News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
"at ages 9, 32, 66 and 83"
That seems incredibly specific and absolutely arbitrary considering the massive difference from individual to individual
Surely does not come close to what I would personally consider from experience...
I'd say pre-16, 16-24, 24-37/40, and I'll discover the rest for myself as I go
Yeah, agreed. It reads as if a bunch of computer scientists did some data analysis without statisticians or biologists.
Here's the original paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65974-8
They've taken a number of measured attributes:
Smoothed to fit a curve to the data:
Reduced the dimensions using Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection. Basically, if you have this data "height in inches", "height in cm", "weight in kg" it would ideally keep "weight" roughly the same but have a single "height" but you couldn't rely on the units. They condense the input data down to four dimensions keeping age as the independent variable.
Then they created a polynomial fit for each dimension:
Then they found the turning points and where they were are the ages. Here's a plot and you can see even after all this cleanup the ages are noisy and it's really surprising they've chosen ages as specific as they have:
I have no idea how they went back through to make up the summary for each "epoch" they identified. There's obviously a lot of information for them to use here but it also seems like there could have been more creative license than ideal.
It really reads as an early idea that I don't think should be pushed to the general public until other scientists have scrutinised it more (otherwise you end up with a whole lot of coffee is dangerous, coffee is healthy leading to people not trusting science)
They say that fitting different degree Polynomials robustly identifies inflexion points seeing 10, 30 and 80. I think they only went for a higher degree because it was "visually underfit" at lower degrees, ie no scientific basis.
This is already after the dimensionality reduction which has its own arbitrary choice that affects what inflexion points you can identify.
This definitely smells like "we threw some data into a bunch of statistical analysis without thinking about it and wrote down anything that looked publishable"
The key word is average
Is it?
I think this is more confounded than "average" and I think that even in their turning point analysis they're being excessively specific:
https://mander.xyz/comment/23570622
But that’s only four