Recent comments in /f/science

Smacks860 t1_jct9vtl wrote

Not trying to be condescending here, but there is a ton of correlation bias going on on your part. I’m not saying soccer isn’t “rough” (I played it my whole life so I do have some anecdotal understanding), but to interpret whatever data you are seeing as - HS girls soccer is rougher/more concussions/etc. than HS football is a huge error (and honestly a good example of how wrongly people interpreted data on a day to day basis for many important topics). There are many variables in play here. For example, it is extremely likely that HS girls tend to report injuries (then leading to diagnoses) at a much higher rate than HS boys / football players. Also, a concussion-causing incident is much more obvious (to a coach / parent / viewer) in soccer than it is in football, again leading to more reporting/diagnoses. Further - why do you think HS girls soccer shows a higher concussion rate than boys HS soccer (I’m assuming that is true, based on whatever reports you are seeing and the fact that you specifically stated “girls HS soccer” vs just “HS soccer”)? It’s the same sport, same rules, although boys soccer is played at a much faster pace (if anything should correlate to higher concussions in boys HS soccer). The answer is because again - statistics don’t always tell the full story.

1

D74248 t1_jct7le4 wrote

You can find studies that go either way, but the underlying fact is that girl's high school soccer is clearly right up there with high school football. It is a vicious sport, I suspect because of ex-jock fathers pushing their daughters to be aggressive.

Source: Father whose daughter had 2 serious concussions playing high school soccer. I wish that I knew then what I know now. It is not a nice, safe sport.

1

Lateralis85 t1_jct58f9 wrote

The evidence from rugby is that soft helmets ("scrum caps" in rugby) aren't effective at preventing injuries through impact, but preventing abrasions and cuts. So for concussions and sub-concussive impacts, scrum caps are of little value but they give the illusion of protection which encourages riskier behaviour.

6

Eve-3 t1_jct38cc wrote

The form most people use for running/jogging is usually terrible for the knees. Much better than messing up your brain, but not ideal.

I'd guess watersports as the least problematic. I don't recall hearing anything bad about swimming. (Looking forward to the comments saying why I'm wrong so I can learn something new)

4

Wagamaga OP t1_jct2bt9 wrote

Scientists have found a novel way to block the transportation of mutant RNA and subsequent production of toxic repeat proteins which lead to the death of nerve cells in the most common genetic subtypes of motor neurone disease (MND) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD).

The new study, conducted by researchers at the University of Sheffield’s Institute of Translational Neuroscience (SITraN), also showed that using a peptide to stop the transport of mutant repeated RNA molecules and production of toxic repeat proteins actually increases the survival of C9ORF72 nerve cells - protecting them against neurodegeneration.

The Sheffield team previously discovered the abnormal transportation of the rogue RNAs copied from the C9ORF72 gene - known to be the most frequent cause of MND and FTD - is caused by excessive stickiness of a cell transporter named SRSF1.

Instead of using conventional drugs, which are inefficient in disrupting the stickiness of the SRSF1 protein, or invasive therapies to edit or modulate the activity of defective genes, the new study found that a small peptide incorporating a cell-penetrating module can stick to SRSF1 and effectively block the transportation of the rogue repeat RNA.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.abo3823

12

AutoModerator t1_jct280e wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

-little-dorrit- t1_jcsvz7p wrote

I agree - to a point. European guidances specify though than plain language summaries must accompany results of clinical studies (accompany - not replace). This, along with the fact that an increasing number of journals are going fully or partially open access, indicates a trend towards improving access to scientific knowledge for the public. Because why should this knowledge be privileged? A significant proportion of it is after all publicly funded. And as the OP u/davotk has shown, lay summaries are quite easy to write if you have any experience in communications with lay audiences. Likewise, they should be fairly easy for the paper’s authors to write. I think this bridge to the generally public is a very important positive step in science communication, personally.

I get that the previous comment to which you were responding was unnecessarily snarky. But there is a grain of validity in there as well.

2

flanflinger t1_jcsuesx wrote

>There is a tendency for culturally diverse patients, particularly those who come to Australia, to have higher levels of cognitive reserve,” Ms Skeggs said

Wouldn't they also be less inclined to be involved in sports like rugby and aussie rules football, so less likely to receive sport induced head trauma?

7