Read the article provided by the link, then read the review of the article and then write up a review of the reviewed article.
Article Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2016.06.008
Citation: Neuner, Sarah M., et. al. (2016) Systems genetics identifies Hp1bp3 as a novel modulator of cognitive aging.
Neurobiology of Aging, 46, 58-67.
Scientific Method: The researchers within this article carried out all the steps of the scientific method with an observation: how aging is associated with a decline in cognitive performance that begins in ages around 45-50 years; an hypothesis: they suggest that Hp1bp3 serves as the potential target against cognitive aging; experiments: thoroughly discussed with texts, tables and graphs under their “Methods” and “Results”; and a conclusion: at the end, that speaks of their hypothesis, their predictions and supported evidence, and overall results. (Neuner, et. al., 2016, 58-65)
Validity of Hypothesis: I feel the researcher’s hypothesis is valid due to their valid observation, and the summary they give the reader of what experiments they will run. What led them to their hypothesis was reviewing past studies that “have identified associations between apolipoprotein E., brain-derived neurotrophic factor, and catechol-O-methyltransferase with either cognitive ability or rate of cognitive decline in older people.” But these studies had small effect sizes that indicated other genes contribute significantly to the regulation of cognitive decline in humans, which is what led them to perform their experiments. (Neuner, et. al., 2016, 58)
Sections of the Article: The sections of this article are anything but lacking information; I feel they surely fulfill the characteristics within each section. The authors demonstrated and evaluated their data within in-depth texts, tables, graphs, and comparison with other studies. Here are descriptions of each section of the article:
· Abstract: This section gives the description of their hypothesis, a brief description of their experiment and their results.
· Introduction: This section goes more in depth of their hypothesis and background information, the challenges and how to circumvent them, and what analysis they will perform.
· Methods: This section describes their controls and variables, the tests they ran, the data they obtained (through texts, tables, and graphs), studies they compared with, and analyses they performed.
· Results: This section describes more their analyses more in depth and a collaboration of all the information they obtained, then describe how their results support the hypothesis.
· Discussion and Conclusions: These sections describe their initial goal, how their work and the work of others (studies compared) have supported their hypothesis, how they demonstrated their hypothesis for the first time, and how their results may lead to find new and improved methods and treatments for regulating memory function in AD dementia and improve cognition in patients.
· Literature Cited (Acknowledgements and References): This section gives thanks to all the supports provided to them, the centers that provided them with samples, people who contributed materials and analysis tools, and all the references they used within their article and experiments, including studies used for comparisons and data.
· (Neuner, et. al., 2016, 58-65)
Design of the Experiment: With all the in-depth data, graphs and tables shown, I feel the researchers have shown valid information to support their hypothesis and come to a valid conclusion that may end up leading to a treatment, if not cure, to AD dementia and decreased cognition in patients. Their conclusions and results all seemed to add up to validate their hypothesis and experiments.
Quality of Published Article: This article does not seem to lack any information, which is what leads me to feel negatively about a study or experiment. Therefore, I feel that the in-depth information provided within it as a whole, kept me satisfied and gave me a positive opinion on their hypothesis and conclusion. It was well written, step by step, gave explanations of what they were doing and why, and came to a decent conclusion with a beneficial result.