I think it's interesting that antidepressant medication normally comes with timing considerations and recommendations, but mainly to manage side effects, not because we understand how they work. Seems natural to think that more or less anything you put into your body will have an ideal time window depending on what you're hoping to achieve. I guess the question should always just be about how the effect size relates to practical considerations. For therapeutics, would be nice if this was included as a variable by default.
Unrelated interesting fact about medication timing is that the triple combination CF drug has a morning and night dose with different compositions. For some people the triple combo causes really bad neurological effects, brain fog depression etc. when they switch day and night doses, things get much better EXCEPT the patients often start getting really bad nightmares
Re the anomalies in the clinical trial registration record:
1. ChatGPT has misled you - trial was initially registered as an interventional trial.
2. The change to observational, and back again, happened over the course of a month (v.5->6->7). These version changes over this time generally improve the level of detail in the record. A second contact is removed from version 6->7, only the PI remains as a contact by version 7.
My interpretation: It looks like the more senior researcher is tidying up the registration details. Maybe they had delegated the task of updating the study details to their junior colleague in March, then checked a few weeks later to find it wasn’t accurately entered. I’m keeping in mind that this study is performed in China, so some of this could be a language translation issue.
3. The observational design (v6) was entered as
“observational model: case control
time perspective: prospective”
which… doesn’t make sense. You can’t prospectively identify your cases, as they yet don’t have an outcome.
I really don’t think that they were actually performing research with this study design, but rather- the changes could reasonably be attributed to either translation or administrative error.
Given the rapidity of the changes, the nature of the changes, and the other changes which occurred in the record at the same time - I think this likely reflects administrative errors in maintaining the clinical trial record, and not that the data was collected using entirely different study designs.
So, it’s not that insane that they didn’t report this in their abstract, … as it doesn’t seem likely that they changed the design of the study they actually performed to collect the data.
I think it's interesting that antidepressant medication normally comes with timing considerations and recommendations, but mainly to manage side effects, not because we understand how they work. Seems natural to think that more or less anything you put into your body will have an ideal time window depending on what you're hoping to achieve. I guess the question should always just be about how the effect size relates to practical considerations. For therapeutics, would be nice if this was included as a variable by default.
Unrelated interesting fact about medication timing is that the triple combination CF drug has a morning and night dose with different compositions. For some people the triple combo causes really bad neurological effects, brain fog depression etc. when they switch day and night doses, things get much better EXCEPT the patients often start getting really bad nightmares
Re the anomalies in the clinical trial registration record:
1. ChatGPT has misled you - trial was initially registered as an interventional trial.
2. The change to observational, and back again, happened over the course of a month (v.5->6->7). These version changes over this time generally improve the level of detail in the record. A second contact is removed from version 6->7, only the PI remains as a contact by version 7.
My interpretation: It looks like the more senior researcher is tidying up the registration details. Maybe they had delegated the task of updating the study details to their junior colleague in March, then checked a few weeks later to find it wasn’t accurately entered. I’m keeping in mind that this study is performed in China, so some of this could be a language translation issue.
3. The observational design (v6) was entered as
“observational model: case control
time perspective: prospective”
which… doesn’t make sense. You can’t prospectively identify your cases, as they yet don’t have an outcome.
I really don’t think that they were actually performing research with this study design, but rather- the changes could reasonably be attributed to either translation or administrative error.
Given the rapidity of the changes, the nature of the changes, and the other changes which occurred in the record at the same time - I think this likely reflects administrative errors in maintaining the clinical trial record, and not that the data was collected using entirely different study designs.
So, it’s not that insane that they didn’t report this in their abstract, … as it doesn’t seem likely that they changed the design of the study they actually performed to collect the data.