I do wonder though if its cause and effect are the wrong way.
Perhaps the type of person who can remember enough to get the job and be good at it is already less likely to get Alzheimers, and we just selected for those people.
Take a study that only shows a correlation, and then write a clickbait article about causation.
The actual study says:
>Importantly, our study design has several limitations that limit causal inference and result in the possibility of other explanations, including unmeasured confounding from biological, social, or administrative factors. Firstly and perhaps most importantly, selection bias is possible because individuals who are at higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease may be less likely to enter or remain in memory intensive driving occupations such as taxi and ambulance driving.
>...
And
>Our large scale epidemiological findings raise novel questions about the linkage between taxi and ambulance driving and Alzheimer’s disease mortality. While these findings suggest a potential link between the demands of these occupations and reduced Alzheimer’s disease risk, this study design does not permit interpretation of a causal effect between occupations and risk of Alzheimer’s disease mortality or neurological changes in the hippocampus
I have noticed this for many years that when a study passes from the authors to science journalists to regular journalists to social media, information is lost at each level just like in Chinese whispers.
First, and it is the most important point, it links to the actual studies. So many articles don't do that... Maybe some journalists should be told that unlike paper, the web has hyperlinks, but here, the author knows.
More than that, the article doesn't mentions a single study, and is cautious regarding potential causation. The article title doesn't explicitly mention causation, just that "taxi drivers offer a clue". It is clickbait, but clicks is how they get paid, as mainstream journalists, they don't really have a choice.
As a mainstream news article I'd give it a 9/10. It has sources, makes an effort that goes beyond interpreting a single paper, and talks about shortcomings.
just because it's low wage and a lot of people know how to do it, doesn't mean it isn't cognitively demanding
and, driving is one of the most lethal activities that people commonly do in the modern world. according to osha 'transport incidents' represent 39% of all occupational fatalities
They should replicate the study in the UK where the test to become a licensed taxi driver is extremely hard and requires years of study to memorize I believe close to 30,000 street names.
Taxi drivers often have a shady side gig in being a police informer, drug dealer etc. Also practically all valuables which clients forget become theirs.
Perhaps the type of person who can remember enough to get the job and be good at it is already less likely to get Alzheimers, and we just selected for those people.
I think this is not very likely though