Right, so the paper using the cleerly model only showed one person reversing plaque, but the two new ai models which don’t have a artificial floor, do show 30% plaque reversal. That’s the second reference to the YouTube talk.
The interesting thing here, is this group of 100 people following a strict ketogenic diet, mostly carnivore, had imaging done at the beginning and the end of a year. So we can apply any models to it that we like, it’s interesting that in 2/3 of the AI imaging models they show 30% of the people with plaque regression
The benefit of AI here is it makes it a quantitative analysis, assuming the AI model is stable. When we involve the humans to do scoring, there’s always a question about consistency, and bias in the outcomes.
As far as I’m aware plaque regression is basically unheard of at all in any literature outside of case studies
i see, the guy who is not a doctor but sells subscription services as “diet doctor” is continuing to fund the study until the results support his business.
Yes, people with agendas fund science, the results speak for themselves, that is the purpose of science - publish reproducible results for others to replicate.
Right, so the paper using the cleerly model only showed one person reversing plaque, but the two new ai models which don’t have a artificial floor, do show 30% plaque reversal. That’s the second reference to the YouTube talk.
The interesting thing here, is this group of 100 people following a strict ketogenic diet, mostly carnivore, had imaging done at the beginning and the end of a year. So we can apply any models to it that we like, it’s interesting that in 2/3 of the AI imaging models they show 30% of the people with plaque regression
The benefit of AI here is it makes it a quantitative analysis, assuming the AI model is stable. When we involve the humans to do scoring, there’s always a question about consistency, and bias in the outcomes.
As far as I’m aware plaque regression is basically unheard of at all in any literature outside of case studies
are the ai models part of a peer reviewed update to the paper?
The paper hasn’t been updated, the cleerly AI is part of the original paper.
The updated model data is presented in a preliminary form in the lecture, papers still pending.
What does Dave Feldman have to do with the study and how did he get these preliminary results?
he funded the study, organized it, sourced the volunteers, etc.
i see, the guy who is not a doctor but sells subscription services as “diet doctor” is continuing to fund the study until the results support his business.
DietDoctor is a group of doctors focused on metabolic health, it does not have a relationship with Feldman. https://www.dietdoctor.com/about/team-diet-doctor
David Feldman has never called himself a doctor
Yes, people with agendas fund science, the results speak for themselves, that is the purpose of science - publish reproducible results for others to replicate.