×
sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

115k
115k
BERJAYA

No evidence to support link between violent video games and behaviour - Researchers at the University of York have found no evidence to support the theory that video games make players more violent. (york.ac.uk)

submitted by mvea to r/science - pinned

114k
114k
BERJAYA

LED lights found to kill coronavirus efficiently, quickly, and cheaply, a global first in fight against COVID-19. The finding suggests the UV-LEDs can be installed in air conditioning and water systems. It requires less than half a minute to destroy more than 99.9% of coronaviruses. (aftau.org)

submitted by mvea to r/science - pinned

Grokipedia was launched by Elon Musk last October with a promise that the AI-written encyclopedia systematically “fixes” left-leaning biases in Wikipedia. New study found Grokipedia is selectively drawing on more-right leaning news sources on the topics of religion, history, literature and art. by mvea in science

[–]mvea[S] 84 points85 points  (0 children)

Grokipedia selectively drawing on more-right leaning news sources, new study

A large-scale analysis of Grokipedia, the world’s first AI-written encyclopedia, has found that while many Grokipedia articles closely resemble their Wikipedia counterparts, a substantial subset diverged markedly in style, sourcing, and political leaning. 

Conducted by researchers at Trinity College Dublin and Technological University Dublin, the research compared nearly 18,000 of the most-edited English-language Wikipedia pages with articles on the same topic on the new Grokipedia platform.

The study is the largest academic analysis of Grokipedia since it was launched by Elon Musk last October with a promise that the AI-written encyclopedia systematically “fixes” left-leaning biases alleged to exist in the widely used online encyclopedia Wikipedia. 

Wikipedia’s content is written and maintained by volunteer editors, while Grokipedia is an AI-generated encyclopedia using the xAI’s Grok large language model.

What did the study find?

Using computational text analysis and machine learning methods, the team analysed articles on the same topic across Wikipedia and Grokipedia. Selection of topics was based on Wikipedia’s most-edited English-language pages. The team compared differences in writing style, structure, and the political orientation of external sources referenced in the paired articles. 

The researchers found a profound split – while many Grokipedia articles closely mirror Wikipedia, a substantial proportion (66%) of the 18,000 analysed are more extensively rewritten – they are longer, more complex, and rely on fewer references.

As a whole, articles on Grokipedia show similar political leaning to those on Wikipedia, drawing on left-leaning news sources. However, when it comes to the politically and culturally sensitive topics of religion, history, literature and art, Grokipedia shows a consistent shift toward referencing more right-leaning news sources compared to Wikipedia.

The study analysed Wikipedia’s most-edited English-language pages, a selection that likely overrepresents high-profile and contentious topics. That said the study, according to the authors, provides useful evidence of emerging differences between AI-generated and human-edited encyclopedic knowledge systems.

Details of the research, conducted at the joint Centre for Sociology of Humans and Machines (SOHAM) in Trinity and TU Dublin, have been published in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). 

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2603294123

1710
1711

Grokipedia was launched by Elon Musk last October with a promise that the AI-written encyclopedia systematically “fixes” left-leaning biases in Wikipedia. New study found Grokipedia is selectively drawing on more-right leaning news sources on the topics of religion, history, literature and art. (eurekalert.org)

submitted by mvea to r/science

US state-level abortion bans are associated with a reduction in evidence-based medical care for miscarriage management. This means more women were forced to carry pregnancies that weren’t viable, potentially putting their health and fertility at risk and prolonging the grief of a lost pregnancy. by mvea in science

[–]mvea[S] 150 points151 points  (0 children)

Research from Oregon Health & Science University sheds new light on the unintended consequences of the overturn of Roe v. Wade: worse medical care for miscarriages.

Miscarriage — or the spontaneous, unexpected loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks — is the most common complication in early pregnancy. The study, published today in JAMA, found that state-level abortion bans were associated with a reduction in evidence-based medical care for miscarriage management.

Clinical impacts

Management of miscarriage requires the same medications and procedures used for abortion, including mifepristone and misoprostol, which in combination is proven to be safer and more effective than misoprostol alone.

In the retrospective cohort study, researchers used a national commercial insurance database to evaluate medical data from 123,598 individuals who experienced miscarriage prior to 10 weeks of pregnancy, between the years of 2018 and 2024.

Analysis showed that abortion bans were associated with a 2.8% increase in expectant management and a 2.2% decrease in medication management. Further, among those individuals who did receive medication, abortion ban states had a 13.8% increase in misoprostol-only regimens relative to the evidence-based mifepristone-plus-misoprostol combination.

This means more women were forced to carry pregnancies that weren’t viable, potentially putting their health and fertility at risk and prolonging the grief of a lost pregnancy.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2849131

10.9k
10.9k
BERJAYA

US state-level abortion bans are associated with a reduction in evidence-based medical care for miscarriage management. This means more women were forced to carry pregnancies that weren’t viable, potentially putting their health and fertility at risk and prolonging the grief of a lost pregnancy. (news.ohsu.edu)

submitted by mvea to r/science

Last September, President Donald Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and other health officials declared they had uncovered a new treatment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD): leucovorin. A new study shows that plenty of families believed them, despite the lack of data supporting the drug’s effectiveness. by mvea in science

[–]mvea[S] 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Trump and RFK Jr. Boosted This Unproven Autism Drug. Some Parents Listened

The FDA recently declined to endorse leucovorin for autism, citing a lack of strong evidence for it.

Last September, President Donald Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and other health officials declared they had uncovered a new, potentially groundbreaking treatment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD): the existing medication leucovorin. A study out today shows that plenty of families believed them.

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego examined nationwide prescription trends of the drug last year. The prescription rate of leucovorin among children with autism skyrocketed by late 2025, particularly following the September announcement, they found. The results indicate that Trump’s endorsement had significant influence on these families, the researchers say, despite the lack of data supporting the drug’s effectiveness.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2849124?guestAccessKey=8f5f7e19-8cef-44a4-a6ec-110d338fdfb6&utm\_source=for\_the\_media&utm\_medium=referral&utm\_campaign=ftm\_links&utm\_content=tfl&utm\_term=051826

15.8k
15.8k
BERJAYA

Last September, President Donald Trump, Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and other health officials declared they had uncovered a new treatment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD): leucovorin. A new study shows that plenty of families believed them, despite the lack of data supporting the drug’s effectiveness. (gizmodo.com)

submitted by mvea to r/science

Prescriptions for ivermectin and another antiparasitic drug among cancer patients shot up after actor Mel Gibson discussed an unproven treatment on Joe Rogan's popular podcast, according to a new study. by mvea in science

[–]mvea[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Cancer patients seek unproven antiparasitic treatments after actor's podcast appearance

Prescriptions for ivermectin and another antiparasitic drug among cancer patients shot up after actor Mel Gibson discussed an unproven treatment on Joe Rogan's popular podcast, according to a study published today in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers say these findings raise concerns about the potency of celebrity endorsement, which can encourage people with life-threatening illnesses to delay or forgo conventional care that's been confirmed to work in favor of unproven and arguably risky treatments.

Prescriptions increased 2.5 times in cancer patients

The study analyzed electronic medical records from 68,373,949 patients across 67 health systems in the United States in search of prescribing rates of ivermectin and benzimidazole. 

There have been no clinical trials on ivermectin-benzimidazole’s safety and efficacy for treating cancer in people. 

Some cell and animal studies show that the drugs can produce anti-cancer activity. But the dose needed to have even a small effect would typically be considered toxic for humans, said Skyler B. Johnson, MD, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute. Johnson wasn’t involved in the study but told CIDRAP News that he worries how ivermectin might affect the way the body processes cancer treatments and other medications.

Despite this lack of proof and possible danger, Gibson claimed on Rogan's podcast in January 2025 that a combination of ivermectin and benzimidazole cured cancer in several of his friends. 

The episode was viewed 60 million times within the first month, and prescribing rates of both medications rocketed. 

Prescribing doubled among all patients from January 1, 2025, to July 31, 2025, compared with January 1, 2024, to July 31, 2024. For cancer patients, rates were even higher, increasing 2.5 times. 

White patients, men, and people living in the South were most likely to have an ivermectin-benzimidazole prescription, according to the study. 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2848862?guestAccessKey=eac21d23-2f79-4327-9990-0f4531109b52&utm\_source=for\_the\_media&utm\_medium=referral&utm\_campaign=ftm\_links&utm\_content=tfl&utm\_term=051226

2577
2578
BERJAYA

Prescriptions for ivermectin and another antiparasitic drug among cancer patients shot up after actor Mel Gibson discussed an unproven treatment on Joe Rogan's popular podcast, according to a new study. (cidrap.umn.edu)

submitted by mvea to r/science

Scientists expected both liberals and conservatives to be reluctant to promote rhetoric associated with the opposing political side, but this was more consistent among liberals. Conservatives appeared relatively willing to support causes aligned with their views regardless of the moral framing used. by mvea in science

[–]mvea[S] 52 points53 points  (0 children)

Liberals hesitate to share progressive causes framed with conservative moral language

A new study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology suggests that the specific moral language used to promote a political cause can affect whether people are willing to share it on social media. The findings indicate that liberals are less likely to publicly support a cause they agree with if the messaging relies on values typically associated with conservatives. In contrast, conservatives appear to focus more on the underlying cause itself and share messages consistently regardless of the moral phrasing used.

“We expected both liberals and conservatives might be reluctant to promote rhetoric associated with the opposing political side, but the effect was much more consistent among liberals. Conservatives appeared relatively willing to support causes aligned with their views regardless of the specific moral framing used.”

“Our findings suggest that the way a message is morally framed can shape whether people are willing to publicly promote it online,” Gamez-Djokic said. “Across several studies, liberals were less willing to share messages supporting causes they agreed with when those messages used ‘binding’ moral rhetoric, language emphasizing values like purity, loyalty, authority, or tradition, which are often associated with conservatism.”

“Importantly, this did not necessarily mean liberals disagreed with the cause itself,” she said. “Instead, they appeared concerned about publicly amplifying rhetoric they perceived as ideologically associated with political opponents. Conservatives, by contrast, were generally less sensitive to whether messages used binding or individualizing moral language.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103126000235

7353
7354
BERJAYA

Scientists expected both liberals and conservatives to be reluctant to promote rhetoric associated with the opposing political side, but this was more consistent among liberals. Conservatives appeared relatively willing to support causes aligned with their views regardless of the moral framing used. (psypost.org)

submitted by mvea to r/science

Liberals are less likely to publicly support a cause they agree with if the messaging relies on values typically associated with conservatives. In contrast, conservatives appear to focus more on the underlying cause itself and share messages consistently regardless of the moral phrasing used. by [deleted] in science

[–]mvea 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Liberals hesitate to share progressive causes framed with conservative moral language

A new study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology suggests that the specific moral language used to promote a political cause can affect whether people are willing to share it on social media. The findings indicate that liberals are less likely to publicly support a cause they agree with if the messaging relies on values typically associated with conservatives. In contrast, conservatives appear to focus more on the underlying cause itself and share messages consistently regardless of the moral phrasing used.

The results showed a distinct asymmetry between the political groups. Liberals were significantly less willing to share the pro-abortion rights message when it used binding moral rhetoric compared to when it used individualizing rhetoric. Conservatives did not show this sensitivity to moral framing, as their willingness to share the anti-abortion rights message remained high and relatively stable regardless of the framing.

Liberals were much more willing to support the message against family separation when it used individualizing rhetoric rather than binding rhetoric, and there was some statistical evidence that this reluctance was slightly stronger in the public sharing condition.

Conservatives were largely unaffected by the moral framing of the border control message. They reported high willingness to support the cause across both public and private conditions, regardless of the rhetoric used. The researchers noted that conservatives might view both moral frameworks as compatible with their worldview, making them less sensitive to framing differences.

Participants read about a company engaging in either environmentally harmful practices or dismissive responses to sexual harassment allegations. These scenarios were paired with either individualizing or binding moral arguments. Participants then rated whether sharing the message would help spread liberal or conservative moral values to their social networks.

The authors found that liberals perceived binding rhetoric as strongly associated with conservative values. This perception was directly linked to their lower willingness to share the message. The researchers used a statistical model to show that these beliefs about ideological implications acted as a bridge, explaining why liberals held back.

“Our findings suggest that the way a message is morally framed can shape whether people are willing to publicly promote it online,” Gamez-Djokic said. “Across several studies, liberals were less willing to share messages supporting causes they agreed with when those messages used ‘binding’ moral rhetoric, language emphasizing values like purity, loyalty, authority, or tradition, which are often associated with conservatism.”

“Importantly, this did not necessarily mean liberals disagreed with the cause itself,” she said. “Instead, they appeared concerned about publicly amplifying rhetoric they perceived as ideologically associated with political opponents. Conservatives, by contrast, were generally less sensitive to whether messages used binding or individualizing moral language.”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103126000235

Racial resentment plays a major role in driving conservative political beliefs among White Americans who are not religiously conservative. Harboring racial resentment provides evidence of a conservative political shift among White religious moderates, liberals, and nonreligious individuals. by mvea in science

[–]mvea[S] 101 points102 points  (0 children)

How racial resentment relates to political conservatism across different White religious groups

A recent study published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion suggests that racial resentment plays a major role in driving conservative political beliefs among White Americans who are not religiously conservative. While White religious conservatives tend to support right-leaning policies regardless of their racial attitudes, harboring racial resentment provides evidence of a conservative political shift among White religious moderates, liberals, and nonreligious individuals.

The data revealed that White evangelical Protestants and those who view the Bible as the literal word of God tend to be highly politically conservative. “White evangelicals are highly likely to be politically conservative, so much so that there is little difference in the likelihood of being politically conservative between those with higher and lower levels of racial resentment,” Schwadel said. “We refer to this as a ceiling effect.”

“In other words, racial resentment cannot explain differences in the likelihood of being politically conservative among white evangelicals because they are almost all politically conservative,” Schwadel noted. For non-evangelical White Americans, the pattern looks quite different.

“Non-evangelical white Americans, on the other hand, are not particularly likely to be politically conservative,” Schwadel explained. “But, non-evangelical whites with higher levels of racial resentment are far more likely to be politically conservative than non-evangelical whites with lower levels of racial resentment.”

The study provides evidence that among White mainline Protestants, Catholics, affiliates of other religions, and nonreligious individuals, racial resentment is a strong predictor of conservative political views. “Looking at it another way, among those with low levels of racial resentment, white evangelicals are far more likely than white non-evangelicals to be politically conservative,” Schwadel added.

“Among those with high levels of racial resentment, there is little to no difference in the likelihood of being politically conservative between white evangelical and non-evangelical Americans,” Schwadel said. When people in moderate or liberal religious categories express high levels of racial prejudice, their political orientation closely matches the conservatism of evangelical Protestants.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jssr.70053

6337
6338
BERJAYA

Racial resentment plays a major role in driving conservative political beliefs among White Americans who are not religiously conservative. Harboring racial resentment provides evidence of a conservative political shift among White religious moderates, liberals, and nonreligious individuals. (psypost.org)

submitted by mvea to r/science

Early-career researchers do more ‘disruptive’ science than veterans. Analysis of millions of scientists shows that older researchers tend to stick with ideas from their past. This phenomenon, the nostalgia effect, can hold back scientific innovation, as scientists get hung up on ideas from the past. by mvea in science

[–]mvea[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Early-career researchers do more ‘disruptive’ science than veterans

Analysis of papers from millions of scientists shows that older researchers tend to stick with ideas from their past.

Experienced researchers are less likely to produce ‘disruptive’ science than are those just starting their careers, finds an analysis of the scientific papers published by 12.5 million researchers over 60 years. The authors discovered that older researchers are better at connecting existing ideas to produce new knowledge than are younger researchers. But those with more experience are worse at achieving massive breakthroughs that overhaul, or disrupt, entire fields of research — as happened with innovations such as the discovery of the structure of DNA.

The analysis, which was published today in Science1, also concludes that, as their careers progress, scientists are more likely to cite older papers than newer ones. This phenomenon, which the authors call the nostalgia effect, can hold back scientific innovation, they say, because scientists get hung up on ideas from the past and are not as receptive to new developments.

The finding isn’t surprising — it aligns with previous studies documenting a decades-long global decline in disruptive science as the scientific workforce ages, says Russell Funk, a sociologist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis who was not involved in the latest analysis. But it does identify a potential mechanism for the trend, he says. “Scientists become less disruptive as they age, and the scientific workforce is getting older, so the entire system is shifting toward a composition that favours consolidation [of existing ideas] over disruption,” he says.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ady8732

3044
3045
BERJAYA

Early-career researchers do more ‘disruptive’ science than veterans. Analysis of millions of scientists shows that older researchers tend to stick with ideas from their past. This phenomenon, the nostalgia effect, can hold back scientific innovation, as scientists get hung up on ideas from the past. (nature.com)

submitted by mvea to r/science

Feeling empty after finishing a video game (post-game depression) is a real phenomenon. A recent study has found that many video game players experience a specific sense of emptiness and sadness after finishing highly engaging games. by mvea in science

[–]mvea[S] 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Feeling empty after finishing a video game? Researchers say post-game depression is a real phenomenon

A recent study published in Current Psychology has found that many video game players experience a specific sense of emptiness and sadness after finishing highly engaging games. The research introduces a new psychological scale to measure this phenomenon, showing that post-game depression is linked to general depressive symptoms and difficulties in processing emotions. These findings offer new insights into how deeply immersive media can impact a person’s emotional well-being.

Video games are the third most popular leisure activity in the world. Modern video games are not solely designed to provide simple entertainment or pleasure. Many of these titles feature complex narratives that evoke deep emotions, existential reflection, and a profound sense of achievement.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-025-08515-2

17.6k
17.6k
BERJAYA

Feeling empty after finishing a video game (post-game depression) is a real phenomenon. A recent study has found that many video game players experience a specific sense of emptiness and sadness after finishing highly engaging games. (psypost.org)

submitted by mvea to r/science

1 in 3 people believe they don’t have to seek news from traditional outlets like newspapers and television. Instead, they think the “news will find me” (NFM), relying on algorithms and social networks to get information. This may make them more vulnerable to believing and sharing misinformation. by mvea in science

[–]mvea[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

‘News will find me’ mindset makes people trust algorithms and online networks

Researchers found that people who think “news will find me” tend to view their online networks as just as credible as professional journalists and editors. 

One in three people believe they don’t have to seek the news from traditional outlets like newspapers and television. Instead, they think the “news will find me” (NFM), relying on algorithms and social networks to get their information. A research team led by Penn State scholars recently found that these individuals often consider their online networks to be as trustworthy as professional editors and journalists.

This mindset may make people more vulnerable to believing and sharing misinformation, according to the researchers, who published their findings in the journal Social Media & Society.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20563051261434801

7248
7249
BERJAYA

1 in 3 people believe they don’t have to seek news from traditional outlets like newspapers and television. Instead, they think the “news will find me” (NFM), relying on algorithms and social networks to get information. This may make them more vulnerable to believing and sharing misinformation. (psu.edu)

submitted by mvea to r/science

Growing up in a disadvantaged environment not only hinders cognitive development but also weakens a person’s default willingness to trust others later in life. While higher intelligence generally makes people more trusting, early childhood adversity cuts this social benefit in half. by mvea in science

[–]mvea[S] 80 points81 points  (0 children)

Intelligence makes people more trusting, but early hardship cuts this benefit in half

Growing up in a disadvantaged environment not only hinders cognitive development but also weakens a person’s default willingness to trust others later in life. A recent study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletinreveals that while higher intelligence generally makes people more trusting, early childhood adversity cuts this social benefit in half. These findings suggest that childhood hardships create long-lasting barriers to social mobility by preventing individuals from reaping the typical rewards of their cognitive skills.

Trusting strangers is a fundamental requirement for a functioning society. Generalized trust is the basic belief that other people are generally reliable and will not exploit you. Economists and psychologists view this kind of trust as a foundation for cooperation, economic prosperity, and overall well-being. People who trust others are more likely to build strong networks and succeed in their careers.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672261439412

9307
9308
BERJAYA

Growing up in a disadvantaged environment not only hinders cognitive development but also weakens a person’s default willingness to trust others later in life. While higher intelligence generally makes people more trusting, early childhood adversity cuts this social benefit in half. (psypost.org)

submitted by mvea to r/science

US teens getting less sleep than ever. Homework, social pressure and jobs still keep teens up but now screen time and social media rob their sleep. Only 22% of older adolescents saying they slept at least 7 hours each night. by mvea in science

[–]mvea[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

US teens getting less sleep than ever, new report finds

Homework, social pressure and jobs still keep teens up but now screen time and social media rob their sleep

A new study from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health shows that today’s teenagers are sleeping less than ever before.

The findings, which appeared in Pediatrics, showed a consistent decline in sleep across every age category. The latest figures revealed record-low sleep levels for all groups, with only 22% of older adolescents saying they slept at least seven hours each night.

“Some barriers to sleep faced by teens have existed across generations, such as the increased homework and extracurricular demands that come with high school, social pressures to stay up late with peers, and jobs,” said Rachel Widome, lead author on the study and a professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health.

“Other issues, though, are new in recent years, such as increasingly ever-present screens and social media as well as recent society-wide stressors such as the pandemic, social unrest or militarized policing,” she added.

The study also reported growing gaps in sleep outcomes. Black and Latino teens, along with adolescents whose parents have lower levels of education, are becoming increasingly less likely to get adequate sleep compared with other groups.

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/doi/10.1542/peds.2025-074933/207534/Sleep-Duration-Among-US-Adolescents-1991-2023

4595
4596
BERJAYA

US teens getting less sleep than ever. Homework, social pressure and jobs still keep teens up but now screen time and social media rob their sleep. Only 22% of older adolescents saying they slept at least 7 hours each night. (theguardian.com)

submitted by mvea to r/science

view more: next ›