19 patients completed, according to the article.
And List Sorting, Oral reading, and Flanker only? The first and last are part of global and fluid composites, so those have to be excluded from comparison. That leaves us with 3 improved scores out of 12 tests. So 9 did not improve, or got worse. Figure 3 (of the original article) shows that the changes aren't big. Just "significant". Since the participants were in the early stages of dementia, this seems well within expectations.
So I can't see those numbers as impressive.
Sounds like something we should study more rather than dismiss.
This study holds little promise at first sight. Remember that there is a lot to study, and only limited research capability.
> Sounds like something we should study more rather than dismiss.
Ignoring the implication of your use of "dismiss", why? How is this pilot promising?
Interesting that you are hearing "dismissal" in the antecedent response. I read it as the poster "studying more" the data, and finding a lot of flaws in both the experimental design and the data analysis.Typically things a reviewer would do when a publication was submitted (or in our case posted here). The author, then goes back and answers the questions raised to show that the effect they are suggesting is durable in face of the flaws. Or perhaps they run an additional experiment and augment their data. After a bunch of back and forths either the effect is sufficiently well expressed in the data or the paper is withdrawn for more work.
When I go through the process of reading the entire paper, analyzing the data myself, and the experimental design. That is the opposite of dismissing the claim. That is me, positing that the claim as stated is 'true,' and then asking the questions if the claim is supported by the provided evidence. If it isn't, then doing the work to express what evidence would be needed to support the claim is the feedback needed to help prove the science.
Sounds like something that should fly under a different headline until then.