When university and hospital trusts were called to the UK parliament last year to answer questions on why they were not following the rules on reporting results, we saw how effective the questioning from politicians was. Those of you who watched the parliamentary session saw the pressure the university representatives were put under. Because the politicians asked […]

New research has shown that the majority of clinical trials which should be following the US law on reporting results aren’t. Less than half (41%) of clinical trial results were reported on time and 1 in 3 trials (36%) remain unreported. The research also found that clinical trials sponsored by companies are the most likely […]

A judge in New York has ruled that hundreds of clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov are breaking the law by not reporting results. The ruling came in a court case launched against the US Department of Health and Human Services by two plaintiffs, a family doctor and a professor of journalism. The case focused on […]

Even by the already-painfully-embarrassingly-low standards of clinical trial enrollment in general, patient enrollment in cancer clinical trials is slow. Horribly slow. In many cancer trials, randomizing one patient every three or four months isn't bad at all – in fact, it's par for the course. The most
commonly-cited number is that only 3% of cancer patients participate in a trial – and although exact details of how that number is measured are remarkably difficult to pin down, it certainly can't be too far from reality.

Ultimately, the cost of slow enrollment is borne almost entirely by patients; their payment takes the form of fewer new therapies and less evidence to support their treatment decisions.

So when a couple dozen thousand of the world's top oncologists fly into Chicago to meet, you'd figure that improving accrual would be high on everyone’s agenda. You can't run your trial without patients, after all.

But every year, the annual ASCO meeting underdelivers in new ideas for getting more patients into trials. I suppose this a consequence of ASCO's members-only focus: getting the oncologists themselves to address patient accrual is a bit like asking NASCAR drivers to tackle the problems of aerodynamics, engine design, and fuel chemistry.

Nonetheless, every year, a few brave souls do try. Here is a quick rundown of accrual-related abstracts at this year’s meeting, conveniently sorted into 3 logical categories:

1. As Lord Kelvin may or may not have said, “If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.”

• Abstract e15572: Inadequate data availability on clinical trial accrual and its effect on progress in cancer research

Probably the most sensible of this year's crop, because rather than trying to make something out of nothing, the authors measure exactly how pervasive the nothing is. Specifically, they attempt to obtain fairly basic patient accrual data for the last three years' worth of clinical trials in kidney cancer. Out of 108 trials identified, they managed to get – via search and direct inquiries with the trial sponsors – basic accrual data for only 43 (40%).

That certainly qualifies as “terrible”, though the authors content themselves with “poor”.

Interestingly, exactly zero of the 32 industry-sponsored trials responded to the authors' initial survey. This fits with my impression that pharma companies continue to think of accrual data as proprietary, though what sort of business advantage it gives them is unclear. Any one company will have only run a small fraction of these studies, greatly limiting their ability to draw anything resembling a valid conclusion.

• Abstract TPS6645: Predictors of accrual success for cooperative group trials: The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (Alliance) experience

CALGB investigators look at 110 trials over the past 10 years to see if they can identify any predictive markers of successful enrollment. Unfortunately, the trials themselves are pretty heterogeneous (accrual periods ranged from 6 months to 8.8 years), so finding a consistent marker for successful trials would seem unlikely.

And, in fact, none of the usual suspects (e.g., startup time, disease prevalence) appears to have been significant. The exception was provision of medication by the study, which was positively associated with successful enrollment.

The major limitation with this study, apart from the variability of trials measured, is in its definition of “successful”, which is simply the total number of planned enrolled patients. Under both of their definitions, a slow-enrolling trial that drags on for years before finally reaching its goal is successful, whereas if that same trial had been stopped early it is counted as unsuccessful. While that sometimes may be the case, it's easy to imagine situations where allowing a slow trial to drag on is a painful waste of resources – especially if results are delayed enough to bring their relevance into question.

Even worse, though, is that a trial’s enrollment goal is itself a prediction. The trial steering committee determines how many sites, and what resources, will be needed to hit the number needed for analysis. So in the end, this study is attempting to identify predictors of successful predictions, and there is no reason to believe that the initial enrollment predictions were made with any consistent methodology.

2. If you don't know, maybe ask somebody?

• Abstract 8592: Strategies to overcome barriers to accrual (BtA) to NCI-sponsored clinical trials: A project of the NCI-Myeloma Steering Committee Accrual Working Group (NCI-MYSC AWG)
  
• Abstract 1596: Rapid online feedback to improve clinical trial accrual: CODEL anaplastic glioma (AG) (NCCTG/Alliance N0577) as a model

With these two abstracts we celebrate and continue the time-honored tradition of alchemy, whereby we transmute base opinion into golden data. The magic number appears to be 100: if you've got 3 digits' worth of doctors telling you how they feel, that must be worth something.

In the first abstract, a working group is formed to identify and vote on the major barriers to accrual in oncology trials. Then – and this is where the magic happens – that same group is asked to identify and vote on possible ways to overcome those barriers.

In the second, a diverse assortment of community oncologists were given an online survey to provide feedback on the design of a phase 3 trial in light of recent new data. The abstract doesn't specify who was initially sent the survey, so we cannot tell response rate, or compare survey responders to the general population (I'll take a wild guess and go with “massive response bias”).

Market research is sometimes useful. But what cancer clinical trial do not need right now are more surveys are working groups. The “strategies” listed in the first abstract are part of the same cluster of ideas that have been on the table for years now, with no appreciable increase in trial accrual.

3. The obligatory “What the What?” abstract

• Abstract 6564: Minority accrual on a prospective study targeting a diverse U.S. breast cancer population: An analysis of Wake Forest CCOP research base protocol 97609

The force with which my head hit my desk after reading this abstract made me concerned that it had left permanent scarring.

If this had been re-titled “Poor Measurement of Accrual Factors Leads to Inaccurate Accrual Reporting”, would it still have been accepted for this year’s meeting? That's certainly a more accurate title.

Let’s review: a trial intends to enroll both white and minority patients. Whites enroll much faster, leading to a period where only minority patients are recruited. Then, according to the authors, “an almost 4-fold increase in minority accrual raises question of accrual disparity.” So, sites will only recruit minority patients when they have no choice?

But wait: the number of sites wasn't the same during the two periods, and start-up times were staggered. Adjusting for actual site time, the average minority accrual rate was 0.60 patients/site/month in the first part and 0.56 in the second. So the apparent 4-fold increase was entirely an artifact of bad math.

This would be horribly embarrassing were it not for the fact that bad math seems to be endemic in clinical trial enrollment. Failing to adjust for start-up time and number of sites is so routine that not doing it is grounds for a presentation.

The bottom line

What we need now is to rigorously (and prospectively) compare and measure accrual interventions. We have lots of candidate ideas, and there is no need for more retrospective studies, working groups, or opinion polls to speculate on which ones will work best.  Where possible, accrual interventions should themselves be randomized to minimize confounding variables which prevent accurate assessment. Data needs to be uniformly and completely collected. In other words, the standards that we already use for clinical trials need to be applied to the enrollment measures we use to engage patients to participate in those trials.

This is not an optional consideration. It is an ethical obligation we have to cancer patients: we need to assure that we are doing all we can to maximize the rate at which we generate new evidence and test new therapies.

[Image credit: Logarithmic turtle accrual rates courtesy of Flikr user joleson.]

[Fair Warning: I have generally tried to keep this blog separate from my corporate existence, but am making an exception for two quick posts about the upcoming DIA 2013 Annual Meeting.]

Improving Enrollment in Pediatric Clinical Trials

Logistically, ethically, and emotionally, involving children in medical research is greatly different from the same research in adults. Some of the toughest clinical trials I've worked on, across a number of therapeutic areas, have been pediatric ones. They challenge you to come up with different approaches to introducing and explaining clinical research – approaches that have to work for doctors, kids, and parents simultaneously.

On Thursday June 27, Don Sickler, one of my team members, will be chairing a session titled “Parents as Partners: Engaging Caregivers for Pediatric Trials”. It should be a good session.

Joining Don are 2 people I've had the pleasure of working with in the past. Both of them combine strong knowledge of clinical research with a massive amount of positive energy and enthusiasm (no doubt a big part of what makes them successful).

However, they also differ in one key aspect: what they work on. One of them – Tristen Moors from Hyperion Therapeutics - works on an ultra-rare condition, Urea Cycle Disorder, a disease affecting only a few hundred children every year. On the other hand, Dr. Ann Edmunds is an ENT working in a thriving private practice. I met her because she was consistently the top enroller in a number of trials relating to tympanostomy tube insertion. Surgery to place “t-tubes” is one of the most common and routine outpatients surgeries there is, with an estimated half million kids getting tubes each year.

Each presents a special challenge: for rare conditions, how do you even find enough patients? For routine procedures, how do you convince parents to complicate their (and their children’s) lives by signing up for a multi-visit, multi-procedure trial?

Ann and Tristen have spent a lot of time tackling these issues, and should have some great advice to give.

For more information on the session, here’s Don’s posting on our news blog.

Are we looking at our enrollment data in the right way?

Session Details:

June 25, 1:45PM - 3:15PM

• Session Number: 241
• Room Number: 205B

1. Enrollment Analytics: Moving Beyond the Funnel
Paul Ivsin
VP, Consulting Director
CAHG Clinical Trials

2. Use of Analytics for Operational Planning
Diana Chung, MSc
Associate Director, Clinical Operations
Gilead
3. Using Enrollment Data to Communicate Effectively with Sites
Gretchen Goller, MA
Senior Director, Patient Access and Retention Services
PRA

This morning I ran across a bit of a coffee-spitter: in the middle of an otherwise opaquely underinformative press release fromTranscelerate Biopharma about the launch of their

Counterfeits flooding the market? Really?

"Comparator Network" - which will perhaps streamline member companies' ability to obtain drugs from each other for clinical trials using active comparator arms -  the CEO of the consortium, Dalvir Gill, drops a rather remarkable quote:

"Locating and accessing these comparators at the right time, in the right quantities and with the accompanying drug stability and regulatory information we need, doesn't always happen efficiently. This is further complicated by infiltration of the commercial drug supply chain by counterfeit drugs.  With the activation of our Comparator Network the participating TransCelerate companies will be able to source these comparator drugs directly from each other, be able to secure supply when they need it in the quantities they need, have access to drug data and totally mitigate the risk of counterfeit drugs in that clinical trial."

Counterfeit drugs have even been known to have been involved in clinical drug trials.^{[citation needed]}

But while we can all agree that "patient engagement is good" in a highly general sense, we don't have much consensus on what the implications of that idea might be. There is precious little hard evidence about how to either attract engaged patients, or how we might effectively turn "regular patients" into "engaged patients".

The decade following passage of FDAAA has been one of easing standards for drug approvals in the US, most notably with the advent of “breakthrough” designation created by FDASIA in 2012 and the 21st Century Cures Act in 2016.

Although, as of this writing, there is no nominee for FDA Commissioner, it appears to be safe to say that the current administration intends to accelerate the pace of deregulation, mostly through further lowering of approval requirements. In fact, some of the leading contenders for the position are on record as supporting a return to pre-Kefauver-Harris days, when drug efficacy was not even considered for approval.

Build a better mouse model, and pharma will beat a path to your door - no laws needed.

In this context, it is at least refreshing to read a proposal to increase efficacy standards. This comes from two bioethicists at McGill University, who make the somewhat-startling case for a higher degree of efficacy evaluation before a drug begins any testing in humans.

We contend that a lack of emphasis on evidence for the efficacy of drug candidates is all too common in decisions about whether an experimental medicine can be tested in humans. We call for infrastructure, resources and better methods to rigorously evaluate the clinical promise of new interventions before testing them on humans for the first time.

The author propose some sort of centralized clearinghouse to evaluate efficacy more rigorously. It is unclear what they envision this new multispecialty review body’s standards for green-lighting a drug to enter human testing. Instead they propose three questions:

• What is the likelihood that the drug will prove clinically useful?
• Assume the drug works in humans. What is the likelihood of observing the preclinical results?
• Assume the drug does not work in humans. What is the likelihood of observing the preclinical results?

These seem like reasonable questions, I suppose – and are likely questions that are already being asked of preclinical data. They certainly do not rise to the level of providing a clear standard for regulatory approval, though perhaps it’s a reasonable place to start.

The most obvious counterargument here is one that the authors curiously don’t pick up on at all: if we had the ability to accurately (or even semiaccurately) predict efficacy preclinically, pharma sponsors would already be doing it. The comment notes: “More-thorough assessments of clinical potential before trials begin could lower failure rates and drug-development costs.” And it’s hard not to agree: every pharmaceutical company would love to have even an incrementally-better sense of whether their early pipeline drugs will be shown to work as hoped.

The authors note

Commercial interests cannot be trusted to ensure that human trials are launched only when the case for clinical potential is robust. We believe that many FIH studies are launched on the basis of flimsy, underscrutinized evidence.

However, they do not produce any evidence that industry is in any way deliberately underperforming their preclinical work, merely that preclinical efficacy is often difficult to reproduce and is poorly correlated with drug performance in humans.

Pharmaceutical companies have many times more candidate compounds than they can possibly afford to put into clinical trials. Figuring out how to lower failure rates – or at least the total cost of failure - is a prominent industry obsession, and efficacy remains the largest source of late-stage trial failure. This quest to “fail faster” has resulted in larger and more expensive phase 2 trials, and even to increased efficacy testing in some phase 1 trials. And we do this not because of regulatory pressure, but because of hopes that these efforts will save overall costs. So it seems beyond probable that companies would immediately invest more in preclinical efficacy testing, if such testing could be shown to have any real predictive power. But generally speaking, it does not.

As a general rule, we don’t need regulations that are firmly aligned with market incentives, we need regulations if and when we think those incentives might run counter to the general good. In this case, there are already incredibly strong market incentives to improve preclinical assessments. Where companies have attempted to do something with limited success, it would seem quixotic to think that regulatory fiat will accomplish more.

(One further point. The authors try to link the need for preclinical efficacy testing to the 2016 Bial tragedy. This seems incredibly tenuous: the authors speculate that perhaps trial participants would not have been harmed and killed if Bial had been required to produce more evidence of BIA102474’s clinical efficacy before embarking on their phase 1 trials. But that would have been entirely coincidental in this case: if the drug had in fact more evidence of therapeutic promise, the tragedy still would have happened, because it had nothing at all to do with the drug’s efficacy.

This is to some extent a minor nitpick, since the argument in favor of earlier efficacy testing does not depend on a link to Bial. However, I bring it up because a) the authors dedicate the first four paragraphs of their comment to the link, and b) there appears to be a minor trend of using the death and injuries of that trial to justify an array of otherwise-unrelated initiatives. This seems like a trend we should discourage.)

[Update 2/23: I posted this last night, not realizing that only a few hours earlier, John LaMattina had published on this same article. His take is similar to mine, in that he is suspicious of the idea that pharmaceutical companies would knowingly push ineffective drugs up their pipeline.]

Kimmelman, J., & Federico, C. (2017). Consider drug efficacy before first-in-human trials Nature, 542 (7639), 25-27 DOI: 10.1038/542025a

NPR's Leila Fadel talks with actor Patrick Dempsey about his efforts to raise money for cancer treatment and prevention.

Journalist Annie Lowrey has a rare disease that causes a near-constant itch that doesn't respond to most treatments. She likens the itchiness to a car alarm: "You can't stop thinking about it."

Dunia perjudian daring telah menyaksikan kemunculan penyedia perangkat lunak yang menghebohkan, dan di antara mereka, Pragmatic Play telah berhasil menarik perhatian para pemain dengan berbagai slot online unggulan. Dalam artikel…

The post Menjelajahi Dunia Keajaiban Slot Online Pragmatic Play appeared first on Biosimilarnews.

The future of an innovative retinal implant and dozens of its users just got brighter, after Science, a bioelectronics startup run by Neuralink’s cofounder, Max Hodak, acquired Pixium’s technology at the last minute.

Pixium Vision, whose Prima system to tackle vision loss is implanted in 47 people across Europe and the United States, was in danger of disappearing completely until Science stepped in to buy the French company’s assets in April, for an undisclosed amount.

Pixium has been developing Prima for a decade, building on work by Daniel Palanker, a professor of ophthalmology at Stanford University. The 2-by-2-millimeter square implant is surgically implanted under the retina, where it turns infrared data from camera-equipped glasses into pulses of electricity. These replace signals generated by photoreceptor rods and cones, which are damaged in people suffering from age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

Early feasibility studies in the E.U. and the United States suggested Prima was safe and potentially effective, but Pixium ran out of money last November before the final results of a larger, multiyear pivotal trial in Europe.

“It’s very important to us to avoid another debacle like Argus II.”

With the financial and legal clock ticking down, the trial data finally arrived in March this year. “And the results from that were just pretty stunning,” says Max Hodak, Science’s founder and CEO, in his first interview since the acquisition.

Although neither Pixium nor Science has yet released the full dataset, Hodak shared with IEEE Spectrum videos of three people using Prima, each of them previously unable to read or recognize faces due to AMD. The videos show them slowly but fluently reading a hardback book, filling in a crossword puzzle, and playing cards.

“This is legit ‘form vision’ that I don’t think any device has ever done,” says Hodak. Form vision is the ability to recognize visual elements as parts of a larger object. “It’s this type of data that convinced us. And from there we were like, this should get to patients.”

As well as buying the Prima technology, Hodak says that Science will hire the majority of Pixium’s 35 engineering and regulatory staff, in a push to get the technology approved in Europe as quickly as possible.

The Prima implant receives visual data and is powered by near-infrared signals beamed from special spectacles.Pixium

Another priority is supporting existing Prima patients, says Lloyd Diamond, Pixium’s outgoing CEO. “It’s very important to us to avoid another debacle like Argus II,” he says, referring to another retinal implant whose manufacturer went out of business in 2022, leaving users literally in the dark.

Diamond is excited to be working with Science, which is based in Silicon Valley with a chip foundry in North Carolina. “They have a very deep workforce in software development, in electronic development, and in biologic research,” he says. “And there are probably only a few foundries in the world that could manufacture an implant such as ours. Being able to internalize part of that process is a very big advantage.”

Hodak hopes that a first-generation Prima product could quickly be upgraded with a wide-angle camera and the latest electronics. “We think that there’s one straight shrink, where we’ll move to smaller pixels and get higher visual acuity,” he says. “After that, we’ll probably move to a 3D electrode design, where we’ll be able to get closer to single-cell resolution.” That could deliver even sharper artificial vision.

In parallel, Science will continue Pixium’s discussions with the FDA in the United States about advancing a clinical trial there.

The success of Prima is critical, says Hodak, who started Science in 2021 after leaving Neuralink, a brain-computer interface company he cofounded with Elon Musk. “Elon can do whatever he wants for as long as he wants, but we need something that can finance future development,” he says. “Prima is big enough in terms of impact to patients and society that it is capable of helping us finance the rest of our ambitions.”

These include a next-generation Prima device, which Hodak says he is already talking about with Palanker, and a second visual prosthesis, currently called the Science Eye. This will tackle retinitis pigmentosa, a condition affecting peripheral vision—the same condition targeted by Second Sight’s ill-fated Argus II device.

“The Argus II just didn’t work that well,” says Hodak. “In the end, it was a pure bridge to nowhere.” Like the Argus II and Prima, the Science Eye relies on camera glasses and an implant, but with the addition of optogenetic therapy. This uses a genetically engineered virus to deliver a gene to specific optic nerve cells in the retina, making them light-sensitive at a particular wavelength. A tiny implanted display with a resolution sharper than an iPhone screen then enables fine control over the newly sensitized cells.

That system is still undergoing animal trials, but Hodak is almost ready to pull the trigger on its first human clinical studies, likely in Australia and New Zealand.

“In the long term, I think precision optogenetics will be more powerful than Prima’s electrical stimulation,” he says. “But we’re agnostic about which approach works to restore vision.”

One thing he does believe vehemently, unlike Musk, is that the retina is the best place to put an implant. Neuralink and Cortigent (the successor company of Second Sight) are both working on prosthetics that target the brain’s visual cortex.

“There’s a lot that you can do in cortex, but vision is not one of them,” says Hodak. He thinks the visual cortex is too complex, too distributed, and too difficult to access surgically to be useful.

“As long as the optic nerve is intact, the retina is the ideal place to think about restoring vision to the brain,” he says. “This is all a question of effect size. If someone has been in darkness for a decade, with no light, no perception, and you can give them any type of visual stimulus, they’re going to be into it. The Pixium patients can intuitively read, and that was really what convinced us that this was worth picking up and pursuing.”

For people with diabetes, glucose monitors are a valuable tool to monitor their blood sugar. The current generation of these biosensors detect glucose levels with thin, metallic filaments inserted in subcutaneous tissue, the deepest layer of the skin where most body fat is stored.

Medical technology company Biolinq is developing a new type of glucose sensor that doesn’t go deeper than the dermis, the middle layer of skin that sits above the subcutaneous tissue. The company’s “intradermal” biosensors take advantage of metabolic activity in shallower layers of skin, using an array of electrochemical microsensors to measure glucose—and other chemicals in the body—just beneath the skin’s surface.

Biolinq just concluded a pivotal clinical trial earlier this month, according to CEO Rich Yang, and the company plans to submit the device to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval at the end of the year. In April, Biolinq received US $58 million in funding to support the completion of its clinical trials and subsequent submission to the FDA.

Biolinq’s glucose sensor is “the world’s first intradermal sensor that is completely autonomous,” Yang says. While other glucose monitors require a smartphone or other reader to collect and display the data, Biolinq’s includes an LED display to show when the user’s glucose is within a healthy range (indicated by a blue light) or above that range (yellow light). “We’re providing real-time feedback for people who otherwise could not see or feel their symptoms,” Yang says. (In addition to this real-time feedback, the user can also load long-term data onto a smartphone by placing it next to the sensor, like Abbott’s FreeStyle Libre, another glucose monitor.)

More than 2,000 microsensor components are etched onto each 200-millimeter silicon wafer used to manufacture the biosensors.Biolinq

Biolinq’s hope is that its approach could lead to sustainable changes in behavior on the part of the individual using the sensor. The device is intentionally placed on the upper forearm to be in plain sight, so users can receive immediate feedback without manually checking a reader. “If you drink a glass of orange juice or soda, you’ll see this go from blue to yellow,” Yang explains. That could help users better understand how their actions—such as drinking a sugary beverage—change their blood sugar and take steps to reduce that effect.

Biolinq’s device consists of an array of microneedles etched onto a silicon wafer using semiconductor manufacturing. (Other glucose sensors’ filaments are inserted with an introducer needle.) Each chip has a small 2-millimeter by 2-millimeter footprint and contains seven independent microneedles, which are coated with membranes through a process similar to electroplating in jewelry making. One challenge the industry has faced is ensuring that microsensors do not break at this small scale. The key engineering insight Biolinq introduced, Yang says, was using semiconductor manufacturing to build the biosensors. Importantly, he says, silicon “is harder than titanium and steel at this scale.”

Miniaturization allows for sensing closer to the surface of the skin, where there is a high level of metabolic activity. That makes the shallow depth ideal for monitoring glucose, as well as other important biomarkers, Yang says. Due to this versatility, combined with the use of a sensor array, the device in development can also monitor lactate, an important indicator of muscle fatigue. With the addition of a third data point, ketones (which are produced when the body burns fat), Biolinq aims to “essentially have a metabolic panel on one chip,” Yang says.

Using an array of sensors also creates redundancy, improving the reliability of the device if one sensor fails or becomes less accurate. Glucose monitors tend to drift over the course of wear, but with multiple sensors, Yang says that drift can be better managed.

One downside to the autonomous display is the drain on battery life, Yang says. The battery life limits the biosensor’s wear time to 5 days in the first-generation device. Biolinq aims to extend that to 10 days of continuous wear in its second generation, which is currently in development, by using a custom chip optimized for low-power consumption rather than off-the-shelf components.

The company has collected nearly 1 million hours of human performance data, along with comparators including commercial glucose monitors and venous blood samples, Yang says. Biolinq aims to gain FDA approval first for use in people with type 2 diabetes not using insulin and later expand to other medical indications.

This article appears in the August 2024 print issue as “Glucose Monitor Takes Page From Chipmaking.”

Last month when Google introduced its new AI search tool, called AI Overviews, the company seemed confident that it had tested the tool sufficiently, noting in the announcement that “people have already used AI Overviews billions of times through our experiment in Search Labs.” The tool doesn’t just return links to Web pages, as in a typical Google search, but returns an answer that it has generated based on various sources, which it links to below the answer. But immediately after the launch users began posting examples of extremely wrong answers, including a pizza recipe that included glue and the interesting fact that a dog has played in the NBA.

Renée DiResta has been tracking online misinformation for many years as the technical research manager at Stanford’s Internet Observatory.

While the pizza recipe is unlikely to convince anyone to squeeze on the Elmer’s, not all of AI Overview’s extremely wrong answers are so obvious—and some have the potential to be quite harmful. Renée DiResta has been tracking online misinformation for many years as the technical research manager at Stanford’s Internet Observatory and has a new book out about the online propagandists who “turn lies into reality.” She has studied the spread of medical misinformation via social media, so IEEE Spectrum spoke to her about whether AI search is likely to bring an onslaught of erroneous medical advice to unwary users.

I know you’ve been tracking disinformation on the Web for many years. Do you expect the introduction of AI-augmented search tools like Google’s AI Overviews to make the situation worse or better?

Renée DiResta: It’s a really interesting question. There are a couple of policies that Google has had in place for a long time that appear to be in tension with what’s coming out of AI-generated search. That’s made me feel like part of this is Google trying to keep up with where the market has gone. There’s been an incredible acceleration in the release of generative AI tools, and we are seeing Big Tech incumbents trying to make sure that they stay competitive. I think that’s one of the things that’s happening here.

We have long known that hallucinations are a thing that happens with large language models. That’s not new. It’s the deployment of them in a search capacity that I think has been rushed and ill-considered because people expect search engines to give them authoritative information. That’s the expectation you have on search, whereas you might not have that expectation on social media.

There are plenty of examples of comically poor results from AI search, things like how many rocks we should eat per day [a response that was drawn for an Onion article]. But I’m wondering if we should be worried about more serious medical misinformation. I came across one blog post about Google’s AI Overviews responses about stem-cell treatments. The problem there seemed to be that the AI search tool was sourcing its answers from disreputable clinics that were offering unproven treatments. Have you seen other examples of that kind of thing?

DiResta: I have. It’s returning information synthesized from the data that it’s trained on. The problem is that it does not seem to be adhering to the same standards that have long gone into how Google thinks about returning search results for health information. So what I mean by that is Google has, for upwards of 10 years at this point, had a search policy called Your Money or Your Life. Are you familiar with that?

I don’t think so.

DiResta: Your Money or Your Life acknowledges that for queries related to finance and health, Google has a responsibility to hold search results to a very high standard of care, and it’s paramount to get the information correct. People are coming to Google with sensitive questions and they’re looking for information to make materially impactful decisions about their lives. They’re not there for entertainment when they’re asking a question about how to respond to a new cancer diagnosis, for example, or what sort of retirement plan they should be subscribing to. So you don’t want content farms and random Reddit posts and garbage to be the results that are returned. You want to have reputable search results.

That framework of Your Money or Your Life has informed Google’s work on these high-stakes topics for quite some time. And that’s why I think it’s disturbing for people to see the AI-generated search results regurgitating clearly wrong health information from low-quality sites that perhaps happened to be in the training data.

So it seems like AI overviews is not following that same policy—or that’s what it appears like from the outside?

DiResta: That’s how it appears from the outside. I don’t know how they’re thinking about it internally. But those screenshots you’re seeing—a lot of these instances are being traced back to an isolated social media post or a clinic that’s disreputable but exists—are out there on the Internet. It’s not simply making things up. But it’s also not returning what we would consider to be a high-quality result in formulating its response.

I saw that Google responded to some of the problems with a blog post saying that it is aware of these poor results and it’s trying to make improvements. And I can read you the one bullet point that addressed health. It said, “For topics like news and health, we already have strong guardrails in place. In the case of health, we launched additional triggering refinements to enhance our quality protections.” Do you know what that means?

DiResta: That blog posts is an explanation that [AI Overviews] isn’t simply hallucinating—the fact that it’s pointing to URLs is supposed to be a guardrail because that enables the user to go and follow the result to its source. This is a good thing. They should be including those sources for transparency and so that outsiders can review them. However, it is also a fair bit of onus to put on the audience, given the trust that Google has built up over time by returning high-quality results in its health information search rankings.

I know one topic that you’ve tracked over the years has been disinformation about vaccine safety. Have you seen any evidence of that kind of disinformation making its way into AI search?

DiResta: I haven’t, though I imagine outside research teams are now testing results to see what appears. Vaccines have been so much a focus of the conversation around health misinformation for quite some time, I imagine that Google has had people looking specifically at that topic in internal reviews, whereas some of these other topics might be less in the forefront of the minds of the quality teams that are tasked with checking if there are bad results being returned.

What do you think Google’s next moves should be to prevent medical misinformation in AI search?

DiResta: Google has a perfectly good policy to pursue. Your Money or Your Life is a solid ethical guideline to incorporate into this manifestation of the future of search. So it’s not that I think there’s a new and novel ethical grounding that needs to happen. I think it’s more ensuring that the ethical grounding that exists remains foundational to the new AI search tools.

A thimbleful of soil can contain a universe of microorganisms, up to 10 billion by some estimates. Now a group of researchers in Bath, United Kingdom, are building prototype technologies that harvest electrons exhaled by some micro-species.

The idea is to power up low-yield sensors and switches, and perhaps help farmers digitally optimize crop yields to meet increasing demand and more and more stressful growing conditions. There could be other tasks, too, that might make use of a plant-and-forget, low-yield power source—such as monitoring canals for illegal waste dumping.

The research started small, based out of the University of Bath, with field-testing in a Brazilian primary school classroom and a green pond near it—just before the onset of the pandemic.

“We had no idea what the surroundings would be. We just packed the equipment we needed and went,” says Jakub Dziegielowski, a University of Bath, U.K. chemical engineering Ph.D. student. “And the pond was right by the school—it was definitely polluted, very green, with living creatures in it, and definitely not something I’d feel comfortable drinking from. So it got the job done.”

The experiments they did along with kids from the school and Brazilian researchers that summer of 2019 were aimed at running water purifiers. It did so. However, it also wasn’t very efficient, compared to, say, a solar panel.

So work has moved on in the Bath labs: in the next weeks, Dziegielowski will both turn 29 and graduate with his doctorate. And he, along with two other University of Bath advisors and colleagues recently launched a spinoff company—it’s called Bactery—to perfect a prototype for a network of soil microbial fuel cells for use in agriculture.

A microbial fuel cell is a kind of power plant that converts chemical energy stored in organic molecules into electrical energy, using microbes as a catalyst. It’s more often used to refer to liquid-based systems, Dziegielowski says. Organics from wastewater serve as the energy source, and the liquid stream mixes past the electrodes.

A soil microbial fuel cell, however, has one of its electrodes—the anode, which absorbs electrons—in the dirt. The other electrode, the cathode, is exposed to air. Batteries work because ions move through an electrolyte between electrodes to complete a circuit. In this case, the soil itself acts as the electrolyte—as well as source of the catalytic microbes, and as the source of the fuel.

The Bath, U.K.-based startup Bactery has developed a set up fuel cells powered by microbes in the soil—with, in the prototype pictured here, graphite mats as electrodes. University of Bath

Fields full of Watts

In a primary school in the fishing village of Icapuí on Brazil’s semi-arid northeastern coast, the group made use of basic components: graphite felt mats acting as electrodes, and nylon pegs to maintain spacing and alignment between them. (Bactery is now developing new kinds of casing.)

By setting up the cells in a parallel matrix, the Icapuí setup could generate 38 milliwatts per square meter. In work since, the Bath group’s been able to reach 200 milliwatts per square meter.

Electroactive bacteria—also called exoelectrogens or electricigens—take in soluble iron or acids or sugar and exhale electrons. There are dozens of species of microbes that can do this, including bacteria belonging to genera such as Geobacter and Shewanella. There are many others.

But 200 milliwatts per square meter is not a lot of juice: enough to charge a mobile phone, maybe, or keep an LED nightlight going—or, perhaps, serve as a power source for sensors or irrigation switches. “As in so many things, it comes down to the economics,” says Bruce Logan, an environmental engineer at Penn State who wrote a 2007 book, Microbial Fuel Cells.

A decade ago Palo Alto engineers launched the MudWatt, a self-contained kit that could light a small LED. It’s mostly marketed as a school science project. But even now, some 760 million people do not have reliable access to electricity. “In remote areas, soil microbial fuel cells with higher conversion and power management efficiencies would fare better than batteries,” says Sheela Berchmans, a retired chief scientist of the Central Electrochemical Research Institute in Tamil Nadu, India.

Korneel Rabaey, professor in the department of biotechnology at the University of Ghent, in Belgium, says electrochemical micro-power sources—a category that now includes the Bactery battery—is gaining buzz in resource recovery, for uses such as extracting pollutants from wastewater, with electricity as a byproduct. “You can think of many applications that don’t require a lot of power,” he says, “But where sensors are important.”

For the first time, a small group of patients with amputations below the knee were able to control the movements of their prosthetic legs through neural signals—rather than relying on programmed cycles for all or part of a motion—and resume walking with a natural gait. The achievement required a specialized amputation surgery combined with a non-invasive surface electrode connection to a robotic prosthetic lower leg. A study describing the technologies was published today in the journal Nature Medicine.

“What happens then is quite miraculous. The patients that have this neural interface are able to walk at normal speeds; and up and down steps and slopes; and maneuver obstacles really without thinking about it. It’s natural. It’s involuntary,” said co-author Hugh Herr, who develops bionic prosthetics at the MIT Media Lab. “Even though their limb is made of titanium and silicone—all these various electromechanical components—the limb feels natural and it moves naturally, even without conscious thought.”

The approach relies on surgery at the amputation site to create what the researchers call an agonist-antagonist myoneural Interface, or AMI. The procedure involves connecting pairs of muscles (in the case of below-the-knee amputation, two pairs), as well as the introduction of proprietary synthetic elements.

The interface creates a two-way connection between body and machine. Muscle-sensing electrodes send signals to a small computer in the prosthetic limb that interprets them as angles and forces for joints at the ankle and ball of the foot. It also sends information back about the position of the artificial leg, restoring a sense of where the limb is in space, also known as proprioception.

Video 1 www.youtube.com

“The particular mode of control is far beyond what anybody else has come up with,” said Daniel Ferris, a neuromechanical engineer at the University of Florida; Ferris was not involved in the study, but has worked on neural interfaces for controlling lower limb prostheses. “It’s a really novel idea that they’ve built on over the last eight years that’s showing really positive outcomes for better bionic lower legs.” The latest publication is notable for a larger participant pool than previous studies, with seven treatment patients and seven control patients with amputations and typical prosthetic legs.

To test the bionic legs, patients were asked to walk on level ground at different speeds; up and down slopes and stairs; and to maneuver around obstacles. The AMI users had a more natural gait, more closely resembling movement by someone using a natural limb. More naturalistic motion can improve freedom of movement, particularly over challenging terrain, but in other studies researchers have also noted reduced energetic costs, reduced stress on the body, and even social benefits for some amputees.

Co-author Hyungeun Song, a postdoctoral researcher at MIT, says the group was surprised by the efficiency of the bionic setup. The prosthetic interface sent just 18 percent of the typical amount of information that’s sent from a limb to the spine, yet it was enough to allow patients to walk with what was considered a normal gait.

Next Steps for the Bionic Leg

AMI amputations have now become the standard at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Massachusetts, where co-author Matthew Carty works. And because of patient benefits in terms of pain and ease of using even passive (or non-robotic) prosthetics, this technique—or something similar—could spread well beyond the current research setting. To date, roughly 60 people worldwide have received AMI surgery above or below either an elbow or knee.

In principle, Herr said, someone with a previously amputated limb, such as himself, could undergo AMI rehabilitation, and he is strongly considering the procedure. More than 2 million Americans are currently living with a lost limb, according to the Amputee Coalition, and nearly 200,000 lower legs are amputated each year in the United States.

On the robotics side, there are already commercial leg prosthetics that could be made compatible with the neural interface. The area in greatest need of development is the connection between amputation site and prosthesis. Herr says commercialization of that interface might be around five years away.

Herr says his long-term goal is neural integration and embodiment: the sense that a prosthetic is part of the body, rather than a tool. The new study “is a critical step forward—pun intended.”

Cochlear implants—the neural prosthetic cousins of standard hearing aids—can be a tremendous boon for people with profound hearing loss. But many would-be users are turned off by the device’s cumbersome external hardware, which must be worn to process signals passing through the implant. So researchers have been working to make a cochlear implant that sits entirely inside the ear, to restore speech and sound perception without the lifestyle restrictions imposed by current devices.

A new biocompatible microphone offers a bridge to such fully internal cochlear implants. About the size of a grain of rice, the microphone is made from a flexible piezoelectric material that directly measures the sound-induced motion of the eardrum. The tiny microphone’s sensitivity matches that of today’s best external hearing aids.

Cochlear implants create a novel pathway for sounds to reach the brain. An external microphone and processor, worn behind the ear or on the scalp, collect and translate incoming sounds into electrical signals, which get transmitted to an electrode that’s surgically implanted in the cochlea, deep within the inner ear. There, the electrical signals directly stimulate the auditory nerve, sending information to the brain to interpret as sound.

But, says Hideko Heidi Nakajima, an associate professor of otolaryngology at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts Eye and Ear, “people don’t like the external hardware.” They can’t wear it while sleeping, or while swimming or doing many other forms of exercise, and so many potential candidates forgo the device altogether. What’s more, incoming sound goes directly into the microphone and bypasses the outer ear, which would otherwise perform the key functions of amplifying sound and filtering noise. “Now the big idea is instead to get everything—processor, battery, microphone—inside the ear,” says Nakajima. But even in clinical trials of fully internal designs, the microphone’s sensitivity—or lack thereof—has remained a roadblock.

Nakajima, along with colleagues from MIT, Harvard, and Columbia University, fabricated a cantilever microphone that senses the motion of a bone attached behind the eardrum called the umbo. Sound entering the ear canal causes the umbo to vibrate unidirectionally, with a displacement 10 times as great as other nearby bones. The tip of the “UmboMic” touches the umbo, and the umbo’s movements flex the material and produce an electrical charge through the piezoelectric effect. These electrical signals can then be processed and transmitted to the auditory nerve. “We’re using what nature gave us, which is the outer ear,” says Nakajima.

Why a cochlear implant needs low-noise, low-power electronics

Making a biocompatible microphone that can detect the eardrum’s minuscule movements isn’t easy, however. Jeff Lang, a professor of electrical engineering at MIT who jointly led the work, points out that only certain materials are tolerated by the human body. Another challenge is shielding the device from internal electronics to reduce noise. And then there’s long-term reliability. “We’d like an implant to last for decades,” says Lang.

In tests of the implantable microphone prototype, a laser beam measures the umbo’s motion, which gets transferred to the sensor tip. JEFF LANG & HEIDI NAKAJIMA

The researchers settled on a triangular design for the 3-by-3-millimeter sensor made from two layers of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), a biocompatible piezoelectric polymer, sandwiched between layers of flexible, electrode-patterned polymer. When the cantilever tip bends, one PVDF layer produces a positive charge and the other produces a negative charge—taking the difference between the two cancels much of the noise. The triangular shape provides the most uniform stress distribution within the bending cantilever, maximizing the displacement it can undergo before it breaks. “The sensor can detect sounds below a quiet whisper,” says Lang.

Emma Wawrzynek, a graduate student at MIT, says that working with PVDF is tricky because it loses its piezoelectric properties at high temperatures, and most fabrication techniques involve heating the sample. “That’s a challenge especially for encapsulation,” which involves encasing the device in a protective layer so it can remain safely in the body, she says. The group had success by gradually depositing titanium and gold onto the PVDF while using a heat sink to cool it. That approach created a shielding layer that protects the charge-sensing electrodes from electromagnetic interference.

The other tool for improving a microphone’s performance is, of course, amplifying the signal. “On the electronics side, a low-noise amp is not necessarily a huge challenge to build if you’re willing to spend extra power,” says Lang. But, according to MIT graduate student John Zhang, cochlear implant manufacturers try to limit power for the entire device to 5 milliwatts, and just 1 mW for the microphone. “The trade-off between noise and power is hard to hit,” Zhang says. He and fellow student Aaron Yeiser developed a custom low-noise, low-power charge amplifier that outperformed commercially available options.

“Our goal was to perform better than or at least equal the performance of high-end capacitative external microphones,” says Nakajima. For leading external hearing-aid microphones, that means sensitivity down to a sound pressure level of 30 decibels—the equivalent of a whisper. In tests of the UmboMic on human cadavers, the researchers implanted the microphone and amplifier near the umbo, input sound through the ear canal, and measured what got sensed. Their device reached 30 decibels over the frequency range from 100 hertz to 6 kilohertz, which is the standard for cochlear implants and hearing aids and covers the frequencies of human speech. “But adding the outer ear’s filtering effects means we’re doing better [than traditional hearing aids], down to 10 dB, especially in speech frequencies,” says Nakajima.

Plenty of testing lies ahead, at the bench and on sheep before an eventual human trial. But if their UmboMic passes muster, the team hopes that it will help more than 1 million people worldwide go about their lives with a new sense of sound.

The work was published on 27 June in the Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering.

Blood pressure is one of the critical vital signs for health, but standard practice can only capture a snapshot, using a pressure cuff to squeeze arteries. Continuous readings are available, but only by inserting a transducer directly into an artery via a needle and catheter. Thanks to researchers at Caltech, however, it may soon be possible to measure blood pressure continuously at just about any part of the body.

In a paper published in July in PNAS Nexus, the researchers describe their resonance sonomanometry (RSM) approach to reading blood pressure. This new technology uses ultrasound to measure the dimensions of artery walls. It also uses sound waves to find resonant frequencies that can reveal the pressure within those walls via arterial wall tension. This information is sufficient to calculate the absolute pressure within the artery at any moment, without the need for calibration.

This last factor is important, as other non-invasive approaches only provide relative changes in blood pressure. They require periodic calibration using readings from a traditional pressure cuff. The RSM technology eliminates the need for calibration, making continuous readings more reliable.

How resonance sonomanometry works

The researchers’ RSM system uses an ultrasound transducer to measure the dimensions of the artery. It also transmits sound waves at different frequencies. The vibrations cause the arterial walls to move in and out in response, creating a distinct pattern of motion. When the resonant frequency is transmitted, the top and bottom of the artery will move in and out in unison.

This resonant frequency can be used to determine the tension of the artery walls. The tension in the walls is directly correlated with the fluid pressure of the blood within the artery. As a result, the blood pressure can be calculated at any instant based on the dimensions of the artery and its resonant frequency.

The researchers have validated this approach with both mockups and human subjects. They first tested the technology on an arterial model that used a thin-walled rubber tubing and a syringe to vary the pressure. They tested this mockup using multiple pressures and tubing of different diameters.

The researchers then took measurements with human subjects at their carotid arteries (located in the neck), using a standard pressure cuff to take intermittent measurements. The RSM technology was successful, and subsequently was also demonstrated on axillary (shoulder), brachial (arm), and femoral (leg) arteries. The readings were so clear that the researchers mention that they might even be able to detect blood pressure changes related to respiration and its impact on thoracic pressure.

Unlike traditional pressure cuff approaches, RSM provides data during the entire heartbeat cycle, and not just the systolic and diastolic extremes (In other words, the two numbers you receive during a traditional blood pressure measurement). And the fact that RSM works with different-sized arteries means that it should be applicable across different body sizes and types. Using ultrasound also eliminates possible complications such as skin coloration that can affect light-based devices.

The researchers tested their ultrasound-based blood pressure approach on subjects’ carotid arteries.Esperto Medical

“I’m a big fan of continuous monitoring; a yearly blood pressure reading in the doctor’s office is insufficient for decision making,” says Nick van Terheyden, M.D., the digital health leader with Iodine Software, a company providing machine learning technologies to improve healthcare insights. “A new approach based on good old rules of math and physics is an exciting development.”

The Caltech researchers have created a spinoff company, Esperto Medical, to develop a commercial product using RSM technology. The company has created a transducer module that is smaller than a deck of cards, making it practical to incorporate into a wearable armband. They hope to miniaturize the hardware to the point that it could be incorporated into a wrist-worn device. According to Raymond Jimenez, Esperto Medical’s chief technology officer, “this technology poses the potential to unlock accurate, calibration-free [blood pressure measurements] everywhere—in the clinic, at the gym, and even at home.”

It appears that there’s a significant market for such a product. “92 percent of consumers who intend to buy a wearable device are willing to pay extra for a health-related feature, and blood pressure ranks first among such features,” says Elizabeth Parks, the president of Internet of Things consulting firm Parks Associates.

In the future, rather than relying on arm-squeezing blood pressure cuffs, smart watches may be able to directly monitor blood pressure throughout the day, just as they already do for heart rate and other vital signs.

Neuralink’s visual prosthesis Blindsight has been designated a breakthrough device by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which potentially sets the technology on a fast track to approval.

In confirming the news, an FDA spokesperson emphasized that the designation does not mean that Blindsight is yet considered safe or effective. Technologies in the program have potential to improve the current standard of care and are novel compared to what’s available on the market, but the devices still have to go through full clinical trials before seeking FDA approval.

Still, the announcement is a sign that Neuralink is moving closer to testing Blindsight in human patients. The company is recruiting people with vision loss for studies in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Visual prostheses work by capturing visual information with a video camera, typically attached to glasses or a headset. Then a processor converts the data to an electrical signal that can be relayed to the nervous system. Retinal implants have been a common approach, with electrodes feeding the signal to nerves in the retina, at the back of the eye, from where it travels on to the brain. But Blindsight uses a brain implant to send the signal directly to neurons in the visual cortex.

In recent years, other companies developing artificial vision prosthetics have reached clinical research trials or beyond, only to struggle financially, leaving patients without support. Some of these technologies live on with new backing: Second Sight’s Orion cortical implant project is now in a clinical trial with Cortigent, and Pixium Vision’s Prima system is now owned by Science, with ex-Neuralink founder Max Hodak at the helm. No company has yet commercialized a visual prosthetic that uses a brain implant.

Elon Musk’s Claims About Blindsight

Very little information about Blindsight is publicly available. As of this writing, there is no official Blindsight page on the Neuralink website, and Neuralink did not respond to requests for comment. It’s also unclear how exactly Blindsight relates to a brain-computer interface that Neuralink has already implanted in two people with paralysis, who use their devices to control computer cursors.

Experts who spoke with IEEE Spectrum felt that, if judged against the strong claims made by Neuralink’s billionaire co-founder Elon Musk, Blindsight will almost certainly disappoint. However, some were still open to the possibility that Neuralink could successfully bring a device to market that can help people with vision loss, albeit with less dramatic effects on their sense of sight. While Musk’s personal fortune could help Blindsight weather difficulties that would end other projects, experts did not feel it was a guarantee of success.

After Neuralink announced on X (formerly Twitter) that Blindsight had received the breakthrough device designation, Musk wrote:

The Blindsight device from Neuralink will enable even those who have lost both eyes and their optic nerve to see.

Provided the visual cortex is intact, it will even enable those who have been blind from birth to see for the first time.

To set expectations correctly, the vision will be at first be [sic] low resolution, like Atari graphics, but eventually it has the potential be [sic] better than natural vision and enable you to see in infrared, ultraviolet or even radar wavelengths, like Geordi La Forge.

Musk included a picture of La Forge, a character from the science-fiction franchise Star Trek who wears a vision-enhancing visor.

Experts Puncture the Blindsight Hype

“[Musk] will build the best cortical implant we can build with current technology. It will not produce anything like normal vision. [Yet] it might produce vision that can transform the lives of blind people,” said Ione Fine, a computational neuroscientist at the University of Washington, who has written about the potential limitations of cortical implants, given the complexity of the human visual system. Fine previously worked for the company Second Sight.

A successful visual prosthetic might more realistically be thought of as assistive technology than a cure for blindness. “At best, we’re talking about something that’s augmentative to a cane and a guide dog; not something that replaces a cane and a guide dog,” said Philip Troyk, a biomedical engineer at the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Restoring natural vision is beyond the reach of today’s technology. But among Musks recent claims, Troyk says that a form of infrared sensing is plausible and has already been tested with one of his patients, who used it for help locating people within a room. That patient has a 400-electrode device implanted in the visual cortex as part of a collaborative research effort called the Intracortical Visual Prosthesis Project (ICVP). By comparison, Blindsight may have more than 1,000 electrodes, if it’s a similar device to Neuralink’s brain-computer interface.

Experts say they’d like more information about Neuralink’s visual prosthetic. “I’m leery about the fact that they are very superficial in their description of the devices,” said Gislin Dagnelie, a vision scientist at Johns Hopkins University who has been involved in multiple clinical trials for vision prosthetics, including a Second Sight retinal implant, and who is currently collaborating on the ICVP. “There’s no clear evaluation or pre-clinical work that has been published,” says Dagnelie. “It’s all based on: ‘Trust us, we’re Neuralink.’”

In the short term, too much hype could mislead clinical trial participants. It could also degrade interest in small but meaningful advancements in visual prosthetics. “Some of the [Neuralink] technology is exciting, and has potential,” said Troyk. “The way the messaging is being done detracts from that, potentially.”

Surgical stitches that generate electricity can help wounds heal faster in rats, a new study from China finds.

In the body, electricity helps the heart beat, causes muscles to contract, and enables the body to communicate with the brain. Now scientists are increasingly using electricity to promote healing with so-called electroceuticals. These electrotherapies often seek to mimic the electrical signals the body naturally uses to help new cells migrate to wounds to support the healing process.

In the new study, researchers focused on sutures, which are used to close wounds and surgical incisions. Despite the way in which medical devices have evolved rapidly over the years, sutures are generally limited in capability, says Zhouquan Sun, a doctoral candidate at Donghua University in Shanghai. “This observation led us to explore integrating advanced therapeutics into sutures,” Sun says.

Prior work sought to enhance sutures by adding drugs or growth factors to the stitches. However, most of these drugs either had insignificant effects on healing, or triggered side-effects such as allergic reactions or nausea. Growth factors in sutures often degraded before they could have any effect, or failed to activate entirely.

The research team that created the new sutures previously developed fibers for electronics for nearly 10 years for applications such as sensors. “This is our first attempt to apply fiber electronics in the biomedical field,” says Chengyi Hou, a professor of materials science and engineering at Donghua University.

Making Electrical Sutures Work

The new sutures are roughly 500 microns wide, or about five times the width of the average human hair. Like typical sutures, the new stitches are biodegradable, avoiding the need for doctors to remove the stitches and potentially cause more damage to a wound.

Each suture is made of a magnesium filament core wrapped in poly(lactic-co-glycolic) acid (PLGA) nanofibers, a commercially available, inexpensive, biodegradable polymer used in sutures. The suture also includes an outer sheath made of polycaprolactone (PCL), a biodegradable polyester and another common suture material.

Previously, electrotherapy devices were often bulky and expensive, and required wires connected to an external battery. The new stitches are instead powered by the triboelectric effect, the most common cause of static electricity. When two different materials repeatedly touch and then separate—in the case of the new suture, its core and sheath—the surface of one material can steal electrons from the surface of the other. This is why rubbing feet on a carpet or a running a comb through hair can build up electric charge.

A common problem sutures face is how daily movements may cause strain that reduce their efficacy. The new stitches take advantage of these motions to help generate electricity that helps wounds heal.

The main obstacle the researchers had to surmount was developing a suture that was both thin and strong enough to serve in medicine. Over the course of nearly two years, they tinkered with the molecular weights of the polymers they used and refined their fiber spinning technology to reduce their suture’s diameter while maintaining strength, Sun says.

In lab experiments on rats, the sutures generated about 2.3 volts during normal exercise. The scientists found the new sutures could speed up wound healing by 50 percent over the course of 10 days compared to conventional sutures. They also significantly lowered bacteria levels even without the use of daily wound disinfectants, suggesting they could reduce the risk of post-operation infections.

“Future research may delve deeper into the molecular mechanisms of how electrical stimulation facilitated would healing,” says Hui Wang, a chief physician at Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital.

Further tests are needed in clinical settings to assess how effective these sutures are in humans. If such experiments prove successful, “this bioabsorbable electrically stimulating suture could change how we treat injuries in the future,” Hou says.

The scientists detailed their findings online 8 October in the journal Nature Communications.

This article is part of our exclusive IEEE Journal Watch series in partnership with IEEE Xplore.

Any imaging technique that allows scientists to observe the inner workings of a living organism, in real-time, provides a wealth of information compared to experiments in a test tube. While there are many such imaging approaches in existence, they require test subjects—in this case rodents—to be tethered to the monitoring device. This limits the ability of animals under study to roam freely during experiments.

Researchers have recently designed a new microscope with a unique feature: It’s capable of transmitting real-time imaging from inside live mice via Bluetooth to a nearby phone or laptop. Once the device has been further miniaturized, the wireless connection will allow mice and other test subject animals to roam freely, making it easier to observe them in a more natural state.

“To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Bluetooth wireless microscope,” says Arvind Pathak, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

Through a series of experiments, Pathak and his colleagues demonstrate how the novel wireless microscope, called BLEscope, offers continuous monitoring of blood vessels and tumors in the brains of mice. The results are described in a study published 24 September in IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

Microscopes have helped shed light on many biological mysteries, but the devices typically require that cells be removed from an organism and studied in a test tube. Any opportunity to study the biological process as it naturally occurs in the in the body (“in vivo”) tends to offer more useful and thorough information.

Several different miniature microscopes designed for in vivo experiments in animals exist. However, Pathak notes that these often require high power consumption or a wire to be tethered to the device to transmit the data—or both—which may restrict an animal’s natural movements and behavior.

“To overcome these hurdles, [Johns Hopkins University Ph.D. candidate] Subhrajit Das and our team designed an imaging system that operates with ultra-low power consumption—below 50 milliwatts—while enabling wireless data transmission and continuous, functional imaging at spatial resolutions of 5 to 10 micrometers in [rodents],” says Pathak.

The researchers created BLEscope using an off-the-shelf, low-power image sensor and microcontroller, which are integrated on a printed circuit board. Importantly, it has two LED lights of different colors—green and blue—that help create contrast during imaging.

“The BLE protocol enabled wireless control of the BLEscope, which then captures and transmits images wirelessly to a laptop or phone,” Pathak explains. “Its low power consumption and portability make it ideal for remote, real-time imaging.”

Pathak and his colleagues tested BLEscope in live mice through two experiments. In the first scenario, they added a fluorescent marker into the blood of mice and used BLEscope to characterize blood flow within the animals’ brains in real-time. In the second experiment, the researchers altered the oxygen and carbon dioxide ratios of the air being breathed in by mice with brain tumors, and were able to observe blood vessel changes in the fluorescently marked tumors.

“The BLEscope’s key strength is its ability to wirelessly conduct high-resolution, multi-contrast imaging for up to 1.5 hours, without the need for a tethered power supply,” Pathak says.

However, Pathak points out that the current prototype is limited by its size and weight. BLEscope will need to be further miniaturized, so that it doesn’t interfere with animals’ abilities to roam freely during experiments.

“We’re planning to miniaturize the necessary electronic components onto a flexible light-weight printed circuit board, which would reduce weight and footprint of the BLEscope to make it suitable for use on freely moving animals,” says Pathak.

This story was updated on 14 October 2024, to correct a statement about the size of the BLEscope.

Imagine you’re a baby cocoa plant, just unfurling your first tentative roots into the fertile, welcoming soil.

Somewhere nearby, a predator stirs. It has no ears to hear you, no eyes to see you. But it knows where you are, thanks in part to the weak electric field emitted by your roots.

It is microscopic, but it’s not alone. By the thousands, the creatures converge, slithering through the waterlogged soil, propelled by their flagella. If they reach you, they will use fungal-like hyphae to penetrate and devour you from the inside. They’re getting closer. You’re a plant. You have no legs. There’s no escape.

But just before they fall upon you, they hesitate. They seem confused. Then, en masse, they swarm off in a different direction, lured by a more attractive electric field. You are safe. And they will soon be dead.

If Eleonora Moratto and Giovanni Sena get their way, this is the future of crop pathogen control.

Many variables are involved in the global food crisis, but among the worst are the pests that devastate food crops, ruining up to 40 percent of their yield before they can be harvested. One of these—the little protist in the example above, an oomycete formally known as Phytophthora palmivora—has a US $1 billion appetite for economic staples like cocoa, palm, and rubber.

There is currently no chemical defense that can vanquish these creatures without poisoning the rest of the (often beneficial) organisms living in the soil. So Moratto, Sena, and their colleagues at Sena’s group at Imperial College London settled on a non-traditional approach: They exploited P. palmivora’s electric sense, which can be spoofed.

All plant roots that have been measured to date generate external ion flux, which translates into a very weak electric field. Decades of evidence suggests that this signal is an important target for predators’ navigation systems. However, it remains a matter of some debate how much their predators rely on plants’ electrical signatures to locate them, as opposed to chemical or mechanical information. Last year, Moratto and Sena’s group found that P. palmivora spores are attracted to the positive electrode of a cell generating current densities of 1 ampere per square meter. “The spores followed the electric field,” says Sena, suggesting that a similar mechanism helps them find natural bioelectric fields emitted by roots in the soil.

That got the researchers wondering: Might such an artificial electric field override the protists’ other sensory inputs, and scramble their compasses as they tried to use plant roots’ much weaker electrical output?

To test the idea, the researchers developed two ways to protect plant roots using a constant vertical electric field. They cultivated two common snacks for P. palmivora—a flowering plant related to cabbage and mustard, and a legume often used as a livestock feed plant—in tubes in a hydroponic solution.

Two electric-field configurations were tested: A “global” vertical field [left] and a field generated by two small nearby electrodes. The global field proved to be slightly more effective.Eleonora Moratto

In the first assay, the researchers sandwiched the plant roots between rows of electrodes above and below, which completely engulfed them in a “global” vertical field. For the second set, the field was generated using two small electrodes a short distance away from the plant, creating current densities on the order of 10 A/m². Then they unleashed the protists.

With respect to the control group, both methods successfully diverted a significant portion of the predators away from the plant roots. They swarmed the positive electrode, where—since zoospores can’t survive for longer than about 2 to 3 hours without a host—they presumably starved to death. Or worse. Neil Gow, whose research presented some of the first evidence for zoospore electrosensing, has other theories about their fate. “Applied electrical fields generate toxic products and steep pH gradients near and around the electrodes due to the electrolysis of water,” he says. “The tropism towards the electrode might be followed by killing or immobilization due to the induced pH gradients.”

Not only did the technique prevent infestation, but some evidence indicates that it may also mitigate existing infections. The researchers published their results in August in Scientific Reports.

The global electric field was marginally more successful than the local. However, it would be harder to translate from lab conditions into a (literal) field trial in soil. The local electric field setup would be easy to replicate: “All you have to do is stick the little plug into the soil next to the crop you want to protect,” says Sena.

Moratto and Sena say this is a proof of concept that demonstrates a basis for a new, pesticide-free way to protect food crops. (Sena likens the technique to the decoys used by fighter jets to draw away incoming missiles by mimicking the signals of the original target.) They are now looking for funding to expand the project. The first step is testing the local setup in soil; the next is to test the approach on Phytophthora infestans, a meaner, scarier cousin of P. palmivora.

P. infestans attacks a more varied diet of crops—you may be familiar with its work during the Irish potato famine. The close genetic similarities imply another promising candidate for electrical pest control. This investigation, however, may require more funding. P. infestans research can be undertaken only under more stringent laboratory security protocols.

The work at Imperial ties into the broader—and somewhat charged—debate around electrostatic ecology; that is, the extent to which creatures including ticks make use of heretofore poorly understood electrical mechanisms to orient themselves and in other ways enhance their survival. “Most people still aren’t aware that naturally occurring electricity can play an ecological role,” says Sam England, a behavioral ecologist with Berlin’s Natural History Museum. “So I suspect that once these electrical phenomena become more well known and understood, they will inspire a greater number of practical applications like this one.”

In the spirit of the Halloween season, IEEE Spectrum presents a pair of stories that—although grounded in scientific truth rather than the macabre—were no less harrowing for those who lived them. In today’s installment, Robert Langer had to push back against his field’s conventional wisdom to pioneer a drug-delivery mechanism vital to modern medicine.

Nicknamed the Edison of Medicine, Robert Langer is one of the world’s most-cited researchers, with over 1,600 published papers, 1,400 patents, and a top-dog role as one of MIT’s nine prestigious Institute Professors. Langer pioneered the now-ubiquitous drug delivery systems used in modern cancer treatments and vaccines, indirectly saving countless lives throughout his 50-year career.

But, much like Edison and other inventors, Langer’s big ideas were initially met with skepticism from the scientific establishment.

He came up in the 1970s as a chemical engineering postdoc working in the lab of Dr. Judah Folkman, a pediatric surgeon at the Boston Children’s Hospital. Langer was tasked with solving what many believed was an impossible problem—isolating angiogenesis inhibitors to halt cancer growth. Folkman’s vision of stopping tumors from forming their own self-sustaining blood vessels was compelling enough, but few believed it possible.

Langer encountered both practical and social challenges before his first breakthrough. One day, a lab technician accidentally spilled six months’ worth of samples onto the floor, forcing him to repeat the painstaking process of dialyzing extracts. Those months of additional work steered Langer’s development of novel microspheres that could deliver large molecules of medicine directly to tumors.

In the 1970s, Langer developed these tiny microspheres to release large molecules through solid materials, a groundbreaking proof-of-concept for drug delivery.Robert Langer

Langer then submitted the discovery to prestigious journals and was invited to speak at a conference in Michigan in 1976. He practiced the 20-minute presentation for weeks, hoping for positive feedback from respected materials scientists. But when he stepped off the podium, a group approached him and said bluntly, “We don’t believe anything you just said.” They insisted that macromolecules were simply too large to pass through solid materials, and his choice of organic solvents would destroy many inputs. Conventional wisdom said so.

Nature published Langer’s paper three months later, demonstrating for the first time that non-inflammatory polymers could enable the sustained release of proteins and other macromolecules. The same year, Science published his isolation mechanism to restrict tumor growth.

Langer and Folkman’s research paved the way for modern drug delivery.MIT and Boston Children’s Hospital

Even with impressive publications, Langer still struggled to secure funding for his work in controlling macromolecule delivery, isolating the first angiogenesis inhibitors, and testing their behavior. His first two grant proposals were rejected on the same day, a devastating blow for a young academic. The reviewers doubted his experience as “just an engineer” who knew nothing about cancer or biology. One colleague tried to cheer him up, saying, “It’s probably good those grants were rejected early in your career. Since you’re not supporting any graduate students, you don’t have to let anyone go.” Langer thought the colleague was probably right, but the rejections still stung.

His patent applications, filed alongside Folkman at the Boston Children’s Hospital, were rejected five years in a row. After all, it’s difficult to prove you’ve got something good if you’re the only one doing it. Langer remembers feeling disappointed but not crushed entirely. Eventually, other scientists cited his findings and expanded upon them, giving Langer and Folkman the validation needed for intellectual property development. As of this writing, the pair’s two studies from 1976 have been cited nearly 2,000 times.

As the head of MIT’s Langer Lab, he often shares these same stories of rejection with early-career students and researchers. He leads a team of over 100 undergrads, grad students, postdoctoral fellows, and visiting scientists, all finding new ways to deliver genetically engineered proteins, DNA, and RNA, among other research areas. Langer’s reputation is further bolstered by the many successful companies he co-founded or advised, like mRNA leader Moderna, which rose to prominence after developing its widely used COVID-19 vaccine.

Langer sometimes thinks back to those early days—the shattered samples, the cold rejections, and the criticism from senior scientists. He maintains that “Conventional wisdom isn’t always correct, and it’s important to never give up—(almost) regardless of what others say.”

When it comes to the effects that the upcoming Trump presidency will have on healthcare, attendees’ attitudes ranged from cautiously optimistic to fairly anxious. Some of the issues they highlighted included mental health parity, telehealth prescribing flexibilities, and the role of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The post How Did Attendees at a Behavioral Health Conference React to Trump’s Victory? appeared first on MedCity News.

Navigating the regulatory and ethical requirements of different medical data providers across many different countries, as well as safeguarding patient privacy, is a mammoth task that requires extra resources and expertise.  

The post AI is Revolutionizing Healthcare, But Are We Ready for the Ethical Challenges?  appeared first on MedCity News.

CDMO Avid Bioservices is being acquired by the private equity firms GHO Capital Partners and Ampersand Capital Partners. Avid specializes in manufacturing biologic products for companies at all stages of development.

The post Private Equity Is Picking Up Biologics CDMO Avid Bioservices in $1.1B Acquisition appeared first on MedCity News.

Value-based care contracting is especially difficult for behavioral health providers, Taft Parsons III, chief psychiatric officer at CVS Health/Aetna, pointed out during a conference this week.

The post CVS Health Exec: Payers Need to Stop Making Behavioral Health Providers Jump Through Hoops In Order to Participate in Value-Based Care appeared first on MedCity News.

During a panel discussion at the Behavioral Health Tech conference, experts shared the promise psychedelic medicines hold for mental health and why employers may want to consider offering them as a workplace benefit.

The post 4 Things Employers Should Know About Psychedelic Medicines appeared first on MedCity News.

By fostering collaboration and seamless data integration into healthcare systems, the industry is laying the groundwork for a future in which “personalized medicine” is so commonplace within clinical practice that we will just start calling it “medicine.”

The post Driving Genetic Testing Adoption and Improved Patient Care through Health Data Intelligence appeared first on MedCity News.

Whitney Haggerson — vice president of health equity and Medicaid at Providence — discussed the significance of her role, as well as how her health system is working to give all employees, regardless of title, the skills needed to help reduce health inequities.

The post Inside Providence’s Health Equity & Medicaid Strategy appeared first on MedCity News.

Here’s how four different health systems are partnering with Microsoft to save time for clinicians.

The post How 4 Health Systems Are Partnering with Microsoft appeared first on MedCity News.

Neurogene’s Rett syndrome gene therapy has preliminary data supporting safety and efficacy of the one-time treatment. But a late-breaking report of a serious complication in a patient who received the high dose sent shares of the biotech downward.

The post Neurogene Gene Therapy Shows Signs of Efficacy in Small Study, But an Adverse Event Spooks Investors appeared first on MedCity News.

Fort Health’s $5.5 million in funding was led by Twelve Below and Vanterra and included participation from Redesign Health, Blue Venture Fund and True Wealth Ventures.

The post Fort Health Secures $5.5M to Expand Access to Integrated Pediatric Mental Health Care appeared first on MedCity News.

Now is the time for health plans to step up and embrace the tools and strategies that will not only meet regulatory demands, but also drive innovation in care delivery. 

The post Where Medicare Advantage Goes From Here appeared first on MedCity News.

In 2018, opioid overdoses in the United States caused one death every 11 minutes, resulting in nearly 47,000 fatalities. The most effective treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) are three medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA): methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone.

Few correctional facilities in the United States have treatment programs for individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), despite clear evidence that certain medications reduce the risk of overdose and death. Even in facilities where treatment is available, the COVID-19 pandemic has complicated efforts to provide such care.

Research has consistently demonstrated strong links between people’s health and societal sectors such as employment, community development, education, housing, and transportation.

Faulty diagnostic tests can compromise both patient care and the nation’s response to infectious diseases—as made all too clear earlier this month when the Food and Drug Administration issued a safety alert about a COVID-19 test that carries a high risk of false negative results.

In vitro diagnostics (IVDs) play an indispensable role in modern medicine. Health care providers routinely rely on these tests—which analyze samples such as blood or saliva—to help diagnose conditions and guide potentially life-altering treatment decisions. In 2017, for example, clinicians ordered blood tests during about 45% of emergency room visits in the United States, according to the Centers...

Dr. Cassandra Quave’s path to her work as a leader in antibiotic drug discovery research initiatives at Emory University in Atlanta started when she was a child and she and her family dealt with her own serious health issues that have had life-long repercussions.

Between 1999 and 2014, opioid use disorder (OUD) among pregnant women more than quadrupled, risking the health of the women—before and after giving birth—and their infants. As states grapple with COVID-19’s exacerbation of the opioid crisis, several are taking innovative steps to address the needs of high-risk groups, including low-income, postpartum patients with OUD.

The Pew Charitable Trusts today commended Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D), state Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R), and Lee Chatfield (R)—whose term as state House Speaker ended last month—for passing and signing a bipartisan package of bills aimed at protecting public safety while reducing the number of people in county jails.

Sales of medically important antibiotics for use in food-producing animals increased 3% in 2019, according to recent data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This is the second year in a row that the quantities of antibiotics sold for animal use have risen, underscoring the need for further FDA action to ensure judicious use of these lifesaving drugs.

Chicken products cause an estimated 1 in 7 of the nation’s human Salmonella illnesses each year, partly because the pathogen can easily contaminate the environments where birds are raised. To reduce the risk that contaminated meat will reach consumers, poultry companies need measures that control the bacterium on farms where chickens are bred and raised.

The United States is grappling with two severe health crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and an opioid epidemic that appears to be worsening as more people deal with stress and isolation as they face increased barriers to medical care. Preliminary numbers for 2020 show that overdose deaths were outpacing the record-setting number of more than 71,000 fatalities in 2019.

Technology has revolutionized the way people live their lives. Individuals can use smartphones to access their bank account, shop from almost any store, and connect with friends and family around the globe. In fact, these personal devices have tethered communities together during the coronavirus pandemic, allowing many people to maintain much of their lives remotely.

The Food and Drug Administration published a concept paper in early January that describes a preliminary proposal for how the agency will ensure that companies developing antibiotics for administration to animals establish defined, evidence-based durations of use for all medically important antibiotics.

Modern innovation typically occurs one step-improvement at a time. Some clients initially question whether their new application of an existing technology is patentable. Usually, the answer is ‘yes.’ Under U.S. law (and most other jurisdictions), an innovation to an existing technology is patentable so long as at least one claim limitation is novel and non-obvious....… Continue Reading