Well, congratulations Triple D, you made me read the bloody Lancet paper, a more suitable but less sexy headline would be: AI analysis of facial photographs identifies differences in survival among patients receiving radiotherapy. I'm going to vibe code a headline re-writer.

Show Post

This is going straight into my "social media impact" folder.

Show Post

I heard story on radio this morning and I made a small wager with myself: I bet Dr Darren Dahly (triple D as I am now calling you) will be enraged by this enough to share it. Result. A free coffee! wait...

Show Post

Most systematic reviews and meta- analyses now include some assessment of study quality but these don't usually impact a review's conclusions. It's typically just some tick boxes or traffic lights and vague qualitative statements. We should instead filter out poor studies. What is wrong with us?

Show Post

But if one has looked at studies and decided their quality was too low to be included, that fact and a brief reason why are useful: a) To avoid reader wondering if such studies were overlooked. b) To help reader ignore them. c) To help reader assess the quality of the author(s)' judgment.

Show Post