Thanks, I appreciate the link. I’m a scientist by trade too, but not in a field where hazard ratios would be part of my repertoire.

My concern is not so much the quality of the publisher (though it’s nice to know) or whether they used methods that are standard for these kinds of studies, but rather whether the general public is coming to the correct conclusions given what the researchers did.

So based on just this little excerpt, it seems that there’s no casual relationship being established at all. They don’t seem to claim any casual relationship either. On the other hand, the psypost article talks about it as if they did.

https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000210286

I don’t have time to dive into this paper myself yet. Has anyone else been able to and can give a quick summary of that they did to infer the causal relationship from observational data?

Edit: Aaah, I don’t have access to the paper. I guess this isn’t happening.

I’m pretty sure amphetamines already do that and it’s much cheaper.