1
15

Abstract

The ability to detect threats quickly is crucial for survival. Primates, including humans, have been shown to identify snakes quickly and accurately due to their evolutionary history. However, it is unclear which visual features humans and primates detect as threat targets. Several studies have suggested that snake scales possess potent visual features. My previous study demonstrated that removing snake scales through digital image processing reduces attention directed toward snakes. Here, I conducted a visual search task using luminance- and contrast-adjusted photographs of snakes and salamanders in monkeys that had never seen these real reptiles and amphibians. This study demonstrates that the presence or absence of snake scales is responsible for the rapid detection of target animals. The monkeys quickly detected one snake photograph from the eight salamander photographs than vice versa. However, when the same salamanders were clothed with snake scales using image processing, the difference in detection speed between snakes and salamanders disappeared. These results are consistent with the snake-detection theory that snakes were a strong selective pressure favoring modifications in the primate visual system that allow them to detect snakes more quickly or reliably. This strongly suggests that primates’ snake detection depends on the snake-scale shapes, which are both snake-specific and common to all snakes.

2
199
submitted 16 hours ago by mox to c/science@lemmy.world
3
49

Occupational stress is a trigger for Rebecca Wilde, a 32-year-old tech worker in Buckinghamshire. Four years ago, work pressures combined with family issues affected her sleep, leading to a severe manic episode. She was hospitalised for a month and a half, and diagnosed with type 1 bipolar disorder, also known as bipolar 1, a mood condition that can have devastating consequences if not managed well. Mania, and sometimes psychosis, is present in type 1.

Wilde was experiencing both: at one point, she thought she could talk to dogs. She was put on the antipsychotic drug olanzapine and another mood stabiliser, lithium. She has now been taking lithium alone for a year, and it has been transformative. “On the lithium, I definitely feel like me,” she says.

While Wilde was transitioning to lithium only, researchers were furiously debating the evidence around the drug. In 2023, the journal Bipolar Disorders published an editorial co-written by editor-in-chief Gin S Malhi, titled “Lithium first: not merely first line”. This asserted that lithium should be considered not only as one of several possible initial treatments for bipolar disorder, but as the first and foremost of these. Lithium “needs to be championed”, maintains Malhi, a visiting psychiatry professor at Oxford University.

This is not the only heated dispute among lithium researchers from the past couple of years. A 2024 critique led to professors trading words such as “pseudoscience” and “extraordinarily venomous”. Feuds such as these point to the high stakes over the declining popularity of lithium.

Medicinal lithium is remarkable. There is more evidence of lithium’s effectiveness in managing bipolar disorder than for any other medicine. As a naturally occurring ion, lithium can’t be patented. And unlike most medicines, it’s not metabolised by the body.

Malhi explains why this is significant: “With lithium, the body can be thought of simply as a bucket of water with input and output of fluid. Then, whatever lithium you add gives you a plasma level. It means we can accurately make changes with sensitivity around plasma levels and clinical response and tolerability.”

4
260
5
11

Abstract

To compare the economic burden of disease and quality of life in patients with premature ejaculation (PE) and erectile dysfunction (ED). A convenience sampling method was used, and self-designed general information questionnaire, disease economic burden questionnaire, and SF-12 quality of life questionnaire were used to investigate 494 patients with ED and 285 patients with PE who attended a tertiary hospital in Taiyuan City from October 2021 to May 2023, and the relevant data were analysed using SPSS26.0 statistical software. The direct, indirect, intangible, and total economic burdens of the two groups were compared, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05), and the direct, indirect, intangible, and total economic burdens of ED patients were higher than those of PE patients; the scores of the two groups in the dimensions of PF (physical function), RP (role physical), RE (role emotion), and MH (mental health) as well as in the MCS (mental component score), and overall quality of life scores, the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05), with ED patients having lower quality of life scores than PE patients. Compared with PE patients, ED patients have a heavier economic burden of disease and lower quality of life, suggesting that the government and relevant departments of society should pay attention to the economic burden of disease and quality of life of ED patients and take appropriate measures to improve them.

6
41
submitted 1 day ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
7
80
submitted 2 days ago by zlatiah@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

When a dog shakes water off its fur, the action is not just a random flurry of movements — nor a deliberate effort to drench anyone standing nearby.

This instinctive reflex is shared by many furry mammals including mice, cats, squirrels, lions, tigers and bears. The move helps animals to remove water, insects or other irritants from hard-to-reach places. But underlying the shakes is a complex — and previously mysterious — neurological mechanism.

Now, researchers have identified the neural circuit that triggers characteristic ‘wet dog’ shaking behaviour in mice — which involves a specific class of touch receptors, and neurons that connect the spinal cord to the brain. Their findings were published in Science on 7 November.

“The touch system is so complex and rich that [it] can distinguish a water droplet from a crawling insect from the gentle touch of a loved one,” says Kara Marshall, a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. “It’s really remarkable to be able to link a very specific subset of touch receptors to this familiar and understandable behaviour.”

Research article was featured on the cover of this issue of Science, with a glorious picture of a brown bear doing the "wet dog shake" (https://www.science.org/toc/science/current)

Research article: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq8834

Please let me know if there is paywall

8
63
9
239
submitted 6 days ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
10
80
submitted 6 days ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/science@lemmy.world
11
-8
submitted 5 days ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
12
156
submitted 1 week ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
13
105
submitted 1 week ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/science@lemmy.world
14
59
15
56
submitted 1 week ago by x0x7@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
16
31
17
33
18
39
submitted 1 week ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
19
114
20
45

Math Is Still Catching Up to the Mysterious Genius of Srinivasa Ramanujan

https://www.quantamagazine.org/srinivasa-ramanujan-was-a-genius-math-is-still-catching-up-20241021/

Born poor in colonial India and dead at 32, Ramanujan had fantastical, out-of-nowhere visions that continue to shape the field today

@science

21
107
22
103
submitted 1 week ago by vxx@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

In their analysis, the researchers found no significant differences in conspiracy mentality between the autistic group and the general population. Both groups scored similarly, indicating that being autistic does not inherently affect one’s general susceptibility to conspiracy beliefs.

This finding suggests that conspiracy mentality is not linked with autism, contradicting two potential hypotheses the researchers explored: one that autism might increase susceptibility to conspiracy beliefs due to common experiences of social exclusion, and another that autism might offer a type of protection against these beliefs due to cognitive characteristics associated with autism, such as analytical thinking.

Link to the study:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13546805.2024.2399505#abstract

23
71
submitted 1 week ago by m3t00@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
24
35
25
55
submitted 2 weeks ago by ooli@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world

No psychiatric treatment has attracted quite as much cash and hype as psychedelics have in the past decade. Articles about the drugs’ surprising results—including large improvements on depression scores and inducing smokers to quit after just a few doses—earned positive coverage from countless journalists (present company included). Organizations researching psychedelics raised millions of dollars, and clinicians promoted their potential to be a “new paradigm” in mental-health care. Michael Pollan’s 2018 psychedelics book, How to Change Your Mind, became a best seller and a Netflix documentary. Psychedelics were made out to be a safe solution for society’s most challenging mental-health problems.

But the bubble has started to burst: It’s been a bad year for fans of psychedelics.

A few months ago, two articles appeared, one in The New York Times and another in Business Insider, that portrayed major figures in psychedelics research as evangelists whose enthusiasm for the drugs compromised the integrity of their findings. In August, the FDA rejected the first application for therapy assisted by MDMA, the drug commonly known as ecstasy, saying that it “could not be approved based on data submitted to date,” according to the company that brought the application, Lykos. And five people, including two doctors, were recently charged in the death of the Friends actor Matthew Perry, who was found unconscious in his pool after he took large doses of the psychedelic ketamine. (Three of the five have reached plea agreements; the other two pleaded not guilty.)

These incidents, though unrelated, point to a problem for psychedelic research: Many of the studies underpinning these substances’ healing powers are weak, marred by a true-believer mentality among its researchers and an underreporting of adverse side effects, which threatens to undermine an otherwise bright frontier in mental-health treatment.

Read: Psychedelics open your brain. You might not like what falls in.

Psychedelics are by nature challenging to research because most of them are illegal, and because blinding subjects as to whether they’ve taken the drug itself or a placebo is difficult. (Sugar pills generally do not make you hallucinate.) For years, scientific funding in the space was minimal, and many foundational psychedelic studies have sample sizes of just a few dozen participants.

The field also draws eccentric types who, rather than conducting research with clinical disinterest, tend to want psychedelics to be accepted by society. “There’s been really this cultlike utopian vision that’s been driving things,” Matthew W. Johnson, himself a prominent psychedelic researcher at Sheppard Pratt, a mental-health hospital in Baltimore, told me.

Johnson, who has published many studies on psilocybin, the active compound in magic mushrooms, recently left his lab at Johns Hopkins after a dispute with Roland Griffiths, a senior researcher with whom he worked closely. Griffiths, who died last year, said in talks that psychedelics might be “critical to the survival of the human species.” He also behaved like a “spiritual leader,” according to a complaint by Johnson obtained by The New York Times, ran “his psychedelic studies more like a ‘new-age’ retreat center,” and recommended spiritual literature and meditation classes to study participants. Johnson argued that Griffiths’s emphasis on the metaphysical risked steering study participants toward his desired outcomes.

Albert Garcia-Romeu, the current associate director of the Hopkins psychedelics lab, disputes this description of Griffiths and the lab in general. “I never saw him behave like a ‘spiritual leader,’ or running the lab like a ‘new-age retreat center,’ whatever that means,” Garcia-Romeu told me. He noted that researchers have long used psychedelics to explore spiritual experiences but that “there was no imposition of any particular beliefs going on.”

Still, Griffiths isn’t the only one who zealously promoted psychedelics. Take Rick Doblin, the founder of an organization called the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, or MAPS. He, too, is prone to grandiose thinking, saying he believed psychedelics could be “an antidote to evil” or might lead to a more “spiritualized humanity.” Doblin also encouraged marijuana use at work, arguing that there are “smokable tasks,” which some people “do better while under the influence of marijuana, such as working on complicated spreadsheets.” (Betty Aldworth, the director of education at MAPS, told me that Doblin was “adamant about the science being valid and proving out the answers to these questions through clinical trials.” Doblin did not reply to a request for comment.)

Neşe Devenot, a Johns Hopkins writing instructor and a former MAPS volunteer, told me that many people in the psychedelics field let their political and spiritual beliefs “influenc[e] the type of data that is being collected. The researchers should have more clinical equipoise and not be so assured of what works.”

Inside Lykos, a MAPS spinoff, many staffers were sold on the presumed benefits of MDMA, according to Stat News. One trial participant said her Lykos therapists told her she was “helping make history” and was “part of a movement.” The company failed to collect data on some of the side effects of MDMA, such as euphoria, that might have revealed the drug’s potential for abuse, Stat reported. (In a statement to Stat News, the company stood by its studies, saying that they were conducted with appropriate checks and balances and that the company did add data on positive side effects to some protocols.)

Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported that several participants in the Lykos studies said they felt pressured to report only good outcomes. Three of them said that their thoughts of suicide worsened after they took the MDMA, but that these deteriorations weren’t captured by the study results. (In response to the Journal, Lykos said it reported any significant increases in suicidality to the FDA.)

The FDA is reportedly now looking into Lykos’s data, and the journal Psychopharmacology retracted three papers stemming from MAPS’ early MDMA trials because of “protocol violations amounting to unethical conduct.” (MAPS’ Aldworth says the studies should have been revised instead of retracted. Lykos did not respond to a request for comment.)

The underreporting of adverse events and overhyping of tepid data appear to be widespread in psychedelic research. One review concluded that in many studies of psychedelics, adverse events “were not systematically assessed” and are therefore probably underreported.

And although esketamine (a ketamine-like nasal spray) was approved by the FDA in 2019, one 2021 review noted that there is “a paucity of data concerning long-term safety” of ketamine and esketamine, and a 2023 review found that esketamine’s negative side effects have been systematically underreported in journal articles. Some researchers overstate ketamine’s benefits and underplay its risks, according to a recent review article.

Many people taking ketamine for mental-health issues use the drug repeatedly for weeks or months, but little long-term safety data on the drug exist, says Boris Heifets, an anesthesiology and psychiatry professor at Stanford. For some, the drug’s dissociative effects can become addictive—Matthew Perry was injecting the drug six to eight times a day, prosecutors said, and he spent $55,000 on it in the month before he died. “You’re giving a drug that most definitely has abuse potential, and you’re giving it out online, without supervision, to anybody who can convince you they’re depressed,” Heifets told me. “It’s honestly a little fucked up.”

Read: A new chapter in the science of psychedelic microdosing

In a recent study conducted by Heifets, surgeons administered ketamine or a saline placebo to patients who were undergoing surgical anesthesia. Unlike patients in many psychedelic studies, these were truly blinded: They were unconscious, so those who got ketamine didn’t have a ketamine trip. It turned out that about half of both groups, ketamine and placebo, felt less depressed afterward. And those who felt less depressed assumed they had gotten ketamine.

In other words, ketamine did work, a little. But so did the placebo. Heifets attributes this effect to the extensive care and attention that all the study participants received before the procedure. The researchers told them that their mental health is important, and listened to them talk about their problems—in some cases, for hours. They told them that ketamine might make them feel better. To Heifets, this shows that rather than jumping to ketamine, doctors would do well to connect depressed people with caring, attentive therapists as a first step. (But “good luck finding one,” he acknowledged.)

These scientific shortcomings don’t seem to be dampening the enthusiasm about psychedelics. Hundreds of ketamine clinics across the country purport to treat conditions as varied as anxiety and chronic pain, and online services will send ketamine to people’s homes. An initiative to legalize psychedelics will be on the ballot in Massachusetts in November. Veterans’ groups and others are clamoring for the legalization of psychedelic therapies. This is understandable, because these drugs do show promise, especially for treating depression, PTSD, and certain types of addiction. The alternatives—bouncing between SSRIs or scrambling to find an in-network therapist—are bleak, and they fail plenty of desperate people. No new PTSD treatments have been approved in two decades. Some people truly have been cured of their ailments with short, monitored courses of psychedelics.

But the intense interest in psychedelics makes it only more important that the science behind them is as rigorous as possible, untainted by the personal views of researchers. Suggesting that people should get off proven medications in order to try MDMA or psilocybin is dangerous unless those drugs are backed by airtight evidence. And when dealing with psychologically vulnerable people, researchers would do well to align expectations with the reality of what psychedelics can actually accomplish.

view more: next ›

science

14595 readers
1072 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS