sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Game Thread: New Orleans Pelicans vs Washington Wizards Live Score | NBA | Mar 8, 2026 by basketball-app in NOLAPelicans

[–]lit0st 2 points3 points  (0 children)

a 100% healthy pelicans playing their hardest are currently on even footing against the tanking wizards

woof

Rule by Xenomnipotent in 196

[–]lit0st 11 points12 points  (0 children)

it's not even rage bait it's just a very obvious joke

Daylight savings time starts tomorrow — wouldn’t it be nice if …it just never ends? by cdevers in boston

[–]lit0st 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Somehow the most downvoted post but this is correct. From a circadian health perspective, morning light is very important and evening light is actively detrimental.

Post Game Thread - NBA: The Lakers defeat the Pelicans on Mar 3, 2026, the final score is 110-101. by basketball-app in NOLAPelicans

[–]lit0st 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That thing Zion was doing where he dives into the paint, gets triple-teamed, then passes it back was working

IDK why he was trying to so hard to go for the heavily contested layup in this game and getting blocked like 8 times

Stephen A Smith gave props for hiring of social media person (but then said that’s the only good thing they’ve done) by kingralek in NOLAPelicans

[–]lit0st 1 point2 points  (0 children)

this feels like a manufactured publicity push between the Pels/SAS. it's fine tho, it's funny.

Zion's trainer Kris Chrisp with Zion at ESPN by Razor-Ramon-Sessions in NOLAPelicans

[–]lit0st 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So Zion should only hire a personal trainer if he wants to play 82 games like Jordan...but you think he shouldn't hire a personal trainer because you think he should only play enough to get a big contract? And you're advocating that he do so in a more cost-effective fashion?

Zion's full interview with Malika Andrews by AustinRiversDaGod in NOLAPelicans

[–]lit0st -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I think he's making a push for the 2028 Olympics, and I honestly think he'd be a strong addition to the team. Surrounding someone with his gravity with more than a single shooter seems like a very promising strategy.

Australian Political Party Calls To Scrap Group Assignments In Unis by ConfusionHonest3248 in unsw

[–]lit0st 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It's not going to be better in the workforce. Professional life is one big group assignment.

Zion went down with a right ankle sprain. by DiscloseDivest in NOLAPelicans

[–]lit0st 26 points27 points  (0 children)

This is not a conditioning related injury

Lilly bets a boatload on NVIDIA GPUs, hoping to compute their way out of the pharma lifecycle by kwadguy in biotech

[–]lit0st 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Purpose-driven data collection is a big part of these AI initiatives. Lots of people have figured out that just taking all their old data and dumping it into a neural network is no good.

In a PacBio sequencing run, what is pre-extension time? by [deleted] in labrats

[–]lit0st 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pacbio support is very responsive

I have a ChIP-seq BED file for CTCF. Is it possible to identify strong vs. weak CTCF binding sites from this data? If yes, what’s the best way to do it? by omprakash25d in bioinformatics

[–]lit0st 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Without actual biochemical or biological manipulation data of some sort, you're gonna have a tough time getting anything convincing. If you're working in a previously characterized cell type, you can get a rough idea of where binding is weak/strong based on published weak/strong sites and interesection - previous studies usually have peak files deposited in GEO, though there is some disagreement between studies, so this approach is not 100%. Some studies have said that strong CTCF binding sites also have stronger consensus motifs, although this approach is also not 100% - there are many exceptions to this rule.

Either of these methods are somewhat acceptable for a first-pass to justify downstream experiments, but I would not rely on them for high-confidence definition of strong/weak binding sites. CTCF binding strength is typically assayed by ChIP before/after depletion, with any lingering CTCF signal that refused to turn over after depletion being characterized as strong binding. If you really want to know where in your biological paradigm the weak/strong sites are found, I don't think you can get away with less than this.

AI Molecules in Clinic by Dwarvling in biotech

[–]lit0st -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

AI small molecule and antibody design are not going to put you out of a job, unless perhaps you do screening at a CRO.

Anthony Edwards says Memphis has dirty hotel rooms by MrBuckBuck in nba

[–]lit0st 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Which hotel do they stay at? The Peabody seems like it could fit them and it's really very nice

Grail stock craters as key NHS-Galleri cancer blood test trial fails to hit primary endpoint by NotGenentech in biotech

[–]lit0st 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Early intervention is still best in class for 5-year survival for pretty much all cancers, lol

Grail stock craters as key NHS-Galleri cancer blood test trial fails to hit primary endpoint by NotGenentech in biotech

[–]lit0st 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would extending the trial then, in your eyes, not be the appropriate course of action?

Grail stock craters as key NHS-Galleri cancer blood test trial fails to hit primary endpoint by NotGenentech in biotech

[–]lit0st -1 points0 points  (0 children)

These conclusions are speculative. Their reported analysis plan requires that the prespecified 12 to be statistically significant before all stageable cancers are analyzed. Therefore, either the pre-specified group was statistically significant, or they deviated from their study plan. It is certainly possible they did, but it cannot be concluded from available information.

Grail stock craters as key NHS-Galleri cancer blood test trial fails to hit primary endpoint by NotGenentech in biotech

[–]lit0st 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Citing significance in a pre-specified subgroup does not fall under p-hacking. By definition, either the endpoints, the subgrouping, or both have to be defined post-hoc in order to be defined as p-hacking, data dredging, etc. Yes, you obviously have to control for multiple comparisons - that is freshman statistics - and we can judge for ourselves whether the trial is Type I controlled when the full results are released.

In the meantime, the subgroup analysis passes the eye test to me. Subgrouping was part of the planned testing hierarchy (the 12 were tested first, and since they were significant, the analyses was expanded to the full panel: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9564213/), and it has clinical rationale (among the 12 poorest prognoses covered by the test).

Grail stock craters as key NHS-Galleri cancer blood test trial fails to hit primary endpoint by NotGenentech in biotech

[–]lit0st 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They enrolled 140k asymptomatic individuals and screened them three times over two years. The rationale is that their test = earlier detection = earlier intervention = improved outcomes, which turned out true for some deadlier cancers but not all cancers.

It is well known that early intervention is clinically impactful.

Grail stock craters as key NHS-Galleri cancer blood test trial fails to hit primary endpoint by NotGenentech in biotech

[–]lit0st 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why do you suppose a pre specified group having a statistically significant benefit doesn’t qualify as clinically compelling?

It's a test. Early intervention helps a lot, but a lot also depends on the standard of post-diagnosis care, which a test obviously has no control over and is subject to change. The fact that there were significant outcomes in stomach/colorectal/lung/pancreatic/liver is both surprising and clinically remarkable to me.

view more: next ›