ResearchHub Foundation✓

ResearchHub Foundation @ResearchHubF

Something huge just landed at @ResearchHub. Introducing: Endowments. Starting today, everyone holding ResearchCoin (RSC) in their ResearchHub account will automatically earn high-yield Funding Credits, distributed daily. Funding Credits must be used to support projects on ResearchHub, turning your one-time investment into a continuous source of research funding.

Elon Musk @elonmusk

If you look closely enough, breakthroughs in everything are accelerating exponentially. An exponential always starts off looking small.

Ruslan Rust @rust_ruslan

Lots of debate this week on whether journals should ban AI in peer review. We actually tested this in our new preprint, and the results were pretty clear to me. For context, I've reviewed for most of the big journals and evaluated 1,000 human reviews as an editor. I love to read and evaluate science. TLDR: From now on I won't do any peer review without AI. For clinical trials, I'd even call human-only review dangerous 🧵

OpenAI @OpenAI

GPT-Rosalind surfaced a new lead for drug discovery: could restoring cholesterol transport protect neurons from degeneration? DCTN1 is a gene linked to Perry syndrome, a rare neurodegenerative disorder. In mouse-brain data, disrupting it increased expression of genes involved in making cholesterol. GPT-Rosalind suggested a possible explanation: cholesterol may not be reaching where neurons need it. That gives scientists a specific mechanism to test and, if confirmed, a direction for developing new treatments for neurodegenerative disorders. With @perturbai_tx and @scrippsresearch, a team of thousands of GPT-Rosalind agents worked in parallel, connecting gene-expression results from millions of mouse brain cells with scientific literature in just 32 minutes. We’re now expanding this collaboration to identify new drug targets.

STAT @statnews

“Committing a Type 1 error does not reflect poorly on the quality of the science done,” writes Mark Louie F. Ramos

Alex Imas @alexolegimas

This dynamic is exactly what we found in our AI in Science: Early Insights piece. Huge uplift in hypothesis generation and computational candidates, but binding bottlenecks moving downstream to verification and testing. Arxiv:

OpenAI @OpenAI

GPT-Rosalind surfaced a new lead for drug discovery: could restoring cholesterol transport protect neurons from degeneration? DCTN1 is a gene linked to Perry syndrome, a rare neurodegenerative disorder. In mouse-brain data, disrupting it increased expression of genes involved in making cholesterol. GPT-Rosalind suggested a possible explanation: cholesterol may not be reaching where neurons need it. That gives scientists a specific mechanism to test and, if confirmed, a direction for developing new treatments for neurodegenerative disorders. With @perturbai_tx and @scrippsresearch, a team of thousands of GPT-Rosalind agents worked in parallel, connecting gene-expression results from millions of mouse brain cells with scientific literature in just 32 minutes. We’re now expanding this collaboration to identify new drug targets.

Heeraj Bulluck @DrHBulluck

The results are in! Peer review relies on people giving their time. How often do we ask reviewers how the system should work for them? We’ve published the findings of the Pirevios reviewer survey, based on 200+ completed responses. Among those who responded: • 71% had considered stopping reviewing in the past year. • 58% named time demands as their main reason for declining a review. • 73% selected payment or compensation as one possible improvement. • 73% said they had never been asked how peer review should work. This was a self-selected survey, so these figures do not represent all reviewers. The full report includes detailed charts, written-response themes and methods: The findings are helping shape what we’re building at Pirevios: a directory where reviewers can describe their specialities and availability, and say whether they are open to unpaid, paid or hybrid reviewing. Our aim is to help journals find suitable reviewers sooner, reduce invitations that do not fit, and give more reviewers a chance to contribute without repeatedly approaching the same people. Thank you to everyone who shared their experience. I’d welcome your thoughts on how we can make this genuinely useful for reviewers and journals. More about Pirevios: @mirvatalasnag @sbrugaletta @ncurzen @mmamas1973 @gbiondizoccai @AnilMakam @dr_yakupergun @EslamAbady33 @francisdeng @PTarantinoMD @ross_prager @LocasaleLab @DrNeilStone @drjohnm @DrDamluji @wisit661 @Hemida_MD @BrettSperryMD @docmartin22 @JadAbdelsattar @Azeem_Majeed @Dr_AmerZeidan @DrToddLee @doctorinigo @AmitGoyalMD @acorderofort @Elsayed_saidx @jtsaxon

Ruslan Rust @rust_ruslan

Which of these viral topics would you most like to see @ResearchHub fund next? These topics all got a lot of media attention recently, but much of the science behind them is still unknown! More background on each one in the thread below 👇