The Anxious Physicist

Personal blog of Dr Alex Mendelsohn

Tag: lithiumpharmacokinetics

Previous article clarifications

July 31, 2023 /

The blog post discusses Alex’s experience as a psychiatric patient and their past experience as a physics researcher. They express concern about readers misinterpreting their writing as advice and clarify that they are not in a position to make recommendations. The post revisits and clarifies statements made in previous articles about the psychiatric system, particularly a Physics World article and a Lithium Story article.

In the Physics World article, Alex discusses their frustrations with the psychiatric system compared to the scientific rigour in physics. They acknowledge that their emotional state at the time influenced their writing, leading to oversimplification of complex issues. Alex clarifies certain statements made in the article, specifically regarding psychotropic drugs treating symptoms and the difficulty in diagnosing patients based solely on symptoms.

In the Lithium Story article, Alex discusses their experience with taking lithium as part of their treatment. They clarify certain points, including the dosing regimen they found most effective, their decision to trial lithium over other medications, and their concerns about potential renal effects. Alex also emphasizes that they are no longer taking lithium but found it helpful during their treatment journey.

Throughout the blog post, Alex emphasizes the importance of clear and precise language, drawing a comparison between the clarity in physics literature and the ambiguities they encountered in some psychiatric research papers.

Alex invites feedback and criticism, acknowledging their limited knowledge of psychiatry and their ongoing recovery as a mental health patient. They encourage constructive input with proper citations and references to support claims.

One of my worries when writing articles about the psychiatric system is that a reader will interpret arguments I make as a form of advice. I want to make clear I am not in the position to make any recommendations. I write from my current experience as a patient and past experience as a physics researcher to hopefully add a few insights where psychiatric research, lived experience and physics meet.

So, when someone seemingly mis-read and mis-interpreted my Lithium Story article, I was a little distressed. I re-read the opening paragraph of my article. While I was telling a story of my opinions at the time, I could see how it might have been possible to interpret it as a recommendation for twice daily dosing. This was not my intention. I am not against once daily dosing.

I realised this was an opportunity to look back and clarify past statements I have made in both my Physics World and Lancet Psychiatry articles.

Continue reading

How imprecise language can lead to the loss of scientific knowledge: part 1

April 12, 2023 /

This blog post is in reference to my article in the May 2023 edition of the Lancet Psychiatry – Lithium Story: Eight Guidelines, Eight Recommendations. It is adapted from notes I sent to one of the editors when constructing the article.

The blog post is a criticism of the clarity and precision of the language used in lithium pharmacokinetic literature. The post focuses on a specific paragraph of the Grandjean paper that contains two examples of imprecise language. Alex explains the implications of the authoritative and inaccurate language used, which can lead to a false sense of understanding and clarity in a reader not familiar with the subject, and may cause a slow deterioration of the original research finding citation to citation, decade to decade. Alex also argues that imprecise language can cause the loss of scientific knowledge, using as an example the case of Amdisen and colleagues, who proposed taking patient serum concentrations at 12 hours in the 1970s, and soon after became standard practice worldwide, but with time the original research finding has been lost.

It might seem strange to say from someone writing a blog post criticising clarity and precision of language, but I personally find it very difficult to write clear and precise language. Goodness, if you could see my first-year PhD report!

But, because I had to work very hard to clarify the muddled thoughts in my head, I recognised mistakes in lithium pharmacokinetic literature similar to those I used to make in my writing.

In the Lancet Psychiatry article, I focus on the paper “Lithium: updated human knowledge using an evidence-based approach” by Etienne Marc Grandjean and Jean-Michael Aubry. It is an extensive collation of knowledge on lithium treatment. However, producing a paper with such breadth of knowledge, can in turn, lead to unclear and imprecise language given how much the authors are required to understand.

Continue reading

Image: Black and Gray Butterflies - Snapwire Snaps

Disclaimer

© 2024 The Anxious Physicist

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑