'The name was inaccurate': PCOS gets a new name after years-long effort - Live Science

There has been a never-ending stream of space-based films over the past few decades, from the 1968 Stanley Kubrick sci-fi epic "2001: A Space Odyssey" that inspired much of the genre to modern films with epic visuals like "Interstellar" and "The Martian. " Despite their wild plots, those latter two movies have actually been hailed by scientists as having some of the most accurate depictions of the theories and foundations astronauts would use in real life. At least, they're the closest to what would probably happen. We haven't brought humans to Mars yet and we certainly haven't achieved lightspeed travel to reach other solar systems — much less had a human inside of a black hole. However, while those films may get scientists' approval, many modern space films have definitely leaned a little too hard into dramatic effects and impossible outcomes for the scientific community to approve. One particular film in recent years has been outed as notoriously inaccurate by multiple scientists, although it has received much critical acclaim. Read more: Actors Who Flat Out Refused To Work TogetherGravity is the most inaccurate space movie, according to NASAWarner Bros.

IntroductionPathophysiology of PCOS and reproductive dysfunctionMechanistic rationale for GLP-1 in fertility improvementEffects on metabolic and hormonal parametersEvidence on fertility and pregnancy outcomesPreclinical and translational evidenceSafety and pregnancy considerationsLimitations and research gapsReferences Weight, insulin, and ovarian hormones connect PCOS with infertility, raising questions about where GLP-1 therapies could fit in reproductive care.

Neurons are a motley crew, varying widely in connectivity and firing properties. But computational models of the brain usually treat neurons as identical. “The convention in the field is homogeneity,” says Scott Rich, assistant professor at the University of Connecticut. Heterogeneity makes models mathematically complex and unwieldy, so researchers have shied away from incorporating it, he says. “But it shouldn’t be [omitted] if we really want to understand how the brain works.”