Recent comments in /f/science

DrXaos t1_j7ia833 wrote

Reply to comment by keithcody in Researchers tested a large sample of the prominent major AI technologies available today and found not only did they reproduce human biases in the recognition of facial age, but they exaggerated those biases by giuliomagnifico

It's fairly well known that common ML systems for image processing (layers of convolutional networks followed by max-pooling or the like) are more sensitive to texture and less sensitive to larger scale shape and topology than humans.

It's likely that smiling triggered more 'wrinkle' detector units and the classifier eventually effectively added up the density of this texture detection for age prediction while humans know better where wrinkles from aging vs smiling are placed on the face and compensate.

6

slantedangle t1_j7i99la wrote

Reply to Analysis showed that 65.6% of women who took extra Vitamin D gave birth naturally. The study analysed results from the MAVIDOS trial which involved 965 women being randomly allocated an extra 1,000 International Units (IU) per day of vitamin D during their pregnancy or a placebo. by Wagamaga

Wouldn't that depend on what decisions were made by who?

What if doctors recommended an assisted birth but a pregnant woman insisted on a natural birth? How does vitamin D affect that decision?

15

Jacollinsver t1_j7i7xx3 wrote

Reply to More than 75% of global insect species not adequately protected. From insects like bees and butterflies, to organisms such as wasps and mosquitoes, insects are facing threats such as climate change, and a myriad of other ills such as habitat loss and pesticide use. by Wagamaga

Apart from the occasional massive kill off events from sudden and sweeping weather changes, isn't this mostly caused by runoff from farms, residential areas, and factories, all of which is saturated with some combination of herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer, heavy metals and toxic waste byproduct that pollutes our waterways and decimates egg populations of insects that breed in and around the water?

3

conventionalWisdumb t1_j7i2qz4 wrote

Reply to comment by Doortofreeside in A systematic review and meta-analysis has concluded that increased consumption of dietary carbohydrate intake is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality. by Meatrition

Building on the response from u/the—larch:

Carbs and fats are processed by two different metabolic pathways and the carb pathway is more efficient so it is used first. You can then burn up the glycogen provided by the carbs while your body is slowly converting the fats which will feel like a blood sugar crash, so you eat more carb+fats. The process keeps going through the day and the fat has no where else to go except as triglycerides in your fat cells.

This issue can be abated if you’re willing to and can ignore the carb crash as a signal of hunger or if your carb source has high fiber as part of its nutritional matrix because the fiber slows down glycolysis. I would imagine we could potentially one day design a food with the ideal matrix where the ratio of carbs/fiber/fats provides the right amount of energy at the right time, but it won’t be as tasty as a donut.

2

sschepis t1_j7i15xh wrote

Reply to Researchers tested a large sample of the prominent major AI technologies available today and found not only did they reproduce human biases in the recognition of facial age, but they exaggerated those biases by giuliomagnifico

How this isn't understood yet is beyond me.

Human intelligence is literally constructed on our bias - on our ability to make rapid classification based on sparse data. This ability allows us to make strings of rapid decisions with a relatively low energy cost - It's literally hardwired in the physical structures of the brain.

The idea that the mechanism of bias can possibly be removed without fundamentally affecting the mechanism of intelligence shows that the conversation has veered off-track into the domain of politics and morality.

Which is fine - there's nothing wrong with those discussions - but what use are they if the mechanisms they're discussing are fundamentally misunderstood?

14

KetosisMD t1_j7i14jt wrote

Reply to comment by burtzev in Tilavonemab in early Alzheimer’s disease: results from a phase 2, randomized, double-blind study by burtzev

That’s nuts.

I can’t believe anyone prescribed dangerous placebos.

It’s hard to know what is more broken the FDA or Healthcare

Edit

> 1.5 million treated

No, 1.5 million would be eligible. CMS denied coverage to anyone who isn’t in a trial.

This is good news. I was hoping CMS would pass on this drug and they did.

8

lakeland_nz t1_j7i07wr wrote

Reply to comment by SaltZookeepergame691 in Analysis showed that 65.6% of women who took extra Vitamin D gave birth naturally. The study analysed results from the MAVIDOS trial which involved 965 women being randomly allocated an extra 1,000 International Units (IU) per day of vitamin D during their pregnancy or a placebo. by Wagamaga

Absolutely.

And yes, the subset of women that choose to take Vitamin D are almost certainly not representative of the population. That said, there was a treatment and a placebo group who thought they were taking Vitamin D, so by comparing those two groups we can start to see the effect of Vitamin D.

In this case 65.6 vs 57.9 giving a relative risk between 1.02 and 1.25. 1.02 > 1, so my reading is that the Vitamin D resulted in a statistically significant decrease in relative risk. That's very exciting.

Why does it work? Would this also apply to the general population? There are plenty of good follow-up questions.

102