The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
whereas with these perhaps more I don't want to say more complicated but more human mental health conditions that are hard to model in a mouse you really have to study it in the human and you can perhaps start in an epileptic patient a patient that has electrodes and try to provoke a depressed state or study epileptics like Dr Chang has done that have comorbid depression for example and that can really validate this approach as well
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so there's actually a lot of interest in using that procedure to study mental health disorders we are trying to do it for patients with obsessive compulsive disorder we're awaiting an FDA decision on that uh but actually I credit uh our colleagues at Baylor and at UCSF for for studying this uh already we have fabulous colleagues at UCSF that have studied depression using this type of approach
Um, and it works extremely well and it's very safe. Of course, it's still a brain procedure. Um, but the u the complication rate is surprisingly low quite honestly for the amount of electrodes that we place and it's extremely well tolerated. Most of these patients leave the hospital and they don't even feel like they've had surgery. So uh there's actually a lot of interest in using that procedure to study mental health disorders.