study

Dispatch calls reveal supermodel Cindy Crawford’s son, Presley Gerber, who died Sunday, suffered an apparent overdose while staying at a luxury outpatient rehab facility.

After Santa Monica police received a call reporting a cardiac arrest and another call for an overdose, officers responded to Resolutions Living, a $7.7-million, seven-bedroom mansion that operates as a rehabilitation home, at about 9:35 a.m., a law enforcement source told The Times.

Paramedics pronounced Gerber dead at 9:45 a.m. Sunday. The onetime Calvin Klein model had checked into the facility just hours before, around 10 p.m. Saturday.

On Monday, the L.A. County medical examiner’s office said that it was in the early stages of investigating the 27-year-old model’s death and that limited information was available.

An autopsy was performed Monday, but the cause and manner of death have been deferred, “which means additional testing and/or studies were requested in order to make a determination.” Due to the ongoing investigation into Gerber’s death, the medical examiner’s office cannot disclose what testing and/or studies were requested.

It could take a few months for a cause of death to be determined, the statement continued.

Police say that, at this time, there is no indication of foul play, but they are also investigating Gerber’s apparent overdose. According to the law enforcement source, police are attempting to track where and whom the drugs came from.

According to Resolution Living’s website, it operates as a partial hospitalization and intensive outpatient program for the treatment of myriad mental health issues, including depression, trauma and addiction, and offers dual diagnosis treatment for co-occurring disorders.

Gerber had been candid about his mental health struggles for years through various podcast appearances and his social media, and revealed that he’d sought treatment through various rehab facilities from the time he was a teenager.

In 2023, he told “Studio 22” podcast that he wanted to use his own experience to help others battling the same issues.

“Having struggled with mental health, depression and some other things that come along with that,” he said, “I think that whether I help one person or 100 people get out of that place that I was in at one point in my life, that’s all I need to do.”

A federal film and television tax credit could boost U.S. production spending by $125 billion and add more than 143,000 jobs by 2035, according to a new study commissioned by the Motion Picture Assn.

The analysis, released Tuesday morning, is expected to bolster Hollywood’s push for a federal production incentive, which the industry says is necessary to compete with the generous credits offered abroad. Sixty-five nations now offer them, the study said.

The effort has been quietly building for more than a year. It got a major boost last month when President Trump posted on Truth Social backing a proposed credit.

Details are still being worked out,, but the study assumed a transferable credit with a minimum rate of 20% on qualified spending for U.S. resident labor — broadly what industry groups have supported. It also assumed add-ons of 5% for independent production companies and 5% for labor costs in areas the Federal Emergency Management Agency has declared disasters.

If the incentive took effect Jan. 1, 2027, U.S. production spending would reach $277.5 billion through 2035, the study said, compared with $152.2 billion without it.

A coalition that includes the Motion Picture Assn., industry unions, producers’ groups and small production businesses, along with Democratic and Republican lawmakers, is expected to press the case at a virtual news conference Tuesday.

“A federal incentive would be a gamechanger for our industry,” Charles Rivkin, chairman and chief executive of the Motion Picture Assn., said in a statement. “This study tells us that we can bring more opportunities to life for people in all 50 states who bring great stories to life.”

RIYADH: Oysters, mussels, crabs and other aquatic invertebrates may be making a far greater contribution to global nutrition than previously recognized, according to a new study led by researchers at King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST).

The study, published in the journal Nature and featured on the KAUST website, examined 30 nutrients essential to human health and found that current global production of aquatic invertebrates provides enough vitamin B12 and selenium to meet the equivalent annual requirements of more than 5 billion people. It also supplies enough iodine, zinc, copper and omega-3 fatty acids to meet the annual requirements of more than 1 billion people.

The findings challenge the way aquatic food systems are commonly assessed, with production often measured by the amount of food harvested rather than the nutrients it delivers.

“For far too long, we have measured success of aquatic food systems in tons of production, rather than in the nutrients they deliver to people,” said Jessica Zamborain-Mason, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of marine science at KAUST.

The research team said incorporating nutritional value into decisions on fisheries, aquaculture and food systems could help governments pursue healthier diets while ensuring marine resources are managed sustainably.

Researchers compiled nutritional data from hundreds of aquatic invertebrate species and used predictive models to estimate nutrient content for more than 50,000 potentially edible species. The models were based on species-specific environmental, ecological and life-history traits, addressing major gaps in available nutritional data.

The resulting estimates will be incorporated into SeaLifeBase, a major online database of marine species, giving researchers and policymakers broader access to information on the nutritional value of aquatic foods.

The study found that invertebrates can provide disproportionately large amounts of key micronutrients compared with their share of production. In aquaculture, for example, they account for about one-third of production by weight but provide more than half of the supply of nutrients including iodine, vitamin B12, vitamin C and iron, according to the study.

Processing can also affect nutritional value. The researchers found that 100 grams of dried invertebrates often contain higher concentrations of minerals than raw tissue, pointing to potential opportunities to improve nutrition through food processing while reducing waste.

The study is not a call to harvest more aquatic species, the researchers stressed. Instead, it provides evidence for considering nutrition alongside ecological sustainability when managing fisheries and developing aquaculture.

Many aquatic invertebrates remain poorly studied or unassessed for sustainability, Zamborain-Mason said, underscoring the need to better protect, monitor and assess these resources.

The researchers hope the findings will help governments, industry and international organizations incorporate nutrition more fully into fisheries, aquaculture and food policies, while highlighting areas where more research and nutritional data are needed.

As countries seek more resilient food systems, the study argues that measuring how much food is produced is only part of the equation. Understanding the nutrients that food provides may be just as important.

For decades scientists and researchers have been vexed by a sound emanating from cats. Not a call of the wild, a roar or a hiss. No, multiple academics have attempted to decipher the meaning behind the mightily adorable meow of the domestic house cat.

Cats, it turns out, are conversationalists. And good news for cat parents: Studies suggest they’re often attempting to talk to us.

“One of the biggest takeaways from scientific research is that meowing seems in many ways to be specialized for communication with humans,” says Jay Schwartz, an associate professor of psychological science at Western Oregon University. “In that sense, the meow holds the legacy of thousands of years of evolutionary change in cats to adapt to life with humans.”

A clowder of stories celebrating cats and the L.A. people who love them.

Adult cats, specifically, rarely meow to one another, instead preferring other vocal intonations or facial signifiers. The meow, in short, is meant for us.

“The exception is communication between kittens and mothers,” Schwartz says, “which is also the main context where we see meows in wild feline species. One hypothesis is that cats have this instinct to meow towards their mother, and humans in many cases sort of take on that mother role.”

But now that we know that cats are attempting to communicate with us, is there a way for pet caregivers to better understand what a cat is attempting to say? Research is ongoing, but many papers have sought to analyze not only the different pitches and tones of the meow, but also how good we — humans, that is — are at understanding them. There’s evidence at least that we’re listening. One European study indicated that cat owners often meow back at their pets. This is different than, say, dog providers, who were reported to rarely return a canine’s bark.

An informal polling of the researchers interviewed for this article found that, yes, cat parents are likely to return the meows of their feline. And I know from personal experience with my own cat that I am an avid meower.

Asked, for instance, if he meows to his cats, Jonathan B. Losos, an evolutionary biologist and author of the book, “The Cat’s Meow: How Cats Evolved From the Savanna to Your Sofa,” wouldn’t deny it. “I’m sure they are deeply offended by my attempts, but yes, yes I do,” Losos says.

But there’s no need to mimic a cat’s meow, especially if one is hoping to train a cat or have them associate certain words with particular rewards — treats, playtime and affection work well for that. And besides, there’s a theory that, with the meow, the cats were evolving to imitate us.

“Our cats’ ancestors were already meowing when they began living alongside humans,” Schwartz says. “We know this because cats’ closest evolutionary relatives, African wild cats, meow.”

Yet there are key differences in the meows. Schwartz says the meow of a domestic cat is “cuter and less harsh” than those of a wild cat. The cats likely knew what they were doing.

“One hypothesis is the meow happened to share some acoustic similarities with the sounds of human infants,” Schwartz says, “and so nearby humans were responsive to it. This set the stage for a co-evolutionary relationship where, over generations, cats began to produce meows that are more fine-tuned for human communication. It’s a case of evolution taking a tool that already exists and modifying it for a new purpose as a species adapts to a different environment.”

And while meows, of course, vary from cat to cat, Kristyn Vitale, a certified applied animal behaviorist and founder of the Michigan-based Maueyes Cat Science and Education center, says there are ways to decode them. Vitale points to research out of a Swedish university that looked at the melody and tone of the meow.

“So when it dips down at the end,” Vitale says of the meow, “that’s often correlated with negative affective states. So, feeling stressed or fearful. You hear that if you’re trying to get your cat into the carrier or messing around with them, like at the vet. Then they’ll often have a downward pitch. And then for happy, more content states, there is an an uptick at the end. They found that to be pretty consistent in their vocalizing. Whether it goes up or down is indicating the cat’s mood.”

And yet the key to understanding a cat’s meow will often rest specifically with that cat’s caretaker. Losos in his book cites a number of papers on cat vocalizations, and one of his favorites is the work of Nicholas Nicastro and the series of studies that followed up on Nicastro’s research. Nicastro made recordings of a number of cat meows when the pets were in different states — being fed, for instance, or brushed. Nicastro also placed cats in unfamiliar environments, hoping to get meows of dissatisfaction.

Nicastro wanted to see whether humans could identify the emotional state of the cat based solely on the sound. “The people did no better than guessing,” Losos says. “They had no clue.” It was an indication, Losos argues, that cats have no uniform language.

But don’t despair, those who want to understand their cats better. Other research has advanced Nicastro’s work, including studies that paired a cat’s meows directly with their caretaker instead of random participants. When those who lived with the cat were involved, the results differed drastically. I joke that I like to think I can understand when my cat’s meow is asking me to open the bedroom window blinds, which is where her desired bird-watching perch is. Losos says I may be right — or at least not entirely wrong.

“The people who lived with the cat were quite good at saying, ‘Chester is unhappy with you,’ or ‘Oliver is very content right now,’ ” Losos says. “What that suggests is that there is a private language that develops between cats and the people they live with in order for cats to communicate what they want or what their mood is. That’s fascinating. You and your cat have worked out how to understand when she’s hungry, for instance.”

Research is continuing to better understand the communication between a cat and the cat’s owner. Schwartz and Vitale, for instance, are hoping to finalize a study soon that looks at how cats may greet their caretakers — or express a form of sadness or confusion when they leave.

“We looked specifically at meows in two contexts: separation from their human in an unfamiliar environment, and then the human’s return,” Schwartz says. “We found some subtle but consistent differences in the pitch and length of meows between those two contexts, suggesting maybe cats have different meows for ‘Where did you go?’ and ‘You’re back!’ ”

Yet there’s one thing that Schwartz wants to make clear. The meow, as cute and attuned as it may be to get a human’s attention, is not in his mind a tool for manipulation, as some have proffered.

“This idea that cats are trying to manipulate us is a big pet peeve of mine,” he says. “I don’t think cats are intentionally manipulating us in the sense of understanding the effects that their meows have on our psychology. However, they probably understand the link between their behavior and ours. If they have learned that meowing is a way to achieve a desired outcome, they’ll do it.”

In other words, cats just want to be heard.

It’s not your imagination. Political discourse on Twitter really has grown meaner in recent years, according to a new study.

The research, published Thursday in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, found that the level of incivility in tweets by members of Congress increased by 23% between 2009 and 2019 — a change the study’s authors attribute in part to how Twitter’s “like” and “retweet” buttons reinforce the spread of toxic content.

Its findings mark “the first robust evidence that incivility is rising among American politicians on Twitter,” wrote the study’s authors, hailing from several U.S. and Canadian universities.

Researchers examined 1.3 million tweets from official congressional accounts between 2009 and 2019. To quantify the levels of incivility, they used artificial intelligence to analyze the messages and assign a toxicity score from 0 to 100, reflecting the likelihood that someone would consider the text to be rude or disrespectful.

The analysis classified a 2009 tweet by then-Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) with a high incivility score of 45.1 for accusing a rival of “going AWOL” from his congressional post. And a 2019 tweet by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) — which said another politician was “endorsing infanticide & proudly doing it!” — scored at 47.6.

To some degree, the increasingly antagonistic tone is due to more civil members of Congress being replaced by less civil ones, the study says. But the findings attribute more of the shift to members themselves changing over time and posting more provocative tweets.

The increase in incivility was most pronounced among liberal Democrats, especially in the first half of President Trump’s term.

“They were much more likely to be reacting negatively to Donald Trump — both his behaviors and his tweets,” said Robb Willer, a co-author and director of the Polarization and Social Change Lab at Stanford University.

The study analyzed tweets during President Obama’s two terms and the first two years of Trump’s presidency. (The sample did not include posts from the contentious 2020 election or the start of President Biden’s term.)

The analysis also evaluated Obama’s and Trump’s tweets. Obama’s posts had an average incivility score of 13.4, which remained fairly steady over his two terms. In Trump’s first year, his score was 18.8, and it climbed to 23.0 by 2019.

The study didn’t place any moral judgments on Twitter incivility, Willer said. People sending harshly worded tweets “might have all sorts of explanations that might be morally well-founded and valid for why they engaged in the speech they did.”

Whatever the motivation, the more toxic tweets stand out in Twitter’s crowded online platform. The average congressional tweets were not especially uncivil, with relatively low scores. But the tweets with higher toxicity scores tended to get much more attention, via retweets and likes, which increase the public’s exposures to such messages and make incivility seem more prominent than it actually is, according to the study.

The study’s results indicate “the people running these accounts are learning from these metrics they can see and doing more of whatever gets likes and retweets,” Willer said.

But, as the common Twitter disclaimer goes, retweets and likes don’t equal endorsement. People may retweet a message to draw attention to content they dislike, for example. Willer said their research indicated that users are largely not fond of toxic tweets, despite appearances to the contrary.

“There’s a possibility here that the Twitter platform, with its pretty spare metrics, may be misleading people that certain tweets are more popular with people … than they really are,” Willer said.

Just as congressional Twitter feeds have grown more toxic, so have the tweets of the general population, the authors said, based on a rough sample of civilian posts.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance), one of the most prolific tweeters of California’s congressional delegation, said he wasn’t surprised to hear that incivility has grown on the platform — which he blamed partly on anonymous users and bots. His own feed has plenty of pointed messages to Republicans, often delivered with dry humor, as well as standard fare highlighting his work in Congress.

After 13 years on the platform, Lieu said it’s still hard to predict what will take off in the Twittersphere.

“Sometimes I’ll write what I think is an amazing tweet about a very important policy point and get only a few” likes or retweets, he said. But an evening observation that Scotch and peanut butter make a tasty combination will yield “astronomical” engagement.

One consistent factor for a viral tweet: Trump.

“What I’ve found is in the last five years, when the former president would say something stupid or say something false, and I responded to that, that would get higher engagement,” Lieu said. “If the former president is going to say 27 false things a week, I’m going to try to highlight all 27 false things he said.”

While Twitter has not been seen as a hub of civility for some time, some on the platform expressed fears this week that the tone may worsen now that Tesla Chief Executive Elon Musk is set to take the reins. Musk says Twitter’s current system of content moderation clamps down on speech. He has said he wants fewer restrictions on what can and cannot be posted, although he has not given many specifics; users have warned that loosening the rules could lead to upticks in harassment, abuse or pornographic images.

Republicans, meanwhile, have celebrated Musk’s takeover, anticipating he will lift moderation that they see as silencing their views. Among other issues, they object to Trump and other prominent right-wing politicians being blocked or suspended from the site. And Twitter’s fact-checking of false claims of election fraud and COVID-19 misinformation has had a disproportionate effect on right-leaning accounts.

“The most uncivil aspect of Twitter is the company’s transparent censoring of free speech and silencing of conservatives,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall). “Additionally, the platform will not reach its potential or best serve its users until it demonstrates a commitment to fundamental fairness. I’m optimistic that may soon happen.”