@venkmurthy
AI applied to cardiometabolic prevention & multimodality cardiovascular imaging; Posts may be my opinions & are not medical advice; RT≠endorse
Tony LaRocco @TonyLaRocco@JoelDeTeves Anthropic/OpenAI (and all other Frontier AI companies for that matter) are causing a paradox. They're trying so desperately hard to avoid agents doing "bad things" but in the act of being so cautious and restrictive, are causing the rise in abliterated/uncensored models.
Katalin Susztak @KSusztakCraig Mello kicking off the nephrology meeting ! @ASNKidney RNA medicines and oligo therapies will be the next generation cures for the kidney patients
Mira @_Mira___Mira_If you had an exponential amount of compute you could solve simulate biology exactly and wouldn't need to run any experiments. Some of you will think "of course, but that's an unrealistic assumption" and others will think "no, you need experiments even with that much compute. That's just How It's Done". You would of course need evaluations once you have a solution, but you don't in principle need experiments to find it: Experiments are a way to save compute, dating from a time when it was much more expensive. And I think the presentation is exponential but real systems aren't irreducibly exponential. AlphaFold worked, after all.
Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, FASCO @DrHBursteinThe leaked Merck vaccine data @myESMO underscore the challenges of the orchestrated theater of Act 1, company press release -> Act 2 hold data -> Act 3 public report at major meetings. Act 2, the hold phase, builds excitement for the company & discussion but inevitably there are data shared with KOLs and other stakeholders. $MRNA rose 276% (🔼mkt cap $40+B) on press release and fell 18% (🔽$12B) on leak. Seems unclear how this orchestration helps patients or actual research. To the extent there is peer review, it is done by the journals and not the meeting organizers themselves. @adamfeuerstein @matthewherper
Harold J. Burstein, MD, PhD, FASCO @DrHBursteinThe leaked Merck vaccine data @myESMO underscore the challenges of the orchestrated theater of Act 1, company press release -> Act 2 hold data -> Act 3 public report at major meetings. Act 2, the hold phase, builds excitement for the company & discussion but inevitably there are data shared with KOLs and other stakeholders. $MRNA rose 276% (🔼mkt cap $40+B) on press release and fell 18% (🔽$12B) on leak. Seems unclear how this orchestration helps patients or actual research. To the extent there is peer review, it is done by the journals and not the meeting organizers themselves. @adamfeuerstein @matthewherper
Joseph Marine @DrJMarineMedicine will be the only field in which AI increases cost. Why are doctors allowing AI companies to feed off of the Physician Fee Schedule?
Wil @WillyRontgenMedicare paying hospitals an extra $137.53 for a chest CT they run thru AIDoc Multi-Triage CT Body software, meanwhile rad actually reading the study only makes about $49. Makes sense.
Wil @WillyRontgenMedicare paying hospitals an extra $137.53 for a chest CT they run thru AIDoc Multi-Triage CT Body software, meanwhile rad actually reading the study only makes about $49. Makes sense.
Venk Murthy MD PhD @venkmurthyI have said it for years: editors are the single weakest link in the academic system IMO This is a power that should not reside in central planners (see Hayek) but in the wisdom of the community * Disclosure: I am currently and have been an editor
Jason Locasale @LocasaleLabQuid pro quo is rampant in academic peer review and publishing. But I would be shocked if it were as explicit as “pay me $300K and I’ll publish your paper.” Editors are generally not stupid enough to spell out an arrangement like that. Those working for publicly traded publishing companies like this guy know they would risk their jobs and criminal prosecution. Where it gets murky is paid conference travel that looks like a luxury vacation, cozying up to editors, buying them meals and drinks, and socializing with them. Networks form, and getting into those networks can be key to getting grants and papers published. Editors have friends in those circles too. They notice who you know and who you are associated with. At some journals, you build good relationships with the editors. At others, you never manage to crack the system. Over time, you learn what particular editors like, which subjects excite them, and how they want a story presented. You start shaping your work and its presentation around those preferences. There is a game to play, and you learn how to play it. The influence rarely if ever needs to take the form of an explicit transaction. It becomes embedded in relationships, access, and reciprocal favors, until anticipating what pleases the gatekeepers starts shaping the science itself.
Richard H. Ebright @R_H_EbrightAllegation: "the journal editor in question gave the clinician submitting the manuscript a quote: 'An initial payment of 2 million yuan (US$299,000), with more potentially required later.'"
Sam Altman @samaThe back of the Navier-Stokes milestone shirt is the last line of the chain-of-thought from the solution:
Bryan Johnson @bryan_johnsonI can't find a way to use my genome. I’m the most intense longevity athlete in the world and haven’t used my genome for a single thing. Fully sequenced in 2012. Again this year, paying $7,902 for matched 30x long read + 100x short read. Still, nothing. What am I missing?
Bryan Johnson @bryan_johnsonI can't find a way to use my genome. I’m the most intense longevity athlete in the world and haven’t used my genome for a single thing. Fully sequenced in 2012. Again this year, paying $7,902 for matched 30x long read + 100x short read. Still, nothing. What am I missing?
