This article by Ryan Prior displays the findings of a study by Daniel Levey at the Yale School of Medicine. It is a report on the findings of the study conducted by Levey and includes no opinions or conclusions that are not drawn from data collected.
Levey's study was considered the largest to ever have been done on looking into the association of genes with anxiety. Prior reports on the finding of the study that identified six variants in genes that have a link to anxiety, with some variants having links to other mental disorders.
The intent of Prior’s article is to inform the reader of the results concluded from the study, which he succeeds in doing. No biased is used in this article, Prior uses the research found by Levey to report on the topic.
The purpose of Levey’s study was to see the connection that genetics had in people with anxiety. Levey conducted the study on a large sample group of only veterans that are likely to have generalized anxiety disorder from past traumas. The large scale of the study was effective because it showed the results of thousands of veterans, showing that there is a connection worth further study between anxiety and genetic variants. The sample was racially diverse, meaning that he could narrow down the differences in genes by race, seeing the variations of genes that cause anxiety in different groups.
Prior gives the ultimate goal of Levey’s findings which is to find treatments that can target anxiety and find better ways to treat it. Research studies such as Levey’s promote more specific research that will look into exactly how genetic variants have an effect on anxiety. The results from these studies could work to prevent or treat anxiety in its early stages and have control over the disorder before it becomes severe.
Prior only uses Levey’s research in this article when he could have benefitted from a second opinion. Other sources could have stated what is unknown between genetic variants and anxiety rather than only reporting on what Levey had found.
The article by Ryan Prior “A massive study of 200,000 veterans identifies genetic links to anxiety”, was published in the health section of CNN’s website on January 9th, 2020. The news article highlighted the paper published into The American Journal of Psychiatry “Reproducible Genetic Risk Loci for Anxiety: Results From ∼200,000 Participants in the Million Veteran Program”. The research was Dr. Stein and their colleagues utilized a large-scale genome-wide association study, where a database of veterans was used to look for a genetic link that might cause a predisposition to develop anxiety. The researchers were able to find genes that were available across different ethnicities and were able to draw connections to multiple genes that showed a correlation to anxiety.
The article posted on CNN has a fitting title that piques interest while still being accurate and honest. The rest of the paper follows suit, with the author taking very few liberties and reporting on the research author’s perspective. Ryan Prior quotes Daniel Levey for the news article, who is the first author on the paper published in The American Journal of Psychiatry, but Prior also provides information from the paper himself without having to use a quotation.
Prior did make any claims that were not reinforced by research and did not make any claims that were not supported by the original research paper.
The research paper by Dr. Stein and their colleagues were able to find a sample population that was extremely racially diverse to perform this study on, which is rare due to psychological disorders not being documented equally with individuals of different ethnicities, but the database of veterans made it easier to do so. The diversity of the population makes it easier to pinpoint which genes are accountable across different populations and ethnicities.
The article published in CNN by Prior did a great job at reporting on the paper and making it easy to find the link to the research article. Prior could have tried interviewing different sources to get other opinions, but the paper does well overall communicating the research to the public.
The views expressed by the reviewers for this article are not endorsed or shared by SciFeye. The interpretation of the review of the news story using the SciFeye Index was done independently by two SciFeye reviewers. We encourage you to conduct your own evaluation of the accuracy and quality of the news story using the Index.