Scent of a dream
August 3, 2023 4:14 PM Subscribe
This is a worthless study and the results should not change anyone’s opinion about anything.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:19 PM on August 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:19 PM on August 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts
posted by lalochezia at 4:31 PM on August 3, 2023 [110 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 4:31 PM on August 3, 2023 [110 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, please make sure your comments add something to the discussion other than negative commentary about the value of the study.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 4:34 PM on August 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 4:34 PM on August 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
I'd be thrilled to put a few drops of Ensmartifier in my CPAP machine's humidifier reservoir.
posted by The Tensor at 4:41 PM on August 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by The Tensor at 4:41 PM on August 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
There are 18 control and 15 in the treatment group, the effect estimates are going to be wildly noisy, the effect is very likely small to begin with, add in all the researcher incentives to find any effect and what you have is cargo cult science.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:46 PM on August 3, 2023 [27 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:46 PM on August 3, 2023 [27 favorites]
please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts - please be farts
posted by lalochezia
It's not. Trust me. If it was I'd have several Nobel Prizes.
posted by Splunge at 4:46 PM on August 3, 2023 [52 favorites]
posted by lalochezia
It's not. Trust me. If it was I'd have several Nobel Prizes.
posted by Splunge at 4:46 PM on August 3, 2023 [52 favorites]
There are 18 control and 15 in the treatment group, the effect estimates are going to be wildly noisy, the effect is very likely small to begin with, add in all the researcher incentives to find any effect and what you have is cargo cult science.
Luckily it's an easy and inexpensive thing people can try to see if it helps their sleep! Definitely worth further study if it could have any effect on dementia too, in my book.
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:50 PM on August 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
Luckily it's an easy and inexpensive thing people can try to see if it helps their sleep! Definitely worth further study if it could have any effect on dementia too, in my book.
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:50 PM on August 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
Three words: failed to replicate
posted by chrchr at 4:52 PM on August 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by chrchr at 4:52 PM on August 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
Following the money for a small single center study and...it's Proctor and Gamble. Huh what could that have to do with putting products in houses and retirement facilities.
posted by cobaltnine at 4:57 PM on August 3, 2023 [35 favorites]
posted by cobaltnine at 4:57 PM on August 3, 2023 [35 favorites]
That’s so cool! I was looking at papers regarding potential scent therapies for people with Covid induced olfactory loss and came up with a reasonable regimen of lemongrass, eucalyptus, mulberry and copaiba essential oils. This choice was based on covering the major scent groups (floral, citrus, woody and resinous according to one paper), improvement of olfaction in rats and ability to decrease inflammation. This was to help a family member with covid smell loss. I mixed the scent with soy wax to make some scent cues in an easy-to-handle format. I have some extra essential oil and I may try it in a diffuser at night.
posted by Emmy Noether at 4:59 PM on August 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
posted by Emmy Noether at 4:59 PM on August 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
Going to spray a couple drops of goat musk on the physics textbook before I put it under my pillow tonight. (Didn't look to see what the scent was but someone said it wasn't farts so.)
posted by grobstein at 5:00 PM on August 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by grobstein at 5:00 PM on August 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
failed to replicate
Hey did you attempt to replicate this experiment, and failed in a way that clearly invalidated the published results?
Because we usually don't expect that kind of research a week or so after a publication.
It's fine to critique the study but "I feel like this would fail replication, when I imagine such a thing" is super bad science, really anti-science if you think about it, probably worse than earnestly presenting findings in good faith, even if they later turn out to be flawed.
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:01 PM on August 3, 2023 [44 favorites]
Hey did you attempt to replicate this experiment, and failed in a way that clearly invalidated the published results?
Because we usually don't expect that kind of research a week or so after a publication.
It's fine to critique the study but "I feel like this would fail replication, when I imagine such a thing" is super bad science, really anti-science if you think about it, probably worse than earnestly presenting findings in good faith, even if they later turn out to be flawed.
posted by SaltySalticid at 5:01 PM on August 3, 2023 [44 favorites]
I've never smelled anything in any dream I can remember. I might have tasted sweet, but that's vanishingly uncommon.
Is that normal, or do I dream wrong?
posted by MengerSponge at 5:06 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
Is that normal, or do I dream wrong?
posted by MengerSponge at 5:06 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
People using cherry picking a single small sample size studies trying to sell us things that (probably!) don’t work abuse science and give it a bad name. This study isn’t science. It’s just a study! There’s nothing actionable here until there are more studies, and my guess is that it won’t pan out. I’m not saying experimenters shouldn’t try to replicate it. What we have now is just a study. One study doesn’t mean much. That’s science for you.
posted by chrchr at 5:10 PM on August 3, 2023 [25 favorites]
posted by chrchr at 5:10 PM on August 3, 2023 [25 favorites]
I mean, my gut says “probably nothing,” but I know that I have very strong reactions to specific smells, so I’m very hesitant to say that exposing people to scents doesn’t exercise the mind the way that puzzles and language study apparently do. It doesn’t sound like pseudoscience, even if the hypothesis might be proven false.
I knew a scientist with an international reputation who, across his career, mostly chose the wrong side, but whose experiments, adherence to scientific protocol, and logical thinking were so ironclad that his colleagues had to beat down his ideas with better science. He wasn’t a crank; he was a scientist who was wrong. A lot. But right often enough that he could not be dismissed, only fought.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:12 PM on August 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
I knew a scientist with an international reputation who, across his career, mostly chose the wrong side, but whose experiments, adherence to scientific protocol, and logical thinking were so ironclad that his colleagues had to beat down his ideas with better science. He wasn’t a crank; he was a scientist who was wrong. A lot. But right often enough that he could not be dismissed, only fought.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:12 PM on August 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
Yes, chrchr, thank you for noting it is a study. I also noted it, thought it interesting, and posted it here, with no claims as to its worth or value.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:12 PM on August 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:12 PM on August 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
From the article: "It's not exactly a stretch to believe humans could also benefit from experiencing a complex 'scent-scape'."
There's a lot going on there, and one of the things is ignoring that we already live in a complex 'scent-scape', absolutely saturated with synthetic fragrances. There are thousands of products on the shelves that are either scented, or meant to scent other things, or meant to cover up the scent of things with a stronger scent, and it's a little hard to believe that it all adds up to better mental function. I mean, we'd be geniuses by now if so. I can believe that a person with no other exposure to this onslaught of scents, might benefit from what they're describing--diffusing single scents on a rotating schedule--but there's no mention of what their homes and bedclothes smelled like without the added scents, so you can't really get a control, can you?
posted by mittens at 5:17 PM on August 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
There's a lot going on there, and one of the things is ignoring that we already live in a complex 'scent-scape', absolutely saturated with synthetic fragrances. There are thousands of products on the shelves that are either scented, or meant to scent other things, or meant to cover up the scent of things with a stronger scent, and it's a little hard to believe that it all adds up to better mental function. I mean, we'd be geniuses by now if so. I can believe that a person with no other exposure to this onslaught of scents, might benefit from what they're describing--diffusing single scents on a rotating schedule--but there's no mention of what their homes and bedclothes smelled like without the added scents, so you can't really get a control, can you?
posted by mittens at 5:17 PM on August 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
That's a good point, mittens. I'm assuming that the night application with a diffuser makes it the strongest scent at night, and since it appears they tried to measure "improvement" in tests, that there was a baseline of how people started the study but I haven't dug deep on any of this.
Objective: Cognitive loss in older adults is a growing issue in our society, and there is a need to develop inexpensive, simple, effective in-home treatments. This study was conducted to explore the use of olfactory enrichment at night to improve cognitive ability in healthy older adults.
Methods: Male and female older adults (N = 43), age 60–85, were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to an Olfactory Enriched or Control group. Individuals in the enriched group were exposed to 7 different odorants a week, one per night, for 2 h, using an odorant diffuser. Individuals in the control group had the same experience with de minimis amounts of odorant. Neuropsychological assessments and fMRI scans were administered at the beginning of the study and after 6 months.
Results: A statistically significant 226% improvement was observed in the enriched group compared to the control group on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and improved functioning was observed in the left uncinate fasciculus, as assessed by mean diffusivity.
Conclusion: Minimal olfactory enrichment administered at night produces improvements in both cognitive and neural functioning. Thus, olfactory enrichment may provide an effective and low-effort pathway to improved brain health
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:19 PM on August 3, 2023
Objective: Cognitive loss in older adults is a growing issue in our society, and there is a need to develop inexpensive, simple, effective in-home treatments. This study was conducted to explore the use of olfactory enrichment at night to improve cognitive ability in healthy older adults.
Methods: Male and female older adults (N = 43), age 60–85, were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to an Olfactory Enriched or Control group. Individuals in the enriched group were exposed to 7 different odorants a week, one per night, for 2 h, using an odorant diffuser. Individuals in the control group had the same experience with de minimis amounts of odorant. Neuropsychological assessments and fMRI scans were administered at the beginning of the study and after 6 months.
Results: A statistically significant 226% improvement was observed in the enriched group compared to the control group on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test and improved functioning was observed in the left uncinate fasciculus, as assessed by mean diffusivity.
Conclusion: Minimal olfactory enrichment administered at night produces improvements in both cognitive and neural functioning. Thus, olfactory enrichment may provide an effective and low-effort pathway to improved brain health
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:19 PM on August 3, 2023
(I'm still reading the research article as well and there are a lot of links within that I'd like to read)
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:21 PM on August 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:21 PM on August 3, 2023 [2 favorites]
This study isn’t science. It’s just a study!
I mean, yes, but studies are part of science. “We did this on a small group, is anyone doing similar work or is able to work with a larger group” isn’t “not science,” it’s a step. As I’ve said, my gut says this isn’t going anywhere, but then I’m not putting the effort in to prove/disprove it, am I? Or, for that matter, you? “Nuh-uh” isn’t science, either.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:33 PM on August 3, 2023 [16 favorites]
I mean, yes, but studies are part of science. “We did this on a small group, is anyone doing similar work or is able to work with a larger group” isn’t “not science,” it’s a step. As I’ve said, my gut says this isn’t going anywhere, but then I’m not putting the effort in to prove/disprove it, am I? Or, for that matter, you? “Nuh-uh” isn’t science, either.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:33 PM on August 3, 2023 [16 favorites]
note: Folks, please make sure your comments add something to the discussion other than negative commentary about the value of the study.
Am I reading this mod note correctly? Comments critical of the study under discussion just shouldn’t be made?
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 5:34 PM on August 3, 2023 [24 favorites]
Am I reading this mod note correctly? Comments critical of the study under discussion just shouldn’t be made?
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 5:34 PM on August 3, 2023 [24 favorites]
I don't know, but most of these comments don't pass the smell test.
perhaps if the commenters had only smelled harder when they were in school
posted by phooky at 5:37 PM on August 3, 2023 [21 favorites]
perhaps if the commenters had only smelled harder when they were in school
posted by phooky at 5:37 PM on August 3, 2023 [21 favorites]
I've never smelled anything in any dream I can remember. I might have tasted sweet, but that's vanishingly uncommon.Back in high school, my psychology teacher mentioned that, by and large, people simply do not smell things in dreams. For that reason, I felt it was actually worth letting her know one day that I had distinctly smelled vinegar in a dream I'd had the previous night, since it was apparently a really uncommon phenomenon.
Is that normal, or do I dream wrong?
posted by MengerSponge
posted by DoctorFedora at 5:40 PM on August 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
Funding
This work was supported by Procter and Gamble.
hmm
https://www.designcentral.com/work/procter-gamble-airia-smart-scent-device
“Alexa, enable my personalized scent experience.” That’s right—step aside, candles and diffusers. AIRIA, Procter & Gamble’s newest and most connected home fragrance tool, is the air freshener of the future. Design Central teamed with P&G on this elegant fragrance-dispensing device, which puts to use patented SmartJet™ technology to fan micro-droplets of scent into the air for an optimal and customizable aroma.
they also own Febreze and Ambi-Pur
sniff test: failed, with hints of capitalism preying on people's fears about their mortality and health in order to have them consume more
posted by paimapi at 5:43 PM on August 3, 2023 [27 favorites]
This work was supported by Procter and Gamble.
hmm
https://www.designcentral.com/work/procter-gamble-airia-smart-scent-device
“Alexa, enable my personalized scent experience.” That’s right—step aside, candles and diffusers. AIRIA, Procter & Gamble’s newest and most connected home fragrance tool, is the air freshener of the future. Design Central teamed with P&G on this elegant fragrance-dispensing device, which puts to use patented SmartJet™ technology to fan micro-droplets of scent into the air for an optimal and customizable aroma.
they also own Febreze and Ambi-Pur
sniff test: failed, with hints of capitalism preying on people's fears about their mortality and health in order to have them consume more
posted by paimapi at 5:43 PM on August 3, 2023 [27 favorites]
If anyone wants to actually read the study, I'll be here!
Also, that's neat, Emily Noether! I'm familiar with some (lemongrass, eucalyptus), but not mulberry (though I know what they are and supposedly have one nearby) or copaiba (looking that up now!)
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:52 PM on August 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
Also, that's neat, Emily Noether! I'm familiar with some (lemongrass, eucalyptus), but not mulberry (though I know what they are and supposedly have one nearby) or copaiba (looking that up now!)
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:52 PM on August 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
well i got a free airwick scent defuser thing for buying something else, i never set it up. i just dug it out and the instructions specifically say
posted by glonous keming at 5:55 PM on August 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
❌ don't use while sleepingso i'm sorry everyone it looks i am not going to be making any better comments on monday january 29 2024
posted by glonous keming at 5:55 PM on August 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
please be farts
The study notes that prior research shows the effect only with scents that differ from one day to the next, so vary the, um, digestive profile of what you eat…
posted by zippy at 5:56 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
The study notes that prior research shows the effect only with scents that differ from one day to the next, so vary the, um, digestive profile of what you eat…
posted by zippy at 5:56 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
> It’s just a study!
Yes, and a very small pilot study to boot. A VERY, VERY small pilot study.
The next step for something like this - if you really think it's something worth investigating - is to plan a larger follow-up study. It's not time for a press release or, really, even an article in the media. The results are far, far too weak.
Just for example, look at the results table for the before/after cognitive tests.
Test #1, MMSE, shows "control -0.36 +/-2.34" meaning the control group scored an average of 0.36 points lower on this test at the end of the study (after application of the [fake] smell-o-booster material), with a standard deviation of 2.34.
And "enriched -0.50 +/-2.24" meaning the control group scored an average or 0.5 points lower on this test after application of smell-o-booster with a standard deviation of 2.24.
So in this test, both groups did a hair worse on the follow-up test and the "enriched" group actually did a little worse (0.14) than the control group. But the standard deviation of over 2.0 tells you pretty clearly that all we're actually seeing here is a little random noise in the results of this (very, very) small study. The result here is 0.14 and the SD is over 2.0. The result is absolutely meaningless.
And so on down the list. Every single time, the result is much, much smaller than the SD. Meaning (every single time) just noise, nothing important.
They have 12 separate results listed and one of them happens to have a p value of less than 0.05.
This is exactly the type of result you would expect from random chance. p < 0.05 means, by definition, that this is something that happens about 5 times out of 100 by random chance. So if you do 12 trials, it is not at all surprising to have one of them come out with p value less than 0.05.
Now if ALL of them came out as p < 0.05, or even say 80% or 90% - that would start to look like an interesting result.
But this result looks, literally, like exactly what would happen if you generated these results with a random number generator set up to create a spread of results with those standard deviations.
Sorry to rain on anyone's parade here, but these actual results as seen in this table are actually diametrically opposed to the summary in the article headline "Exposure to Certain Fragrances During Sleep Dramatically Boosts Cognitive Function".
An accurate headline would be, "Small Study Looking at Exposure to Certain Fragrances During Sleep Shows Control Group and Test Group Have No Statistically Significant Cognitive Differences." If you wanted to expand on this slightly it would be, "One of twelve measured cognitive areas did show a statistically significant improvement in the Test Group (p < 0.05) but the effect size and sample size (n=43) were so small that further study are needed to determine if this effect is real, or simply the result of ordinary random variability in studies with a small sample size."
posted by flug at 5:57 PM on August 3, 2023 [101 favorites]
Yes, and a very small pilot study to boot. A VERY, VERY small pilot study.
The next step for something like this - if you really think it's something worth investigating - is to plan a larger follow-up study. It's not time for a press release or, really, even an article in the media. The results are far, far too weak.
Just for example, look at the results table for the before/after cognitive tests.
Test #1, MMSE, shows "control -0.36 +/-2.34" meaning the control group scored an average of 0.36 points lower on this test at the end of the study (after application of the [fake] smell-o-booster material), with a standard deviation of 2.34.
And "enriched -0.50 +/-2.24" meaning the control group scored an average or 0.5 points lower on this test after application of smell-o-booster with a standard deviation of 2.24.
So in this test, both groups did a hair worse on the follow-up test and the "enriched" group actually did a little worse (0.14) than the control group. But the standard deviation of over 2.0 tells you pretty clearly that all we're actually seeing here is a little random noise in the results of this (very, very) small study. The result here is 0.14 and the SD is over 2.0. The result is absolutely meaningless.
And so on down the list. Every single time, the result is much, much smaller than the SD. Meaning (every single time) just noise, nothing important.
They have 12 separate results listed and one of them happens to have a p value of less than 0.05.
This is exactly the type of result you would expect from random chance. p < 0.05 means, by definition, that this is something that happens about 5 times out of 100 by random chance. So if you do 12 trials, it is not at all surprising to have one of them come out with p value less than 0.05.
Now if ALL of them came out as p < 0.05, or even say 80% or 90% - that would start to look like an interesting result.
But this result looks, literally, like exactly what would happen if you generated these results with a random number generator set up to create a spread of results with those standard deviations.
Sorry to rain on anyone's parade here, but these actual results as seen in this table are actually diametrically opposed to the summary in the article headline "Exposure to Certain Fragrances During Sleep Dramatically Boosts Cognitive Function".
An accurate headline would be, "Small Study Looking at Exposure to Certain Fragrances During Sleep Shows Control Group and Test Group Have No Statistically Significant Cognitive Differences." If you wanted to expand on this slightly it would be, "One of twelve measured cognitive areas did show a statistically significant improvement in the Test Group (p < 0.05) but the effect size and sample size (n=43) were so small that further study are needed to determine if this effect is real, or simply the result of ordinary random variability in studies with a small sample size."
posted by flug at 5:57 PM on August 3, 2023 [101 favorites]
I wish I were trained to interpret the statistics of a study but I have been told, as a layperson, to trust in the hierarchy of evidence, not believe sensationalistic headlines, and wholly disregard research from industry funded efforts
I think encouraging people to purchase things like diffusers and unregulated essential oil supplements (which is most of them) is a net bad as is pushing industry funded studies uncritically
is the idea of the study fun? sure, definitely. is it an example of bad corpo-science that should never have been allowed publication in the first place? also yeah. will it result in a net harm in people? possibly, given the dangers of diffuser use and how many VOCs are released as a result of burning essential oil
posted by paimapi at 6:04 PM on August 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
I think encouraging people to purchase things like diffusers and unregulated essential oil supplements (which is most of them) is a net bad as is pushing industry funded studies uncritically
is the idea of the study fun? sure, definitely. is it an example of bad corpo-science that should never have been allowed publication in the first place? also yeah. will it result in a net harm in people? possibly, given the dangers of diffuser use and how many VOCs are released as a result of burning essential oil
posted by paimapi at 6:04 PM on August 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
1.2. Loss of olfactory ability and the deterioration of cognition
As people age, the deterioration of their olfactory ability occurs before the deterioration of their cognitive abilities (Doty et al., 1984; Schaie et al., 2004).
I had never heard this before either.
And this is of particular interest, damn I have a lot of reading to do!
1.6. Olfactory enrichment improves cognition in humans
Haehner et al. (2013) showed that patients with Parkinson’s disease improved their verbal fluency after olfactory enrichment. Birte-Antina et al. (2018) provided olfactory enrichment for adults with 4 essential-oil odorants twice a day for 5 months. Controls solved daily Sudoku puzzles during that time. The olfactory-enriched group had a significant improvement of olfactory function, improved verbal function, and decreased depression symptoms.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:05 PM on August 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
As people age, the deterioration of their olfactory ability occurs before the deterioration of their cognitive abilities (Doty et al., 1984; Schaie et al., 2004).
I had never heard this before either.
And this is of particular interest, damn I have a lot of reading to do!
1.6. Olfactory enrichment improves cognition in humans
Haehner et al. (2013) showed that patients with Parkinson’s disease improved their verbal fluency after olfactory enrichment. Birte-Antina et al. (2018) provided olfactory enrichment for adults with 4 essential-oil odorants twice a day for 5 months. Controls solved daily Sudoku puzzles during that time. The olfactory-enriched group had a significant improvement of olfactory function, improved verbal function, and decreased depression symptoms.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:05 PM on August 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
is it an example of bad corpo-science that should never have been allowed publication in the first place? also yeah.
It's hard to believe that the seemingly dozens of referenced articles in this study are all bunk? How would anyone come to that conclusion this quickly? I've barely read parts of three of the very many links available, and true, some of them are beyond me. But there is a LOT of info here.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:09 PM on August 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
It's hard to believe that the seemingly dozens of referenced articles in this study are all bunk? How would anyone come to that conclusion this quickly? I've barely read parts of three of the very many links available, and true, some of them are beyond me. But there is a LOT of info here.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:09 PM on August 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
I started sleeping in a room that smells like Axe body spray and I've lost 15 points off my IQ, AMA
posted by potrzebie at 6:09 PM on August 3, 2023 [16 favorites]
posted by potrzebie at 6:09 PM on August 3, 2023 [16 favorites]
Good job ignoring all the reasonable critiques of the article, tiny frying pan! Do you have a way to dismiss the suspect funding of the study? Do you think nobody should be able to post anything but positive responses, vetted by you?
Science by press release almost never leads to good discussion here, because so often the science is extremely weak.
posted by sagc at 6:25 PM on August 3, 2023 [11 favorites]
Science by press release almost never leads to good discussion here, because so often the science is extremely weak.
posted by sagc at 6:25 PM on August 3, 2023 [11 favorites]
Do you think nobody should be able to post anything but positive responses, vetted by you?
Where are you getting this idea? I'm so confused.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:27 PM on August 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
Where are you getting this idea? I'm so confused.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:27 PM on August 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
Do you think nobody should be able to post anything but positive responses, vetted by you?
Well, that’s what the mods explicitly stated earlier in the thread, so who’s to blame OP for behaving this way. Still, pretty troubling for a thread ostensibly created to foster discussion.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 6:29 PM on August 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
Well, that’s what the mods explicitly stated earlier in the thread, so who’s to blame OP for behaving this way. Still, pretty troubling for a thread ostensibly created to foster discussion.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 6:29 PM on August 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
I believe it was a response to an early comment that had nothing else to say but something like "this is worthless," which yeah, is discouraged on MeFi.
I am not a mod tho! And don't tell them what to do.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:30 PM on August 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
I am not a mod tho! And don't tell them what to do.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:30 PM on August 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
If anyone wants to actually read the study, I'll be here
results claimed as significant are right around the 0.05 threshold. there were 12 cognitive evaluations administered and only one showed a significant difference... but it wouldn't have if they had corrected for multiple comparisons.
likewise their neural result is right on the border of significance, and again no multiple comparisons corrections. they claim they selected their region of interest on a single previous study involving dancers, but cmon
they tossed out 1/2 their subjects for the behavioral analyses partly because of variability in the time between baseline and final assessment, but kept all of them for the mri analyses, which lol I guess they're just done pretending this wasn't a shitty p-hacked study published in a journal just one step up from a publication mill.
this is a poor study
posted by logicpunk at 6:32 PM on August 3, 2023 [26 favorites]
results claimed as significant are right around the 0.05 threshold. there were 12 cognitive evaluations administered and only one showed a significant difference... but it wouldn't have if they had corrected for multiple comparisons.
likewise their neural result is right on the border of significance, and again no multiple comparisons corrections. they claim they selected their region of interest on a single previous study involving dancers, but cmon
they tossed out 1/2 their subjects for the behavioral analyses partly because of variability in the time between baseline and final assessment, but kept all of them for the mri analyses, which lol I guess they're just done pretending this wasn't a shitty p-hacked study published in a journal just one step up from a publication mill.
this is a poor study
posted by logicpunk at 6:32 PM on August 3, 2023 [26 favorites]
Where are you getting this idea? I'm so confused.
I suspect that the suggestion is that you’re attempting to aggressively steer the conversation to what you want it to be, rather than what the community wants to discuss. Sort of like the plastics conversation from a few days back, if you recall. And for some reason, the mods seem to be trying to assist you.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 6:32 PM on August 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
I suspect that the suggestion is that you’re attempting to aggressively steer the conversation to what you want it to be, rather than what the community wants to discuss. Sort of like the plastics conversation from a few days back, if you recall. And for some reason, the mods seem to be trying to assist you.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 6:32 PM on August 3, 2023 [12 favorites]
there's no need for a pile-on, people. Leave UFO frustration in the UFO thread.
I don't think the mod comment intended to ban criticism of the study's validity; more like don't do 'aromatherapy = woo.'
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:36 PM on August 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
I don't think the mod comment intended to ban criticism of the study's validity; more like don't do 'aromatherapy = woo.'
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:36 PM on August 3, 2023 [9 favorites]
People are free to say what they don't like about it
please make sure your comments add something to the discussion other than negative commentary about the value of the study.
See the disconnect? Comments critical of the study don’t meet this bar, but those that uncritically embrace it are perfectly fine. If this post is here for discussion of the study, that’s a problem.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 6:39 PM on August 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
please make sure your comments add something to the discussion other than negative commentary about the value of the study.
See the disconnect? Comments critical of the study don’t meet this bar, but those that uncritically embrace it are perfectly fine. If this post is here for discussion of the study, that’s a problem.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 6:39 PM on August 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
Thank you, flug.
I want to add something: One of the reasons that I have a strong negative reaction to this press release isn't just that the press release is premature; it's that it's symptomatic of a much larger and much more troubling problem. It's hard to adequately communicate the scale of the problem if you haven't lived it, but it's really, really bad.
There are dozens, hundreds, thousands, of junk studies released every year because science is a "publish or perish" environment. Competition for resources and jobs is fierce, incentivizing scientists to publish as much as they can, as fast as they can, overselling--or even manipulating--their results. Press releases that sell such small, inconclusive studies as though they contain groundbreaking results are a part of the problem.
Every scientist I know finds this type of press release frustrating because we think the environment that produces them is bad for science and bad for scientists.
Not to mention that it misleads the public. This is especially troubling when it comes to really sensitive health issues--think weight loss, age-related cognitive decline, cancer. People hear one thing, then they hear another. If you've ever heard anyone complain about how scientists change their mind about X all the time, it's partly because of bad popular science coverage overselling preliminary or inconclusive results. We have entire industries built on bullshit.
It's hard to believe that the seemingly dozens of referenced articles in this study are all bunk
No one is saying that they're bunk (yet); that's not how studies work.
You can divide a study into two parts, if you want to think of it that way--the literature review, which establishes how the study relates to previous research, and the study itself. The number or quality of the references doesn't mean much for the quality of the study itself. Sure, a bad literature review is a red flag, but a good literature review just establishes a good motivation for doing the study in the first place; it does not tell you that the study was done well or that the results were conclusive.
Mod note: Folks, please make sure your comments add something to the discussion other than negative commentary about the value of the study.
I want to register that I find this troubling as well. I understand if the mods are trying to discourage knee-jerk reactions, but that's not how it's reading, perhaps because some comments have been removed. It reads as though they're trying to discourage negative discussion of the study.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 6:47 PM on August 3, 2023 [55 favorites]
I want to add something: One of the reasons that I have a strong negative reaction to this press release isn't just that the press release is premature; it's that it's symptomatic of a much larger and much more troubling problem. It's hard to adequately communicate the scale of the problem if you haven't lived it, but it's really, really bad.
There are dozens, hundreds, thousands, of junk studies released every year because science is a "publish or perish" environment. Competition for resources and jobs is fierce, incentivizing scientists to publish as much as they can, as fast as they can, overselling--or even manipulating--their results. Press releases that sell such small, inconclusive studies as though they contain groundbreaking results are a part of the problem.
Every scientist I know finds this type of press release frustrating because we think the environment that produces them is bad for science and bad for scientists.
Not to mention that it misleads the public. This is especially troubling when it comes to really sensitive health issues--think weight loss, age-related cognitive decline, cancer. People hear one thing, then they hear another. If you've ever heard anyone complain about how scientists change their mind about X all the time, it's partly because of bad popular science coverage overselling preliminary or inconclusive results. We have entire industries built on bullshit.
It's hard to believe that the seemingly dozens of referenced articles in this study are all bunk
No one is saying that they're bunk (yet); that's not how studies work.
You can divide a study into two parts, if you want to think of it that way--the literature review, which establishes how the study relates to previous research, and the study itself. The number or quality of the references doesn't mean much for the quality of the study itself. Sure, a bad literature review is a red flag, but a good literature review just establishes a good motivation for doing the study in the first place; it does not tell you that the study was done well or that the results were conclusive.
Mod note: Folks, please make sure your comments add something to the discussion other than negative commentary about the value of the study.
I want to register that I find this troubling as well. I understand if the mods are trying to discourage knee-jerk reactions, but that's not how it's reading, perhaps because some comments have been removed. It reads as though they're trying to discourage negative discussion of the study.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 6:47 PM on August 3, 2023 [55 favorites]
oh and the other thing that irritates about that study is that it inevitably makes the people trying to help into the bad people.
Q: hey did you hear that an enriched olfactory sensorium preserves cognitive function? what a mysterious and awe-inspiring piece of machinery is the human brain.
A: here is a list of flaws with that study. perhaps we should be skeptical of its conclusions.
Q: why do you hate joy?
posted by logicpunk at 6:49 PM on August 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Q: hey did you hear that an enriched olfactory sensorium preserves cognitive function? what a mysterious and awe-inspiring piece of machinery is the human brain.
A: here is a list of flaws with that study. perhaps we should be skeptical of its conclusions.
Q: why do you hate joy?
posted by logicpunk at 6:49 PM on August 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Mod note: Firstly, the thread sitting does need to stop. Please write to us or continue to flag and move on. Also, please don’t argue with other users if you’re concerned about thread sitting etc, send us a ping instead!
Finally, to clarify the note above, we fully encourage critical discussions of the study. My note could have been written better to relay that. I reinstated the comment I was addressing for clarity as well in case that’s helpful. What I am trying to discourage are blanket statements that don’t encourage much discussion/learning other than the assumption that no one could possibly learn or benefit from the study or said discussion.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 6:54 PM on August 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
Finally, to clarify the note above, we fully encourage critical discussions of the study. My note could have been written better to relay that. I reinstated the comment I was addressing for clarity as well in case that’s helpful. What I am trying to discourage are blanket statements that don’t encourage much discussion/learning other than the assumption that no one could possibly learn or benefit from the study or said discussion.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 6:54 PM on August 3, 2023 [15 favorites]
This study isn’t science. It’s just a study!
Right. Well, moving along....
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:59 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
Right. Well, moving along....
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:59 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
I never knew that all along I should have been called Olfactory Enriched.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 7:00 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 7:00 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
It's nonsense as a study but having a pleasant-smelling sleeping environment shouldn't be controversial, even if it doesn't automatically add years of quality life. People have done wilder things to and with their bodies on approximately the same amount of evidence.
posted by kingdead at 7:16 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by kingdead at 7:16 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
(As I noted before most of the above, essential oils are a cheap thing to try to see if it improves sleep - I know I'm going to experiment with it, I lurve sleep!)
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:18 PM on August 3, 2023
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:18 PM on August 3, 2023
1) this study could be used as an example to teach p-hacking. I bet the raw data is even worse than this makes it look.
2) It goes against established science Volatile chemical emissions from essential oils with therapeutic claims essential oil diffusion releases VOCs and degrades indoor air quality, with a significant number causing severe and known health impacts. No, it’s not a benign thing to just try. “Among the 1034 VOCs emitted, 251 VOCs, representing 60 VOC identities, are classified as potentially hazardous. The most prevalent potentially hazardous VOCs were acetaldehyde, limonene, methanol, acetone, ethanol, and 3-carene. Toluene was found in more than 70% of the essential oils. Each of the essential oils emitted 9 or more potentially hazardous VOCs.”
posted by Bottlecap at 7:34 PM on August 3, 2023 [29 favorites]
2) It goes against established science Volatile chemical emissions from essential oils with therapeutic claims essential oil diffusion releases VOCs and degrades indoor air quality, with a significant number causing severe and known health impacts. No, it’s not a benign thing to just try. “Among the 1034 VOCs emitted, 251 VOCs, representing 60 VOC identities, are classified as potentially hazardous. The most prevalent potentially hazardous VOCs were acetaldehyde, limonene, methanol, acetone, ethanol, and 3-carene. Toluene was found in more than 70% of the essential oils. Each of the essential oils emitted 9 or more potentially hazardous VOCs.”
posted by Bottlecap at 7:34 PM on August 3, 2023 [29 favorites]
(No diffusers, good info, thanks!)
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:56 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:56 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
just want to drop in a “thank you metafilter” for providing a much-needed critical eye on the clickbaity pop sci stuff that tends to get posted 🙏
seconding/nthing the idea that cognitive performance is a sensitive subject that makes people likely to say “I want to believe”
posted by freesocker at 7:59 PM on August 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
seconding/nthing the idea that cognitive performance is a sensitive subject that makes people likely to say “I want to believe”
posted by freesocker at 7:59 PM on August 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Wow, this thread went somewhere fast.
posted by slogger at 8:21 PM on August 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by slogger at 8:21 PM on August 3, 2023 [4 favorites]
The way statistics and scientific publishing works, a small study has to find a big effect. If it doesn't find a big effect, it won't be statistically significant and won't be published. If there is actually a small effect, it is impossible to find and measure with a small study. You will find a large effect in some studies due to random fluctuation. There is no guarantee the effect is even in the right direction! You are basically measuring noise, like trying to figure out if a die is weighted after two rolls.
If you do not expect a large, consistent, easily measured difference, you simply shouldn't do a small study at all: It is not useful as a pilot or a preliminary estimate or anything of the sort.
Of course small studies are cheaper, so for improbable things there is still a reason to do them. The attempt to do the study you can afford is the sort of thing that leads to the methodologically sound but scientifically useless Journal of Evidence Based Haruspicy.
posted by mark k at 8:24 PM on August 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
If you do not expect a large, consistent, easily measured difference, you simply shouldn't do a small study at all: It is not useful as a pilot or a preliminary estimate or anything of the sort.
Of course small studies are cheaper, so for improbable things there is still a reason to do them. The attempt to do the study you can afford is the sort of thing that leads to the methodologically sound but scientifically useless Journal of Evidence Based Haruspicy.
posted by mark k at 8:24 PM on August 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
> This is exactly the type of result you would expect from random chance. p < 0.05 means, by definition, that this is something that happens about 5 times out of 100 by random chance. So if you do 12 trials, it is not at all surprising to have one of them come out with p value less than 0.05.
To be clear, if you measure 12 different things in a study, the odds that your intervention will generate a p value < 0.05 on at least one of them is 46% in a specific direction (say, "varied scents make you smarter").
If you allow for a p value *in either direction*, this increases to 72%. (ie, "scent consistency makes you smarter" OR "varied scents make you smarter").
Finally, if you do not pre-design the study to have exactly 12 categories, but instead do a bunch of tests that you choose to clump in ways guided by their results, your chances are going to be even higher. Like, suppose you are willing to finish the study after 1 week or 2 weeks or 4 weeks, and if a combination of 2 or more tests gave a significant p value. Modelling this is *harder*, but that additional freedom would strictly increase the chance of finding something with a "significant" p value.
...
In short, given the study design, if the effect of the scents was zero, you'd be slightly surprised if the study showed less effect than it did.
This has nothing to do with the small study size. The small study size, however, also means that any future or external information about the effect here would change our expectation by a larger amount.
Ie, if it was a 1000 person study, if we repeated the study with 10 people those 10 people aren't going to move the needle on the p-value test. But with a small study like this, you could literally have 1 person in a test group that doesn't show the effect in question, and if they found no effect it could ruin the combined p-value.
posted by NotAYakk at 8:25 PM on August 3, 2023 [11 favorites]
To be clear, if you measure 12 different things in a study, the odds that your intervention will generate a p value < 0.05 on at least one of them is 46% in a specific direction (say, "varied scents make you smarter").
If you allow for a p value *in either direction*, this increases to 72%. (ie, "scent consistency makes you smarter" OR "varied scents make you smarter").
Finally, if you do not pre-design the study to have exactly 12 categories, but instead do a bunch of tests that you choose to clump in ways guided by their results, your chances are going to be even higher. Like, suppose you are willing to finish the study after 1 week or 2 weeks or 4 weeks, and if a combination of 2 or more tests gave a significant p value. Modelling this is *harder*, but that additional freedom would strictly increase the chance of finding something with a "significant" p value.
...
In short, given the study design, if the effect of the scents was zero, you'd be slightly surprised if the study showed less effect than it did.
This has nothing to do with the small study size. The small study size, however, also means that any future or external information about the effect here would change our expectation by a larger amount.
Ie, if it was a 1000 person study, if we repeated the study with 10 people those 10 people aren't going to move the needle on the p-value test. But with a small study like this, you could literally have 1 person in a test group that doesn't show the effect in question, and if they found no effect it could ruin the combined p-value.
posted by NotAYakk at 8:25 PM on August 3, 2023 [11 favorites]
the issue with these probabilistic arguments against this study is that they (correctly) only show that the study could not find any effect, not that the study found no effect.
for that, all we have is deductive (the sun comes up because the earth spins) rather than inductive (the sun came up yesterday, so it probably will tomorrow) reasoning.
i am not a doctor but deductively this seems fairly preposterous. i thought the nose is just a giant chemical detector. when a molecule fits the axon fires. very hard to believe how scent molecules entering randomly could "dramatically" improve cognition?
but what do i know. people do like to believe things. at least this is fairly low stakes, as they go.
posted by pingu at 9:28 PM on August 3, 2023
for that, all we have is deductive (the sun comes up because the earth spins) rather than inductive (the sun came up yesterday, so it probably will tomorrow) reasoning.
i am not a doctor but deductively this seems fairly preposterous. i thought the nose is just a giant chemical detector. when a molecule fits the axon fires. very hard to believe how scent molecules entering randomly could "dramatically" improve cognition?
but what do i know. people do like to believe things. at least this is fairly low stakes, as they go.
posted by pingu at 9:28 PM on August 3, 2023
> limonene
there's no way something with a name this refreshing can be bad for you
posted by glonous keming at 9:40 PM on August 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
there's no way something with a name this refreshing can be bad for you
posted by glonous keming at 9:40 PM on August 3, 2023 [5 favorites]
It's fine to critique the study but "I feel like this would fail replication, when I imagine such a thing" is super bad science, really anti-science if you think about it, probably worse than earnestly presenting findings in good faith, even if they later turn out to be flawed.
It's a good job we're just shooting the shit on a discussion website then, not publishing in journals or newspapers or putting out press releases. "This smells fishy" in response to questionable studies parading themselves around as scientific is not the greater evil here.
Nothing does more to undermine faith in the scientific process than bad-faith studies like this.
posted by Dysk at 10:21 PM on August 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
It's a good job we're just shooting the shit on a discussion website then, not publishing in journals or newspapers or putting out press releases. "This smells fishy" in response to questionable studies parading themselves around as scientific is not the greater evil here.
Nothing does more to undermine faith in the scientific process than bad-faith studies like this.
posted by Dysk at 10:21 PM on August 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
i find the scent of cocaine makes me think that i'm doing whatever task is at hand quite well!
posted by not_on_display at 10:53 PM on August 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by not_on_display at 10:53 PM on August 3, 2023 [13 favorites]
Farts don’t work on their own but if your partner makes a dutch oven then the combination of olfactory stimulus and variances between you and your partner’s microbiome have an effect.
posted by interogative mood at 11:01 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by interogative mood at 11:01 PM on August 3, 2023 [1 favorite]
Flug is my hero. Thank you Flug.
(I know enough to recognize bad science but not enough to explain to others why it is bad.)
posted by Scattercat at 11:18 PM on August 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
(I know enough to recognize bad science but not enough to explain to others why it is bad.)
posted by Scattercat at 11:18 PM on August 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
Hey The Tensor, putting scented oils in your CPAP reservoir is not a good idea; the oils can react with the plastic and degrade it. And all that oil is getting pushed into your lungs and not getting diffused around the room, so you might not want such a high concentration of it in there.
/friendly neighborhood ventilator-dependent quadriplegic sharing the wisdom of the disabled
posted by Soliloquy at 11:25 PM on August 3, 2023 [21 favorites]
/friendly neighborhood ventilator-dependent quadriplegic sharing the wisdom of the disabled
posted by Soliloquy at 11:25 PM on August 3, 2023 [21 favorites]
Did they test the smell of napalm? I hear it smells like victory in the mornings.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 12:10 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by JohnnyGunn at 12:10 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
P-hacking is my favourite kind of research!
Wait, not "favourite". What's the other word I'm thinking of?
Snark aside, the replication crisis has been known under that name since 2007 (and known as a phenomenon long before). It is 2023. We should have learned something by know. Which is the following: for people who are not themselves research scientists, studies like this should be assumed to be false to begin with, unless supported by several other studies, theoretical explanations, modelling, etc.
I mean this seriously. Most of us are not really capable of assessing the statistical validity of studies like this. But by know we should all understand history enough to know what to make of studies that shout "Large Important Effect Shown With SCIENCE! Ready For Press Release! Based On [sssh we won't say this part aloud]".
posted by Pyrogenesis at 1:57 AM on August 4, 2023 [10 favorites]
Wait, not "favourite". What's the other word I'm thinking of?
Snark aside, the replication crisis has been known under that name since 2007 (and known as a phenomenon long before). It is 2023. We should have learned something by know. Which is the following: for people who are not themselves research scientists, studies like this should be assumed to be false to begin with, unless supported by several other studies, theoretical explanations, modelling, etc.
I mean this seriously. Most of us are not really capable of assessing the statistical validity of studies like this. But by know we should all understand history enough to know what to make of studies that shout "Large Important Effect Shown With SCIENCE! Ready For Press Release! Based On [sssh we won't say this part aloud]".
posted by Pyrogenesis at 1:57 AM on August 4, 2023 [10 favorites]
I grew up in a family that slept with the windows cracked basically year round and while I don’t have any particular notion that fake lavender or whatever makes you smarter in your dreams, I do love drifting off to the smell of rain or the neighbor’s fireplace or flowering trees in the springtime.
posted by thivaia at 2:56 AM on August 4, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by thivaia at 2:56 AM on August 4, 2023 [13 favorites]
Thanks to tiny frying pan for posting this. I don't know anything about science, alas. Which is why the comment "This is a worthless study and the results should not change anyone’s opinion about anything" was not helpful to me, while the comments that explained why one should be skeptical of this study were helpful. Also, I enjoyed all the fart commentary. Thank you, all.
posted by Bella Donna at 3:00 AM on August 4, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by Bella Donna at 3:00 AM on August 4, 2023 [11 favorites]
I appreciate this being posted on the blue. I hadn't seen it, and I teach research methods in psych. It will be a useful addition for some classroom discussion.
posted by bizzyb at 4:32 AM on August 4, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by bizzyb at 4:32 AM on August 4, 2023 [5 favorites]
Dear science and statistics people: Without, like, having to go back to college or learn math, are there any resources that are easy to understand, that teach people how to read studies like this and look for signs that there's something off about them? (Because I want the sommelier study referenced in this one to be true!)
posted by mittens at 5:07 AM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by mittens at 5:07 AM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
XKCD - "Significant"
Vox article on p-hacking and on the replication crisis (in social science).
Undark article.
The paper that coined it. The abstract of which notes "[t]his result suggests that p-hacking probably does not drastically alter scientific consensuses drawn from meta-analyses."
Vox article on p-hacking and on the replication crisis (in social science).
Undark article.
The paper that coined it. The abstract of which notes "[t]his result suggests that p-hacking probably does not drastically alter scientific consensuses drawn from meta-analyses."
Inflation bias, also known as “p-hacking” or “selective reporting,” is the misreporting of true effect sizes in published studies . It occurs when researchers try out several statistical analyses and/or data eligibility specifications and then selectively report those that produce significant results. Common practices that lead to p-hacking include: conducting analyses midway through experiments to decide whether to continue collecting data; recording many response variables and deciding which to report postanalysis, deciding whether to include or drop outliers postanalyses, excluding, combining, or splitting treatment groups postanalysis, including or excluding covariates postanalysis, and stopping data exploration if an analysis yields a significant p-value.posted by snuffleupagus at 5:35 AM on August 4, 2023 [7 favorites]
studies like this should be assumed to be false to begin with
I think this really bears repeating--especially when it comes to health and wellness studies, which seem to be the worst for this. The landscape is so full of holes that it's mostly holes.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 5:44 AM on August 4, 2023 [9 favorites]
I think this really bears repeating--especially when it comes to health and wellness studies, which seem to be the worst for this. The landscape is so full of holes that it's mostly holes.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 5:44 AM on August 4, 2023 [9 favorites]
Acknowledgements are a bit weird, the authors thank a whole bunch of P&G staff by name for their input. If you’re trying to state that the funding corp didn’t influence your interpretation of results, that’s not how you go about it.
I may be a bit bitter here, given that I run a research department where 3 laboratory spaces were taken by the facility and remodeled to create rooms dedicated to aromatherapy and meditation. I’m not saying these are inherently bad things, but it’s jarring to have funded biomedical research results on clinical trials or cutting edge experimental drug interventions now hanging up next to infographics telling potential participants that “therapy X is thought to realign the energy fluctuations naturally found in your body, creating healing”
Citation fucking needed.
posted by caution live frogs at 5:56 AM on August 4, 2023 [31 favorites]
I may be a bit bitter here, given that I run a research department where 3 laboratory spaces were taken by the facility and remodeled to create rooms dedicated to aromatherapy and meditation. I’m not saying these are inherently bad things, but it’s jarring to have funded biomedical research results on clinical trials or cutting edge experimental drug interventions now hanging up next to infographics telling potential participants that “therapy X is thought to realign the energy fluctuations naturally found in your body, creating healing”
Citation fucking needed.
posted by caution live frogs at 5:56 AM on August 4, 2023 [31 favorites]
Dear science and statistics people: Without, like, having to go back to college or learn math, are there any resources that are easy to understand, that teach people how to read studies like this and look for signs that there's something off about them? (Because I want the sommelier study referenced in this one to be true!)
Small study, sponsored by corporation with vested interest in PR about the outcome. Otherwise, you're just going to have to learn math.
posted by kingdead at 6:15 AM on August 4, 2023 [7 favorites]
Small study, sponsored by corporation with vested interest in PR about the outcome. Otherwise, you're just going to have to learn math.
posted by kingdead at 6:15 AM on August 4, 2023 [7 favorites]
A single peer reviewed and significant study means that someone ran a study, and saw something funny. It is not time to sraw a conclusion, but rather time to speculate and consider if it is worth looking into.
Dozens of studies on the same subject, almost all significant and peer reviewed, almost all agreeing and showing a large effect size, then consider changing behaviour.
Someone with no studies backing them making a claim, probably a snake oil salesman trying to fleece you, or someone con'd by one. They'll be very convincing.
It is possible for a single study to be so amazing you should change your behavoour: but unlikely enough that you can safely ignore the possibility.
posted by NotAYakk at 6:33 AM on August 4, 2023 [5 favorites]
Dozens of studies on the same subject, almost all significant and peer reviewed, almost all agreeing and showing a large effect size, then consider changing behaviour.
Someone with no studies backing them making a claim, probably a snake oil salesman trying to fleece you, or someone con'd by one. They'll be very convincing.
It is possible for a single study to be so amazing you should change your behavoour: but unlikely enough that you can safely ignore the possibility.
posted by NotAYakk at 6:33 AM on August 4, 2023 [5 favorites]
it’s jarring to have funded biomedical research results on clinical trials or cutting edge experimental drug interventions now hanging up next to infographics telling potential participants that “therapy X is thought to realign the energy fluctuations naturally found in your body, creating healing”
WAIT A MINUTE they replaced an actual medical laboratory with the GEM ROOM from the spa only without the gems?
The fuck are they thinking? This world is coming to an end!
posted by kingdead at 6:57 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
WAIT A MINUTE they replaced an actual medical laboratory with the GEM ROOM from the spa only without the gems?
The fuck are they thinking? This world is coming to an end!
posted by kingdead at 6:57 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
WAIT A MINUTE they replaced an actual medical laboratory with the GEM ROOM from the spa only without the gems?
The fuck are they thinking? This world is coming to an end!
Did this piece of depravity occur in Florida? Because "They replaced [practical/sensible/decent thing] with [lethally stupid thing]? The fuck are they thinking? This world is coming to an end!" is basically shorthand for everything that happens in Florida since... I guess since Bob Graham was governor. I expect Ladapo to start enforcing mandatory Febreze treatments in nursing homes within the next week or so.
posted by Don Pepino at 7:07 AM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
The fuck are they thinking? This world is coming to an end!
Did this piece of depravity occur in Florida? Because "They replaced [practical/sensible/decent thing] with [lethally stupid thing]? The fuck are they thinking? This world is coming to an end!" is basically shorthand for everything that happens in Florida since... I guess since Bob Graham was governor. I expect Ladapo to start enforcing mandatory Febreze treatments in nursing homes within the next week or so.
posted by Don Pepino at 7:07 AM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
Methodology Queens > Methodology Jesters
posted by fluttering hellfire at 7:55 AM on August 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by fluttering hellfire at 7:55 AM on August 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Flug - THANK YOU for looking at the data. the chart you linked to is super relevant to interpreting the breathless way this was reported in the popular press. That's one, ONE, of the cognitive measures that showed a difference between the control and the treatment group and I see no evidence that the authors controlled the p value for the multiple tests they performed. I really wish that science reporting was better and it would be fabulous if something as minor as this made a difference.
I don't have access to the original paper but the press report states there are differences in "brain scans". More details would've been useful.
posted by bluesky43 at 8:21 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
I don't have access to the original paper but the press report states there are differences in "brain scans". More details would've been useful.
posted by bluesky43 at 8:21 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
Dunno. Adjusting for multiple comparisons is usually beside the point and kinda like adding more hot sauce to shitty tasting food. If they got a p value of .00000001, this study should move your beliefs the exact same amount as it does now (meaning not at all).
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:36 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 8:36 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
Adjusting for multiple comparisons is... kinda like adding more hot sauce to shitty tasting food
i...don't understand the analogy. correcting for multiple comparisons is a pretty standard way to control the risk of type I (false positive) errors, although there are different correction methods. it's not a way to 'sexy up' otherwise blah results.
a study reporting marginal p values without multiple comparison corrections omitted those corrections because their results wouldn't have been significant with them, i.e., p-hacking. It's pretty hard to p-hack your way from a non-significant value to p=0.00000001. If I saw a p-value that low I'd suspect the effect was real even if the mechanisms were poorly explained.
posted by logicpunk at 9:09 AM on August 4, 2023
i...don't understand the analogy. correcting for multiple comparisons is a pretty standard way to control the risk of type I (false positive) errors, although there are different correction methods. it's not a way to 'sexy up' otherwise blah results.
a study reporting marginal p values without multiple comparison corrections omitted those corrections because their results wouldn't have been significant with them, i.e., p-hacking. It's pretty hard to p-hack your way from a non-significant value to p=0.00000001. If I saw a p-value that low I'd suspect the effect was real even if the mechanisms were poorly explained.
posted by logicpunk at 9:09 AM on August 4, 2023
Otherwise, you're just going to have to learn math.
Mittens, I don't think "learning math" is necessary to get some sense of the hallmarks of suspect statistical analysis. The Vox and Undark articles cited by Snuffleupagus both talk in plain English what bad analyses look like without going into how the numbers are arrived at.
posted by ALeaflikeStructure at 9:18 AM on August 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Mittens, I don't think "learning math" is necessary to get some sense of the hallmarks of suspect statistical analysis. The Vox and Undark articles cited by Snuffleupagus both talk in plain English what bad analyses look like without going into how the numbers are arrived at.
posted by ALeaflikeStructure at 9:18 AM on August 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
What about exposing people to scents from childhood? Hay, mom’s discontinued Avon perfume, grass, popcorn? Scents often produce nostalgia.
posted by Ideefixe at 9:33 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Ideefixe at 9:33 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
i thought the nose is just a giant chemical detector. when a molecule fits the axon fires. very hard to believe how scent molecules entering randomly could "dramatically" improve cognition?
The signal from the axon firing goes to the olfactory bulb in the brain; sensory information begins at the sense organs, but only as a signal, the interpretation of that signal happens in the brain. Same with what happens with your eyes and ears.
The rest of this is very broad information from being in some courses on neuroscience and sensory processing a long time ago, and working for a few years around dementia - I'm no neuroscientist, so I may be wrong in some aspects. The olfactory bulb is also sends signals to the amygdala and the hippocampus - structures that are involved in memory, as well as emotional response/regulation. A lot of smells are often very good at evoking memory and emotional response for that reason.
Loss of smell is considered a potential early warning sign of Alzheimer's disease, as that starts in the hippocampus and spreads outward - and the olfactory bulb is nearby (at least that's how it was explained to me). More generally speaking, my understanding is that it is more that the inflammation in the brain that is occurring with/is a contributing factor to Alzheimer's starts to disrupt the function of nearby brain structures.
All of this is going a long way around to say that I kind of understand where the idea for this study might have come from; it seems to be wanting to explore the idea of increasing stimulation of the olfactory system in the brain as a means of preventing/reducing cognitive decline as we age - and their lit review seems to indicate some evidence for scents helping with cognition (I'm not going to pile through all of the studies they cite). However, this study feels like a very weak attempt at exploring that - a very small sample size (heavily impacted by COVID-19, as they started out with 132), and for other reasons discussed in this thread.
Really, I guess I just wanted to point out that our sensory information is processed in the brain, and that changes/deficits in that processing can indicate the development and/or progression of problems in the brain; what isn't clear yet is if increasing sensory stimulation can provide any long term benefits as a preventative or therapeutic method.
posted by nubs at 9:34 AM on August 4, 2023 [9 favorites]
The signal from the axon firing goes to the olfactory bulb in the brain; sensory information begins at the sense organs, but only as a signal, the interpretation of that signal happens in the brain. Same with what happens with your eyes and ears.
The rest of this is very broad information from being in some courses on neuroscience and sensory processing a long time ago, and working for a few years around dementia - I'm no neuroscientist, so I may be wrong in some aspects. The olfactory bulb is also sends signals to the amygdala and the hippocampus - structures that are involved in memory, as well as emotional response/regulation. A lot of smells are often very good at evoking memory and emotional response for that reason.
Loss of smell is considered a potential early warning sign of Alzheimer's disease, as that starts in the hippocampus and spreads outward - and the olfactory bulb is nearby (at least that's how it was explained to me). More generally speaking, my understanding is that it is more that the inflammation in the brain that is occurring with/is a contributing factor to Alzheimer's starts to disrupt the function of nearby brain structures.
All of this is going a long way around to say that I kind of understand where the idea for this study might have come from; it seems to be wanting to explore the idea of increasing stimulation of the olfactory system in the brain as a means of preventing/reducing cognitive decline as we age - and their lit review seems to indicate some evidence for scents helping with cognition (I'm not going to pile through all of the studies they cite). However, this study feels like a very weak attempt at exploring that - a very small sample size (heavily impacted by COVID-19, as they started out with 132), and for other reasons discussed in this thread.
Really, I guess I just wanted to point out that our sensory information is processed in the brain, and that changes/deficits in that processing can indicate the development and/or progression of problems in the brain; what isn't clear yet is if increasing sensory stimulation can provide any long term benefits as a preventative or therapeutic method.
posted by nubs at 9:34 AM on August 4, 2023 [9 favorites]
Going back to what flug and paimapi were saying upthread, for the sake of the journalists and general public I’d suggest we add an acronym that goes at the beginning of each research publication title that can set expectations:
Intriguing observation - IO
Exploratory/small pilot study - EPS/ SPS
Randomized follow-up research - RFR
Large-scale randomized trial - LRT
I think you’d want to run the wording by scientists from a bunch of different disciplines to make sure they make sense, and also check that the ordinality is obvious to laypeople from multiple cultural backgrounds. Bonus points if it’s possible to set objective thresholds between the categories like a p-value, but it would have some utility even if just selected by the authoring team. Maybe Arxiv could start requiring it and then other journals pick it up as well.
posted by puffinaria at 9:42 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
Intriguing observation - IO
Exploratory/small pilot study - EPS/ SPS
Randomized follow-up research - RFR
Large-scale randomized trial - LRT
I think you’d want to run the wording by scientists from a bunch of different disciplines to make sure they make sense, and also check that the ordinality is obvious to laypeople from multiple cultural backgrounds. Bonus points if it’s possible to set objective thresholds between the categories like a p-value, but it would have some utility even if just selected by the authoring team. Maybe Arxiv could start requiring it and then other journals pick it up as well.
posted by puffinaria at 9:42 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: Ruining the placebo effect since 1999
posted by gwint at 9:43 AM on August 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by gwint at 9:43 AM on August 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
Someone just tell me what scent of candles to light by my bed tonight.
posted by GoblinHoney at 9:45 AM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by GoblinHoney at 9:45 AM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
Whatever makes you happiest, GoblinHoney.
posted by nubs at 9:50 AM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by nubs at 9:50 AM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
wow thanks for that Vox link, snuffleupagus, what a great clear explanation of what the heck a p-value is
feel like this could and should be taught in grade school; I actually have learned a bunch of college-level math but most of it was focused on how to find the volume of a conical basin or a beveled dowel, with the exception of one discrete math class where we learned how to calculate the probability of various random events (which I think should be taught in high school also)
in general, in the U.S. at least, the type of literacy required for a basic understanding of any scientific study seems really rarely taught to people who don't themselves have to produce any scientific studies, and without it you're relegated to using bullshit-detector techniques on whatever the layperson summary from whatever publication winds up being, which is much less concrete an endeavor
posted by taquito sunrise at 10:11 AM on August 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
feel like this could and should be taught in grade school; I actually have learned a bunch of college-level math but most of it was focused on how to find the volume of a conical basin or a beveled dowel, with the exception of one discrete math class where we learned how to calculate the probability of various random events (which I think should be taught in high school also)
in general, in the U.S. at least, the type of literacy required for a basic understanding of any scientific study seems really rarely taught to people who don't themselves have to produce any scientific studies, and without it you're relegated to using bullshit-detector techniques on whatever the layperson summary from whatever publication winds up being, which is much less concrete an endeavor
posted by taquito sunrise at 10:11 AM on August 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
It's pretty hard to p-hack your way from a non-significant value to p=0.00000001. If I saw a p-value that low I'd suspect the effect was real even if the mechanisms were poorly explained.
It ain't that hard, it happens all the time. P-values are near useless and more of a proxy for sample size than anything, in small samples they are absolutely uninformative. See Gelman, as always:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2017/02/06/not-kill-statistical-significance-makes-stronger-fallacy/
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:12 AM on August 4, 2023
It ain't that hard, it happens all the time. P-values are near useless and more of a proxy for sample size than anything, in small samples they are absolutely uninformative. See Gelman, as always:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2017/02/06/not-kill-statistical-significance-makes-stronger-fallacy/
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:12 AM on August 4, 2023
There's an irony in math at the HS and college level where prob/stats (outside of actual quantitative research methods classes) is taken along with geology ('rocks for jocks') as an alternative to trig and/or calculus (and bio, chem, physics etc). And doesn't venture far beyond the basics.
And I actually took a quantitative methods class, earned sociology honors, and can no longer remember how even something like ANOVA works. Or how to calculate combinations and permutations without refreshing my memory.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:31 AM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
And I actually took a quantitative methods class, earned sociology honors, and can no longer remember how even something like ANOVA works. Or how to calculate combinations and permutations without refreshing my memory.
posted by snuffleupagus at 10:31 AM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
Don Pepino: "Did this piece of depravity occur in Florida?"
No... and I do want to stress that I have no real objection to approaching medical care from a holistic perspective, I just cannot accept woo explanations when we are trying to do real biomedical research in the same facility. If meditation is clinically proven to reduce resting heart rate, or decrease stress as determined by measurement of circulating cortisol, or what have you, then say that, don't use magical mystical language to explain how it works. That hurts everyone.
I have to catch myself before referring to the space as the "crystal healing center". I can't officially disparage the place, even if I personally feel that it's unscientific and would better be used as space for all the clinical study coordinators we can't find room to seat.
Back on the science track though, intranasal delivery is actually a thing. For good (efficient delivery of drugs!), or for bad (potential for environmental pollution nanoparticles to enter your central nervous system!). The olfactory nerves are a direct track into your brain, so be careful what you shove up there.
posted by caution live frogs at 10:41 AM on August 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
No... and I do want to stress that I have no real objection to approaching medical care from a holistic perspective, I just cannot accept woo explanations when we are trying to do real biomedical research in the same facility. If meditation is clinically proven to reduce resting heart rate, or decrease stress as determined by measurement of circulating cortisol, or what have you, then say that, don't use magical mystical language to explain how it works. That hurts everyone.
I have to catch myself before referring to the space as the "crystal healing center". I can't officially disparage the place, even if I personally feel that it's unscientific and would better be used as space for all the clinical study coordinators we can't find room to seat.
Back on the science track though, intranasal delivery is actually a thing. For good (efficient delivery of drugs!), or for bad (potential for environmental pollution nanoparticles to enter your central nervous system!). The olfactory nerves are a direct track into your brain, so be careful what you shove up there.
posted by caution live frogs at 10:41 AM on August 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
It ain't that hard, it happens all the time
...citation? p-hacking to get past the 0.05 threshold, sure, it's common. p-hacking from p>0.05 to p=0.0000001, i doubt it happens at all. the number of analyses you'd have to perform to get there is prohibitive.
posted by logicpunk at 10:51 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
...citation? p-hacking to get past the 0.05 threshold, sure, it's common. p-hacking from p>0.05 to p=0.0000001, i doubt it happens at all. the number of analyses you'd have to perform to get there is prohibitive.
posted by logicpunk at 10:51 AM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
I think mittens asks a really tough question. I did an undergraduate degree in math, and then I went to graduate school where I took a year-long course on statistics for experimental design. My professor was a Gelman type, though maybe not as much of a crusader--but he was very concerned that we finish the course being able to use and interpret statistics smartly. And I still often don't have the bandwidth to dig into the statistics on these studies.
There aren't simple rules of thumb here. For example, a small sample size can be a red flag, but what counts as "small" depends on what type of analysis you're doing and what type of effect there is. If you feed 10 people arsenic and they all die, you don't need to feed 100 more arsenic to guess that it's probably the arsenic. Conversely, a big sample size doesn't necessarily mean a good study; a sample can be biased, the authors could have fished for correlations until they found one, etc.
You really do need statistical knowledge to evaluate the reliability of studies that use statistics. There's no easy way around it. The replication crisis is primarily about the statistics: misinterpretation of statistics, manipulation of statistics (not always intentional; some is just how the publishing system works). You might not have the knowledge--or bandwidth--to do that.
In general, my rule of thumb for evaluating a study itself is:
If the study is claiming to have found a new effect and it's not a pre-registered study, it's automatically suspicious. I'll wait until I develop a reason to believe it's probably a real effect, such as further corroborating studies, a strong design (that I've taken the time to look at), etc.
And for evaluating coverage of a study:
* Is the coverage published in a venue with a reputation for good science coverage?
(This article: No.)
* Is the headline clickbait?
(This article: Yes.)
* Does the coverage include information about the experimental design?
(This article: Limited.)
* Does the coverage use language that treats the results as a proving an effect?
(This article: Yes.)
* Does the coverage include reactions from other scientists in the field?
(This article: No.)
Good science reporting is pretty rare--it takes time and knowledge to evaluate a study and how it relates to the larger scientific picture. These days, I've mostly seen it in long-form journalism and specialty publications. So what happens instead is that we get what's commonly called "science by press release", or journalists basing their stories on press releases about the research. It's easy, it's fast, and it sells well especially when it can be spun into life advice for the audience, like smell things, or eat this food, or avoid this toxin. It should mostly be thrown in the bin.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:12 AM on August 4, 2023 [16 favorites]
There aren't simple rules of thumb here. For example, a small sample size can be a red flag, but what counts as "small" depends on what type of analysis you're doing and what type of effect there is. If you feed 10 people arsenic and they all die, you don't need to feed 100 more arsenic to guess that it's probably the arsenic. Conversely, a big sample size doesn't necessarily mean a good study; a sample can be biased, the authors could have fished for correlations until they found one, etc.
You really do need statistical knowledge to evaluate the reliability of studies that use statistics. There's no easy way around it. The replication crisis is primarily about the statistics: misinterpretation of statistics, manipulation of statistics (not always intentional; some is just how the publishing system works). You might not have the knowledge--or bandwidth--to do that.
In general, my rule of thumb for evaluating a study itself is:
If the study is claiming to have found a new effect and it's not a pre-registered study, it's automatically suspicious. I'll wait until I develop a reason to believe it's probably a real effect, such as further corroborating studies, a strong design (that I've taken the time to look at), etc.
And for evaluating coverage of a study:
* Is the coverage published in a venue with a reputation for good science coverage?
(This article: No.)
* Is the headline clickbait?
(This article: Yes.)
* Does the coverage include information about the experimental design?
(This article: Limited.)
* Does the coverage use language that treats the results as a proving an effect?
(This article: Yes.)
* Does the coverage include reactions from other scientists in the field?
(This article: No.)
Good science reporting is pretty rare--it takes time and knowledge to evaluate a study and how it relates to the larger scientific picture. These days, I've mostly seen it in long-form journalism and specialty publications. So what happens instead is that we get what's commonly called "science by press release", or journalists basing their stories on press releases about the research. It's easy, it's fast, and it sells well especially when it can be spun into life advice for the audience, like smell things, or eat this food, or avoid this toxin. It should mostly be thrown in the bin.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 11:12 AM on August 4, 2023 [16 favorites]
I'm really interested in this because I'm living with and caring for my soon-to-be 88-year-old mother. She hasn't been diagnosed with dementia, but we are both aware that she doesn't think as well as she used to.
She found this study in the popular press, I read a summary of it, and thought yeah sure, why not try it. I have leftover essential oils from when I was a massage therapist. So far, the only effect has been negative--we both felt nauseated when I diffused a spice blend. I think maybe I used too much oil.
There also isn't good information about the effect on pets, and we have 2 kitties and a macaw. Parrots have sensitive air sacs and I think it's probably not a good idea to diffuse essential oils around them, just in case.
We're now planning to use the oils by simply moisturizing her hands with a drop or two added to the moisturizer. Then she can sniff them whenever she wants. Or maybe a swipe of Vaseline under her nose.
It seems plausible to me that being exposed to more scents might help cognition. To respond to the person complaining about how prevalent many artificial scents are, yeah but a lot of older people really don't smell that well anymore. It may take a stronger scent, or one they aren't habituated to, for them to smell anything.
There is what I believe to be good research showing that older people who have hearing loss preserve more cognition when they use hearing aids. This seems similar to me, where a loss or significant reduction in a sense might be harmful to cognition. As much as we tend to view thinking as abstract and happening all inside our mind, processing sensory input from the outside world is a major activity of the brain.
Lastly, I am very much aware of and concerned by the role of capitalism and publish or perish pressure on scientists. But I'd also ask some of the folks in this thread to consider that by the time a study has been replicated enough, an older person who could have possibly benefited may be gone. I see nothing wrong with simply trying out possibilities, especially if they have no demonstrated bad side effects.
posted by Flock of Cynthiabirds at 12:58 PM on August 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
She found this study in the popular press, I read a summary of it, and thought yeah sure, why not try it. I have leftover essential oils from when I was a massage therapist. So far, the only effect has been negative--we both felt nauseated when I diffused a spice blend. I think maybe I used too much oil.
There also isn't good information about the effect on pets, and we have 2 kitties and a macaw. Parrots have sensitive air sacs and I think it's probably not a good idea to diffuse essential oils around them, just in case.
We're now planning to use the oils by simply moisturizing her hands with a drop or two added to the moisturizer. Then she can sniff them whenever she wants. Or maybe a swipe of Vaseline under her nose.
It seems plausible to me that being exposed to more scents might help cognition. To respond to the person complaining about how prevalent many artificial scents are, yeah but a lot of older people really don't smell that well anymore. It may take a stronger scent, or one they aren't habituated to, for them to smell anything.
There is what I believe to be good research showing that older people who have hearing loss preserve more cognition when they use hearing aids. This seems similar to me, where a loss or significant reduction in a sense might be harmful to cognition. As much as we tend to view thinking as abstract and happening all inside our mind, processing sensory input from the outside world is a major activity of the brain.
Lastly, I am very much aware of and concerned by the role of capitalism and publish or perish pressure on scientists. But I'd also ask some of the folks in this thread to consider that by the time a study has been replicated enough, an older person who could have possibly benefited may be gone. I see nothing wrong with simply trying out possibilities, especially if they have no demonstrated bad side effects.
posted by Flock of Cynthiabirds at 12:58 PM on August 4, 2023 [4 favorites]
The information about p-hacking is really interesting!
Skimming the study, I side-eyed small numbers in the Results section
We found that 3 of 11 Controls improved, 1 of 11 stayed the same, 7 of 11 did worse. Among the Enriched group, 6 of 12 improved, 5 of 12 stayed the same, 1 of 12 did worse.
posted by readinghippo at 12:59 PM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
Skimming the study, I side-eyed small numbers in the Results section
We found that 3 of 11 Controls improved, 1 of 11 stayed the same, 7 of 11 did worse. Among the Enriched group, 6 of 12 improved, 5 of 12 stayed the same, 1 of 12 did worse.
posted by readinghippo at 12:59 PM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
This article isn't science, it's advertising. Even if the results weren't complete trash, and there was some effect (however small or barely significant), the press release would still be best classified and understood as advertising. The purpose of the press release is not, nor was ever intended to be, about pushing a research agenda or broadening the scope of human knowledge. The purpose of this advertisement, paid for by a large manufacturer of scented products, is to put the idea in your head that you should buy some scented products. And no doubt that strategy has already worked here on Metafilter, not to mention all the other places this press release was allowed to stand. All of the discussion of statistics is falling into basically the same trap as the credulous sharing of the press release to begin with. There is no productive conversation to be had below the standing link that does not buy into the manipulation that was intended by the creation of this advertisement. We are all worse off for having been exposed.
This post should be classified as pepsi-blue and deleted by the mods.
posted by grog at 1:12 PM on August 4, 2023 [7 favorites]
This post should be classified as pepsi-blue and deleted by the mods.
posted by grog at 1:12 PM on August 4, 2023 [7 favorites]
But I'd also ask some of the folks in this thread to consider that by the time a study has been replicated enough, an older person who could have possibly benefited may be gone.
There's no reason for you to assume that we haven't considered this. Being skeptical or even angry about the proliferation of bad health science doesn't mean we have less experience with aging, that we care less about aging people, that we have not considered the possibility that actually effective treatments might come too late for people we love. In fact, for me personally, it makes me more angry because this is one of the most traumatic ways to lose a parent and our terror makes us so vulnerable.
I see nothing wrong with simply trying out possibilities, especially if they have no demonstrated bad side effects.
On an individual level, adding a couple of drops of an essential oil to a lotion might not do any harm--though essential oils are often not as safe as people assume, thinking that since they're "natural" it "can't hurt to try."
On a broader, society-wide level, however, the proliferation of bad science does a disservice to us all. The article that sells you the hope that sniffing lavender will help slow your aging parents' cognitive decline is a part of the same systemic problem that leaves laypeople unable to tell good science from bad, that leaves people vulnerable to scammers and grifters, that contributes to the growth of multi-billion dollar unregulated industries that do very little to actually improve our lives, and that makes good science harder to do. And of course, sometimes it can hurt to try; laypeople are often not equipped to evaluate the risks.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 1:30 PM on August 4, 2023 [13 favorites]
There's no reason for you to assume that we haven't considered this. Being skeptical or even angry about the proliferation of bad health science doesn't mean we have less experience with aging, that we care less about aging people, that we have not considered the possibility that actually effective treatments might come too late for people we love. In fact, for me personally, it makes me more angry because this is one of the most traumatic ways to lose a parent and our terror makes us so vulnerable.
I see nothing wrong with simply trying out possibilities, especially if they have no demonstrated bad side effects.
On an individual level, adding a couple of drops of an essential oil to a lotion might not do any harm--though essential oils are often not as safe as people assume, thinking that since they're "natural" it "can't hurt to try."
On a broader, society-wide level, however, the proliferation of bad science does a disservice to us all. The article that sells you the hope that sniffing lavender will help slow your aging parents' cognitive decline is a part of the same systemic problem that leaves laypeople unable to tell good science from bad, that leaves people vulnerable to scammers and grifters, that contributes to the growth of multi-billion dollar unregulated industries that do very little to actually improve our lives, and that makes good science harder to do. And of course, sometimes it can hurt to try; laypeople are often not equipped to evaluate the risks.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 1:30 PM on August 4, 2023 [13 favorites]
The purpose of this advertisement, paid for by a large manufacturer of scented products, is to put the idea in your head that you should buy some scented products. No doubt that strategy has already worked here on Metafilter.
Really, has it? I don't see anyone in this thread saying they've bought scented products because of reading about this study. Being so science-based, don't you need some actual evidence to back up that assertion? You don't even have self-report. Yet, your assertion is "no doubt" true. Hmmm.
posted by Flock of Cynthiabirds at 2:24 PM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
Really, has it? I don't see anyone in this thread saying they've bought scented products because of reading about this study. Being so science-based, don't you need some actual evidence to back up that assertion? You don't even have self-report. Yet, your assertion is "no doubt" true. Hmmm.
posted by Flock of Cynthiabirds at 2:24 PM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
Does this not count?:
Luckily it's an easy and inexpensive thing people can try to see if it helps their sleep!
essential oils are a cheap thing to try to see if it improves sleep - I know I'm going to experiment with it, I lurve sleep!
Sure, they haven’t done it yet and are just expressing the intention to, but I don’t really see the relevance of that distinction, and it certainly appears (with evidence!) that “no doubt that strategy has already worked here on Metafilter”.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 2:46 PM on August 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Luckily it's an easy and inexpensive thing people can try to see if it helps their sleep!
essential oils are a cheap thing to try to see if it improves sleep - I know I'm going to experiment with it, I lurve sleep!
Sure, they haven’t done it yet and are just expressing the intention to, but I don’t really see the relevance of that distinction, and it certainly appears (with evidence!) that “no doubt that strategy has already worked here on Metafilter”.
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 2:46 PM on August 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
As Kingdead has already said, having a pleasant-smelling sleeping environment shouldn't be controversial. Advertising fragrance diffusers as evidence-based tools for improving sleep and cognition would be very bad. Experimenting with different pillows, covers, light levels, fan arrangements, and, yes, scents to improve your own sleep? Perfectly reasonable.
posted by ALeaflikeStructure at 3:11 PM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by ALeaflikeStructure at 3:11 PM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
Loss of smell is considered a potential early warning sign of Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease.
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:11 PM on August 4, 2023
posted by Iris Gambol at 3:11 PM on August 4, 2023
Thank god the essential oil industry has some all-natural products that will treat Parkinson’s!
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 3:30 PM on August 4, 2023
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 3:30 PM on August 4, 2023
My Dad is in his mid 70s, and has rapidly advancing Parkinsons, and dementia (that I am not persuaded is not Alzheimers, given family history), among other issues.
I am not the kind of person to have a reaction to this study beyond, "huh, interesting, maybe there's something there, probably not." But if I was, and were I his primary caregiver and inclined to spend 30 seconds a night during an already involved routine to plop some oil into a diffuser, or swab it on a pillow, then it would not be the VOCs that would ultimately do him in.
Conceptually, at the most basic level, it's sending more varied olfactory signals than would normally be received when the brain is sleeping and smelling your pillow and your bedding and your hair and your face. And, perhaps, under less processing demand.
Given all the time my Dad spends either in his TV room or in bed—almost exclusively—it could just amount to compensatory olfactory stimulus, combating dulled senses and time spent in two rooms, rarely going outside, etc, trying to keep those neural pathways lit up.
Not science, but potentially compatible with my impressions of what's going on with a human I've known literally my whole life.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:53 PM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
I am not the kind of person to have a reaction to this study beyond, "huh, interesting, maybe there's something there, probably not." But if I was, and were I his primary caregiver and inclined to spend 30 seconds a night during an already involved routine to plop some oil into a diffuser, or swab it on a pillow, then it would not be the VOCs that would ultimately do him in.
Conceptually, at the most basic level, it's sending more varied olfactory signals than would normally be received when the brain is sleeping and smelling your pillow and your bedding and your hair and your face. And, perhaps, under less processing demand.
Given all the time my Dad spends either in his TV room or in bed—almost exclusively—it could just amount to compensatory olfactory stimulus, combating dulled senses and time spent in two rooms, rarely going outside, etc, trying to keep those neural pathways lit up.
Not science, but potentially compatible with my impressions of what's going on with a human I've known literally my whole life.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:53 PM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
Well, I am inspired by the idea that scent can be enriching, even if not perhaps by the notion that a Glade plug-in in the bedroom might replace someone's sudoku or ballroom dance class.
For all that I've experienced how scent readily evokes rich emotionally-toned memories (and I've taken note that I seem to be the more keenly appreciative of smells after I've had a good ugly cry), I've recently reflected how smell is kind of a "forgotten sense" for me. Only now I begin to desire to improve my ability to distinguish scents, or the way I value this mode of perceiving the world.
It feels healthy to be engaging more of my brain/sensory apparatus, and to be attentive to another dimension of the world that's around me daily. I just took this post to be the Universe's low-key encouragement for me to keep doing that, and I don't know why I'd spare any fucks about it otherwise.
(Olfactory specialist begs Americans: smell these three scents every day.)
posted by Ana Kolou, Squirrel at 3:55 PM on August 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
For all that I've experienced how scent readily evokes rich emotionally-toned memories (and I've taken note that I seem to be the more keenly appreciative of smells after I've had a good ugly cry), I've recently reflected how smell is kind of a "forgotten sense" for me. Only now I begin to desire to improve my ability to distinguish scents, or the way I value this mode of perceiving the world.
It feels healthy to be engaging more of my brain/sensory apparatus, and to be attentive to another dimension of the world that's around me daily. I just took this post to be the Universe's low-key encouragement for me to keep doing that, and I don't know why I'd spare any fucks about it otherwise.
(Olfactory specialist begs Americans: smell these three scents every day.)
posted by Ana Kolou, Squirrel at 3:55 PM on August 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
I hate essential oils, don’t like most fragrances, suffer from high levels of chemical intolerance, and sleep on and in all cotton bedclothes with an air filter which has a powerful fan and is loaded with 7 pounds of activated carbon blowing directly toward my head.
But I think the idea behind this study has strong intrinsic plausibility
posted by jamjam at 3:56 PM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
But I think the idea behind this study has strong intrinsic plausibility
An epidemiological survey showed that the incidence of olfactory dysfunction is much higher than assumed previously. The estimated prevalence of hyposmia is up to 15% and functional anosmia is 5% in the general population.1 These disorders can result in malnutrition, food poisoning, weight loss, depression, and other disturbances.2All participants in this study were 60 or older, and we know that Alzheimer’s seems to begin in the hippocampus and parts of the brain directly connected to the nose, and is correlated with hyposmia and anosmia.
Odor receptors expressed in olfactory neuronal cilia within the olfactory epithelium detect odors first. Compared with all other cranial nerves, the olfactory nerve (ON) is unique due to its inherent ability to regenerate, and likely regenerates throughout the lifetime of a human.3 Several therapeutic strategies have been proposed based on ON plasticity, but the validity of most of those regimens is uncertain. Therefore, exploring ON mechanisms and finding new and efficacious treatment of olfactory dysfunction is a rational approach.
Olfactory training (OT) can be undertaken readily and has few side-effects. The basic principle is for patients to smell different odors repeatedly and in an organized manner over a long period of time.4 OT is realistic treatment with great potential in patients with olfactory dysfunction. Several studies have shown that olfactory dysfunction due to infection of the upper respiratory tract, trauma, neurologic disorders, or idiopathic disorders can be improved by OT, particularly for enhancement of the ability to discriminate and identify odors. The exact mechanism by which OT improves olfactory function is not clear. However, it is believed to be associated with neuroplasticity of the olfactory system, which provides a new idea for treatment of olfactory dysfunction.
posted by jamjam at 3:56 PM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
This is one of many studies - there is an existing body of work on what we would refer to as "aromatherapy" that does not bode well for its effectiveness.
posted by Selena777 at 4:16 PM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Selena777 at 4:16 PM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
metafilter: Ruining the placebo effect since 1999
I enjoyed reading the paper and learning more about the olfactory system and its unique link to the brain, but one thing I noted was that a study of scenty things, at least as set up here, is not a single-blind test. The control group got an unscented / minimally scented oil, while the experimental group got essential oils with a strong scent.
If there was a different outcome between the two, it could have been from the experimental group having a qualitatively different experience that they were aware of.
posted by zippy at 5:57 PM on August 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
I enjoyed reading the paper and learning more about the olfactory system and its unique link to the brain, but one thing I noted was that a study of scenty things, at least as set up here, is not a single-blind test. The control group got an unscented / minimally scented oil, while the experimental group got essential oils with a strong scent.
If there was a different outcome between the two, it could have been from the experimental group having a qualitatively different experience that they were aware of.
posted by zippy at 5:57 PM on August 4, 2023 [3 favorites]
Really, I guess I just wanted to point out that our sensory information is processed in the brain, and that changes/deficits in that processing can indicate the development and/or progression of problems in the brain; what isn't clear yet is if increasing sensory stimulation can provide any long term benefits as a preventative or therapeutic method.
Well said.
Preventative or therapeutic benefits aside, it can't hurt to go out and pick some lavender from the garden and make a sachet for my bedtable. I need to increase my positive sensory stimulation just in case.
I'd be thrilled to put a few drops of Ensmartifier in my CPAP machine's humidifier reservoir.
I'd just be happy to put something in my CPAP machine that would hide the machine and plastic smell when it starts up, and then keeps the hose from smelling like nasal funk in the morning.
posted by BlueHorse at 7:10 PM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
Well said.
Preventative or therapeutic benefits aside, it can't hurt to go out and pick some lavender from the garden and make a sachet for my bedtable. I need to increase my positive sensory stimulation just in case.
I'd be thrilled to put a few drops of Ensmartifier in my CPAP machine's humidifier reservoir.
I'd just be happy to put something in my CPAP machine that would hide the machine and plastic smell when it starts up, and then keeps the hose from smelling like nasal funk in the morning.
posted by BlueHorse at 7:10 PM on August 4, 2023 [1 favorite]
Nasal funk is the name of my Fran Drescher / Bootsy Collins tribute band.
posted by zippy at 7:35 PM on August 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by zippy at 7:35 PM on August 4, 2023 [6 favorites]
Sir Nose D Voidoffunk (Parliament, 1977)
i can dig it
this is the Starchild
on another day
chasing the noses away
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:43 PM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
i can dig it
this is the Starchild
on another day
chasing the noses away
posted by snuffleupagus at 7:43 PM on August 4, 2023 [2 favorites]
Something smells funny about this study...and I will soon be smart enough to figure out what it is.
posted by storybored at 8:54 PM on August 4, 2023
posted by storybored at 8:54 PM on August 4, 2023
Mod note: A couple removed. Attacking other members is not okay; also weird sideswipe at Chinese sites (why?) and complaints about other posts on mefi (why?). Please just discuss the article / study and try not to derail.
posted by taz (staff) at 1:45 AM on August 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 1:45 AM on August 5, 2023 [3 favorites]
I'm just sitting here enjoying the fact that it is now common practice to report effect sizes with your results. That was definitely not the case when my old ass was first learning to "do science".
posted by nixxon at 2:49 PM on August 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by nixxon at 2:49 PM on August 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
What do you mean you didn't learn to report effect sizes? You'd say survival of cancer patients increased or tumors shrank by a statistically significant amount, but not tell anyone what the amount was?
posted by mark k at 3:50 AM on August 6, 2023
posted by mark k at 3:50 AM on August 6, 2023
Does this not count?:
Luckily it's an easy and inexpensive thing people can try to see if it helps their sleep!
essential oils are a cheap thing to try to see if it improves sleep - I know I'm going to experiment with it, I lurve sleep!
No, it doesn't. I posted that I already had essential oils leftover from my massage practice, that were just gathering dust. I haven't bought anything. The person you quoted does not say they have bought anything either, and their goal seems to be sleep, not improved cognition for an older person.
You don't need to stomp out all discourse in order to make your points. It doesn't make you seem more scientific or right.
posted by Flock of Cynthiabirds at 8:29 PM on August 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
Luckily it's an easy and inexpensive thing people can try to see if it helps their sleep!
essential oils are a cheap thing to try to see if it improves sleep - I know I'm going to experiment with it, I lurve sleep!
No, it doesn't. I posted that I already had essential oils leftover from my massage practice, that were just gathering dust. I haven't bought anything. The person you quoted does not say they have bought anything either, and their goal seems to be sleep, not improved cognition for an older person.
You don't need to stomp out all discourse in order to make your points. It doesn't make you seem more scientific or right.
posted by Flock of Cynthiabirds at 8:29 PM on August 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
« Older The Learning Channel | Oldest Martian Meteorite on Earth Traced to Its... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tiny frying pan at 4:15 PM on August 3, 2023 [6 favorites]