SMPDL3B a novel biomarker and therapeutic target in myalgic encephalomyelitis, 2025, Moreau, Fluge, Mella et al

Here is the supplementary data attached. I've separated out Table S3 - Symptom scores split by SMPDL3B plasma levels. A wee bit underwhelming to say the least. What I don't get is why you hide away a supposedly main finding in supplementary info yet keep the conclusion in the abstract.

1752008222435.png
 

Attachments

Hutan said:
OMF's lever is the choice of who and what they fund. We need them to do better in making those choices. I think there could be a role for OMF in quality control - to have a panel that scrutinises protocols and manuscripts and provides comment, because careless and misleading work does reflect on the funders. If a researcher chooses to ignore the comments, that is fine, but it may mean that there is not further funding.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t want pre-publication interference of the details by a funder, that creates all kinds of bindings (and there is no guarantee that the funder are more correct).

Post-publication termination of future funding is something else.
 
Hutan said:
OMF's lever is the choice of who and what they fund. We need them to do better in making those choices.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you say @Hutan. I'd just like to point out that this was funded by Canadian donations and OMF has only one Canadian research center. In the OMF financial reports major donations are often specified for a particular purpose. That may or may not be the case here, but could be the case. The Sibylla-Hesse Foundation is also a Canadian foundation.

Paper funding statement said:
This work was supported by grants from The Sibylla-Hesse Foundation and Open Medicine Foundation Canada, awarded to Pr. Moreau.
Click to expand...
 
I'm sure the politics of private research funding are complicated and I have no relevant information about relationships with major donors on which to speculate. I'm sure sometimes foundations and even researchers themselves have to swallow a rat. Everyone makes compromises sometimes, often they are necessary, I understand that.

My perspective is being exposed to the devastating direct effects of ME/CFS on a daily basis, compounded by the extraordinary and confident prejudice so many people, medical institutions and governments hold about sufferers of ME/CFS. We are relying on foundations like OMF to make the best choices possible as to where they direct funding to change that situation as quickly as possible. So, while I am sorry for any impact of my comments on the feelings of young researchers (I doubt my views will count for much anyway), I want to make it clear that this paper is not good enough. It must not be hyped as a breakthrough.

abstract said:
These findings warrant clinical trials to evaluate their potential in mitigating immune dysfunction and symptom burden in ME.
Click to expand...

The paper calls for money and effort to be spent on drug trials to correct a problem with SMPDL3B in ME/CFS that this paper does not prove exists. It also risks readers making unwarranted assumptions about the role of estrogen in the disease. I think the fact that there is no clear pattern of change in ME/CFS symptoms with age or menopause or even over the menstrual cycle (or even between men and women) makes a significant direct role for estrogen rather unlikely. I don't think there is much evidence for the idea of sexual dimorphism in ME/CFS - it just tends to be an easy refuge of post-hoc sub-setters.

There are a number of poorly evidenced background statements in the paper as well. I was happy to ignore those if the core finding was robust. But, it all contributes to a picture of a lack of rigour. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but we need more rigour from everyone - funders, researchers and especially those in a supervisory role, clinicians, and people with ME/CFS too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom