Month: June 2021

June 23, 2021

Paul Knoepfler: Stem cell scientist finds his ‘niche’ in blogging

first_img Karen Weintraub is an independenthealth/sciencejournalist, journalism teacher, and bookauthor. Have your fears been realized? Blogging didn’t prevent me from getting tenure. I have had some challenges at times, like stem cell clinics threatening to sue me or do me some personal harm, but nothing — knock on wood — like that has happened so far.There are a lot of stem cell clinics that promise to cure everything from bunions to heart disease. Do you think there’s real potential in stem cells as treatments?There’s some hard-core research that is going to make a huge difference. There’s a bunch of stuff in the middle that might be valuable or might not. And then there’s snake-oil stuff. A lot of patients tell me they don’t know how to tell the difference.advertisement About the Author Reprints HealthPaul Knoepfler: Stem cell scientist finds his ‘niche’ in blogging Karen Weintraub Tags CRISPRdesigner babiesstem cells Paul Knoepfler is an associate professor at the University of California Davis School of Medicine and the author of The Niche blog. Molly Ferguson for STAT By Karen Weintraub Jan. 30, 2016 Reprints Stem cell researcher Paul Knoepfler was in his early 40s and recovering from prostate cancer surgery when, in 2009, he decided to start a blog. He began writing about controversial issues like embryonic stem cells and stem cell tourism, winning himself a few enemies, but also a loyal readership.Through his blog, called The Niche, Knoepfler has elevated his stature to the point where he’s now widely recognized as one of the best informed, most passionate, and thoughtful public voices on the topics of stem cells and genetic engineering. The University of California, Davis, professor talked with STAT about his newly published second book, his worries about “designer” babies, and his love of Middle-earth.You said you were nervous about blogging when you first started. Why did you see it as risky?I wasn’t sure how my academic peers would view it. When I started, I didn’t have tenure — that made it a little bit scarier. But I felt somewhat: “Screw being cautious. You could die anytime, so if you want to do something, take the plunge.”advertisement What do you think about CRISPR, the relatively new tool for genome editing? Almost everyone in my lab is now using it.But it seems you have concerns about using the technology outside of research, as evidenced by the title of your new book “GMO Sapiens.” Do you object to the morality of playing God by changing genes?I don’t have a moral objection to it. I just think this is such a new technology. There is a pretty good chance that if we implement this clinically, we could end up making human beings who are worse off than if we hadn’t attempted this. Or, it could be the editing works the way we want but has unintended consequences.Where did your passion for writing come from? Ever since I was a little kid, I’ve loved to write stories. In eighth grade, I won a $50 prize for a poetry contest. I got into the “Lord of the Rings” pretty young — that definitely had an impact.So, after one book on stem cells and another on human gene editing, will your next book be science fiction? It’s definitely in the back of my mind. In teen fiction, human genetic modification and cloning are huge.Paul Knoepfler is an associate professor at the University of California Davis School of Medicine and the author of The Niche blog. This interview has been edited and condensed. @kweintraub last_img read more

June 23, 2021

Criticism of ‘research parasites’ moves NEJM in the wrong direction

first_img To keep science honest, study data must be shared That seemed a bit overwrought, but Drazen walked back from the “parasite” claim Monday, attributing it in a clarifying editorial to “clinical trialists around the world” who “were concerned that data sharing would require them to commit scarce resources with little direct benefit.” Some of those researchers, Drazen wrote, “spoke pejoratively in describing data scientists who analyze the data of others.”advertisement STAT The WatchdogsCriticism of ‘research parasites’ moves NEJM in the wrong direction That’s wrong. With the exception of maintaining patient confidentiality — which isn’t the issue here — sharing data shouldn’t come with any strings. Attaching caveats here is a bit like saying: We’re interested in truth, but only in our truth.And these two cases come on the heels of another widely panned series on conflict of interest in the NEJM that many felt was trying to wind the clock back to a time when we simply ignored ties between industry and clinical medicine. “This is sad,” wrote Roy Poses, president of the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine, “because the journal was once considered the foremost English language scholarly medical journal, but it now seems to be publishing polemics.”Now, we happen to applaud medical journal editors who crusade instead of just publishing clinical trials. But we’d prefer if they pushed medicine and the public health forward, instead of longing for a more tidy but deeply flawed past. No time for stodgy: Crusading editor aims to shake things up in science Related: Related: By Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus Jan. 26, 2016 Reprints By several measures, the New England Journal of Medicine is the top medical journal in the world. The papers it publishes are cited more often, on average, than papers in any other competitor journal, and by a large margin. It’s on the must-read list for physicians in this country and elsewhere, and researchers consider getting an article into the journal a capstone to their careers.But the NEJM found itself in the midst of an online whirlwind over the past week, as readers wondered aloud on social media why editor-in-chief Dr. Jeffrey Drazen and deputy editor Dr. Dan Longo would refer to scientists requesting access to others’ data as “research parasites.” Some critics pointed out, correctly, that NEJM has the highest rate of retraction of any journal in the world — a fact we think can be explained at least in part by greater scrutiny of its papers by outside scholars — and suggested that perhaps the authors were hoping to avoid more retractions. That exhortation, from Dr. Eric Topol and Dr. Harlan Krumholz, came in a Sept. 18 New York Times op-ed in response to the National Institutes of Health’s refusal to release all of the data from a key blood pressure study that seems likely to change treatment approaches. “Throughout science we are seeing more rapid modes of communication,” they wrote. “The traditional approach was not to publish until everything was finalized and ready to be chiseled in stone. But these sorts of delays are unnecessary with the Internet.”Drazen and colleagues disagreed. They were “surprised by the call from Topol and Krumholz for immediately ‘placing the data on the NIH website,’” they wrote in the NEJM. It’s too important, they wrote, “to give the investigators, on behalf of the study participants, who invested years of their lives in the study, the opportunity to see what led the sponsor to stop the trial and then the opportunity to distill a clinical message from it. There are cogent reasons to follow this approach rather than put trial data in the public domain before those who gathered the data have had a chance to analyze it.” We were just airing the concerns, Drazen now says. But Drazen didn’t do anything to push back on the “research parasites” claim, which is really unfortunate.This case reminds us of another in which he and other editors defended the status quo — that is, slow or nonexistent data-sharing — after two leading cardiologists called for more transparency.advertisement Tags academic publishingdataNew England Journal of Medicinelast_img read more

June 23, 2021

One step closer to a polio-free world

first_img Pakistani health workers give polio vaccines to children at a Kindergarten in Islamabad. Muhammed Muheisen/AP A polio milestone: One strain left in the crosshairs @HelenBranswell A two-week campaign to phase out a polio vaccine that is now considered harmful to the effort to eradicate the disease appears to have been completed, polio program leaders at the World Health Organization said Monday.There had been worries that a few countries — China and Russia among them — might not be able to get the job done by May 1. But all 155 nations involved in the unprecedented operation known as “the switch” have complied, director Michel Zaffran told STAT in an interview from Geneva.“I believe we can be quite confident that all countries withdrew the vaccine by yesterday,” he said.advertisement By Helen Branswell May 2, 2016 Reprints Leave this field empty if you’re human: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that the polio eradication campaign has cost more than $11 billion. It has cost more than $14 billion. As they spread, the vaccine viruses can regain the ability to paralyze. That happens rarely — and was a risk the partners in the Global Polio Eradication Initiative felt was acceptable back in the days when tens and even hundreds of thousands of children a year were being paralyzed by so-called wild polioviruses.But the risk-benefit ratio has shifted for one strain of polio, type 2. That strain of polioviruses has been declared eradicated; no type 2 viruses have been seen since 1999.Type 2 vaccine viruses are the ones most likely to regain the ability to paralyze. So with no risk of infection from wild type 2 viruses, it was decided the type 2 component had to be removed from the vaccine.Last year there were 74 children paralyzed by wild polioviruses in the only two remaining countries — Pakistan and Afghanistan — where circulation of the viruses has never been interrupted. So far this year, there have been 12 cases reported — eight in Pakistan and four in Afghanistan.But last year, 32 children were paralyzed by vaccine-derived polioviruses. And so far this year, three such cases have been reported.The Global Polio Eradication Initiative originally included the WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, UNICEF, and the service club Rotary International; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation joined in the last decade.For polio eradication to be successful, all transmission of both wild viruses and the viruses from the oral vaccine must cease.Eventually, use of all oral vaccine will have to stop. The polio program has been viewing this campaign as a test run for the final withdrawal of the oral vaccine.After 28 years and more than $14 billion, the polio finish line appears tantalizingly close — closer than it’s ever been. Experts hope that polio transmission will stop sometime this year and the virus will be declared eradicated in 2019. Related: Helen Branswell About the Author Reprints Tags polioVaccinesWHOcenter_img Privacy Policy HealthOne step closer to a polio-free world Related: The switch was designed to shift countries that use oral polio vaccine from a version that contains protection against three types of polio to one that protects against only two.It was done in a coordinated fashion — the largest withdrawal of a vaccine ever — to minimize the risks created by the move, which will leave some children in the world without protection against one strain of polio for a period of time.The United States was not involved in the switch. It stopped using oral polio vaccine altogether in 1999. US children are immunized with the injectable polio vaccine designed by Jonas Salk in the 1950s.The switch was needed to address a risk associated with the oral vaccine, still used widely in low- and middle-income countries because it costs pennies a dose and is simple to administer.The oral vaccine, designed by Albert Sabin, is made with live but weakened polioviruses. Children who swallow the vaccine drops excrete those vaccine viruses in their stools for a period of time after vaccination. Like regular polioviruses, the vaccine viruses can circulate from child to child in places where sanitation is poor. Please enter a valid email address. About three-quarters of the countries involved in the switch had completed the work by the end of last week. Roughly 35 countries made the shift over the weekend, said Diana Chang Blanc, who was coordinating the campaign for the WHO.The WHO has sent monitors to countries involved in the operation to verify that any remaining stocks of the phased-out vaccine have been withdrawn from circulation and collected for destruction, Zaffran said.advertisement ‘We have never been this close’: The campaign to eradicate polio takes a giant step forward Newsletters Sign up for Morning Rounds Your daily dose of news in health and medicine. Senior Writer, Infectious Disease Helen covers issues broadly related to infectious diseases, including outbreaks, preparedness, research, and vaccine development.last_img read more

June 23, 2021

Beware the hype: Top scientists cautious about fighting cancer with immunotherapy

first_imgBiotechBeware the hype: Top scientists cautious about fighting cancer with immunotherapy Senior Writer, Science and Discovery (1956-2021) Sharon covered science and discovery. Privacy Policy For instance, “we’re seeing relapses despite the fact” that T cells have swarmed a tumor and taken aim at molecules on the malignant cells, said Greenberg, who is also the head of immunology at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. And in an early-stage clinical trial for acute myeloid leukemia, there was no improvement in survival even when patients’ immune systems seemed to be attacking their malignant blood cells.In some cases, the tumors morph so that the target the T cells have been homing in on vanishes. And when T cells do destroy tumor cells, those cancerous cells release potassium — which in turn destroys T cells and keeps them from going after additional tumor cells. Tumors can also send out “inhibitory signals” that shut down T cells, he said.advertisement @sxbegle Sharon Begley Experimental cancer therapy holds great promise — but at great cost By Sharon Begley Sept. 25, 2016 Reprints Related: Please enter a valid email address. T-cells and cancer cells NIH Newsletters Sign up for Cancer Briefing A weekly look at the latest in cancer research, treatment, and patient care. Harsh side effects from immunotherapy treatments also remain a challenge.Greenberg spoke at the Second International Cancer Immunotherapy Conference here in New York City. Tags cancerimmunotherapyJuno Therapeutics Cancer biologists pursuing ways to engineer the immune system to attack tumors are acutely aware that tumor cells react to therapies in very complicated ways that, often, thwart the best ideas. But of the 1,460 (and counting) scientists from academia, government, and industry at the New York meeting, more than 700 are from industry — an indication of how quickly fairly recent breakthroughs in academic labs are being commercialized.It’s also indicative of the optimism that despite these setbacks, immunotherapy will eventually be made to work for many cancers and many patients.“We’ve brought together some of the greatest minds in the field,” said Dr. Margaret Foti, CEO of the American Association for Cancer Research, one of four nonprofit sponsors of the meeting.By being realistic about how immunotherapy can fail, researchers say, they can make it work for more and more patients.Greenberg quoted Matt Damon’s stranded astronaut from the film “The Martian” in explaining how his team expected to overcome the obstacles: “We’re going to science the shit out of it.” [email protected] Leave this field empty if you’re human: The difficulties facing immunotherapy mirror hitches in previous “revolutionary” approaches to fighting cancer.Cancer biologists figured out how to use drugs like Avastin to block tumors from growing the blood supplies they need to survive, in a technique called anti-angiogenesis. But the tumors then figured out another way to grow blood supplies, with the result that many patients relapse and die, having gained little if any additional weeks of life.In another much-touted technique, drugs knock out the molecules that drive the growth and proliferation of malignant cells. It’s called molecular-targeted therapy and it works as advertised: The drugs do disable the molecules that drive growth — but, again, tumors figure out a new way to grow.There have, of course, been some breakthrough successes, such as the drugs Keytruda (which helped send Jimmy Carter’s advanced melanoma into remission), along with Opdivo and Yervoy.Still, the frustrations in creating a consistently effective immunotherapy led one leading cancer researcher to refer this month to the “precision oncology illusion.” NEW YORK — There’s been a lot of excitement about immunotherapy as a tool to treat cancer. But as leading experts gathered here on Sunday, several struck an unexpected note of caution.“Be critical,” said Dr. Philip Greenberg of the University of Washington, who’s also scientific cofounder of Juno Therapeutics, one of the companies leading the search for immune-based treatments for cancer. “Don’t believe everything you hear.”Although progress toward harnessing the immune system to attack tumors has been “enormous,” he said, his lab and many others are seeing in more and more studies — in lab mice as well as patients — that “immuno-oncology” will not be as simple as stimulating T cells to attack tumors.advertisement About the Author Reprintslast_img read more

June 23, 2021

For young scientists, a supervisor’s fraud can derail a career

first_img Related: And Marc Hauser, the onetime Harvard psychology researcher, resigned from the university in disgrace in 2011 — but not before trying to blame graduate student whistleblowers for his misdeeds.Taken together, these examples — and others — point to a clear conclusion: Grad students and postdocs are frequently the scapegoats in cases of fraud, and they have little in the way of recourse in the current system.advertisement Related: APStock By Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky Nov. 25, 2016 Reprints The WatchdogsFor young scientists, a supervisor’s fraud can derail a career Fraudsters discover an unlikely new set of victims: academics center_img Should science fraudsters have to serve jail time? In the hierarchy of academic science, grad students and postdocs often get a raw deal — long hours, little pay, and short-term contracts. But the arrangement can be made even worse by unscrupulous supervisors who, in cases of fraud, all too often take their underlings down with them.That was the experience of a young neuroscientist in Australia who was cut adrift in 2013 by her institution in the wake of a misconduct scandal involving her lab head that she had nothing to do with.A year earlier, another graduate student in Australia put his doctoral degree in peril after questioning a paper by one of his superiors later found to have committed misconduct — after which that superior ended up returning hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants.advertisement Another would be to give lower-rung lab workers a voice when it comes to their supervisor’s behavior — and possibly an arena to clear their names if shady business is going on. In Nature in October, Donald Kornfeld and Sandra Titus suggested, “Each year, trainees should be required to complete anonymous questionnaires evaluating their mentors, and results should be sent to funding agencies as well as to research deans.” Such evaluations, they propose, could then be used to reward good mentorship — though that would be contingent on funders and employers actually deciding to take those measures into account.But in lieu of their superiors doing better by them, grad students and postdocs could be given a fairer shake by journals. A more transparent and prompt retraction system would help assign blame where blame is due. Too often, we’ve seen senior faculty who’ve committed misconduct try to use vague or even misleading language in retraction notices to shift or spread blame. Remember, publishers: Grad students are your editorial boards of the future. Senior professors who commit misconduct? Good riddance. Of course, graduate students and postdocs have been known to commit research misconduct as well. But senior faculty members are far less likely to be found guilty of misconduct than junior scientists. According to a 2004 analysis by the Office of Research Integrity, while 15 percent of full professors accused of misconduct between 1994 and 2003 were found to have transgressed, 61 percent of postdocs so accused were found guilty. We don’t know the denominators here, and it’s possible that postdocs are more venal than their superiors, but are they really four times as corrupt?And here’s another reason the system is stacked against trainees: They’re the ones who generally end up wasting months, if not years, pursuing the poisoned research left behind by fraudsters whose full extent of misdeeds have yet to be uncovered. Ask grad students and postdocs at any institution affected by research misconduct and they’ll know of at least one young scientist who thusly poured their time and grant money into the toilet — and lost ground in the competition for scarce faculty jobs in the process.One solution is organized labor. Unions give otherwise defenseless trainees access to lawyers, strong representation, and other tools. Perhaps it becomes more difficult to throw someone under a bus that one of their comrades built. Tags fraudlast_img read more

June 23, 2021

One foot out the door, Medicare chief launches Twitter barrage to defend the ACA

first_img About the Author Reprints STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Log In | Learn More What is it? What’s included? One foot out the door, Medicare chief launches Twitter barrage to defend the ACA @RachelHBluth Tags insuranceMedicaidMedicarepolicy GET STARTEDcenter_img Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free! GET STARTED By Rachel Bluth — California Healthline Jan. 19, 2017 Reprints Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. Politics Rachel Bluth — California Healthline Andy Slavitt, outgoing head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Andrew Harnik/AP Government bureaucrats are not often Twitter celebrities. But Andy Slavitt, head of the agency that runs Medicare and Medicaid, is making a name for himself with a barrage of fiery tweets in defense of the Affordable Care Act, breaking with the traditionally mute posture taken by federal employees.As the Act — known as Obamacare — is coming under attack by the new Republican-controlled Congress and incoming Trump administration, Slavitt, acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, isn’t being shy online.last_img read more

June 23, 2021

With another White House delay, rule to bolster safety data on generic labels may be dead

first_imgPharmalot Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free! GET STARTED By Ed Silverman July 24, 2017 Reprints APStock With another White House delay, rule to bolster safety data on generic labels may be dead Log In | Learn More What’s included? What is it? Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. Tags pharmaceuticalspolicySTAT+center_img @Pharmalot GET STARTED About the Author Reprints [email protected] STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Ed Silverman Once again, a controversial rule for updating generic drug labeling is being postponed, but this time, its chances of being implemented appear slimmer than ever, according to consumer advocates.The rule was proposed four years ago by the Food and Drug Administration in an effort to bolster patient safety. Specifically, the rule would allow generic drug makers to independently update safety warnings, something only brand-name drug makers can currently do before receiving FDA permission. Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry.last_img read more

June 23, 2021

An old idea that’s gaining new traction: curing Alzheimer’s by targeting gum-disease bacteria

first_img STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. What’s included? While large pharmaceutical companies have been reporting failure after expensive failure in their efforts to develop an Alzheimer’s drug by targeting amyloid, a growing number of startups have been quietly trying different strategies. One approach, pioneered by South San Francisco-based Cortexyme, is based on an old idea that is gaining traction after being shunted aside for decades: that an infectious agent causes Alzheimer’s, and that targeting that pathogen and the neuronal havoc it wreaks can stop and even reverse some aspects of the disease.Proponents of the amyloid hypothesis — that clumps of this protein fragment cause the disease and that eliminating them can stop or reverse it — “have led this field astray for 30 years” said Cortexyme co-founder and CEO Casey Lynch in an email. “Unfortunately, the influence of the few and the groupthink is continuing.” By Sharon Begley Aug. 13, 2019 Reprints Tags biotechnologydrug developmentneurologySTAT+ Log In | Learn More What is it? An old idea that’s gaining new traction: curing Alzheimer’s by targeting gum-disease bacteria Biotech Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.center_img @sxbegle GET STARTED Sharon Begley In this image of Alzheimer’s brain tissue, gingipains from the bacteria P. gingivalis are red; MAP2, a marker of neurons, is yellow; and GFAP, a marker of glial cells surrounding neurons, is green. Cortexyme Senior Writer, Science and Discovery (1956-2021) Sharon covered science and discovery. [email protected] About the Author Reprints Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the biotech sector — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTEDlast_img read more

June 23, 2021

Detailed data on Biogen’s resurrected Alzheimer’s drug raise more questions than answers

first_img STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. GET STARTED By Rebecca Robbins and Matthew Herper Dec. 5, 2019 Reprints Log In | Learn More Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the biotech sector — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED What is it? Ruby Wallau for STAT Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. @matthewherper What’s included?center_img [email protected] Detailed data on Biogen’s resurrected Alzheimer’s drug raise more questions than answers Senior Writer, Medicine, Editorial Director of Events Matthew covers medical innovation — both its promise and its perils. Biotech About the Authors Reprints Tags agingbiotechnologyBoston SAN DIEGO — Biogen on Thursday presented detailed data making a case for its resurrected Alzheimer’s drug, arguing that its mixed study results can be explained away by differences in whether patients got the highest dose of the medicine.But the new data deepen sharp questions about the prospects of the drug and are unlikely to convince skeptics who doubt whether the Food and Drug Administration will be willing to approve it. Biogen’s stock was up 1.75% midday on Thursday after its presentation here at the Alzheimer’s research conference known as CTAD. Matthew Herperlast_img read more

June 23, 2021

Nuance begins selling AI system to automate physician note-taking during exams

first_img Casey Ross By Casey Ross Feb. 24, 2020 Reprints @caseymross National Technology Correspondent Casey covers the use of artificial intelligence in medicine and its underlying questions of safety, fairness, and privacy. He is the co-author of the newsletter STAT Health Tech. Nuance begins selling AI system to automate physician note-taking during exams What’s included? Tags Artificial IntelligenceHealth IThospitalsphysiciansSTAT+ Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Log In | Learn More center_img GET STARTED Health Tech About the Author Reprints [email protected] Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT+ and enjoy your first 30 days free! GET STARTED Adobe What is it? The medical speech recognition company Nuance said Monday it will begin widely selling an artificial intelligence system to automate physician note-taking.The system, built in a partnership with Microsoft, uses technology wired into the walls of the exam room to record and build a narrative of each patient encounter that is uploaded into electronic health records. Physicians can use voice commands to fill in specific fields within the health record, including the patient’s list of medical problems and medication orders.last_img read more