Not surprising, as both are on that paper as well :D

Very much in line with work by Vidal-Pineiro et al., 2021 (eLife) and Smith et al., 2025 (Imaging Neuroscience).

Prompt to Chat: "Please explain [insert methodology] to me like I'm 10 years old and stupid"

Issue 3: "While cross-sectional studies can provide valuable snapshots of developmental differences, they are insufficient for testing hypotheses about the speed, timing, or trajectory of brain development"

Issue 1: "Existing research has not established what degree of variability in BAG is typical, and what may reflect substantially accelerated or decelerated development"

Exactly! EurIPS just announced that they will accept submission of those rejected papers.

I think the point is that papers got rejected because of venue constraints, while at the same time, alternative venues are endorsed this year.

In short, world-class research from NeurIPS accessible in Europe.

EurIPS takes place over 3 days + 2 workshop days, at the same time as NeurIPS in San Diego.

Follow this account for more updates, and see you in wonderful Copenhagen 📅

eurips.cc

We might be able to save this when we agree that we are dealing with a well-behaved, compact domain. I'd be willing to agree to that!

Does it, though? It's been a while since I read calculus and analysis, but as far as I remember, the existence of a min does not imply the existence of a max?

So, fewer time points and longer duration. They also show that this increases power and, with that, decreases the amount of people you need to scan.

As a junior researcher at a university that covers OA APCs in most conventional and top-tier journals, I have little incentive to not publish there. Morally, I would, of course, like to publish with non-profit orgs etc., but unfortunately, this is more expensive for me than publishing in Nature.

Similar setup here. Also looking for suggestions. Especially on something like report generation

Lol. Nothing more American than that.

Such a danish thing to do!