Latest news with #researchstudy
Medscape
03-07-2025
- Health
- Medscape
How do Front-of-Package Warnings Influence People?
One of the most common arguments put forth against front-of-package label reforms and warnings meant to help fight obesity is that enacting them will exacerbate weight bias and stigmatization. A recent randomized study set out to look at the impact four different types of front-of-package label warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages had on perceived weight stigmatization and attributional judgments of responsibility for weight and explicit weight bias. The different label types were nutrient warnings indicating a beverage was high in calories or added sugars, text-only health warnings, or graphic health warnings indicating the beverages were linked to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay. The labels also differed on whether the content referenced calories and obesity or not. Bottom line findings are easy to describe and not particularly surprising. Labels that referenced obesity as a risk were perceived to be more weight stigmatizing than those that did not, while labels that focused solely on nutrients had a lower perceived efficacy — but only slightly. However, there's still a bit to unpack regarding this study's outcomes and utility. Most important, and as acknowledged by the authors, is that this study did not measure the actual impact of these labels' long-term repetitive use but rather simply studied participants' conscious perceptions after a singular, nonorganic exposure. While some might presume that longer term repetitive shopping exposure would amplify all effects, it's also plausible that long-term exposure will see effects dissipate as consumers become inured to the messaging. But it was heartening to read that nutrient only front-of-package warnings were found to be nearly as plausibly effective as those specifically linked to obesity, because the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is something that should be minimized regardless of the weight of the person drinking them. The same of course is true for any food or nutrient of concern as weight does not dictate whether something is or is not healthful or risky to consume. It is also worth remembering that front-of-package warnings are just one deployable strategy vs the flood of unhealthy food and predatory marketing, and that the more sandbags we fill, the greater the likelihood of benefit. Looking to front-of-packages specifically, along with warnings we might layer on health claim reforms which could, for instance, prevent a box of Froot Loops from bragging on its front that it is fortified with Vitamin D. We might also look to the banning of cartoon mascots designed to entice children and to laws around advertising as a whole in terms of what and when unhealthy food advertising is permitted. Back to this study, though: If the goal as implied is to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, specifically as a sandbag vs societal weight gain, an additional question to ask is whether the impact these same labels might differ between consumers who are and are not utilizing obesity medications. The impact of a warning meant to change food purchases might be influenced by a consumer's degree of hunger and cravings and where those are reduced dramatically by obesity medications. This hypothesis is markedly strengthened by the fact that, even without front-of-package labeling changes and reforms GLP-1 users' purchases have been shown to skew away from calorie-dense, ultra-processed items and towards more healthful items. And if it is found that, yes, people on GLP-1 medications purchasing behaviors are more strongly influenced by labeling reforms and changes than non-users; that observation supports both the implementation of these sorts of reforms (as more and more people with obesity begin to utilize medications, perhaps especially given their coming genericization) and for their formalized coverage through Medicare and/or government interventions designed to help reduce their price.
Medscape
10-06-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Young Adults Benefit More From Catheter Ablation for AF
Young patients (≤ 45 years) with atrial fibrillation (AF) were less likely to experience recurrences of arrhythmia at 12 months after undergoing their first catheter ablation for pulmonary vein isolation than older patients (> 45 years). METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing the efficacy of first-time catheter ablation between young and older adults with AF who underwent the procedure between 2016 and 2023. The analysis included 225 patients in the young group (mean age, 39 years; 76% men) who were propensity score matched with 225 patients in the older group (mean age, 58 years; 76% men). Ablations were performed using radiofrequency (54%), cryoablation (44%), or pulsed field ablation (2.7%); all antiarrhythmic drugs were discontinued before the procedure, and oral anticoagulants were continued for at least 2 months post-procedure. Arrhythmia recurrence, defined as any documented atrial tachyarrhythmia lasting more than 30 seconds, was captured using 24-hour Holter monitoring or additional electrocardiograms. TAKEAWAY: In a 12-month follow-up period, patients in the older group were more likely to experience arrhythmia recurrences than those in the young group (odds ratio [OR], 1.80; P = .01). = .01). Greater age was associated with increased AF recurrences at 12 months (adjusted OR, 1.02; P = .017). = .017). The type of ablation was not associated with the likelihood of arrythmia recurrence. Youden index analysis found 59 years as the statistically optimal cutoff to predict 12-month AF recurrences after ablation. IN PRACTICE: "Recognizing the potential influence of sampling variability and the uncertainty inherent to data‐driven estimations, a more clinically applicable age range of 55 to 60 years may be proposed by our results as an age range above which the risk of AF recurrence following CA [catheter ablation] increases," the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Ourania Kariki, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, Athens, Greece. It was published online on June 03, 2025, in the Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology . LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted at a single centre, and data were retrieved retrospectively. Excluding unmatched patients through propensity score matching may have limited the generalisability of the findings. The use of 24-hour Holter monitoring for follow-up may have underestimated the recurrence of arrhythmia. DISCLOSURES: This study did not receive any specific funding. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.
CNET
09-06-2025
- Health
- CNET
Getting Good Results From AI and Search Engines Means Asking the Right Questions
The way you search online or ask an AI chatbot for information can influence the results you get, even if you aren't trying to find information that reinforces your own beliefs, according to a new study. People tend to use terms, whether in a traditional search engine like Google or a conversational tool like OpenAI's ChatGPT, that reflect their existing biases and perceptions, according to the study, published this spring in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. More importantly, search engines and chatbots often provide results that reinforce those beliefs, even if the intent is to learn more about the topic. For example, imagine you're trying to learn about the health effects of drinking coffee every day. If you, like me, enjoy having a couple of cups of joe first thing in the morning, you may search for something like "is coffee healthy?" or "health benefits of coffee." If you're already skeptical (maybe a tea purist), you might search for "is coffee bad for you?" instead. The researchers found that framing of questions could skew the results -- I'd mostly get answers that show the benefits of coffee, while you'd get the opposite. "When people look up information, whether it's Google or ChatGPT, they actually use search terms that reflect what they already believe," Eugina Leung, an assistant professor at Tulane University and lead author of the study, told me. These concerns about how we get information that favors our own preconceptions are nothing new. Long before the internet, you'd learn about the world from a newspaper that might carry a particular slant. But the prevalence of search engines and social media makes it easier to fall down a rabbit hole and harder to realize you're in it. With AI chatbots and AI-powered search telling you with confidence what you should know, and sometimes making it up or not telling you where the information comes from, there's never been a more important time to think deeply about how you get information online. The question is: How do you get the best answers? Asking the wrong questions The researchers conducted 21 studies with nearly 10,000 participants who were asked to perform searches on certain preselected topics, including the health effects of caffeine, gas prices, crime rates, COVID-19 and nuclear energy. The search engines and tools used included Google, ChatGPT and custom-designed search engines and AI chatbots. The researchers' results showed that what they called the "narrow search effect" was a function of both how people asked questions and how the tech platforms responded. People have a habit, in essence, of asking the wrong questions (or asking questions in the wrong way). They tended to use search terms or AI prompts that demonstrated what they already thought, and search engines and chatbots were designed to provide narrow, extremely relevant answers, delivered on those answers. "The answers end up basically just confirming what they believe in the first place," Leung said. Read more: AI Essentials: 27 Ways to Make Gen AI Work for You, According to Our Experts The researchers also checked to see if participants changed their beliefs after conducting a search. When served a narrow selection of answers that largely confirmed their beliefs, they were unlikely to see significant changes. But when the researchers provided a custom-built search engine and chatbot designed to offer a broader array of answers, they were more likely to change. Leung said platforms could provide people with the option of a broader search, which could prove helpful in situations where the user is trying to find a wider variety of sources. "Our research is not trying to suggest that search engines or algorithms should always broaden their search results," she said. "I do think there is a lot of value in providing very focused and very narrow search results in certain situations." How to ask the right questions If you want a broader array of answers to your questions, there are some things you can do, Leung said. First, think specifically about what exactly it is you're trying to learn. She used an example of trying to decide if you want to invest in a particular company's stock. Asking if it's a good stock or a bad stock to buy will likely skew your results -- more positive news if you ask if it's good, more negative news if you ask if it's bad. Instead, try a single, more neutral search term. Or ask both terms and evaluate the results of each. Especially with an AI chatbot, you can ask for a broad range of perspectives directly in the prompt. If you want to know if you should keep drinking two cups of coffee a day, ask the chatbot for a variety of opinions and the evidence behind them. The researchers tried this in one of their experiments and found they got more variety in results. "We asked ChatGPT to provide different perspectives to answer the query from the participants and to provide as much evidence to back up those claims as possible," Leung said. Asking follow-up questions didn't work quite as well, Leung said. If those questions aren't getting broader answers, you may get the opposite effect -- even more narrow, affirming results. In many cases, people who asked lots of follow-up questions just "fell deeper down into the rabbit hole," she said.
Daily Mail
15-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Experts pinpoint number of daily steps that can prevent 13 types of cancer - forget 10,000
Reaching the golden number of 10,000 steps a day has long been lauded as one of the best ways to keep us in peak physical and mental health. But according to new research, 7,000 is all you need to lower your chances of developing up to 13 different types of cancer. At this many steps, the risk of developing cancer drops by 11 per cent, according to the study from the University of Oxford. At 9,000 steps, the risk drops by 16 per cent, but experts saw no increased benefit for extra steps beyond this. The large study involving over 85,000 people in the UK saw participants wear activity trackers for a week that measured both the amount and intensity of their daily movement. Researchers followed up with participants six years later and found walking between 5,000 to 9,000 steps indicated a lower cancer risk, regardless of how fast those steps were taken. The researchers looked at the cancers oesophageal, liver, lung, kidney, gastric, endometrial, myeloid leukaemia, myeloma, bowel, head and neck, rectal, bladder and breast—which have previously associated with low physical activity. Over the six year follow-up period, only three per cent of participants developed one of these cancers. The most common were bowel and lung cancers in men, and breast, bowel, endometrial, and lung cancers in women, according to the study published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. Replacing sitting time with either light or moderate activity lowered cancer risk, but swapping light activity for moderate activity didn't appear to offer additional benefits. According to the Institute of Cancer Research, light exercise can help to control levels of the hormone insulin, which help the body convert food into energy. Fluctuating levels of the hormone have been linked to cancer development and progression. Walking has also been found to help the body fight off infections that could go on to cause cancer, and contribute towards maintaining a healthy weight. Being overweight and obese is the second biggest cause of cancer, according to Cancer Research UK. The charity claims that extra fat sends out signals to the rest of the body, which can tell cells in our body to divide more often. When cells divide too rapidly they can form a cancerous tumour. Writing about the new research in The Conversation, Mhairi Morris, biochemist and lecturer at Loughborough University, said the 7,000 daily steps don't have to be completed all at once. You can break it up throughout the day by swapping the lift for the stairs, having a stroll at lunchtime, walking during phone calls or parking a bit further away from your destination, Ms Morris explained. More than 400,000 people are diagnosed with cancer each year in the UK, while 167,000 die from the fatal disease. Doctors have recently sounded the alarm over the escalating cancer epidemic among young adults. It comes as 80,000 people under 40 are expected to be diagnosed with cancer this year. One of the fastest growing cancers in this age group is bowel cancer. According to the latest data, early-onset diagnoses are expected to rise by 90 percent in people 20 to 34 years old from 2010 to 2030.
National Post
07-05-2025
- Health
- National Post
That mystery brain disease plaguing people in New Brunswick? A new study finds it's not real
Article content 'Complex neurological disorders benefit from a second, independent and/or subspecialist evaluation and require multidisciplinary support throughout the diagnostic journey,' said the study that collected data between November 2023 and this past March. Article content 'Clinical and neuropathological evaluations demonstrated that all 25 cases were attributable to well characterized neurological disorders,' it said. 'The final primary diagnoses, and in some cases secondary diagnoses, included Alzheimer disease, Parkinson disease, progressive supranuclear palsy, other neurodegenerative conditions, functional neurological disorder, traumatic brain injury or persisting post concussion symptoms, and others.' Article content The independent assessment of 25 patients 'provides no support for an undiagnosed mystery disease in New Brunswick,' said the study. Article content 'The gold standard, neuropathological assessments with second, blinded independent evaluations, revealed well-defined diagnoses for 11 deceased patients.' Article content When all 25 cases were included in the mix, '100 per cent of patients in this sample did not have a new disease and with 95 per cent confidence, the probability of no new disease is between 87 per cent and 100 per cent,' said the study. Article content 'The lower bound of 87 per cent reflects a conservative estimate based on the data and statistical methods accounting for uncertainty in the sample, including the possibility of diagnostic error or unmeasured variability. However, practical knowledge and clinical reasoning suggest that the actual probability of no new disease is much closer to the upper bound of 100 per cent.' Article content The new study said 'it is crucial to highlight the factors that fuel persistent public concern of a mystery disease despite the provincial investigation rejecting this possibility. Public trust in health institutions has decreased since the COVID-19 pandemic, while trust in individual healthcare professionals remains high, which can make vulnerable people susceptible to claims that the institutional oversight processes are flawed, especially if originating from trusted physicians.' Article content The new research comes with a caution. Article content Misinformation regarding the New Brunswick 'cluster has proliferated in both traditional and social media, from not only the predictable and easily identifiable groups coopting the crisis to suit their agenda, such as antivaccine advocates, but also those who are unknowingly amplifying an incorrect diagnosis from their physician,' said the study. Article content 'In this way, misdiagnosis and misinformation become inextricably entwined and amplify patient harm exponentially: to the best of our knowledge, only 14 patients sought independent reevaluation by another neurologist when offered, and 52 refused a second opinion, choosing instead to remain with the one neurologist who originally made and continues to promote the diagnosis of a mystery disease. Not only do our data indicate that affected patients likely have other diagnosable neurological conditions that could benefit from multidisciplinary treatment and other resources, but the low uptake also impedes the rigorous scientific evaluations necessary to counter the claims raised in the first place.' Article content
