|
|
Post by jpg on May 31, 2015 21:43:17 GMT -5
The academic name of the game is publish or perish. It's a factory. Look at the number of publications these guys have (2 of the 3): huge. Academia (for the 99%ers) is mostly about the number of papers you publish. Few people who evaluate careers are ever going to read these papers anyway. They just look at your numbers and the quality of journal they are published in. The validation is the journal the final paper (not abstract) gets into. The 'winner' has the most papers in the best journals. The rules are different for a small % of academics who do truly remarkable research.
A meta analysis of this kind is an easy ways of increasing you publication count and because it's on a topic that interests a few it gives you a shot at a better publication (or at least getting a publication!). Even though I was actively involved in discussing this publication I in no way think this is a big deal publication. Hopefully our collective interest in this topic will not go beyond mnkdmillionaire's opinion of the importance of this abstract! It's irrelevant or will be a few days (minutes?) after being presented.
|
|
|
|
Post by bradleysbest on May 31, 2015 22:44:01 GMT -5
Will there be anyone from this board attending the symposium in Boston?
|
|
|
|
Post by jgv on Jun 1, 2015 1:03:53 GMT -5
A meta analysis is one of the least rigorous forms of peer reviewed publications. They carry more weight when they analyze huge quantities of data which does not exist here. You must also control for variance across studies. Frankly, its silly to have a meta analysis at this stage of the game for this drug. Precisely the reason we are seeing this as an abstract and NOT a published peer reviewed paper. I haven't read the abstract but his conclusion likely slants the direction of the studies he analyzed. Whats worse with small amounts of data is that you can push the slant in the direction you want (I say that from the standpoint of an MD with expertise data analysis). This guy has received more attention from MNKD Proboards than he'll ever receive from the medical community. Its an abstract!  and has virtually zero value to the medical community at this point. At this stage of the game it is "Joe Shmoe's" opinion and means absolutely nothing. For someone to press release anything regarding any abstract would be ludicrous. Let's talk if the paper ever gets published. I predict it won't get published and further predict that even if it does, there will be 20 more papers on the use of ultra fast acting inhaled insulin by the time that happens. It must have relevance to be published. The journal that publishes irrelevant information is the journal that no one reads. This would be too easy to pick apart. Sorry to be so negative but this is much to do about nothing. Not even having read it, I can give you 10 reasons I'd reject it as a reviewer. jgv |
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on Jun 1, 2015 2:43:51 GMT -5
"It's an abstract! and has virtually zero value to the medical community at this point (emphasis added). At this stage of the game it is "Joe Shmoe's" opinion and means absolutely nothing. For someone to press release anything regarding any abstract would be ludicrous." jgv and others, I'm sure you're quite right about the value of this abstract to the medical community. The value may well lie in the "short community." Reporting what the abstract said on the following business day or two may well have value to shorts, as most longs do not know what our docs have told us on this board about abstracts. |
|
|
|
Post by benyiju on Jun 1, 2015 7:16:53 GMT -5
Android app for #2015ADA: "This is the official mobile app of the 2015 American Diabetes Association's Scientific Sessions. Use this app to browse the American Diabetes Association’s 2015 Scientific Sessions, Speakers and Abstracts. Create your own in-app customized “My Schedule” itinerary and browse the Exhibitors to plan your Exhibit Hall experience. Follow social media channels and engage other attendees through the App’s “Attendees” and “Friends” features." play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.coreapps.android.followme.tristar_ada15
|
|
|
|
Post by jgv on Jun 1, 2015 8:29:55 GMT -5
"It's an abstract! and has virtually zero value to the medical community at this point (emphasis added). At this stage of the game it is "Joe Shmoe's" opinion and means absolutely nothing. For someone to press release anything regarding any abstract would be ludicrous." jgv and others, I'm sure you're quite right about the value of this abstract to the medical community. The value may well lie in the "short community." Reporting what the abstract said on the following business day or two may well have value to shorts, as most longs do not know what our docs have told us on this board about abstracts. I guess what it boils down to, for me, is that I've never seen a "reporting agency" report on an abstract. A report of that sort would discredit the agency doing the reporting. Another reason to throw up an abstract is to say to the world, "I thought of this first and these are my preliminary findings." If I had a "short" for every abstract that wasn't ultimately published, I'd probably have 112 million  . I personally have been involved with high level projects (big pharma, big money, big names in my academic field) where we produced the abstract, produced a manuscript, shopped it to multiple journals, and it still wasn't published. While we would have liked someone to report on our abstract it would have had no meaning because it's unpublished work. I was not the primary investigator there but just to highlight that the abstract to published manuscript ratio is low. |
|
|
|
Post by jgv on Jun 1, 2015 11:09:21 GMT -5
Sorry!!! The ratio is high!!! Lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Jun 2, 2015 8:30:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Jun 2, 2015 15:27:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Jun 3, 2015 8:18:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by doubleo7 on Jun 3, 2015 9:51:54 GMT -5
Harry, make surr al is nominated ... Or sam finta
|
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Jun 3, 2015 11:25:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BD on Jun 3, 2015 11:31:42 GMT -5
In harry's two posts immediately preceding this one, I see no content using Firefox, and a strange "embed" error using IE. Is anyone else experiencing this? I see several "likes" on the one 3 posts back, so somebody must be seeing some content... very strange.
|
|
|
|
Post by harryx1 on Jun 3, 2015 11:35:02 GMT -5
In harry's two posts immediately preceding this one, I see no content using Firefox, and a strange "embed" error using IE. Is anyone else experiencing this? I see several "likes" on the one 3 posts back, so somebody must be seeing some content... very strange. Sometimes I see issues with embedded tweets. I have to leave then com back later to see them. I'm using FF 38.0.1 |
|
|
|
Post by BD on Jun 3, 2015 11:40:43 GMT -5
Yeah, they're both still blank for me. Is there some other way to post those links such that it works correctly for everyone? To be honest, I have no experience with posting "embedded tweets". All I know is that if it isn't showing up for me, it probably isn't showing up for other members.
|
|
and has virtually zero value to the medical community at this point.
. 
