this is really just self-congratulation by them about how they have strong deal flow.
they also use this as a disingenuous/insincere way of rejecting founders (we don't want to invest, but you're probably one of the other unicorns we didn't invest in! check out out antiportfolio!)
Hey there, founder of Chargehound here, it's a slider so you can adjust it to 5 mins if you want.
Many companies do take up to 30 minutes especially if they are compiling a comprehensive portfolio (if the dispute is for thousands of dollars) and are outsourcing the representment.
Nope, just out of date. $116.50 was the price prior to the increase to $121.
The commuter tax deduction lets you buy the cards with pre-tax money deducted from your paycheck, which is a substantial reduction up to 45% or so depending on your marginal tax rate. Of course, because it's using pre-tax money, it's giving a bigger discount to higher earners, which makes it the opposite of progressive, which seems opposite of what's intended.
Do you wish to apply a blanket cure for the unknown multitude causes of mental health issues?
Why do you think reductions in the self reported “mental health” of the general population is useful for people who have been hospitalized with mood disorders?
Don’t you think that people who lie about how much exercise they do also might be lieing to themselves about their mental health?
1- surely we're allowed to waste our own time if we like!
2- nope, and actually my entire research agenda has been around helping people find a treatment that is most likely to work for them specifically! (we also founded a company to bring the research to market- springhealth.com)
3- that is beyond the scope of the paper, and we didnt use the word hospitalized once
4- yep, and thats a good example of one of the pitfalls of self-reported surveys. in general, i am a bit less cynical and in our experience, most people aren't filling out surveys to intentionally lie or sabotage.
we've had a wonderful positive response to this article, and people are overwhelmingly excited and motivated to try and exercise more because of it (even at relatively lower intensities or volumes -- every little helps). even if we are extremely cynical and say theres zero benefit of exercise for mental health, then people will still be getting known improvements regarding diabetes, stroke, cardiovascular disease. Nobody is advocating for exercise at the expense of alternative treatments like meds or therapy, this really is just a (potentially large) extra benefit.
You want to bring the research to market, not help the mentally ill. You goal is profit.
For the 20 I have been “cared for” by people like you it took my own ingenuity and relentless pressure on a psychiatric system that thinks there is never a nutritional cause to mood disorders to have them test me for a biotinidase deficiency which turned up positive. My mood issues were cured by 15 grams of biotin a day.
Researched and doctors like you were so certain what caused my depression and anxiety you filled me with pills that rarely worked and diabled me with side effects. It took 15 years to even test me for a B12 or iron deficiency.
So sorry, but your study does not help the mentally ill. Maybe it helps people who are stressed from the everclenching fist of capitalism, but that’s about it.
I hate to pour cold water on this, but medical researchers have been predicting mortality for years.
For example, here's a paper from the 1980's also predicting when a patient will die, also using a couple of thousands of patients' data: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/3816253
And, Google's paper wasn't published in Nature, it was in a new open access journal owned by Nature. In academia, that is like the difference between a really fancy porsche, and a really cheap volkswagen (two very different things, both owned by the same company).
Google's innovation isn't predicting mortality. It's predicting mortality based on data that was hidden from previous models. That's very likely where all of the improvement is coming from, but since it's hard to write a good headline or lede based on that, we get this instead.
"...the novelty of the approach does not lie simply in incremental model performance improvements. Rather, this predictive performance was achieved without hand-selection of variables deemed important by an expert, similar to other applications of deep learning to EHR data. Instead, our model had access to tens of thousands of predictors for each patient, including free-text notes, and identified which data were important for a particular prediction."
So it sounds like the advance here is actually in the following: "a generic data processing pipeline that can take raw EHR data as input, and produce FHIR outputs without manual feature harmonization".
The article doesn't explain this very clearly. Yay!
>In academia, that is like the difference between a really fancy porsche, and a really cheap volkswagen (two very different things, both owned by the same company).
I think you want to say Skoda or Seat. Both owned by VW and the cheap cars.
placebo rates would be something in the 15-40% remission rate range, in small RCTs. it varies more than you would think from one trial to another. antidepressant efficacy would be something like 20-45%. recovery rates are usually higher in smaller trials, and lower in bigger trials, partly because people get more high-touch service in smaller academic studies
theres a website called sci-hub (which maybe illegal) that you can use to get almost any paper in a STEM field, especially from major journals. you type www.sci-hub.cc/ and then paste the DOI of the paper. it takes you straight to the pdf!
they also use this as a disingenuous/insincere way of rejecting founders (we don't want to invest, but you're probably one of the other unicorns we didn't invest in! check out out antiportfolio!)