English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Disagreements in science and medicine are not uncommon, and formal exchanges of disagreements serve a variety of valuable roles. As identified by a  Nature Methods  editorial entitled “The Power of Disagreement” ( 2016 ), disagreements bring attention to best practices so that differences in interpretation do not result from inferior data sets or confirmation bias, “prompting researchers to take a second look at evidence that is not in agreement with their hypothesis, rather than dismiss it as artifacts.” Graver and Green published reasons why they disagree with a recent clinical case report and a decades old randomized control trial characterizing the effect of an acute 2 mg dosing of lorazepam on the Word Memory Test. In this article, we formally responded to their commentary to further clarify the reasons for our data interpretations. These two opposing views provide an excellent learning opportunity, particularly for students, demonstrating the importance of careful articulation of the rationale behind certain conclusions from different perspectives. We encourage careful review of the original articles being discussed so the neuropsychologists can read both positions and decide which interpretation of the findings they consider most sound.

Valid or not: A critique of Graver and Green