This should be the title of the article. Honestly these supposedly dissemination articles do not offer much more than reading the abstract or skimming a bit through the article itself.
A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity. I understand that we don't want misleading titles but this obsession on titles is not very helpful. I am participating in this useless conversation but I couldn't help myself. Now every single HN post has a comment on how the title is wrong..
Are you advocating clickbait?
It shouldn't have to do the latter. That's clickbait. People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not. If they are not, they shouldn't be "stimulated" with BS. That "media/advetising" attitude is the cause behind many issues with science in society today.
It’s not about clickbaiting. The whole reason the research is getting funded in the first place is to try to find the link.
Tieing grants to mass media popularity of research papers is an even bigger problem.
I don't even know what can be done here. Take money out of acedemia? Maybe in a post scarcity world.
It's not perfect, sometimes the generated title is still totally clickbait and I've seen a couple instances of it being completely wrong or hallucinating a detail. But generally it's pretty neat.
The app also uses the same tech to summarize articles into a few bullets which I don't use as often but is also neat.
clickbait generally has an implication of incorrectly representing the content. romanticized titles aren't always clickbait, and I wouldn't say this is exactly a sensationalist tite like how others may say "We're on the first road to curing Alzheimer's disease".
>People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not.
it's a prisoner's dilemma. It's not necessarily zero sum, but attention is somewhat finite. And for some sites, the result isn't a more comfy high quality community. It just dies out, and that benefits no one.
> Researchers found aging-like cognitive effects in mice by altering the CaMKII brain protein
Only 3 more words than the original, but contains quite a bit more information about what exactly the claim is while still having a strong "hook".
The dissemination article was chosen for submission because it was the one from the source University. (There are more around.)
Further from using clear, synthetic expressions, it contains more information than just the (available abstract of the) research article - it is where an author of the latter states that next steps are pharmacological and involving humans.
>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
You're complaining that the title of TFA is not what you expect. This is certainly a tangential annoyance, and certainly not an interesting comment on the article. If you don't like the submission just flag it and move on. Do better.