So...
It probably doesn't help that, once again, mainstream media is misrepresenting research.
Typically, it's a New York Times op-ed and in response to that
.
I actually found and read the first article to which the author of the NYT op-ed is referring. The title is
Toward a Neuroimaging Treatment Selection Biomarker for Major Depressive Disorder; it cn be found in the Aug 1, 2013 issue of JAMA Psychiatry. What is sort of interesting is that the NYT author cites the article authored by "
Helen Mayberg, at Emory University, and other scientists".
Why is this interesting?
Helen Mayberg is actually listed last on the article of all the contributing authors. This means that, as agreed upon by the authors, she contributed the least to the research and the article of all the listed authors.
Why would the NYT author only mention the author that contributed the least to the article that is one of the main focuses of his article?
...not odd at all, right?
Also, the NYT author completely muddied the results of the article that Mayberg helped author and, actually, the aim of the research to begin with.
There are a few areas where it seems he is subtly leading his audience to believe the aim and result of the research done by Mayberg, et al is in fact determining a diagnosis of depression from a PET scan.
Example:
Quote:
|
Second, we can identify specific, measurable markers of a mental disorder, and those biomarkers can predict the outcome of two different treatments: psychotherapy and medication.
|
The first part of the sentence indicates that the markers [signs] would indicate that a person HAS a mental disorder, and the second part would indicate which treatment would best treat that disorder. I don't think there is any other way to interpret that.
The actual aim of the study was as follows [taken from the article in JAMA Psychiatry]:
Quote:
|
To identify a candidate neuroimaging “treatment specific biomarker” that predicts differential outcome to either medication or psychotherapy.
|
This does not indicate that they are looking for a marker to indicate a diagnosis.
All the participants in the study were previously diagnosed with depression when they began the established protocol:
Quote:
|
Patients aged 18 to 60 years were recruited through the Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program at Emory University via advertisements and clinician referrals.45 Patients were required to have moderate to severe symptoms of depression, defined as a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS)46 score of 18 or more at screening...
|
Another point is that the NYT author discusses differences in "activity" but neglects to mention what that "activity" in various parts of the brain actually is.
The activity is metabolism of glucose. Which is sort of important. So if an SSRI- a medication for depression- is not as successful in a person with a lower metabolism of glucose... it actually is sort of intuitive that that might turn out that way? If someone does not metabolize glucose, it may follow that they may not metabolize a medication properly as well.
But he does not acknowledge this.
Also- remission in this study is considered evidence of successful treatment [ few or no symptoms according to a rating scale] at ten and twelve weeks.
The authors also state follow up studies are necessary.
I'm not even getting into the second portion of the article.
But my point is... mainstream media tends to skew and muddle research, particularly stuff about brains and such, all the time and work everyone into a frenzy.
This was long, but it is a particular annoyance of mine.
It is frustrating, because things get skewed and people in general feel hood-winked when they finally understand that what they've been told is only a half-truth or completely untrue.
I've found the NYT has been especially guilty of this... but of course they are ABSOLUTELY not the only source to do this. Not at all.