, we test a theory by data, but the theory itself is not data.
Corsair4 t1_j83y4nr wrote
>There is not a single scientific theory that contains “data”, because if it did, then by definition it stops being a theory and it just becomes data.
You have just proven you don't understand what a "theory" is in science.
The dictionary definition of a Scientific Theory notes specifically that it is an explanation that has been repeatedly and thoroughly tested in accordance with the scientific method. YOU CANNOT HAVE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WITHOUT DATA CORROBORATING IT. A Scientific Theory, BY DEFINITION, must include data supporting a hypothesis. A Scientific theory without supporting data is not a theory - it is a untested, unsubstantiated hypothesis. The single exception is cases where it is entirely impossible to gather data - which is not a situation that applies to life sciences.
You have a dangerous, fundamental misunderstanding of science.
>Of course, we test a theory by data, but the theory itself is not data.
No, you don't. You test a hypothesis. A theory is something that already has a veritable mountain of supporting evidence in the form of data from experiments. If your theory has no data, 99% of the time it is a hypothesis, not a theory.
If you're going to pedant, at least be accurate.
Shiningc t1_j840umv wrote
Yes, it is tested by data, but in no way that a theory contains any data. Nor is it based on any data.
>You have a dangerous, fundamental misunderstanding of science.
Speak for yourself. You are making contradictions because if a theory contained any data, then it ceases to be a theory.
Corsair4 t1_j8421wk wrote
Prove it. Find me a definition of a scientific theory that explicitly excludes data, or a basis in data. I've provided you with plenty of sources. Put your money where your mouth is.
And can you please describe how this (incorrect) emphasis on theory relates to biomedical sciences and establishing mechanistic causes for neurological pathologies?
Can you explain to me specifically how gathering data doesn't help with figuring out how things work? How do you know your hypothesis is correct without data?
[deleted] t1_j87j1y4 wrote
[deleted]
Shiningc t1_j8865h9 wrote
theory
noun.
a formal statement of the rules on which a subject of study is based or of ideas that are suggested to explain a fact or event or, more generally, an opinion or explanation:
economic theory
scientific theory
Darwin's theory of evolution
noun.
something suggested as a reasonable explanation for facts, a condition, or an event, esp. a systematic or scientific explanation:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/theory
Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't have any data or basis in data. It's an explanation of data.
Corsair4 t1_j887m7e wrote
Please explain specifically how data collection doesn't help with "figuring out how things work".
I've only asked you several times now. Maybe this time, you'll actually defend your stance. Who knows, I'm an optimist.
Or maybe, you're full of shit and have no way of explaining how data analysis somehow doesn't help with "figuring out how things work". I don't think asking someone to defend their own stance is unreasonable, but well, here we are.
Shiningc t1_j887yd7 wrote
Because just collecting data doesn't allow us to find causal connections, or "explanations" for that data. The data just might be a bunch of garbage data.
We need explanations or theories to know what data is relevant in the first place.
Corsair4 t1_j888fif wrote
That's not what I asked. I'm not saying that hypotheses are not important.
Here is your original statement.
>Well again the problem is thinking that science is about gathering data and doing measurements. That doesn't really help with figuring out how things work.
For this to be true, you must be able to "figure out how things work" without data and measurements.
I'm not the one taking the stance that hypotheses are not important. You are the one taking a stance that data is not important. Defend it.
Explain to me how you validate a hypothesis without any data. Don't use Darwin or Einstein, their contributions were based in explaining previous data, as well as explaining anomalous data. Therefore, you cannot use them as an example here.
Shiningc t1_j888v3a wrote
Obviously I said "science is about gathering data and doing measurements". Science is about coming up with theories and explanations. Otherwise you might just have a bunch of garbage data and measurements that don't help with anything.
Corsair4 t1_j8892d3 wrote
>Obviously I said "science is about gathering data and doing measurements".
Wow, you don't even know what you said.
No, you didn't say that "science is about gathering data and doing measurements".
You specifically said that
>Well again the problem is thinking that science is about gathering data and doing measurements.
This conversation has run it's course. There is no worthwhile discussion to be had with someone that doesn't even understand their own written claims. Just lead with that next time, and save us all some effort.
Shiningc t1_j88b3es wrote
Can you actually read? I said "Science is about coming up with theories and explanations." after that sentence. Obviously I included the "problem" part in its meaning.
thedogbreathvariatio OP t1_j834mqy wrote
Wow that’s super disappointing
AndreasVesalius t1_j851ui7 wrote
There’s been work using ai to decode brain recordings as patients with depression respond to brain stimulation therapy. It’s not nothing
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments