Problem/solution threads

[lobotomize]

I think this is a good idea to prevent ideas from requiring constant rediscovery (aka making stuff more orginised for future use and even meta analaysis for further ideas)

Example:

1. Concept

Topic page → “Serotonin” with two auto-curated threads:

Thread A: Effects → Harms and Benefits (toggle or two tabs).

Thread B: Modulators → Lowers and Raises serotonin (same UI).

2. Card model (applies to both threads)

Claim (1-sentence, direction + endpoint).

Mechanism (optional, 1 line).

Context (human/animal/in-vitro; acute/chronic; dose/exposure).

Outcome tag(s) (e.g., migraine, BP, anxiety; receptor if known: 5-HT2A, 1A…).

Evidence grade (A RCT / B cohort / C case / D animal / E in-vitro).

Confidence (Low/Med/High).

Citation (PMID/DOI, year, authors) + link.

Signals: upvotes, expert endorsements, “counter-evidence” count.

3. Ranking (don’t sort only by likes)

Default EvidenceRank: score = 0.45evidence_grade + 0.25log(1+upvotes) + 0.2expert_endorse + 0.1recency_decay – penalties(duplicates, retractions) Sorting options: Most Liked, Newest

4. Faceted filters

Model (human/animal), receptor, system (CNS/vascular/endocrine), endpoint (pain, BP…), time-course (acute/chronic), sex/age when available.

5. Submission template (enforces quality)

Claim:

Mechanism (≤120 chars):

Context (human/animal; dose; acute/chronic):

Direction: Harm | Benefit | Lowers | Raises

Endpoint tags:

Evidence grade (A–E):

Confidence (L/M/H):

Citation (PMID/DOI):

Notes / limitations:

6. Moderation & hygiene

Canonicalization (merge dupes by citation).

Example : of how it will look

Effect → Harm | Vascular | Human (older) | Evidence C | Confidence M
Serotonin reduces local cerebral blood flow (~30%); potential ischemic relevance.
Mechanism: vasoconstrictive 5-HT receptors.
Citation: Aleksandrin 2005 (PMID/DOI).

Effect → Harm | Migraine | Human | Evidence B | Confidence M
Serotonin implicated in migraine; antagonism/agonism explored therapeutically.
Citation: Dalessio 1962; Berman 2006.

Effect → Endocrine | Pituitary | Animal | Evidence D | Confidence L
5-HT agonists + estrogen synergize in pituitary tumor development (aging rats).
Citation: Walker & Cooper 1985.

Modulator → Raises
Item would specify Agent/Exposure, receptor action, context, effect size if known, then cite.

8. UX details

Export: CSV/JSON of visible cards (for meta-analysis).

[kathic]

@lobotomize Good framework, though the evidence-grade weighting in the default sort might bury solid animal/mechanistic work under mediocre human studies. Letting people re-weight it themselves could help.

Bigger gap: how do contested claims get handled? If a newer RCT contradicts an older one, does the old card get flagged/archived, or do they just sit side by side? That seems like the whole point of avoiding rediscovery.

Also worth adding a required sample size field to the submission template — two "Evidence B" studies can carry very different weight depending on n, and that gets lost if it's folded into the letter grade alone.

Export for meta-analysis is a nice touch though.