Tim Kaiser
LightNews LightNews
banner
tkaiser.science
Tim Kaiser
@tkaiser.science
3.9K followers 3.1K following 5.1K posts
I am a psychologist working at the intersection of psychotherapy research and quantitative methods. Currently working on causal learning and attribution methods at @fupsych.bsky.social - views are my own.

More: https://linktr.ee/tkaiser_science
Posts Replies Media Videos
tkaiser.science
Based on this, a simple Shiny app that illustrates the difference between confidence and prediction intervals.
- select how much variance in IQ your score explains,
- how many people to simulate,
- how wide you want the interval.

And see how many true IQ scores fall inside PIs and CIs.
November 13, 2025 at 1:24 PM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
toshi-frkw.bsky.social
The SWD (smallest worthwhile difference) for psychotherapies for depression was just about the same as that for antidepressants and only one in three people would be happy to initiate psychotherapies. www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
Estimating the smallest worthwhile difference of recommended psychotherapies for depression: observational study | The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core
Estimating the smallest worthwhile difference of recommended psychotherapies for depression: observational study
www.cambridge.org
November 11, 2025 at 2:29 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
toshi-frkw.bsky.social
Having said that, our NMA indicated that psychotherapies are stronger than drugs in producing sustained response up to a year by as much as 16 percentage points. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
Initial treatment choices to achieve sustained response in major depression: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis
Major depression is often a relapsing disorder. It is therefore important to start its treatment with therapies that maximize the chance of not only getting the patients well but also keeping them we....
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
November 13, 2025 at 3:34 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
tkaiser.science
I never understood why these companies are even taken seriously.
Polygenic scores explain ~7% of IQ variance. Even under luxurious assumptions, you could maybe say something like "your kid will have an IQ between 72 and 128 with 95% probability". What's useful about this?
antonioregalado.bsky.social Antonio Regalado @antonioregalado.bsky.social · 3d
A month after Bari Weiss hired to lead CBS News division, heretic eugenics philosopher Jonathan Anomaly is on the morning show pitching bell curves and embryo scores.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvVM...
November 11, 2025 at 9:31 AM
tkaiser.science
🚀 New paper (open access) out in Cognitive Therapy & Research: we (@herzog.bsky.social, @evalottabrakemeier.bsky.social, @hudsongolino.bsky.social and me) ask whether group‑level symptom‑change networks in CBT actually capture what happens inside each patient. #Psychology #CBT
Must We Always Go Idiographic? - Cognitive Therapy and Research
Purpose While psychological change processes are increasingly assumed to be “non-ergodic”, prompting a shift toward idiographic approaches, the assumption of ergodicity is often accepted a priori rath...
link.springer.com
November 11, 2025 at 9:11 AM
tkaiser.science
What is currently being done to ensure that shared variance (i.e., symptoms) is not constantly confused with shared etiology (i.e., causes) in dimensional models of psychopathology? Asking because I read a certain preprint.
November 10, 2025 at 9:56 AM
tkaiser.science
"I think generative AI is an event that is similar (in very broad strokes) to when Wikipedia first came online. The current situation reminds me of sitting in high school classes listening to teachers say that Wikipedia is an untrustworthy source, because anyone can edit it to say anything."
The AI Spring
agnos.is
November 8, 2025 at 6:55 PM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
matthewbjane.bsky.social
Wanna write a meta-analysis error report? matthewbjane.quarto.pub/meta-analysi...
Meta-Analysis Error Reports
matthewbjane.quarto.pub
June 28, 2025 at 12:22 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
tkaiser.science
Beeindruckender Vortrag von Isabel Dziobek mit einigen erschreckenden Zahlen:
-42% der Therapeut*innen halten es für möglich dass Impfungen Autismus verursachen,
- 34% sehen Ursachen in „kalten“ Bezugspersonen #ptk2022

🫣
November 3, 2024 at 10:49 PM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
m-b-petersen.bsky.social
Four (!) three-year postdoc positions available at @au.dk: international.au.dk/about/profil...

Join an incredible team & help understand the psychological & political implications of the clash between high-speed society & slow-speed democracy.

Please share! @tboeggild.bsky.social can help with Qs
Four three-year postdoctoral positions in the project Slow-Motion Democracy - Vacancy at Aarhus University
Vacancy at Department of Political Science, Aarhus University
international.au.dk
November 6, 2025 at 2:14 PM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
herzog.bsky.social
🚨Finally out in AMPPS🚨:
Proud to share a new tutorial (led by the fabulous @tkaiser.science 💫) on conformal prediction - a model-agnostic, distribution-free method for generating prediction intervals with guaranteed marginal coverage. 🔮

#PsychSky #AcademicSky #PsychSciSky
November 5, 2025 at 8:54 AM
tkaiser.science
Out now in AMPPS:
November 5, 2025 at 5:46 AM
tkaiser.science
Pre-post effect sizes neatly rise with baseline severity in this evaluation of inpatient/day treatment outcomes…

www.frontiersin.org/journals/psy...
November 3, 2025 at 10:05 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
lakens.bsky.social
New blog post: Why we should stop using statistical techniques that have not been adequately vetted by experts in psychology daniellakens.blogspot.com/2025/10/why-... where I reflect on how we should check the quality of novel statistical techniques.
October 29, 2025 at 7:39 AM
tkaiser.science
Beneath the surface of the AI "revolution" lies a dirty secret: that most of the money is one of four companies feeding money to a company incubated by NVIDIA specifically to buy GPUs and their associated hardware.
Is There Any Real Money In Renting Out AI GPUs?
NVIDIA has become a giant, unhealthy rock on which the US markets — and to some extent the US economy — sits, representing 7-to-8% of the value of the market and a large percentage of the $400 billion...
www.wheresyoured.at
November 1, 2025 at 12:58 PM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
carlomasala1.bsky.social
Ich hab sowas von keinen Bock
October 31, 2025 at 9:11 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
shirleybwang.bsky.social
Thrilled to share a new paper in @jamapsychiatry.com on path asymmetry in complex dynamic systems of psychopathology! jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...

With amazing collaborators @tfblanken.bsky.social, Han van der Maas, & Denny Borsboom 🥳
Path Asymmetry in Complex Dynamic Systems of Psychopathology
This article illustrates the assumption of path symmetry in current theories of psychopathology and calls for the development of dynamical systems of mental illness that incorporate asymmetry.
jamanetwork.com
October 29, 2025 at 8:42 PM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
tkaiser.science
"The paper has gained significantly in quality from the reviewers' feedback"
November 3, 2024 at 10:14 PM
tkaiser.science
Does changing the therapist and/or method after non-response lead to better outcomes? Not according to this RCT.
A randomized controlled trial testing the effects of sequential psychotherapy in depression: Changing therapist, or both therapist and method?
This study examined the effectiveness of sequential psychotherapy strategies for adults with major depressive disorder who did not respond to an initi…
www.sciencedirect.com
October 29, 2025 at 1:12 PM
tkaiser.science
The company also estimates 0.15% of ChatGPT users have conversations that include "explicit indicators of potential suicidal planning or intent."
October 28, 2025 at 7:53 AM
tkaiser.science
If people knew how many medical guidelines are based on change scores getting predicted from baseline severity, everyone would be really scared
October 27, 2025 at 12:48 PM
tkaiser.science
Happy "The kids get up 1h earlier than yesterday" day to all who celebrate
October 26, 2025 at 12:22 PM
tkaiser.science
Quote because this is important: the Personalized Advantage Index is basically an ad hoc estimate of conditional treatment effects, but without an explicit causal framework.
This tutorial is a nice "bridge": doi.org/10.1007/s104...
October 25, 2025 at 11:58 AM
tkaiser.science
In einem der meistgehörten Podcasts Deutschlands ist eine „Traumaexpertin“ zu Gast. Ich dachte: cool, da wird eine wissenschaftlich ausgebildete und kompetente Therapeutin mal richtig Klartext reden. Nope: weder approbiert noch Wissenschaft. Arbeitet nach Heilpraktikergesetz.
October 25, 2025 at 7:12 AM