It's amazing how dedicated human beings are to find one specific way that makes us more advanced or special compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. This discussion is a pointed reminder of some of the ways these efforts have failed.
I wonder if this type of technology could have hastened the time to diagnosis for my neighbor, who only found out her positive COVID diagnosis due to repeated TIAs, which did not merit hospitalization. Now she is evidently in a nursing home for the long term (stroke as sequela to COVID).
An excellent idea for a study, but it would be more helpful if the abstract had reported their results more explicitly (i.e. numbers/percentages rather than "most" and "over half").
This is a confusing way to present and compare results: "In hypertensive subjects, systolic ABP was reduced by 6.1 ± 2.2 mmHg after HIIT compared to MICT and REST (130.8 ± 3.9 vs. 137.4 ± 5.1 and 136.4 ± 3.8 mmHg, respectively; p < 0.05)," as the abstract does not state what the initial systolic ABP was for each group.
I like the way that this journal features a "New and Noteworthy" section at the end of the abstract. However, not all authors ae able to clearly articulate what is new and noteworthy about their research.
There were only 8 subjects in this study, so the results might not be terribly stable. Still, I appreciate the authors for publishing a study in which the null hypothesis is confirmed.
Some of the abstracts could be more carefully proofread and edited before publication, e.g. https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2016/05001/Naturopathic_Cancer_Treatment__Associated_with.2487.aspx.
论文