ChatGPT, GPT-4 | Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence Group, LLC, Doing Business As LPBI Group, Newton, MA

Archive for the ‘ChatGPT, GPT-4’ Category

10th annual World Medical Innovation Forum (WMIF) Monday, Sept. 23–Wednesday, Sept. 25 at the Encore Boston Harbor in Boston

Posted in AI-assisted Cardiac MRI, Artificial Intelligence - General, Artificial intelligence applications for cardiology, Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care, Artificial Intelligence in CANCER, Artificial Intelligence in Health Care - Tools & Innovations, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine - Application for Diagnosis, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine - Applications in Therapeutics, Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry, CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy, Cancer Genomics, Cancer-Immune Interactions, ChatGPT, GPT-4, CNS-Immune Interface, Conference Coverage with Social Media, Deep Learning in Pathology, Gene Therapy & Gene Editing Development, Healthcare costs and reimbursement, Hospital-based Medical Innovations, Immunology, Machine learning in predicting type 2 diabetes, Metabolism, Metabolomics, Microbiologial genetics, Molecular Genetics & Pharmaceutical, Obesity, United States, Women Health on September 10, 2024| Leave a Comment »

10th annual World Medical Innovation Forum (WMIF) Monday, Sept. 23–Wednesday, Sept. 25 at the Encore Boston Harbor in Boston

Dr. Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, Founder

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence Group, LLC, Doing Business As LPBI Group, Newton, MA

will be in attendance

covering this event in REAL TIME for PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com and WMIF organizers

CLAIMER: Live coverage in REAL TIME on X.com for 9/23/2024

8AM to 3:40PM
at 3:40PM the handles
@Pharma_BI

@AVIVA1950

my two X.com accounts had exceeded tweeting volume capacity and were inactivated to verify if I am a person or a BOT. Account authentication reported SOmething went wrong, try later.

9/23/2024 contacted Customer Services at X.com for reactivated these two accounts

For Speaker’s quotes on 9/23/2024 from 4PM EST to end on the day

see below on WordPress.com by Date, Time, Session Name and Speaker Name

For Speaker’s quotes on 9/24/2024 from 8AM to 5:30PM

see below on WordPress.com by Date, Time, Session Name and Speaker Name

For Speaker’s quotes on 9/25/2024 from 8AM to 12:35PM

see below on WordPress.com by Date, Time, Session Name and Speaker Name

UPDATE on reactivation of handles on X.com will be posted, here.

Usage of X.com will resume after Handle reactivation by X.com

UPDATED on 9/26/2024

Unmet Needs Panel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6hk7yavBzk

100+ Mass General Brigham Leading Experts Identify

Top Unmet Needs in Healthcare

Project from Harvard Medical School-affiliated clinicians and scientists in the Mass General Brigham healthcare system stimulates new consideration, urgency regarding

innovation in life sciences, healthcare

Top 10 List Announced at World Medical Innovation Forum

BOSTON, MA September 25, 2024 – Some of the most vexing challenges and transformational opportunities in healthcare are included in a new list, “Top Unmet Needs in Healthcare” released by leading experts at Mass General Brigham. Identified by more than 100 Harvard Medical School faculty at Mass General Brigham, the findings range from the need to expand and accelerate rare disease treatment, to the coming “gray tsunami” of aging patients and the implications for patient care, delivery, and technology. The project, revealed at the 10th annual World Medical Innovation Forum, is meant to stimulate new consideration and urgency regarding solving and advancing these issues for improved patient care.

Views from Leading Clinicians, Researchers, and Practitioners in Academic Medicine

The Top Unmet Needs emerge from structured one-on-one discussions with more than 100 Harvard faculty who practice medicine and conduct research at Mass General Brigham, the largest hospital system-based research enterprise in the U.S., with an annual research budget exceeding $2 billion, and five of the nation’s top hospitals according to US News & World Report.

Through one-on-one discussions with these key opinion leaders from diverse clinical and research fields, and subsequent analyses by internal teams of experts, Mass General Brigham has identified the following top 10 unmet clinical needs:

#1. Preparing for the ‘Gray Tsunami’

The need for better tools and therapies aimed at caring for geriatric populations and maintaining geriatric independence, with a particular focus on expanded hospital-at-home capabilities, and the need to better understand the pathways that lead to chronic and acute disease in geriatric patients to enable better and more proactive treatment.

#2. Defining and Maintaining Brain Health

The need for a model of brain health and neurological care that clearly defines not only what brain health is but also integrates our current understanding of the mechanisms and phases of neuroinflammatory and neurodegenerative diseases; enables better and earlier diagnoses and treatment; and propels the development of therapies that target these mechanisms and phases.

#3. A Paradigm Shift in Cancer Treatment

The need for a new framework for therapeutic development in cancer that is focused on improving curability as opposed to an exclusive focus on the development of drugs for metastatic disease. This

framework also requires effective tools for early-stage cancer detection across the board in all cancers, but especially in lung, ovarian, pancreatic, and GI cancers (esophagus, stomach and colon).

#4. Targeting Fibrosis, a Shared Culprit in Disease

The need for therapeutics that target fibrosis (tissue scarring), which is responsible for a significant percentage of deaths worldwide, representing diseases of the lung, liver, kidney, heart, and skin.

#5. New Approaches for Infectious Disease in a Changing World

The need for novel strategies for the rapid diagnoses, treatment, and even prevention of antibiotic-resistant infections, and the need for the next generation of globally deployable vaccines to enable pandemic preparedness.

#6. Striving for Equity in Healthcare

The need to radically rethink how, when, and where patients interact with healthcare services to optimize healthcare access and efficiency without diminishing its effectiveness, and to proactively meet the needs of currently underserved populations.

#7. Riding the Wave of Clinical Data

The need to expand the scope of available clinical data to include historically understudied populations (including women) and to model and implement a cohesive, dynamic data “stream,” which flows as patients do between the different phases of health and clinical care, enabling comparisons of patients to their previously healthy selves and the development of AI/ML approaches to harness these data to improve diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.

#8. A Systems-Level View of Human Disease

The need to rethink how we understand and treat disease — not only from an organ-specific standpoint but from a whole-body, systems-level view — and to fully elucidate the roles that inflammation and immune pathways play in autoimmune and infectious diseases and their effects on chronic and acute diseases in diverse human systems, such as the cardiovascular/circulatory and nervous systems.

#9. A New Approach to Psychiatric Disease

The need for novel treatments for psychiatric disease, improved biomarkers and minimally invasive and ambulatory ways of measuring them, and more productive interactions with industry to advance new therapies to the clinic. This includes hybrid therapies (therapies that combine elements such as talk therapy, novel biomarkers, and pharmacological treatments) as well as new diagnostic and treatment modalities, such as psychedelic therapeutics and precision psychiatry.

#10. Charting a Course in Rare Disease Treatment

The need for viable treatments for the 7,000 identified rare diseases, especially the roughly 70% of such diseases that are genetic and the effects of which are first observed in early childhood.

The Unmet Needs list also include the following honorable mentions which rose to significant rankings in the analysis:

Driving Innovation in Chronic Disease: Improved Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention

A New Era of Obesity Medicine

A New Generation of Pain Treatments

Unlocking Novel Treatments for the Skin

Overarching Themes

Addressing unmet clinical needs involves solving a number of common challenges, including commercialization hurdles, regulatory considerations, and funding. The Mass General Brigham project identified overarching themes to help address these challenges and support innovation across multiple sectors. These include:

Taking a systems view of human disease and the practice of system-medicine

Developing a global view of infectious disease, including antimicrobial resistance

An expansion in high-quality, real-world data that closes gaps in current data (particularly for women and other underserved populations) and ensures that data sets are sufficiently enabling for AI/ML

Improving health and healthcare across key populations, including geriatrics and rare genetic disease

Addressing major diseases of the brain, including both neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric conditions; these include Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, as well as psychiatric and mental health disorders

Opening an era of precision medicine across disease areas that includes early diagnosis, treating staged disease, and biomarker discovery and utilization

Panel co-chairs José Florez, Physician-in-Chief and Co-Chair of the MGB Department of Medicine and the Jackson Professor of Clinical Medicine at Harvard Medical School, and Bruce Levy, Physician-In-Chief and Co-Chair of the MGB Department of Medicine and the Parker B. Francis Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, noted how the observations of a broad and representative set of faculty help illuminate the innovation landscape ahead.

“As a leader in patient care and healthcare innovation, our goal is to build on the legacy of research and discovery that has shaped the hospitals of the Mass General Brigham healthcare system for more than a hundred years, and continue to bring breakthroughs forward that can help solve pressing needs,” said Dr. Florez.

Dr. Levy added that “This is a roadmap for the future that can inform discussions happening throughout the healthcare and investment ecosystem regarding the future of medicine.”

More than 2000 decision-makers from healthcare, industry, finance and government attended the World Medical Innovation Forum this week in Boston. A premier global event, the Forum highlights leading innovations in medicine and transformative advancements in patient care.

###

About Mass General Brigham

Mass General Brigham is an integrated academic health care system, uniting great minds to solve the hardest problems in medicine for our communities and the world. Mass General Brigham connects a full continuum of care across a system of academic medical centers, community and specialty hospitals, a health insurance plan, physician networks, community health centers, home care, and long-term care services. Mass General Brigham is a nonprofit organization committed to patient care, research, teaching, and service to the community. In addition, Mass General Brigham is one of the nation’s leading biomedical research organizations with several Harvard Medical School teaching hospitals. For more information, please visit massgeneralbrigham.org.

Contact: Tracy Doyle Mass General Brigham Innovation

(262) 227-5514

Tdoyle5@mgb.org

SOURCE

From: “Doyle, Tracy” <tdoyle5@mgb.org>
Date: Thursday, September 26, 2024 at 10:19 AM
Cc: “Card, Matthew” <matthew.card@bofa.com>
Subject: Unmet Needs in Healthcare — Press Release and link to panel

@@@@@@@

Invitation as MEDIA

From: “Doyle, Tracy” <tdoyle5@mgb.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 14, 2024 at 4:04 PM
Cc: “Doyle, Tracy” <tdoyle5@mgb.org>, “Card, Matthew” <matthew.card@bofa.com>
Subject: Media Invite: World Medical Innovation Forum, Sept. 23-25, Boston — Hundreds of clinical experts, industry, investment leaders

Media Invite: World Medical Innovation Forum: Monday, Sept. 23—Wednesday, Sept. 25, Boston

At the intersection of innovation and investment in healthcare

Join Us!

Register Now: WMIF24 Media Registration

Mass General Brigham, one of the nation’s leading academic medical centers, is pleased to invite reporters to the 10^th annual World Medical Innovation Forum (WMIF) Monday, Sept. 23–Wednesday, Sept. 25 at the Encore Boston Harbor in Boston. The event features expert discussions of scientific and investment trends for some of the hottest areas in healthcare, including

GLP-1s,

the cancer care revolution,

generative AI-enabled care paths,

xenotransplant,

community health,

hospital at home, and

therapeutic psychedelics, among many others.

The agenda includes nearly 175 executive speakers from healthcare, pharma, venture, start-ups, and the front lines of care, including many of Mass General Brigham’s Harvard Medical School-affiliated researchers and clinicians who this year will host 20+ focused sessions. Bank of America, presenting sponsor of the Forum, will provide additional expert insights on the investment landscape associated with healthcare innovation.

Forum highlights include:

1:1 and panel interviews with leading CEOs and government officials including:

Stéphane Bancel, CEO, Moderna

Albert Bourla, PhD, CEO, Pfizer

Marc Casper, CEO, Thermo Fisher

Deepak Chopra, MD, Founder, The Chopra Foundation

Scott Gottlieb, MD, PhD, Former Commissioner, FDA (2017-2019)

Maura Healey, Governor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

David Hyman, MD, CMO, Eli Lilly

Haim Israel, Head of Global Thematic Investing Research, BofA Global Research

Reshma Kewalramani, MD, CEO, Vertex

Anne Klibanski, MD, President and CEO, Mass General Brigham

Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA

Tadaaki Taniguchi, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Officer, Astellas Pharma

Christophe Weber, CEO, Takeda

Renee Wegrzyn, PhD, Director, ARPA-H

Expert panels including:

Oncology’s New Paradigm

Gene Therapies for Rare Diseases

Future of Metabolic Therapies

Digital Transformation

Biologic Revolution in Radiotherapies

Cell Therapies for Autoimmune Diseases

Hospital Venture Funds

Leading biotech and venture speakers from companies including:

Abata Therapeutics

Atlas Venture

Be Biopharma

Everly Health

Flagship Pioneering

Fractyl Health

MindMed

Mirador Therapeutics

Regor Therapeutics

RH Capital

Transcend Therapeutics

Exclusive programming:

First Look – 15 rapid-fire presentations on the latest research from leading Mass General Brigham scientists

Un-Met Clinical Needs – 100+ key opinion leaders in healthcare weigh in on the top un-met clinical needs in medicine today

Emerging Tech Zone – Hands-on exploration of some of the latest digital and AI-based healthcare technologies

Our program keeps growing — explore the current Forum agenda and list of speakers.

FORUM AGENDA

SOURCE

https://2024.worldmedicalinnovation.org/agenda/

Monday, September 23, 2024

7:00 AM – 8:30 AM

Picasso Foyer

Continental Breakfast

7:00 AM – 5:00 PM

Rotunda

Registration

8:00 AM – 10:00 AM

Picasso Ballroom

First Look

First Look: 14 rapid fire presentations

Moderators

Giles Boland, MD

President, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Physicians Organization;

Philip H. Cook Distinguished Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School

Marcela del Carmen, MD

President, Massachusetts General Hospital and Massachusetts General Physicians Organization (MGPO);

Executive Vice President, Mass General Brigham;

Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School

Presenters

Natalie Artzi, PhD

Associate Professor of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School

Yolonda Colson, MD, PhD

Chief, Division of Thoracic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Hermes C. Grillo Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Nobuhiko Hata, PhD

Director, Surgical Navigation and Robotics Laboratory, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School

John Hanna, MD, PhD

Associate Professor, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School

Leigh Hochberg, MD, PhD

Director of Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Senior Lecturer on Neurology, Harvard Medical School

Daphne Holt, MD, PhD

Director of the Resilience and Prevention Program, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

Ole Isacson, MD-PhD

Founding Director, Neuroregeneration Research Institute, McLean Hospital;

Professor of Neurology and Neuroscience, Harvard Medical School

Farouc Jaffer, MD, PhD

Director, Coronary Intervention, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Albert Kim, MD

Assistant Physician, Mass General Cancer Center;

Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School

Vesela Kovacheva, MD, PhD

Director of Translational and Clinical Research, Mass General Brigham;

Assistant Professor of Anesthesia, Harvard Medical School

Mark Poznansky, MD, PhD

Director, Vaccine and Immunotherapy Center, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholar;

Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Daniel Solomon, MD

Matthew H. Liang Distinguished Chair in Arthritis and Population Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Scott Solomon, MD

Director, Clinical Trials Outcomes Center;

Edward D. Frohlich Distinguished Chair in Cardiovascular Pathophysiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Guillermo Tearney, MD, PhD

Principal Investigator, Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Remondi Family Endowed MGH Research Institute Chair;

Professor of Pathology, Harvard Medical School

Raul Uppot, MD

Interventional Radiologist, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School

David Walt, PhD

Professor of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Hansjörg Wyss Professor of Biologically Inspired Engineering, Harvard Medical School

10:00 AM – 10:20 AM

Morning Break

10:20 AM – 10:30 AM

Initial Welcome Remarks

10:30 AM – 10:55 AM

Fireside

Fireside Chat

Moderator

Keith Flaherty, MD

Director of Clinical Research, Mass General Cancer Center;

Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Panelist

Albert Bourla, PhD

Chairman & CEO, Pfizer

11:00 AM – 11:45 AM

Medicine’s Hottest Topics – Block I of IV

Concurrent Events

11:00 AM – 11:45 AM

Oncology’s New Paradigm

Moderators

Keith Flaherty, MD

Director of Clinical Research, Mass General Cancer Center;

Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Jason Zemansky, PhD

SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Panelists

Jonathan Carlson, MD, PhD

Director of Chemistry, Center for Systems Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Gad Getz, PhD

Director of Bioinformatics, Krantz Center for Cancer Research and Department of Pathology;

Paul C. Zamecnik Chair in Cancer Research, Mass General Cancer Center;

Professor of Pathology, Harvard Medical School

Russell Jenkins, MD, PhD

Krantz Family Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Mass General Cancer Center, Center for Melanoma;

Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Gregory Simon

President, Simonovation

Shannon Stott, PhD

Associate Investigator, Krantz Family Center for Cancer Research and Mass General Cancer Center;

d’Arbeloff Research Scholar, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Associate Investigator, Krantz Family Center for Cancer Research Harvard Medical School

11:00 AM – 11:45 AM

GLP-1s: How Far Will They Go?

Moderators

Tazeen Ahmad

SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Fatima Cody Stanford, MD

Obesity Medicine Physician Scientist, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Associate Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School

Panelists

Caroline Apovian, MD

Co-Director, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Vanita Aroda, MD

Director, Diabetes Clinical Research, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School

Paul LaViolette

Managing Partner & COO, SV Health Investors

11:00 AM – 11:45 AM

Generative AI: Breakthrough Research and Limitations

Moderators

Adam Landman, MD

Chief Information Officer & SVP, Digital, Mass General Brigham;

Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Alec Stranahan, PhD

SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Panelists

Katherine Andriole, PhD

Director of Academic Research and Education, Mass General Brigham Data Science Office;

Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School

David Blumenthal, MD

Professor of Practice of Public Health and Health Policy, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health;

Research Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School of Government;

Samuel O. Thier Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, Harvard Medical School

Faisal Mahmood, PhD

Associate Professor, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School

William Morris, MD

Chief Medical Information Officer, Google Cloud

11:00 AM – 11:45 AM

Gene and Cell Therapy’s Unlimited Potential

Moderators

Roger Hajjar, MD

Director, Gene & Cell Therapy Institute, Mass General Brigham

Charlie Yang, PhD

Large/SMid-Cap Biotech and Major Pharma Analyst, BofA Global Research

Nathan Yozwiak, PhD

Head of Research, Gene and Cell Therapy Institute, Mass General Brigham

Panelists

Samarth Kulkarni, PhD

CEO, CRISPR Therapeutics

Peter Marks, MD, PhD

Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA

Marcela Maus, MD, PhD

Director of Cellular Therapy and Paula O’Keeffe Chair in Cancer Research, Krantz Family Center for Cancer Research and Mass General Cancer Center;

Associate Director, Gene and Cell Therapy Institute, Mass General Brigham;

Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School

Joanne Smith-Farrell, PhD

CEO & Director, Be Biopharma

11:00 AM – 11:45 AM

Xenotransplant: Game Changing Organ Replacement

Moderators

Jason Gerberry

Specialty Pharma and SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Joren Madsen, MD, PhD

Director, MGH Transplant Center;

Paul S. Russell/Warner-Lambert Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Panelists

Tatsuo Kawai, MD, PhD

Director of the Legorreta Center for Clinical Transplantation Tolerance,

A.Benedict Cosimi Chair in Transplant Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Richard Pierson III, MD

Scientific Director, Center for Transplantation Sciences, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Leonardo Riella, MD, PhD

Medical Director of Kidney Transplantation, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Harold and Ellen Danser Endowed Chair in Transplantation, Harvard Medical School

11:45 AM – 12:00 PM

Break

12:00 PM – 12:45 PM

Lunch and Medicine’s Hottest Topics – Block II of IV

Concurrent Events

12:00 PM – 12:45 PM

Future of Cancer Care

Moderator

Alec Stranahan, PhD

SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Panelists

Gerard Doherty, MD

Surgeon-in-Chief, Mass General Brigham Cancer;

Surgeon-in-Chief, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Moseley Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Daphne Haas-Kogan, MD

Chief, Enterprise Radiation Oncology, Mass General Brigham;

Professor, Harvard Medical School

Benjamin Kann, MD

Assistant Professor, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School

David Ryan, MD

Physician-in-Chief, Mass General Brigham Cancer;

Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

12:00 PM – 12:45 PM

Generative AI Enabled Care Paths

Moderators

Adam Ron

Health Care Facilities and Managed Care Analyst, BofA Global Research

Marc Succi, MD

Executive Director, Mass General Brigham MESH Incubator;

Associate Chair of Innovation & Commercialization, Mass General Brigham Radiology;

Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School

Panelists

Christopher Longhurst, MD

Chief Medical & Digital Officer, UC San Diego Health

Rebecca Mishuris, MD

Chief Medical Information Officer, Mass General Brigham;

Member of the Faculty, Harvard Medical School

Shiv Rao, MD

CEO & Founder, Abridge

Alkesh Shah

Head of US Equity Software Research, BofA Global Research

12:00 PM – 12:45 PM

Transforming Care in a Resource Limited Era

Moderator

Niyum Gandhi

CFO & Treasurer, Mass General Brigham

Panelists

Fritz François, MD

Executive Vice President and Vice Dean, Chief of Hospital Operations, NYU Langone Health

Susan Huang, MD

EVP, Chief Executive, Providence Clinical Network, Providence Southern CA

Ron Walls, MD

Chief Operating Officer, Mass General Brigham;

Neskey Family Professor of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School

12:00 PM – 12:45 PM

Cardiovascular Pipeline Renewal

Moderators

Jason Gerberry

Specialty Pharma and SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Calum MacRae, MD, PhD

Vice Chair for Scientific Innovation, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Panelists

Lotte Bjerre Knudsen, DMSc

Chief Scientific Advisor, Novo Nordisk

David Grayzel, MD

Partner, Atlas Venture

Christoph Westphal, MD, PhD

General Partner, Longwood Fund

Deborah Wexler, MD

Chief, Diabetes Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

12:45 PM – 1:00 PM

Break and Transition to Plenary Session

1:00 PM – 1:20 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Opening Remarks

Introducer

Miceal Chamberlain

President of Massachusetts, Bank of America

Opening Remarks

Maura Healey

Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

1:20 PM – 2:00 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Healthcare Innovation and Regional Competitiveness

Panelists

John Fish

Chairman & CEO, Suffolk

Reshma Kewalramani, MD

CEO & President, Vertex Pharmaceuticals

Jonathan Kraft

President, The Kraft Group;

Board Chair, Massachusetts General Hospital

2:05 PM – 2:30 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Fireside

Fireside Chat

Moderators

Tazeen Ahmad

SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Roger Hajjar, MD

Director, Gene & Cell Therapy Institute, Mass General Brigham

Panelist

Reshma Kewalramani, MD

CEO & President, Vertex Pharmaceuticals

2:35 PM – 3:10 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Delivering Care: New Tools, Evolving Challenges, Bold Aspirations

Moderator

Andrew Bressler

Washington Healthcare Policy Analyst, BofA Global Research

Panelists

Rod Hochman, MD

President & CEO, Providence

Anne Klibanski, MD

President & CEO, Mass General Brigham;

Laurie Carrol Guthart Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Kevin Mahoney

CEO, University of Pennsylvania Health System

3:10 PM – 3:35 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Fireside

Fireside Chat

Moderators

Caroline Sokol, MD, PhD

Assistant Physician, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School

Charlie Yang, PhD

Large/SMid-Cap Biotech and Major Pharma Analyst, BofA Global Research

Panelist

Mark McKenna

Chairman & CEO, Mirador Therapeutics

3:40 PM – 4:05 PM

Picasso Ballroom

RECORDING OF SPEAKERS’ QUOTES ON WordPress.com

STARTS HERE

Fireside

Fireside Chat

Moderators

Jason Gerberry

Specialty Pharma and SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Allan Goldstein, MD

Chief of Pediatric Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Surgeon-in-Chief, Mass General for Children;

Marshall K. Bartlett Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Panelist

Christophe Weber, President & CEO, Takeda

pipeline is very diverse at the R&D center in Boston

Phase III:

TAK-279 Psorisis

Neurocrine’s Takeda-Partnered Drug Candidate Aces Phase II Depression Study

The Markets for Takeda

US market is 40% of revenue, It is a difficult market but still the most important for Phama in the World

Japan is 8%

Growth by acquisitions and internal development like above, two Phase III drugs

Price control and policies:

negotiation

price war create tension

Team:

Public company traded in NYSE

Management team has 10 nationalities – Global company

AI is adopted as a digital companion

Recruiting Patients for Clinical Trial:

Very difficult

M&A

After acquisition of Shire – not many other opportunities are left

4:05 PM – 4:40 PM

Picasso Ballroom

The Innovation Gap: A Review of the Future of Viral Vector Manufacturing and the Delivery of Genetic Medicines

Moderators

Elizabeth Henske, MD, Director, Center for LAM Research and Clinical Care, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Alec Stranahan, PhD, SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Panelists

Peter Anastasiou, CEO, Capsida Biotherapeutics

Capsid technology for Liver disease, Parkinson’s

AV and CNS crossing BBB

One capsid for one disease

manufacture caspids

Challenges: manufacturable after screening

IV delivery – brain disorder, blood flow would bring therapeutics to all brain tissue consistently vs localized

Partnership with Eli Lilly and with Crisper technologies with Abbvie

Steve Favaloro, Chairman & CEO, Genezen

200 persons Team manufacture

Partnerships: synthetic plasma

Alexandria Forbes, PhD, CEO, MeiraGTx

Optimize promoters, control transcription expression by injection or by pill, control translation

improving potency of gene therapies capsule technology

cost hundred of $ not thousand of $

ALL manufacturing in house

9 years of data can help to narrow down the parameters

time frame is shortened

company established 9 years ago

apply DNA expression – invented a technology

splicing control mRNA

control cell lines

give an injection or a pill and control antibodies, glucagon

control dosing for efficatious therapeutics

Potency

Ribozon is a delivery system

Partnership with J&J –

Fraser Wright, PhD, Chief Gene Therapy Officer, Kriya Therapeutics

manufacturing – changing in capsule design

manufacture viruses

cost of manufacturing – efficiency matters a lot

delivery of the gene in the tissue

Partnerships: basic vs applied Quality from research to manufacturing

4:45 PM – 5:20 PM

Picasso Ballroom

A Deep Dive on Genetic Modalities for Rare Disease: Genetic Medicines Are Here

Moderator

Tazeen Ahmad, SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Treat once or repeat therapy?

Patricia Musolino, MD, PhD, MGH

Panelists

Faraz Ali, Tenaya Therpeutics

genetic therapy for a genetic mutation – NOVEL approach

400 mutation related to cardiomyopathy

2018 – gene therapy was an innovation

genetic medicine Cardiology introducing opportunities wiht validation that did not exist

find novel targets Partnerships are a must to have

Viral therapies vs gene therapy

Lucas Harrington, PhD, Co-Founder & CSO, Mammoth Biosciences

How to turm Genome 2012 to therapy?

targeting: Taking risk Patient interaction with treatment

variation between Rare diseases some are very small some are not small – incentive to investors

The field will grow fast

Raju Prasad, PhD, Chief Financial Officer, CRISPR Therapeutics

various indications

FDA Approval

Gene editing technology for rare diseases

LPA for RNA therapy

incentive to investors

Important for investor to understand the siize of the market, CRISPR can be a technology for a large market size

Sickle cell disease – market is large and therapy can be made affordable

Sandi See Tai, MD, Chief Development Officer, Lexeo Therapeutics

cardiomyopathy

protective gene

Early genetic testing

Educating patients

5:20 PM – 6:30 PM

Picasso Terrace and Harborside Lawns 1 & 2

Opening Reception

Tuesday, September 24, 2024

7:00 AM – 5:00 PM

Rotunda

Registration

8:00 AM – 8:55 AM

Picasso Ballroom

The Transforming World

Introducer

Liz Everett Krisberg, Head of Bank of America Institute

Record attendance this year

Introduction to Haim

Panelist

Haim Israel

Head of Global Thematic Investing Research, BofA Global Research

Concept of the Future and for the Future: Short-term and long-term

Humanity achievements in Ten Year: Data, Processing power and BRAIN – Long-term becomes Short-term – Last 10 years: 2012, 2014 solar system, 2015 medicine, 2019 blackhole, 2023 core of sun – star was created hotter than core sun

2022, 2024 – galaxy picture of the universe

Volume of data created every month in terrabyts every 18 month data is duplicating itself.

Olny 1% is used – imagine 2% or 3%

Processing power since Apollo 11 [one trillion] – getting cheaper – cost for calculation went down 16,000 fold since 1995

AMMOUNT of DATA goes up and Cost of COMPUTATION goes down – price per giga byte

Projections for the next 100 years

Negative for people and Negative for Companies who are concerned with quarterly financial data

Companies: Walmart, Alphabet, Home Depot – DATA larger that COuntries

Living in defining moment: started by iPhone revolution and 2023 by AI revolution – 6x outpaced Moore’s Law by GPT by 3000x

18 months into AI revolution – GPT in use

The next 10 years:

Aging population

2024 – birth rate low in US, Japan, CHina, S. Korea – Pension system will decline in size

2.2 millions new material were created by DeepMind at Alphabet by simulation of AI on molecule

Microsoft in 80 hours identified 18 materials winners for Batteries using AI from 32 million material candidates

AI- weather calculations in minutes 1,000x faster, cheaper and more accurate

2025 – GPT-6 AI surpass Human Brain

China is a big player in AI

Cyber CRIME is the 3rd largest economy in the World. Hackers are using ChatGPT to create fake pictures leading to ZERO privacy

PRIVACY: Deepfakes up 62x, social media

2024 – Global Grid – needs much more energy because AI consumes so much energy

Metals shortages: Nickel, Copper,

Scarcity of water for 2/3 of the planet

data centers consume water more than Japan

2025 – Genomics Data sequencing bigger that X.com or Youtube

2027 – Peak oil demand: needed to be scalable, cheaper 25%

2028 – 5G networks reaches full capacity, 6G will be needed

2029 – 25x more satellites in Orbit than today

2029 – Personalized AI medicines and treatments will manipulate death and revive LONGEVITY – AI will generate drugs and all treatments

2030 – Generative AI: re-skill 1 Billion people

2035 – Fusion energy, known technology since the atomic bomb, how to keep it stable in plasma state of material – not yet achieved, it is clean, cheap: to Power the World – equivalent of 11 barrels of oil

Large cities: Cable diameter 17cm wide to power a large city

AI will change scarcity into abundance

2037 – Artifitial SUPER Intelligence – AI to outsmart Life

Quantum computer – Consortium of NASA and other governmental agencies and Google on quantum computer design

2024 the most interesting year in human history

9:00 AM – 9:45 AM

Medicine’s Hottest Topics – Block III of IV

Concurrent Events

9:00 AM – 9:45 AM

Current and Future States of Immunology

Moderators

Caroline Sokol, MD, PhD, Assistant Physician, Massachusetts General Hospital;, Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School

Alec Stranahan, PhD, SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Panelists

Dong Feng Chen, MD, PhD, Associate Scientist, Massachusetts Eye and Ear;, Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School

Steven Grinspoon, MD, Chief, Metabolism Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital; Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Alexandra-Chloé Villani, PhD, Investigator, Massachusetts General Hospital; Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School

9:00 AM – 9:45 AM

Therapeutic Psychedelics – Opportunities and Impact

Moderators

Maurizio Fava, MD

Chair, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Slater Family Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

Jason Gerberry

Specialty Pharma and SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Kerry Ressler, MD, PhD

Chief Scientific Officer, McLean Hospital;

Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

Panelists

Cristina Cusin, MD

Director, MGH Ketamine Clinic and Psychiatrist, Depression Clinical and Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Associate Professor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

Daniel Karlin, MD

Chief Medical Officer, MindMed

John Krystal, MD

Chair, Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine

Jennifer Warner-Schmidt, PhD

Vice President, Scientific Affairs, Transcend Therapeutics

9:00 AM – 9:45 AM

Innovations Advancing Community Health Equity

Moderators

Allen Lutz

Health Care Services Analyst, BofA Global Research

Elsie Taveras, MD

Chief Community Health & Health Equity Officer, Mass General Brigham;

Conrad Taff Endowed Chair and Professor of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School

Panelists

Rebecca Mishuris, MD

Chief Medical Information Officer, Mass General Brigham;

Member of the Faculty, Harvard Medical School

Claire-Cecile Pierre, MD

Vice President, Community Health Programs, Mass General Brigham;

Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Jorge Rodriguez, MD

Clinician-investigator, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School

Prabhjot Singh, MD, PhD

Senior Advisor, Strategic Initiatives Peterson Health Technology Institute

9:00 AM – 9:45 AM

Earliest Detection

Moderators

James Brink, MD

Enterprise Chief, Radiology, Mass General Brigham;

Juan M. Taveras Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School

David Louis, MD

Enterprise Chief, Pathology, Mass General Brigham

Benjamin Castleman Professor of Pathology, Harvard Medical School

Jason Zemansky, PhD

SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Panelists

Jasmeer Chhatwal, MD, PhD

Associate Neurologist, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Associate Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School

Pradeep Natarajan, MD

Director of Preventive Cardiology, Paul & Phyllis Fireman Endowed Chair in Vascular Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Yakeel Quiroz, PhD

Director, Familial Dementia Neuroimaging Lab and Director, Multicultural Alzheimer’s Prevention Program, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Paul B. and Sandra M. Edgerley MGH Research Scholar;

Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School

Heidi Rehm, PhD

Chief Genomics Officer, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Professor of Pathology, Harvard Medical School

9:00 AM – 9:45 AM

Women’s Health Technology Revolution

Moderators

Tazeen Ahmad

SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Hadine Joffe, MD

Executive Director of the Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology;

Interim Chair, Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Paula A. Johnson Professor of Psychiatry in the Field of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School

Panelists

Keith Isaacson, MD

Director of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery and Infertility, Newton Wellesley Hospital;

Associate Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School

Nawal Nour, MD

Chair, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Associate Professor, Kate Macy Ladd Professorship, Harvard Medical School

Kaveeta Vasisht, MD, PharmD

Associate Commissioner, Women’s Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Alice Zheng, MD

Principal, RH Capital

9:50 AM – 10:15 AM

Picasso Ballroom

Fireside

Fireside Chat

Moderator

David Brown, MD, President, Academic Medical Centers, Mass General Brigham; Mass General Trustees Professor of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Hoe do you balance Private medicine with Public not for profit HealthCare

Healthcare delivery system can achieve that much in Human health

Resources for Equity: housing and services: Capacity and COst

Evolution of care close to home catalyst of the Pandemic – How government think about the right patient for the right care level

MGB 40-60 In-patients at Home – Largest Program in the State – product needs to scale across all population though some do not have food security at home

Panelist

Kate Walsh, Secretary of Health and Human Services, State of Massachusetts

Stuart Bankrupcy – pstioents and providers involvement – structure challenges

Race and ethnicity – disparities, access and equity

Identify the challenge for Race and ethnicity

Focus to identify resources

Medicare & Medicaid – Human needs equity involve housing, food and home care – Public and Private sector cooperation

Pay for Performance

MA vs NYC – resources for welcoming new populations to the State of MA

Help finding Housing vs Shelter people

MA is the only State in the Union that is a Shelter State

People in our COuntry LEGALLY are in and out of shelters, new arrivals of skilled labor – temporary assistance to get jobs that we can’t find people to fill: CNA as example

MA has a community of shelters and medical center in the communities

Services for people that are at risk due to past life in home countries

Support for kids that do not speak English

Care and location: Keep care at home or SNF at home or in the community

Low income person at Home Hospital vs at MGB ?

Autist kids becoming Adult – how to care for ?

10:15 AM – 10:40 AM

Picasso Ballroom

Fireside

Fireside Chat

Moderators

Alec Stranahan, PhD, SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Teresa Gomez-Isla, MD, PhD, MGH, Neurology, Memory division

Altzheimer’s biomarkers

Clinical trials lessons on drug benefits

Panelist

David Hyman, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Eli Lilly and Company

Cardio-metabolic – medicines redefining disease by medicines benefit to patients

Investment in manufacturing medicines for Obesity, demand continue to expand

Oral small molecule and scaling focus on Sleep apnea, half of the population have metabolic disease and heart failure

Extension Program with sustained weigh loss in pre-diabetes progressing into maintained weigh loss

Invest in R&D in the cardio-metabolic

Listed to community feedback on experience how the drugs in AD affected patients in the Community – learning about challenges in delivery innovation in AD – irreversible neurodegenerative diseases – prevent not to loose the patients entirely – brain function

Targeted therapies, genetic therapies

Past life Oncologist – delivered innovations into Cancer patients – genetic medicines

AD medicines are not accessible even to people of means, Drug delivery using PET spinal injections

Ten years horizons at Eli Lilly is common

Obligation to provide scientific evidence from clinical trials

Inventory of patients qualification to participate in Clinical trials

Oncology: Interactions in biologics, cell therapies, conjucate compounds

Renewal of Targeting antigens

In Oncology: Proportions of patients get long term disease control by molecules developed in Academic Centers.

Eli Lilly acquired a BioPharma with manufacturing capabilities

Innovations are core vs discount cash-flow, strategy is to look at the science due to capacity to develop innovations

10:40 AM – 11:20 AM

Picasso Ballroom

Disruptors

The Disruptors: Metabolic Power…Need It…Want it

Moderator

Alec Stranahan, PhD, SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Caroline Apovian, MD, MGH, HMS

Last ten years, from metabolic lessons of Bariatric patients

Treat obesity before surgery

product composition

multidisciplinary approach to obesity needs to be like in Oncology – multiple dsciplines

Bariatric and weigh regain like stent stenosis after surgery

Obesity dysfunction inflammation Gut-Brain transfer of hormones from the gut do not reach the brain to carb hunger socieaty is not signaled in the Brain and eating continued to mitigate hunger

Insurance must cover

Obesity Medicine – training 25 new practitioners to treat Obesity – Standards of Care, life style change

Primary care providers do not have resources to treat Life style component of

To reduce mortality by 20% by Bariatric surgery – No reduce of mortality by stenting – THAT I DISAGREE with

Panelists

David Hyman, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Eli Lilly and Company

non-peptide agonist, bariatric level for obesity

peptide injecting device

hormones and peptids activan inhibitor

hundred of million of people – scaling up

Adolescence with obesity will develop CVD, NASH

Epidemic of obesity the medicines are combating the epidemic

Vials, differential pricing, orals vs injectables

Productivity of work force, coverage by employers health insurance vs Government to handle coverage

10 additional drug

Xiayang Qiu, PhD, CEO, Regor Therapeutics

six years ago, great opportunity peptide and biologics for lifetime disease of obesity

cardiovascular favorably = affected by reduction in weigh

Medicines that works start early at age 35

Harith Rajagopalan, MD, PhD, CEO & Co-Founder, Fractyl Health

Diet & Life Style

Eli Lilly and Novo Nordik – have great drugs

Patients stop using them before they see the benefit

durable long term of mentainance long-tern to stay on the drug

Past life coronary cardiologist: PCI vs surgery choice of care angioplasty vs open heart surgery

Bariatric surgery vs great medicines

may be angioplasty for Bariatric patients

Obesity is different than CVD

BC-BS coverage of obesity drugs because weight is gained back vs Statins – continual use control cholestrol

maintenance drugs in the field of Obesity are needed

cost of drugs will come down

more evidence on obesity drugs will affect Formulary

11:20 AM – 12:00 PM

Picasso Ballroom

The Innovation Gap: The Broader Impact of Metabolic Drugs on Related Diseases

Moderator

Jason Zemansky, PhD, SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Patrick Ellinor, MD, PhD, MGH, HMS

Panelists

Craig Basson, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Officer, Bitterroot Bio

17,000 patients obese no DM

prior CVD followed 3 yrs of treatment 6% mortality during the Trial

Death from CVD endpoint

weight at joining the trial, loss during the trial, benefir from the drug’

improve CVD not weigh loss

mechanism of Inflammation – drug, reduced atherosclerosis and reduced plaque and cytokins and inflammation improve CVD status

combination of life style and drugs GI axis systemic

cardiac artery disease: cholesterol, inhibit inflammatory signals plaque build on top of itself – approaches to remove debris macrophages in the plaque for artherosclerosis mechanism as CVD risk

Joshua Cohen, Co-CEO, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals

Bariatric surgery lower obesity

genetics, eating habits,

GLP-1 agonist developed

Punit Dhillon, CEO, Skye Bioscience

Phase II study combination therapy CVD and Obesity

optimize body composition – more productive on the body periphery

subtypes metabolic gains

Pharmacotherapy for obesity: mechanisms complementary life style change is a must have for long-term benefits

weight loss as a start before obesity treatment

co-morbidities of obesity

Justin Klee, Co-CEO, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals

Parkinson’s CNS peripheral Brain access therapies

revolution in metabolic disease treatment options, more studies for pathways to target the right patients for the right treatment

GLP-1 is energy regulator, Hypoglycemia is very dangerous

Rohan Palekar, CEO, 89bio

applications to obesity – data support

bariatric surgery intervention is not enough, NASH will not be impacted only by the surgery

NASH is a disease taking 25 years to develop

risk of fibrosis to set in Cirrhosis which is not curable

12:00 PM – 12:15 PM

Break

12:15 PM – 1:00 PM

Lunch and Medicine’s Hottest Topics – Block IV of IV

Concurrent Events

12:15 PM – 1:00 PM

ARPA-H: Opening New Frontiers in Health Innovations

Panel of 5

Glioblastoma Treatment Reinvented

Moderators

E. Antonio Chiocca, MD, PhD

Chair, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Harvey W. Cushing Professor of Neurosurgery, Harvard Medical School

Charlie Yang, PhD

Large/SMid-Cap Biotech and Major Pharma Analyst, BofA Global Research

Panelists

Natalie Artzi, PhD

Associate Professor of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School

Bryan Choi, MD, PhD

Associate Director, Center for Brain Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery, Harvard Medical School

Alexandra Golby, MD

Neurosurgeon;

Director of Image-guided Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Professor of Neurosurgery, Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School

12:15 PM – 1:00 PM

Healthcare Corporate Venture

Moderator

Roger Kitterman

Senior Vice President, Ventures and Business Development & Licensing, Mass General Brigham

Managing Partner, Mass General Brigham Ventures

Panelists

Rahul Ballal, PhD

CEO, Mediar Therapeutics

Tim Luker, PhD

VP, Ventures & West Coast Head, Eli Lilly

James Mawson

CEO, Global Corporate Venturing

12:15 PM – 1:00 PM

Inflammation Pathways

Moderators

Tazeen Ahmad

SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Katherine Liao, MD

Associate Physician, Department of Rheumatology, Inflammation, and Immunity, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Associate Professor of Medicine and Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School

Panelists

Jessica Allegretti, MD

Director, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital;

Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Andrew Luster, MD, PhD

Chief, Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology;

Director, Center for Immunology and Inflammatory Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Persis, Cyrus and Marlow B. Harrison Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Thorsten Mempel, MD, PhD

Associate Director, Center for Immunology and Inflammatory Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital;

Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

12:15 PM – 1:00 PM

Hospital at Home

Moderators

Joanna Gajuk

Health Care Facilities and Managed Care Analyst, BofA Global Research

Heather O’Sullivan, MS, RN, AGNP

President, Mass General Brigham Healthcare at Home

Panelists

O’Neil Britton, MD

Chief Integration Officer & Executive Vice President, Mass General Brigham

Jatin Dave, MD

Chief Medical Officer, MassHealth;

Director of Clinical Affairs, UMass Chan Medical School

Chemu Lang’at

Chief Operating Officer, Best Buy Health

1:05 PM – 1:45 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Pioneering Digital Transformation

Moderator

Liz Kwo, MD, Chief Commercial Officer, Everly Health

Infrastructure

AI used for

Panelists

Anna Åsberg, Vice President, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

Massive data bases organize

AI to augment intelligence inside the data

Tyler Bryson, Corporate Vice President, US Health & Public Sector Industries, Microsoft Corporation

Do we have platforms to serve new problem

Regulatory changes require visiting use cases

Pharma has the research data, providers have EMR – Microsoft builds new models using that data

Tumor imaging data was processed and new pattern recognition done on data of these tumors. New patterns are now a subject for research, just identified inside the data

Trust in Healthcare

NYC and Microsoft developed a System for small businesses to access city resources

Works with Academic institutions: Programs at Harvard and Princeton to train students by Microsoft employees on MIcrosoft AI technologies that as they graduate there will be trained new AI-trained employees

collaborations

Aditya Bhasin, BofA

AI in Banking: Bias, security

AI virtual system analytics to provide insight for scaling

Jane Moran, MGH

Network, Data structure needs updates

technology to help clinicians

care team to work with Generative AI to assist in e-mail reading and problem solving

Healthcare equity – avoid Bias

AI is not an answer to every problem

innovate at scale: using Epic and Microsoft

Clinical data structure for LLM, AI to renovate administrative processes inside MGH

Data structure for transperancy

Digital Rounds like Medical ROunds audit problems

equity in data

1:45 PM – 2:25 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Capital Formation: Putting Money to Work – State of Affairs in Capital Markets

Moderators

John Bishai, PhD, BofA

valuations went down

Brendan Singleton, Healthcare Equity Capital Markets, BofA Securities

what impact Capital flow

Emma Somers-Roy, Chief Investment Officer, Mass General Brigham

Panelists

Chris Garabedian, Chairman & CEO, Xontogeny; Venture Portfolio Manager, Perceptive Advisors

Valuations done with comparables for IPO

Not quick to invest in companies, responsible behavior

Private rounds, Biotech and Pharma strategic partners

M&A stable requires are exciting valuation

foundations, institutional investors – level of interest is related to valuations number of years to exit

Peak sale, Public markets different than Private markets

Obesity is a crowd space, diferentiation is important

Exit tow ways: year for IPO natural acquirer – Who is he??

Cancer was a dominant now CNS, Cardio-metabolic, ophthalmology

size of market – Cancer was attractive, less in 2024

Early venture investor: 50-100MM valuation to 2Bil

CMS has discounting since profits are been realize at present time

Patents`

Presidential election

investors scarce pushed fewer mega rounds 100MM financing requires early clinical data

Hedge fund very conservative with valuations

Downsize in Biotech is over

Arjun Goyal, MD, Vida Ventures

Investment in private markets

2019-2021 – IPOs on narratives and proof of concept, only only, no financials

M&A or Partnering – financial risk clinical data point

validation of team success

size of market is very important

Innovation matters always in Pharma, prospects for Biotech very bright

what is HOT in a moment

combination therapies

Life cycle: compound right gene, financing history, fundamentals

calibration of market valuations

2:25 PM – 2:50 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Fireside

Lessons Learned Shaping New Horizons: Visionary Change Agent Perspectives

Moderator

Yvonne Hao, Secretary of Economic Development, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

accelerate AI adoption by nurses, How do you do that??

Public private partnerships

If you have a blank slate – do it differently

Great impact of Cleveland Clinic

Panelists

Delos “Toby” Cosgrove, MD, Executive Advisor; former CEO & President, Cleveland Clinic

Housing, education, research beyond healthcare

Reduce cost in healthcare, call centers by AI: equipment to measure BP every 4 hours

Technology is approved 13 years to become standard of care

COST in healthcare requires SALVATION

mistakes by leadership

Regulators have their share in current situation of Healthcare

Leadership in Health care must change

Marc Harrison, MD, Co-founder & CEO, Health Assurance Transformation Corp. (HATCo)

collaborate with competitors

AI is a tool not a solution

Streamline processes to reduce costs

Government should not solve the Healthcare problem

Residents are victims of leaders mistakes

Only healthcare industry sees the medical records of all the population

gene therapy, innovations to change healthcare and get financial solvency

2:50 PM – 3:15 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Fireside

Fireside Chat

Moderators

Andrew Bressler, Washington Healthcare Policy Analyst, BofA Global Research

What is coming up in the next two years

Are you growing and Hiring?

Yvonne Hao, Secretary of Economic Development, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

AI – what is the potential for Healthcare

MA to work with ARPA-H

Panelist

Renee Wegrzyn, PhD, Director, Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health – A Federal Governmental Agency

ARPA-H Model was introduce under the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health

Hired 21 Program Managers to manage Health initiatives in research

Health is not a partizan affair

Bring young innovators, mantored by experiences healthcare professionals

cellular therapeutics is an example selected to advanced the field

Data driven – looking at +100 project approved by government agency

Governtment, Academia, Private sector – SOLICITATIONS for solving a research problem

Technical merit in judging applications

Value-baced pricing – data to influence policy FDA, NIH collaboration

FDA to finance projects spending

Pediatrics

President announced a program for ARPA-H to work on

Investors are welcome to review proof of concepts of ARPA-H

Return on Investment for all Americans’ Tax payers money

Yes, growing and hiring. $1.5 milion budget

3:15 PM – 3:20 PM

First Look

First Look Award Presentation

3:20 PM – 3:35 PM

Selector of Winner: Doug Marshall & Paul Anderson, MD, PhD

Leigh Hochberg, MD, PhD @harvardmed

John Hanna, MD, PhD @harvardmed

Afternoon Break

3:35 PM – 4:15 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Disruptors

The Disruptors: The Biologic Revolution in Radiotherapies

Moderator

John Bishai, PhD, Global Healthcare Investment Banking, BofA Securities

Umar Mahmood, MD, PhD, MGH, HMS

Panelists

Amos Hedt, Chief Business Strategy Officer, Perspective Therapeutics

imaging used to deliver the therapeutics before the drug touch the patient to calculate toxicity

PL-1 combined with radiotherapy synergistics results

immunogenic combination therapy, in presence of these agents, immune response reaction in the immune cells

Matthew Roden, PhD, President & CEO, Aktis Oncology

Conjugates – delivery direct to tumors

Opportunity two targets: (1) SSTA2 marker (2) xx

WHen agent inside the tumor, shrinkage and no emergence of cell nascent

optimization design

Treatment break for patients and families

Philip Kantoff, MD, Co-Founder & CEO, Convergent Therapeutics

Radio-pharmeceutics : 10 days half-life carrier not a target for small molecules Data on 120 patient, namo robust response synergy of antibody and molecule

image alphas

durable responses

Matt Vincent, PhD, AdvanCell Isotopes

ROS species generated in the tumor

peptides, protein binders

paradigm shift in delivery of oncology therapeutics directly to tumors

Lena Janes, PhD, Abdera Therapeutics

isotope will deliver the payload without damaging the DNA and healthy tissue

target different types of tumors, different half-life

Radiation therapy using isotopes id one of two modalities: tumor in and tumor out approach

screen for patient for the translational therapy

Next generation of products will come, now it is the beginning of these agents

4:20 PM – 4:45 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Fireside

Fireside Chat

Moderator

Michael Ryskin, Life Science Tools & Diagnostics Analyst, BofA Global Research

Precision Medicine was it a paradigm shift??

Acquisition of manufacturing capabilities

research, manufacturinf line blurred

WHat excites you the most

Panelist

Marc Casper, Chairman, President & CEO, Thermo Fisher Scientific

Enabling Life sceinces, Pharmaceutical industries $1.5Billion internal investment annually

AI increasing knowledge

How is Precision Medicine applied? Sequencing in Cancer accelerated the Genomics information in use for 24 hours response of the sequence – adopted around the World.

at MGH lung cancers are treated with genomic sequencing

identification of the patients suitability for a targeted treatment

treatment during pregnacy at home vs hospitalization

History of company: Tools first: Mass spectrometry, one year for one sequence, protein identification and carrying to Mass spectrometry

Interactions need understanding acquiring electro spectrometry allowing analytical chemistry on proteins

Broad range of products: Clinical research to meet regulatory requirements entry into Reagents products.

Clinical Trials made effective by Thermo Scientific Products

Capabilities in registries, patient safety in psoriasis

Large role in experimental medicine drives efficiency in LABS

SIze of customers: small Biotech and large Pharma

Manufacture medicines: work with partnersbuilt by acquisitions small molecules,

100 engagements research, supply chain making medicines available at sites

Role for AI at Thermo Scientific:

Productivity – Cost effective for processes in use by 120,000 employees

Super customer interaction perfected by interogations with internal manuals to provide answers quickly

Improvement of products

Excitement Points: Responsiveness to COVID pandemic

New medicine development

4:50 PM – 5:30 PM

Picasso Ballroom

The Reemergence of ADCs, Precision Medicine, T-cell engagers, and Bispecifics: Oncology at Its Finest

Moderators

John Bishai, PhD, BofA

Approach to AI

Strategy regarding clinical trial design, vs molecule design

Justin Gainor, MD, MGH, HMS

How strategies are developed and then modified?

immune therapies work better open new paradeigm

Panelists

Moitreyee Chatterjee-Kishore, PhD, Head of Development, Immuno-Oncology and Cancer Cell Therapy, Astellas Pharma Inc.

cancer – first line of treatment vs 2nd and 3rd

Precision medicine more precise

mix and match immunotherapy and other modalities

small molecule early on

molecule formulation is science and art

Stratify the patient population early on

Help needed to design better trials

Research is key for molecule design

Niall Martin, PhD, CEO, Artios Pharma

peptide chemistry

molecule design had options several are applied

biomarker driven event in development cycle

strategy of biomarkers – lack structure

effect of combination therapy on survival?

Chris Varma, PhD, Co-founder, Chairman & CEO, Frontier Medicines

5:30 PM – 8:30 PM

South Lawn Tent

Attendee Reception and Dinner

Moderator

Anne Oxrider

Senior Vice President, Benefits Executive, Bank of America

Panelist

Deepak Chopra, MD

Founder, The Chopra Foundation

Wednesday, September 25, 2024

7:30 AM – 11:00 AM

Rotunda

Registration

7:30 AM – 8:30 AM

Picasso Foyer

Continental Breakfast

8:30 AM – 8:55 AM

Picasso Ballroom

Fireside

Fireside Chat

Moderators

David Ting, MD, Associate Clinical Director for Innovation, Mass General Cancer Center; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Innovation is the foundation of the future

Creative thinking vs one agent and one target

Openness is much appreciated

Jason Zemansky, PhD, SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

On WSJ article on M&A in Biotech attributing decline in M&A of Biotech companies due to LACK of Innovations

Q from audience: organizational structure and innovation

Vision on leveraging Partnerships

Panelist

Tadaaki Taniguchi, MD, PhD, Chief Medical Officer, Astellas Pharma

Pharma and Biotech heavy betting on new medicines in Oncology

Astellas Pharma is different than other Pharma companies

We focus on Oncology and in combination therapies as a priority

Investment pay attention to Leadership priorities

One product vs BEST combination therapy for best treatment and outcomes

Innovations come from anywhere

ADCs: Target, payload emerged recently by a partnership

Collaborations: several pathways, several modalities, several combinations therapies

Partnership requires greater flexibility

Created Small flexible Labs to enable to innovate with Partners, “we can’t innovate alone”

9:00 AM – 9:40 AM

Picasso Ballroom

Disruptors

The Disruptors: The Role of Pathway Inhibition in Inflammation and Inflammatory Diseases

Moderators

Tazeen Ahmad, SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Are you using AI

Neuroinflammation

Cynthia Lemere, PhD, BWH, HMS

What systems are primarily impacted by the Immunes system

Drug delivery for inflammation huge area

Getting antibodies to the Brain

Precision medicine, genetics,specific person with specific immune disease

Panelists

Jo Viney, PhD, Cofounder, President & CEO, Seismic Therapeutic

Pandemics highlighted the impact of the immune system

Targeting cytokines in specific locations – hew approach

Modalities on hand: protein degradation mediation by bringing two cells together

AI is used for Patient stratification

AI to be used in Pathways involved in disease process to identify Biologics, PROTAC,

AI and ML for training models from interaction between proteins

ChatGPT to predict interactions among proteins

Immune disease and remission bust the immune system to improve quality of life of patient undergoing interventions

T-cell engaggers – in cases of refractory – great approach for boosting the immune system: removal of antibidies, recycling antibodies,

Two ends: Cell depletion vs Early detection

Therapy is every 6 months, cell depletion takes 3 months to come back.

Target immune system in the periphery,

Immune system in neurodegenerative diseases: Parkinson’s local modulation to penetrate neurological system

Markers to cross the BBB or not cross in neurological diseases

Immune disease is POLYGENIC multiple o=etiologies, mutation, genetics, which cell and which pathway to target a therapeutics: Biologics

Patient stratification is key for Precision Medicine at the cell level

T-cell, B-cell, Cytokines and antibodies mediated disease

ADGs degradation

9:45 AM – 10:10 AM

Picasso Ballroom

H. Jeffrey Wilkins, MD, Abcuro

Inflammation play a role in activating the immune system

zin the days of Medical School: inhibition of cytokines

Today: specificity to target cells for depletion

Specific biomarkers for response to therapies

cell types by mutations and physiology and causality in the inflammation area: we know why they have inflammation we need to learn interventions for inflammation

Asthma in the 40s as an inflammatory disease

assess treatment of inflammation

Neuro-inflammation – not well understood

What is the cause that drive the disease: understanding encephalitis?

NiranJana Nagarajan, PhD, MGB Ventures

Biology is the driver not AI

depletion of cells in a certain stage

Translation from disease to other diseases in the case of cell therapy potential – active area companies are trying solutions

Inflammation is a huge challenge to treat

Fireside

Fireside Chat

Moderators

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Harriet Ryan Albee Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Pathways in vaccine design

How to educate population on Vaccines

other approaches than vaccines

Alec Stranahan, PhD, SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Vaccine approval

Next generation vaccines

Panelist

Stéphane Bancel, CEO, Moderna

Vaccine design: long term vaccines weakens in aged population

data on role of AVV in Multiple Sclerosis

working on in the US vs France, Netherland in Europe different approaches

Vaccine for HIV

Vaccine was approved last year for children, pharmacies shortage

Season of FLu three times more vaccines in use

Employees run vaccine clinics on site

Vaccines not related to COVID

Misinformation from COVID vaccine

5% of COVID hospitalized were on the booster

Combination vaccines for high risk populations

Healthcare providers need to be involved in Education, many do not have an interest in the education on vaccines

Local stories from Vaccine manufectures and developer to be used in education in the communities

Individual DNA cancer celll signature of the cancer – data over time for development of vaccine to cancer many more tumor types are needed

Checkpoints in early disease

biopsy are too expensive

Side effect studies going on

mono-therapy vs immunotherapy costs involved

Naive virus to get into the Liver two diseases – cassets for sose management

Recombinant antibodies technology from the 70s

PD-1

COVID – was nto in the plan for development – design in silicon in two weeks – no change after this design

10:10 AM – 10:20 AM

Break

10:20 AM – 11:00 AM

Picasso Ballroom

The Innovation Gap: Understanding the Role of Cell Therapies in Autoimmune Disease

Moderator

Charlie Yang, PhD

Large/SMid-Cap Biotech and Major Pharma Analyst, BofA Global Research

TCM

CAR-T

advantages of each cell type

Angele Shen, MGB Innovations

CAR-T

What would be a quick breakthrough?

Panelists

Jeff Bluestone, PhD, CEO & President, Sonoma Biotherapeutics

Cell therapy for cell depletion elimination of B-cells like its role in Multiple Sclerosis

Working with regulatory T-cells

Population of cells to study: T-cells master regulator in multiple ways – produce metabolic factors, infection tone in activation of other cells

Biology of cell: RNA, DNA

TCR – target antigens in tissues they are in in immune suppression

FInding the right peptide bindes to a certain MAC

CAR-T – recornize the cells in the local milieu like in patients with RA as an autoimmune disease

Clinical models ascertain cell types involvement leading to clinical trial insights then to therapies on a decision tree

recent data on CAR-T immune response in allogeneic for potential use in neurodegenerative diseases

patients and companies over react on immune therapy: Patients and Science vs hype

next generation: POC,

Gene therapy specificities vs Cell therapies – each approach will develop a different drug

FDA and NIH has in 11/2023 a meeting on Regulation of Cell therapy on stability and their approach to immune disease where there are already several drugs

approvals challenges companies

Price, too expensive a treatment is cell therapy

Chad Cowan, PhD, Executive Advisor, Century Therapeutics

use Natural Killer cells to elicit long-term immune response, T-cells,

active Beta cells]Regulatory monitoring use

DM – regulatory cells made from Stem cells

mission durable response

Clinical issues – not easy way for treatment wiht a cell line and bioreactors and modalities less similar to autologoous celles

CAR-T in oncology lessons now are transferred to Immune disease

Cell therapy requires technologies to mature multiple modalities and multiple drugs not one cell therapy for all immune diseases

Stability of the therapy vs rejection by immune system

FDA making cells is not as making drugs – higher level of scrutiny for cell therapy

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY on B-cells for future breakthrough

Samantha Singer, President & CEO, Abata Therapeutics

Immune response involve many cell types in many diseases

Oncology the use of T-cells as tissue residents staying in tissue long time

Specific biology of the disease and regulatory cells receptors optimizing TCR presentation in pathology of tissue residents phyno types

activate in nervous system or in pancreas – intersection of cell biology with disease biology

Market feasibility – scaling, biology, pathology for reimbursement

antibody therapy may be appropriate than cell therapy is only a novel option

Cell manufacturing requires optimization of process, companies commercializing across all cell types

comprehensive approach for systemic immune suppression

: healthy tissue vs diseased tissue with cell theray implanted cells as residents in tissue

clinical data on product performance and on the biology reactions

11:00 AM – 11:40 AM

Picasso Ballroom

Unmet Clinical Needs: 100 Harvard KOLs Weigh In

Moderators

Jose Florez, MD, PhD, Physician-in-Chief and Chair, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital; Professor, Harvard Medical School

40 minutes to deal with big needs collected from 100 faculties at Harvard Medical School

The ten issues on one slide

How could we use compute to distill data

Bruce Levy, MD, Physician-In-Chief and Co-Chair, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Parker B. Francis Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Transformation from the Present to the Future

identifying the needs

Infectious diseases: Rapid diagnostics need

resistance to antibiotics and metabolic reactions endogenous

Pandemics globally of diseases erradicated in the past: Pox, polio

Improving health in Geriatrics, not population growing but geriatric population growing. Beyong age 60 a citizen will use 1 or 2 physicians each

7,000 diseases, Genetic diseases requires integration and innovations in therapy

Innovations in Home devices

Panelists

Rox Anderson, MD, Lancer Endowed Chair of Dermatology;, Director, Wellman Center for Photomedicine, MGH; Professor of Dermatology, HMS

Access to data across institutions

Nicole Davis, PhD, Biomedical Communications

We asked 104 expert practitioners, content collected was analyzed

detection early

keeping the Human brain healthy

geriatrics Medicine, aging and compound effects on health system with aging and Health equity

Bias in Data

Jean-François Formela, MD, Partner, Atlas Venture

genetic information used in therapeutics design

Steven Greenberg, MD, Neurologist, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School

Human genome completed in 1999, human genetic diseases were discovered learn about the disease at the tissue level with genomics and a system approach

Pathogenic drivers, systme integration by therapeutics approaches to pathways multiple cytokines in allergic reactions Pfizer had two biomarkers and therapies for systemic biology of disease

Pediatrics has its own challenges

Imaging medicine

Living longer at a lower cost – HOW TO ACHIEVE THAT?

growth abnormality in children: Body growth and Skull shrink

John Lepore, MD, CEO, ProFound Therapeutics;, CEO-Partner, Flagship Pioneering

Pathway, targeting therapy to patients in a System biological approach

Database of systme biology has missing components not included in the Human genome project – completion of the Data

Definition of End points needs revisiting

Identifying specific populations vs getting quickly to market

Diseases of aging: Muscles diseases – how to promote improvement in muscle mass

CONCLUSIONS

Gray Tsunami

Brain health

Cancer treatment paradigm shift

Fibrosis in many diseases

infectious disease in changing World

Equity in HC

Clinical Data is VAST

Systemic view of Human disease

New approaches to Psychaitry

Rare disease treatment needs a charter

In addition,

new generation of pain treatment

skin treatment new drugs

Chronic disease: improve treatment and prevention.

Obesity medicine – new discipline in a new Era

11:45 AM – 12:30 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Fireside

Fireside Chat

Moderators

Tazeen Ahmad, SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

FDA sets criteria – How is that done?

Autoimmune disease therapies – What is in the horizon?

Paul Anderson, MD, PhD, Chief Academic Officer, Mass General Brigham;

drug development

drug pricing in Europe

New book

RA needs more medicines

UNCONTROLLED SPREAD

In Uncontrolled Spread, a New York Times Best Seller, Dr. Scott Gottlieb identifies the reasons why the US was caught unprepared for the pandemic and how the country can improve its strategic planning to prepare for future viral threats.

Panelist

Scott Gottlieb, MD, Physician; Former Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (2017-2019)

FDA approval 1st gene therapy in his tenure

Price of drugs: efficatious vs time to deveop

competitors in the marketplace are there for market share

New Book: Episodes in the FDA, appproval process at FDA, Gene therapy 1st in class approved – a special moment. Back in 1980s era translated to antibodies, to T-cell pioneering work.

Publisher worried it will not sell very well

FDA had concerns about manufacturing aspects

In 2024 we understand Biologics on novel platforms

Worries that Medicare will not reimbursement and cover the new therapies: Cell therapy

Statins approval had a known very large market vs Cell therapy not known which Cancer patients will benefit???

Black box involved in Autoimmune, studies bring exciting results

In 2018 – needs arise for early approved of drugs in AD, amyloid plaque – change in thinking and is controversial

In early 2020, change in settings of clinical trials, placido no more the only way for Randomized trials

Approval for AD drug vs othe indication – the process is difference (DMD a case to think about)

AI & NLP: Train on data of 10,000 lesions

FDA choose not to regulate AI the physician is in the Middle

Who is wrong: CHatGPT or the clinician ?

Data set on gene may represents NEW biologies that Physicians had not seen before

Data validation on medical devices and their approval after regulating them

Diagnostics tests: Validation Panels are involved

Regulated on input data vs Output data and validate the input data

Platforms are needed for regulation of AI involvement in the drug discovery and the drug approval process

investment in this platforms will be done by Whom?? It will come

Framework for AI at FDA: Regulatory gray data for applications and standards for output – not a novel regulatory concept

If AI will be applied widely, I/O accuracy is a must have

may be achievable soon?

FDA is evolutionary organization in its decision process NOT a REVOLUTIONARY organization. Simulation work started in 2003, 40 people doing that then.

Recently, new team in Agency working of Safety with tools and technologies that are common in Science – Approvals to drug labels and off labels that 20 years ago would not have happened

Tolerance for higher prices is to support Private sector that brings the innovating drugs to market

12:30 PM – 12:35 PM

Picasso Ballroom

Closing Remarks

SPEAKERS

C-Suite Speakers

Faraz Ali

CEO, Tenaya Therapeutics

Peter Anastasiou

CEO, Capsida Biotherapeutics

Paul Anderson, MD, PhD

Chief Academic Officer, Mass General Brigham; K. Frank Austen Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Rahul Ballal, PhD

CEO, Mediar Therapeutics

Stéphane Bancel

CEO, Moderna

Craig Basson MD, PhD

Chief Medical Officer, Bitterroot Bio

Jeff Bluestone, PhD

CEO & President, Sonoma Biotherapeutics

Albert Bourla, PhD

Chairman & CEO, Pfizer

O’Neil Britton, MD

Chief Integration Officer & Executive Vice President, Mass General Brigham

Marc Casper

Chairman, President & CEO, Thermo Fisher Scientific

Joshua Cohen

Co-CEO, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals

Delos “Toby” Cosgrove, MD

Executive Advisor; former CEO & President, Cleveland Clinic

Jatin Dave, MD

Chief Medical Officer, MassHealth; Director of Clinical Affairs, UMass Chan Medical School

Punit Dhillon

CEO, Skye Bioscience

Steve Favaloro

Chairman & CEO, Genezen

John Fish

Chairman & CEO, Suffolk

Alexandria Forbes, PhD

CEO, MeiraGTx

Niyum Gandhi

CFO & Treasurer, Mass General Brigham

Chris Garabedian

Chairman & CEO, Xontogeny; Venture Portfolio Manager, Perceptive Advisors

Lucas Harrington, PhD

Co-Founder & CSO, Mammoth Biosciences

Marc Harrison, MD

Co-founder & CEO, Health Assurance Transformation Corp. (HATCo)

Amos Hedt

Chief Business Strategy Officer, Perspective Therapeutics

Rod Hochman, MD

President & CEO, Providence

David Hyman, MD

Chief Medical Officer, Eli Lilly and Company

Philip Kantoff, MD

Co-Founder & CEO, Convergent Therapeutics

Daniel Karlin, MD

Chief Medical Officer, MindMed

Reshma Kewalramani, MD

CEO & President, Vertex Pharmaceuticals

Justin Klee

Co-CEO, Amylyx Pharmaceuticals

Anne Klibanski, MD

President & CEO, Mass General Brigham; Laurie Carrol Guthart Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Samarth Kulkarni, PhD

CEO, CRISPR Therapeutics

Liz Kwo, MD

Chief Commercial Officer, Everly Health

Adam Landman, MD

Chief Information Officer & SVP, Digital, Mass General Brigham; Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Chemu Lang’at

Chief Operating Officer, Best Buy Health

Paul LaViolette

Managing Partner & COO, SV Health Investors

John Lepore, MD

CEO, ProFound Therapeutics; CEO-Partner, Flagship Pioneering

Christopher Longhurst, MD

Chief Medical & Digital Officer, UC San Diego Health

Kevin Mahoney

CEO, University of Pennsylvania Health System

Niall Martin, PhD

CEO, Artios Pharma

James Mawson

CEO, Global Corporate Venturing

Mark McKenna

Chairman & CEO, Mirador Therapeutics

Jane Moran

Chief Information and Digital Officer, Mass General Brigham

William Morris, MD

Chief Medical Information Officer, Google Cloud

Rohan Palekar

CEO, 89bio

Raju Prasad, PhD

Chief Financial Officer, CRISPR Therapeutics

Xiayang Qiu, PhD

CEO, Regor Therapeutics

Harith Rajagopalan MD, PhD

CEO & Co-Founder, Fractyl Health

Shiv Rao, MD

CEO & Founder, Abridge

Kerry Ressler, MD, PhD

Chief Scientific Officer, McLean Hospital; Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

Matthew Roden, PhD

President & CEO, Aktis Oncology

Sandi See Tai, MD

Chief Development Officer, Lexeo Therapeutics

Samantha Singer

President & CEO, Abata Therapeutics

Joanne Smith-Farrell, PhD

CEO & Director, Be Biopharma

Emma Somers-Roy

Chief Investment Officer, Mass General Brigham

Adam Steensberg, MD

President & CEO, Zealand Pharma

Tadaaki Taniguchi, MD, PhD

Chief Medical Officer, Astellas Pharma

Elsie Taveras, MD

Chief Community Health & Health Equity Officer, Mass General Brigham; Conrad Taff Endowed Chair and Professor of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School

Jo Viney, PhD

Cofounder, President & CEO, Seismic Therapeutic

Ron Walls, MD

Chief Operating Officer, Mass General Brigham; Neskey Family Professor of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Christophe Weber

President & CEO, Takeda

Fraser Wright, PhD

Chief Gene Therapy Officer, Kriya Therapeutics

Speakers

Anna Åsberg

Vice President, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

Tazeen Ahmad

SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Jessica Allegretti, MD

Director, Crohn’s and Colitis Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Rox Anderson, MD

Lancer Endowed Chair of Dermatology; Director, Wellman Center for Photomedicine, MGH; Professor of Dermatology, HMS

Katherine Andriole, PhD

Director of Academic Research and Education, Mass General Brigham Data Science Office; Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School

Caroline Apovian, MD

Co-Director, Center for Weight Management and Wellness, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Vanita Aroda, MD

Director, Diabetes Clinical Research, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School

Natalie Artzi, PhD

Associate Professor of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School

John Bishai, PhD

Global Healthcare Investment Banking, BofA Securities

David Blumenthal, MD

Professor of Practice of Public Health and Health Policy, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health; Research Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School of Government; Samuel O. Thier Professor of Medicine, Emeritus, Harvard Medical School

Giles Boland, MD

President, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Physicians Organization; Philip H. Cook Distinguished Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School

Andrew Bressler

Washington Healthcare Policy Analyst, BofA Global Research

James Brink, MD

Enterprise Chief, Radiology, Mass General Brigham; Juan M. Taveras Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School

David Brown, MD

President, Academic Medical Centers, Mass General Brigham; Mass General Trustees Professor of Emergency Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Tyler Bryson

Corporate Vice President, US Health & Public Sector Industries, Microsoft Corporation

Jonathan Carlson, MD, PhD

Director of Chemistry, Center for Systems Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital; Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Miceal Chamberlain

President of Massachusetts, Bank of America

Moitreyee Chatterjee-Kishore, PhD

Head of Development, Immuno-Oncology and Cancer Cell Therapy, Astellas Pharma Inc.

Dong Feng Chen, MD, PhD

Associate Scientist, Massachusetts Eye and Ear; Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School

Jasmeer Chhatwal, MD, PhD

Associate Neurologist, Massachusetts General Hospital; Associate Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School

E. Antonio Chiocca, MD, PhD

Chair, Department of Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Harvey W. Cushing Professor of Neurosurgery, Harvard Medical School

Bryan Choi, MD, PhD

Associate Director, Center for Brain Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy, Massachusetts General Hospital; Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery, Harvard Medical School

Deepak Chopra, MD

Founder, The Chopra Foundation

Yolonda Colson, MD, PhD

Chief, Division of Thoracic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital; Hermes C. Grillo Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Chad Cowan, PhD

Executive Advisor, Century Therapeutics

Cristina Cusin, MD

Director, MGH Ketamine Clinic and Psychiatrist, Depression Clinical and Research Program, Massachusetts General Hospital; Associate Professor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

Nicole Davis, PhD

Biomedical Communications

Marcela del Carmen, MD

President, Massachusetts General Hospital and Massachusetts General Physicians Organization (MGPO); Executive Vice President, Mass General Brigham; Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School

Gerard Doherty, MD

Surgeon-in-Chief, Mass General Brigham Cancer; Surgeon-in-Chief, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Moseley Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Liz Everett Krisberg

Head of Bank of America Institute

Maurizio Fava, MD

Chair, Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital; Slater Family Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

Keith Flaherty, MD

Director of Clinical Research, Mass General Cancer Center; Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Jose Florez, MD, PhD

Physician-in-Chief and Chair, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital; Professor, Harvard Medical School

Jean-François Formela, MD

Partner, Atlas Venture

Fritz François, MD

Executive Vice President and Vice Dean, Chief of Hospital Operations, NYU Langone Health

Joanna Gajuk

Health Care Facilities and Managed Care Analyst, BofA Global Research

Jason Gerberry

Specialty Pharma and SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Gad Getz, PhD

Director of Bioinformatics, Krantz Center for Cancer Research and Department of Pathology; Paul C. Zamecnik Chair in Cancer Research, Mass General Cancer Center; Professor of Pathology, Harvard Medical School

Alexandra Golby, MD

Neurosurgeon; Director of Image-guided Neurosurgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Professor of Neurosurgery, Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School

Allan Goldstein, MD

Chief of Pediatric Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital; Surgeon-in-Chief, Mass General for Children; Marshall K. Bartlett Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Scott Gottlieb, MD

Physician; Former Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (2017-2019)

David Grayzel, MD

Partner, Atlas Venture

Steven Greenberg, MD

Neurologist, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Professor of Neurology, Harvard Medical School

Steven Grinspoon, MD

Chief, Metabolism Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital; Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Daphne Haas-Kogan, MD

Chief, Enterprise Radiation Oncology, Mass General Brigham; Professor, Harvard Medical School

Roger Hajjar, MD

Director, Gene & Cell Therapy Institute, Mass General Brigham

John Hanna, MD, PhD

Associate Professor, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School

Yvonne Hao

Secretary of Economic Development, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Nobuhiko Hata PhD

Director, Surgical Navigation and Robotics Laboratory, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Professor of Radiology, Harvard Medical School

Maura Healey

Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Elizabeth Henske, MD

Director, Center for LAM Research and Clinical Care, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Leigh Hochberg MD, PhD

Director of Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery, Massachusetts General Hospital; Senior Lecturer on Neurology, Harvard Medical School

Daphne Holt, MD, PhD

Director of the Resilience and Prevention Program, Massachusetts General Hospital; Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

Susan Huang, MD

EVP, Chief Executive, Providence Clinical Network, Providence Southern CA

Keith Isaacson, MD

Director of Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery and Infertility, Newton Wellesley Hospital; Associate Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School

Ole Isacson, MD-PhD

Founding Director, Neuroregeneration Research Institute, McLean Hospital; Professor of Neurology and Neuroscience, Harvard Medical School

Haim Israel

Head of Global Thematic Investing Research, BofA Global Research

Farouc Jaffer, MD, PhD

Director, Coronary Intervention, Massachusetts General Hospital; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Russell Jenkins, MD, PhD

Krantz Family Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts General Hospital; Mass General Cancer Center, Center for Melanoma; Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Hadine Joffe, MD

Executive Director of the Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology; Interim Chair, Department of Psychiatry, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Paula A. Johnson Professor of Psychiatry in the Field of Women’s Health, Harvard Medical School

Benjamin Kann, MD

Assistant Professor, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School

Tatsuo Kawai, MD, PhD

Director of the Legorreta Center for Clinical Transplantation Tolerance, A.Benedict Cosimi Chair in Transplant Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital; Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Albert Kim, MD

Assistant Physician, Mass General Cancer Center; Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School

Roger Kitterman

Senior Vice President, Ventures and Business Development & Licensing, Mass General Brigham Managing Partner, Mass General Brigham Ventures

Lotte Bjerre Knudsen, DMSc

Chief Scientific Advisor, Novo Nordisk

Vesela Kovacheva, MD, PhD

Director of Translational and Clinical Research, Mass General Brigham; Assistant Professor of Anesthesia, Harvard Medical School

Jonathan Kraft

President, The Kraft Group; Board Chair, Massachusetts General Hospital

John Krystal, MD

Chair, Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine

Daniel Kuritzkes, MD

Chief, Division of Infectious Diseases, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Harriet Ryan Albee Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Bruce Levy, MD

Physician-In-Chief and Co-Chair, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Parker B. Francis Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Katherine Liao, MD

Associate Physician, Department of Rheumatology, Inflammation, and Immunity, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Associate Professor of Medicine and Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School

David Louis, MD

Enterprise Chief, Pathology, Mass General Brigham Benjamin Castleman Professor of Pathology, Harvard Medical School

Tim Luker, PhD

VP, Ventures & West Coast Head, Eli Lilly

Andrew Luster, MD, PhD

Chief, Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology; Director, Center for Immunology and Inflammatory Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital; Persis, Cyrus and Marlow B. Harrison Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Allen Lutz

Health Care Services Analyst, BofA Global Research

Calum MacRae MD, PhD

Vice Chair for Scientific Innovation, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Joren Madsen, MD, PhD

Director, MGH Transplant Center; Paul S. Russell/Warner-Lambert Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Faisal Mahmood, PhD

Associate Professor, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School

Peter Marks, MD, PhD

Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA

Marcela Maus, MD, PhD

Director of Cellular Therapy and Paula O’Keeffe Chair in Cancer Research, Krantz Family Center for Cancer Research and Mass General Cancer Center; Associate Director, Gene and Cell Therapy Institute, Mass General Brigham; Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School

Thorsten Mempel, MD, PhD

Associate Director, Center for Immunology and Inflammatory Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital; Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Rebecca Mishuris, MD

Chief Medical Information Officer, Mass General Brigham; Member of the Faculty, Harvard Medical School

Pradeep Natarajan, MD

Director of Preventive Cardiology, Paul & Phyllis Fireman Endowed Chair in Vascular Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Nawal Nour, MD

Chair, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Associate Professor, Kate Macy Ladd Professorship, Harvard Medical School

Heather O’Sullivan, MS, RN, AGNP

President, Mass General Brigham Healthcare at Home

Anne Oxrider

Senior Vice President, Benefits Executive, Bank of America

Claire-Cecile Pierre, MD

Vice President, Community Health Programs, Mass General Brigham; Instructor in Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Richard Pierson III, MD

Scientific Director, Center for Transplantation Sciences, Massachusetts General Hospital; Professor of Surgery, Harvard Medical School

Mark Poznansky, MD, PhD

Director, Vaccine and Immunotherapy Center, Massachusetts General Hospital; Steve and Deborah Gorlin MGH Research Scholar; Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Yakeel Quiroz, PhD

Director, Familial Dementia Neuroimaging Lab and Director, Multicultural Alzheimer’s Prevention Program, Massachusetts General Hospital; Paul B. and Sandra M. Edgerley MGH Research Scholar; Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School

Heidi Rehm, PhD

Chief Genomics Officer, Massachusetts General Hospital; Professor of Pathology, Harvard Medical School

Leonardo Riella, MD, PhD

Medical Director of Kidney Transplantation, Massachusetts General Hospital; Harold and Ellen Danser Endowed Chair in Transplantation, Harvard Medical School

Jorge Rodriguez, MD

Clinician-investigator, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School

Adam Ron

Health Care Facilities and Managed Care Analyst, BofA Global Research

David Ryan, MD

Physician-in-Chief, Mass General Brigham Cancer; Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Michael Ryskin

Life Science Tools & Diagnostics Analyst, BofA Global Research

Alkesh Shah

Head of US Equity Software Research, BofA Global Research

Angela Shen, MD

Vice President, Strategic Innovation Leaders, Mass General Brigham Innovation

Gregory Simon

President, Simonovation

Prabhjot Singh, MD, PhD

Senior Advisor, Strategic Initiatives Peterson Health Technology Institute

Brendan Singleton

Healthcare Equity Capital Markets, BofA Securities

Caroline Sokol, MD, PhD

Assistant Physician, Massachusetts General Hospital; Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School

Daniel Solomon, MD

Matthew H. Liang Distinguished Chair in Arthritis and Population Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Scott Solomon, MD

Director, Clinical Trials Outcomes Center; Edward D. Frohlich Distinguished Chair in Cardiovascular Pathophysiology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Fatima Cody Stanford, MD

Obesity Medicine Physician Scientist, Massachusetts General Hospital; Associate Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School

Shannon Stott, PhD

Associate Investigator, Krantz Family Center for Cancer Research and Mass General Cancer Center; d’Arbeloff Research Scholar, Massachusetts General Hospital; Associate Investigator, Krantz Family Center for Cancer Research Harvard Medical School

Alec Stranahan, PhD

SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Marc Succi, MD

Executive Director, Mass General Brigham MESH Incubator; Associate Chair of Innovation & Commercialization, Mass General Brigham Radiology; Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School

Guillermo Tearney, MD, PhD

Principal Investigator, Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital; Remondi Family Endowed MGH Research Institute Chair; Professor of Pathology, Harvard Medical School

David Ting, MD

Associate Clinical Director for Innovation, Mass General Cancer Center; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Raul Uppot, MD

Interventional Radiologist, Massachusetts General Hospital; Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School

Chris Varma, PhD

Co-founder, Chairman & CEO, Frontier Medicines

Kaveeta Vasisht, MD, PharmD

Associate Commissioner, Women’s Health, U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Alexandra-Chloé Villani PhD

Investigator, Massachusetts General Hospital; Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School

Kate Walsh

Secretary of Health and Human Services, State of Massachusetts

David Walt, PhD

Professor of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital; Hansjörg Wyss Professor of Biologically Inspired Engineering, Harvard Medical School

Jennifer Warner-Schmidt, PhD

Vice President, Scientific Affairs, Transcend Therapeutics

Renee Wegrzyn, PhD

Director, Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health

Christoph Westphal, MD, PhD

General Partner, Longwood Fund

Deborah Wexler, MD

Chief, Diabetes Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital; Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Charlie Yang, PhD

Large/SMid-Cap Biotech and Major Pharma Analyst, BofA Global Research

Nathan Yozwiak, PhD

Head of Research, Gene and Cell Therapy Institute, Mass General Brigham

Jason Zemansky, PhD

SMid-Cap Biotech Analyst, BofA Global Research

Alice Zheng, MD

Principal, RH Capital

We continue to confirm more speakers. Please check back regularly for updates.

SOURCE

https://2024.worldmedicalinnovation.org/speakers/

Read Full Post »

Drug Development Process been Revolutionized by Artificial Intelligence (AI) Technologies

Posted in Artificial Intelligence - Breakthroughs in Theories and Technologies, Artificial Intelligence - General, Artificial intelligence applications for cardiology, Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care, Artificial Intelligence in CANCER, Artificial Intelligence in Health Care - Tools & Innovations, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine - Application for Diagnosis, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine - Applications in Therapeutics, ChatGPT at LPBI Group, Deep Learning, Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing (NLP), tagged AI technologies, Drug Development Process on June 19, 2024| 1 Comment »

Drug Development Process been Revolutionized by Artificial Intelligence (AI) Technologies

Curators: Stephen J. Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

The Voice of Stephen J. Williams, PhD

LPBI Group, CSO

PENDING

The Voice of Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

1.0 LPBI Group and 2.0 LPBI Group, Founder

With the advent of AI in the last 5-7 years in our fields: Pharmaceutical, Life Sciences and Medicine, LPBI Group had launched several initiatives to advance the frontier of knowledge by using our own contents repositories of +8 giga bytes for experimenting with Machine Learning (ML) technologies for Medical Text Analysis.

These AI Technologies include

Natural Language Processing (NLP): Statistical ML and Deep Learning ML
ChatGPT and GPT-4
Generative AI

A quote by Brad Power, Co-founder and CEO, Cancer Patient Lab made in January 2024

cancerpatientlab.org

LPBI Group is in the admirable position of sitting on a treasure trove of medical literature that would be useful input in the current environment of customized ChatGPTs looking for reliable medical content.

In the Drug Development (DD) field, AI technologies are been employed chiefly, for these tasks:

(a) Generation of molecular information libraries

(b) Explorations and combinatorial experiments on protein structures, and

The A.I. learns from patterns in the data to suggest possible useful drug candidates, as if matching chemical keys to the right protein locks.

Because A.I. for drug development is powered by precise scientific data, toxic “hallucinations” are far less likely than with more broadly trained chatbots. And any potential drug must undergo extensive testing in labs and in clinical trials before it is approved for patients.

“Generative A.I. is transforming the field, but the drug-development process is messy and very human,” said David Baker, a biochemist and director of the Institute for Protein Design at the University of Washington.

As of December 2023,

24 AI-discovered molecules had completed Phase I trials, with 21 of them being successful. This success rate of 80–90% is higher than the historical industry average of 40–65%.
In Phase II trials, the success rate is around 40%, which is similar to the historical average.

SOURCE

AI Overview

https://www.google.com/search?q=A.I.-developed+drugs+are+in+clinical+trials&oq=A.I.-developed+drugs+are+in+clinical+trials&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigAdIBCTIxNzZqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Examples of drugs developed by AI technologies:

NCI definition of AI Drugs:

AI drug

A drug that blocks the activity of an enzyme called aromatase, which the body uses to make estrogen in the ovaries and other tissues. Blocking aromatase lowers the amount of estrogen made by the body, which may stop the growth of cancer cells that need estrogen to grow. AI drugs are used to treat some types of breast cancer or to keep it from coming back. They may also be used to help prevent breast cancer in some women who are at a high risk of developing it. Examples of AI drugs are anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane. AI drugs are a type of hormone therapy. Also called aromatase inhibitor.

Examples of AI drugs are anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane. AI drugs are a type of hormone therapy. Also called aromatase inhibitor.

SOURCE

https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/ai-drug

More examples of AI Drugs, Drugs developed with AI technologies

#1:

INS018_055

Developed by Insilico Medicine, a Hong Kong-based biotech startup, to treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). IPF is a chronic lung disease that causes scarring and can be fatal if left untreated. In January 2023, Insilico Medicine announced positive results from a Phase I safety trial of INS018_055. In February 2023, the FDA granted breakthrough status to a small molecule inhibitor identified by Insilico Medicine’s AI platforms for the drug. As of November 2023, INS018_055 was in mid-stage trials in the US and China, with some results expected in early 2025.

The first fully A.I. -generated drug enters clinical trials in human patients. Insilico Medicine, a Hong Kong-based biotech startup with more than $400 million in funding, created the drug as a treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a chronic lung disease.Jun 29, 2023

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/29/ai-generated-drug-begins-clinical-trials-in-human-patients.html#:~:text=Source:%20Insilico%20Medicine,the%20National%20Institutes%20of%20Health.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-023-02361-0#:~:text=In%20January%202023%2C%20Insilico%20Medicine,Administration%20(FDA)%20in%20February.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-13/race-for-first-drug-discovered-by-ai-nears-key-milestone?embedded-checkout=true

#2:

Schrödinger’s AI-driven platform

Uses predictive modeling to optimize the molecular structure of drugs. AI is expected to integrate more advanced simulation techniques, such as quantum computing, to more accurately predict molecular behavior.

Drug discovery software developer Schrodinger Inc. (NASDAQ: SDGR) stock has been trying to recover after plummeting over 80% off its all-time high of $117 in January 2021. Schrodinger’s artificial intelligence (AI) powered software technology platform utilizes physics-based modeling and sophisticated machine learning algorithms to help clients identify the suitable molecules to treat the desired ailments. Its programs can help predict the behavior of molecules and potential outcomes.

This entails finding suitable molecules that effectively target specific cells and proteins, transcend through cell walls, are absorbed and dissolved well without interfering with other drugs or producing bad reactions to other drugs, and are scalable.

Big Name Pharma Customers of Schrödinger, Inc.

Its technology platform allows for the faster and cheaper discovery of novel molecules with a higher success rate than traditional methods. Its clients include the top 20 pharmaceutical companies in the world, including Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE), Merck & Co. Inc. (NYSE: MRK), Takeda, AstraZeneca PLC (NYSE: AZN), and GlaxoSmithKline plc (NYSE: GSK). It closed new agreements with Eli Lilly & Co. (NYSE: LLY) and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals out of Tokyo, Japan.

SOURCE

Schrodinger is an AI-Powered Drug Discovery Developer to Watch

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/schrodinger-is-an-ai-powered-drug-discovery-developer-to-watch

Schrodinger’s Pipelines include:

SGR-1505 (MALT1)

Hematologic Malignancies

DISCOVERYPRECLINICALPHASE 1

SGR-2921 (CDC7)

AML/MDS

DISCOVERYPRECLINICALPHASE 1

SGR-3515 (Wee1/Myt1)

Solid Tumors

DISCOVERYPRECLINICALPHASE 1

SOS1

Oncology

DISCOVERYPRECLINICALPHASE 1

PRMT5-MTA

Oncology

DISCOVERYPRECLINICALPHASE 1

EGFR^C797S

Oncology

DISCOVERYPRECLINICALPHASE 1

NLRP3

Immunology

DISCOVERYPRECLINICALPHASE 1

LRRK2

Neurology

DISCOVERYPRECLINICALPHASE 1

Undisclosed Programs

Multiple Areas

SOURCE

https://www.schrodinger.com/pipeline/#Proprietary-Pipeline

How A.I. Is Revolutionizing Drug Development

In high-tech labs, workers are generating data to train A.I. algorithms to design better medicine, faster. But the transformation is just getting underway.

By Steve Lohr, Terray Therapeutics campus in Monrovia, Calif., June 17, 2024

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/17/business/ai-drugs-development-terray.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Five AI drug discovery companies you should know about

According to Grand View Research, the global AI in drug discovery market size was valued at $1.1 billion in 2022, and is expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 29.6% from 2023 to 2030. The report states that the growing demand for the discovery and development of novel drug therapies and increasing manufacturing capacities of the life science industry are driving the demand for AI-empowered solutions in the drug discovery processes.

As this report suggests, AI for drug discovery is clearly a growing field within the biopharma industry. Inevitably, as it grows even larger, we will see more companies come to the forefront of the field, hoping to change the face of drug discovery – and also the biopharma industry as a whole – so that the entire drug development process can become faster, more consistent, more accurate, and more scalable.

SOURCE

https://www.labiotech.eu/best-biotech/ai-drug-discovery-companies/#:~:text=to%20%2433%20million.-,Exscientia,manner%20using%20its%20AI%20technology.

At LPBI Group, Of Note is our Journal PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com

it represents our commitment to AI technologies in the following research categories and How many articles have been written in each of these topics:

A total of x articles have been categorized 511 times among the following Artificial Intelligence research categories

Artificial Intelligence – General

113

An executive’s guide to AI

Artificial Intelligence – Breakthroughs in Theories and Technologies

Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care

Artificial Intelligence in CANCER

Artificial Intelligence in Health Care – Tools & Innovations

Artificial Intelligence in Medicine – Application for Diagnosis

Artificial intelligence applications for cardiology

AI-assisted Cardiac MRI

Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry

Artificial Intelligence in Medicine – Applications in Therapeutics

LPBI Group’s involvement in Conceptual Drug Development covers the following two areas:

DrugDiscovery @LPBI Group, 2016 – 2018

Synthetic Biology in Drug Discovery, 2021 – Present

Applications of Artificial Intelligence to Medicine

Artificial Intelligence: Genomics & Cancer, 2021 – Present

Medicine with GPT-4 & ChatGPT, 2023 – Present

LPBI Group commitment to Medical Text Analysis using Machine Learning

2021-2025 Medical Text Analysis (NLP), 2020 – Present

ChatGPT + Wolfram PlugIn, 2023 – Present

LPBI Group Team members published two books on Drug Delivery Technologies

We had covered drug delivery technologies in two of our books. See all the Books:

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Aviva+Lev-Ari&i=digital-text&rh=n%3A133140011&ref=nb_sb_noss

Series E, Volume Four

Medical 3D BioPrinting – The Revolution in Medicine, Technologies for Patient-centered Medicine: From R&D in Biologics to New Medical Devices.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B078QVDV2W

and

Series C, Volume Two

Cancer Therapies: Metabolic, Genomics, Interventional, Immunotherapy and Nanotechnology in Therapy Delivery (Series C Book 2).

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B071VQ6YYK

The Table of Contents of these two book can be found in our

Spanish-language Edition, as well

Serie E, Volumen 4

Bioimpresión médica en 3D: la revolución de la medicina: Tecnologías para una medicina centrada en el paciente: de la I+D en agentes biológicos a los nuevos … en el paciente nº 4) (Spanish Edition) 2023

(Spanish Edition) Kindle Edition

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRNVDB1P $56

Serie C, Volumen 2

Tratamientos contra el cáncer: Metabólicos, genómicos, intervencionistas, inmunoterapia y nanotecnología para la administración de tratamientos (Serie … y la oncología nº 2) 2022

(Spanish Edition) Kindle Edition

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BQTM44SM $75

Read Full Post »

ChatGPT Chemistry Assistant for Text Mining and the Prediction of metal–organic framework (MOF) synthesis

Posted in ChatGPT in Academic Education, ChatGPT, GPT-4, Deep Learning, Natural Language Processing (NLP) on August 27, 2023| Leave a Comment »

ChatGPT Chemistry Assistant for Text Mining and the Prediction of MOF Synthesis

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

ChatGPT Chemistry Assistant for Text Mining and the Prediction of MOF Synthesis

Zhiling Zheng
Oufan Zhang
Christian Borgs
Jennifer T. Chayes
Omar M. Yaghi*

Cite this: J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023, 145, 32, 18048–18062 Publication Date:August 7, 2023 https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.3c05819 Copyright © 2022 American Chemical Society. This publication is licensed under these Terms of Use.https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.3c05819

Abstract

We use prompt engineering to guide ChatGPT in the automation of text mining of metal–organic framework (MOF) synthesis conditions from diverse formats and styles of the scientific literature. This effectively mitigates ChatGPT’s tendency to hallucinate information, an issue that previously made the use of large language models (LLMs) in scientific fields challenging. Our approach involves the development of a workflow implementing three different processes for text mining, programmed by ChatGPT itself. All of them enable parsing, searching, filtering, classification, summarization, and data unification with different trade-offs among labor, speed, and accuracy. We deploy this system to extract 26 257 distinct synthesis parameters pertaining to approximately 800 MOFs sourced from peer-reviewed research articles. This process incorporates our ChemPrompt Engineering strategy to instruct ChatGPT in text mining, resulting in impressive precision, recall, and F1 scores of 90–99%. Furthermore, with the data set built by text mining, we constructed a machine-learning model with over 87% accuracy in predicting MOF experimental crystallization outcomes and preliminarily identifying important factors in MOF crystallization. We also developed a reliable data-grounded MOF chatbot to answer questions about chemical reactions and synthesis procedures. Given that the process of using ChatGPT reliably mines and tabulates diverse MOF synthesis information in a unified format while using only narrative language requiring no coding expertise, we anticipate that our ChatGPT Chemistry Assistant will be very useful across various other chemistry subdisciplines.

This publication is licensed for personal use by The American Chemical Society.

Concluding Remarks

Our research has successfully demonstrated the potential of LLMs, particularly GPT models, in the domain of chemistry research. We presented a ChatGPT Chemistry Assistant that includes three different but connected approaches to text mining with ChemPrompt Engineering: Process 3 is capable of conducting search and filtration, Processes 2 and 3 classify synthesis paragraphs, and Processes 1, 2, and 3 are capable of summarizing synthesis conditions into structured data sets. Enhanced by three fundamental principles of prompt engineering specific to chemistry text processing, coupled with the interactive prompt refinement strategy, the ChatGPT-based assistant has substantially advanced the extraction and analysis of the MOF synthesis literature, with precision, recall, and F1 scores exceeding 90%.

We elucidated two crucial insights from the data set of synthesis conditions. First, the data can be employed to construct predictive models for reaction outcomes, which shed light on the key experimental factors that influence the MOF crystallization process. Second, it is possible to create an MOF chatbot that can provide accurate answers based on text mining, thereby improving access to the synthesis data set and achieving a data-to-dialogue transition. This investigation illustrates the potential for rapid advancement inherent in ChatGPT and other LLMs as a proof of concept.

On a fundamental level, this study provides guidance on interacting with LLMs to serve as AI assistants for chemists, accelerating research with minimal prerequisite coding expertise and thus bridging the gap between chemistry and the realms of computational and data science more effectively. Through interaction and chatting, the code and design of experiments can be modified, democratizing data mining and enhancing the landscape of scientific research. Our work sets a foundation for further exploration and application of LLMs across various scientific domains, paving the way for a new era of AI-assisted chemistry research.

SOURCE

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.3c05819

ChatGPT accelerates chemistry discovery for climate response, study shows

Yaghi said. “AI has transformed many other sectors of our society – commerce, banking, travel. Why not transform science?”

These datasets on the synergy of the highly-porous materials known as metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) will inform predictive models. The models will accelerate chemists’ ability to create or optimize MOFs, including ones that alleviate water scarcity and capture air pollution. All chemists – not just coders – can build these databases due to the use of AI-fueled chatbots.

To help them teach ChatGPT to generate accurate and relevant information, they modified an approach called “prompt engineering” into “ChemPrompt Engineering.” They developed prompts that avoided asking ChatGPT for made up or misleading content; laid out detailed directions that explained to the chatbot the context and format for the response; and provided the large language model a template or instructions for extracting data.

The chatbot’s literature review – and the experts’ approach – was successful. ChatGPT finished in a fraction of an hour what would have taken a student years to complete, said Borgs, BIDMaP’s director. It mined the synthetic conditions of MOFs with 95% accuracy, Yaghi said.

https://data.berkeley.edu/news/chatgpt-accelerates-chemistry-discovery-climate-response-study-shows

Read Full Post »

ChatGPT Searches and Advent of Meta Threads: What it Means for Social Media and Science 3.0

Posted in Artificial Intelligence - General, ChatGPT at LPBI Group, ChatGPT, GPT-4, Curation, Natural Language Processing (NLP), Open Access Journals, REAL TIME Conference Coverage Twitter's Hashtags and Handles per Presentation/session, Scientific & Biotech Conferences: Press Coverage, tagged Artificial intelligence, ChatGPT, Facebook, Meta, real time conference coverage, science 3.0, science communication, standing in scientific community, Threads, Twitter, web 3.0 on July 11, 2023| Leave a Comment »

ChatGPT Searches and Advent of Meta Threads: What it Means for Social Media and Science 3.0

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

The following explains how popular ChatGPT has become and how the latest social media platforms, including Meta’s (FaceBook) new platform Threads, is becoming as popular or more popular than older social Platforms. In fact, since its short inception since last week (Threads launced 7/07/2023), Threads is threatening Twitter for dominance in that market.

The following is taken from an email from Charlie Downing Jones from journoreasearch.org and https://www.digital-adoption.com/ :

U.S. searches for ChatGPT overtake TikTok, Pinterest, and Zoom

Google searches for ChatGPT have overtaken TikTok in the U.S., jumping to 7.1 million monthly searches compared to 5.1 million
The term ‘ChatGPT’ is now one of the top 100 search terms in the U.S., ranking 92nd, according to Ahrefs data
ChatGPT is now searched more than most major social networks, including LinkedIn, Pinterest, TikTok, and Reddit

Analysis of Google search data reveals that online searches for ChatGPT, the popular AI chatbot, have overtaken most popular social networks in the U.S. This comes when search interest in artificial intelligence is at its highest point in history.

The findings by Digital-adoption.com reveal that US-based searches for ChatGPT have exploded and overtaken popular social networks, such as LinkedIn, Pinterest, and Tiktok, some by millions.

Ranking	Keyword	US Search Volume (Monthly)
1	Facebook	70,920,000
2	YouTube	69,260,000
3	Twitter	15,440,000
4	Instagram	12,240,000
5	ChatGPT	7,130,000
6	LinkedIn	6,990,000
7	Pinterest	5,790,000
8	TikTok	5,130,000
9	Reddit	4,060,000
10	Snapchat	1,280,000
11	WhatsApp	936,000

Since its release in November 2022, searches for ChatGPT have overtaken those of most major social networks. According to the latest June search figures by search tool Ahrefs, searches for ‘ChatGPT’ and ‘Chat GPT’ are made 7,130,000 times monthly in the U.S.

That’s more than the monthly search volume for most of the top ten social networks, including LinkedIn, Pinterest, and TikTok. TikTok is one of the largest growing social media apps, with 100 million users in just a year.

The term ‘ChatGPT’ is now one of the top 100 search terms in the U.S., ranking 92nd, according to Ahrefs data

Searches for ChatGPT have eclipsed other major networks in the U.S., such as Reddit, by millions.

Every day search terms such as ‘maps’ and ‘flights’ have even seen their search volumes pale compared to the rising popularity of ChatGPT. ‘Maps’ is currently searched 440,000 times less than the chatbot each month, and ‘Flights’ is now Googled 2.2 million times less.

2023 has been a breakout year for AI, as searches for the term have more than doubled from 17 million in January 2023 to 42 million in May. In comparison, there were 7.9 million searches in January 2022. There has been an 825% increase in searches for ‘AI’ in the US compared to the average over the last five years.

There is a correlation between the uptick and the public releases of accessible AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, released on November 30, 2022, and Bing AI and Google Bard, released in May 2023.

According to TikTok data, interest in artificial intelligence has soared tenfold since 2020, and virtual reality has more than tripled.

AI has been a big topic of conversation this year as accessible AI chatbots and new technologies were released and sparked rapid adoption, prompting tech leaders like Elon Musk to call for AI regulation.

A spokesperson from Digital-adoption.com commented on the findings: “There has been a massive surge in AI interest this year. Apple’s announcement of Vision Pro has captured audiences at the right time, when new AI technologies, like ChatGPT, have become accessible to almost anyone. The rapid adoption of ChatGPT is surprising, with it becoming one of the fastest-growing tools available”.

All data was gathered from Ahrefs and Google Trends.

If using this story, please include a link to https://www.digital-adoption.com/ who conducted this study. A linked credit allows us to keep supplying you with content that you may find useful in the future.

If you need anything else, please get in touch.

All the best,
Charlie Dowling-Jones

charlie.dowling-jones@journoresearch.org

Journo Research

Part of Search Intelligence Ltd. Company registered in England No. 09361526

Why LPBI Needs to consider the new Meta Threads Platform

From Barrons

Threads Hits 100 Million Users Faster Than ChatGPT. Now It Needs Them to Stay.

Adam ClarkFollow

Updated July 10, 2023 9:00 am ET / Original July 10, 2023 7:44 am ET

The launch of Meta Platforms’ Threads looks to have outpaced even the viral success of ChatGPT in terms of signing up users. The next challenge will be keeping them around.

Since its inception on Thursday 7/07/2023, Meta’s new Threads platform has been signing up new users at an alarming rate. On rollout date 5 million signed up, then 30 million by next morning and now as of today (7/1/2023) Threads has over 100 million signups. Compare that to Twitter’s 436 million users, of which are tweeting on average 25% less than a few years ago, and it is easy to see why many social media pundits are calling Threads the new Twitter killer app.

Here are a few notes from the New York Times podcast The Daily

The Daily

1 day ago

Will Threads Kill Twitter?

Play • 33 min



Last week, Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, released Threads, a social media platform to compete with Twitter. In just 16 hours, Threads was downloaded more than 30 million times.

Mike Isaac, who covers tech companies and Silicon Valley for The Times, explains how Twitter became so vulnerable and discusses the challenges Meta faces to create a less toxic alternative.

Guest: Mike Isaac, a technology correspondent for The New York Times.

Background reading:

Threads is on pace to exceed 100 million users within two months, a feat achieved only by ChatGPT.
Here’s what to know about Threads and how it differs from Twitter.

Here are a few notes from the podcast:

Mike Isaac lamented that Twitter has become user unfriendly for a host of reasons. These include:

The instant reply’guys’ – people who reply but don’t really follow you or your thread
Your followers or following are not pushed to top of thread
The auto bots – the automated Twitter bots
Spam feeds
The changes in service and all these new fees: Twitter push to monetize everything – like airlines

Elon Musk wanted to transform Twitter but his history is always cutting, not just trimming the excess but he is known to just eliminate departments just because he either doesn’t want to pay or CAN’T pay. With Twitter he gutted content moderation.

Twitter ad business is plumetting but Musk wants to make Twitter a subscription business (the Blue check mark)

Twitter only gets a couple of million $ per month from Twitter Blue but Musk has to pay billions to just pay the interest on Twitter loan for Twitter puchase years ago

It is known that Musk is not paying rent on some California offices (some are suggesting he defaulted on leases) and Musk is selling Tesla stock to pay for Twitter expenses (why TSLA stock has been falling … the consensus out there)

Twitter is largest compendium of natural language conversations and Musk wanted to limit bots from scraping Twitter data to do AI and NLP on Twitter threads. This is also a grievance from other companies… that these ‘scrapers’ are not paying enough for Twitter data. However as Mike asks why do the little Twitter user have to pay in either fees or cutbacks from service. (the reason why Elon is limiting viewing per day is to limit these bots from scraping Twitter for data)

Another problem is that Twitter does not have its own servers so pays a lot to Google and AWS for server space. It appears Elon and Twitter are running out of money.

META and THREADS

Zuckerberg has spent billions of infrastructure spending and created a massive advertising ecosystem. This is one of the thoughts behind his push and entry into this space. Zuckerberg actually wanted to but Twitter a decade ago.

Usage and growth: The launch of Threads was Thursday 7-07-23. There were 2 million initial signups and by next morning 30 million overnight. Today Monday 7-10-23 there are 100 million, rivaling Twitter’s 436 million accounts. And as Musk keeps canceling Twitter accounts, angering users over fees or usage restrictions, people are looking for a good platform. Mastedon in too technical and not having the adoption like Meta Threads is having. Mike Isaac hopes Threads will not go the way of Google Hangouts or Plus but Google strategy did not involve social media like Facebook.

Signup and issues: Signup on Threads is easy but you need to go through Instagram. Some people have concerns about having their instagram thread put on their Threads feed but Mike had talked to the people at Meta and they are working to allow users to keep the feeds separate, mainly because Meta understands that the Instgagram and Twitter social cultures are different and users may want to keep Threads more business-like.

Important issues for LPBI: Twitter had decided, by end of May 2023 to end their relationship with WordPress JetPack service, in which WordPress posts could automatically be posted to your Twitter account and feed. Twitter is making users like WordPress pay for this API and WordPress said it would be too expensive as Twitter is not making a flat fee but per usage fee. This is a major hindrance even though the Twitter social share button is still active on posts.

Initial conversations between META and WordPress have indicated META will keep this API service free for WordPress.

So a little background on Meta Threads and signup features from Meta (Facebook) website:

Takeaways

Threads is a new app, built by the Instagram team, for sharing text updates and joining public conversations.
You log in using your Instagram account and posts can be up to 500 characters long and include links, photos, and videos up to 5 minutes in length.
We’re working to soon make Threads compatible with the open, interoperable social networks that we believe can shape the future of the internet.

Mark Zuckerberg just announced the initial version of Threads, an app built by the Instagram team for sharing with text. Whether you’re a creator or a casual poster, Threads offers a new, separate space for real-time updates and public conversations. We are working toward making Threads compatible with the open, interoperable social networks that we believe can shape the future of the internet.

Instagram is where billions of people around the world connect over photos and videos. Our vision with Threads is to take what Instagram does best and expand that to text, creating a positive and creative space to express your ideas. Just like on Instagram, with Threads you can follow and connect with friends and creators who share your interests – including the people you follow on Instagram and beyond. And you can use our existing suite of safety and user controls.

Join the Conversation from Instagram

It’s easy to get started with Threads: simply use your Instagram account to log in. Your Instagram username and verification will carry over, with the option to customize your profile specifically for Threads.

Everyone who is under 16 (or under 18 in certain countries) will be defaulted into a private profile when they join Threads. You can choose to follow the same accounts you do on Instagram, and find more people who care about the same things you do. The core accessibility features available on Instagram today, such as screen reader support and AI-generated image descriptions, are also enabled on Threads.

Your feed on Threads includes threads posted by people you follow, and recommended content from new creators you haven’t discovered yet. Posts can be up to 500 characters long and include links, photos, and videos up to 5 minutes in length. You can easily share a Threads post to your Instagram story, or share your post as a link on any other platform you choose.

Tune Out the Noise

We built Threads with tools to enable positive, productive conversations. You can control who can mention you or reply to you within Threads. Like on Instagram, you can add hidden words to filter out replies to your threads that contain specific words. You can unfollow, block, restrict or report a profile on Threads by tapping the three-dot menu, and any accounts you’ve blocked on Instagram will automatically be blocked on Threads.

As with all our products, we’re taking safety seriously, and we’ll enforce Instagram’s Community Guidelines on content and interactions in the app. Since 2016 we’ve invested more than $16 billion in building up the teams and technologies needed to protect our users, and we remain focused on advancing our industry-leading integrity efforts and investments to protect our community.

Compatible with Interoperable Networks

Soon, we are planning to make Threads compatible with ActivityPub, the open social networking protocol established by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the body responsible for the open standards that power the modern web. This would make Threads interoperable with other apps that also support the ActivityPub protocol, such as Mastodon and WordPress – allowing new types of connections that are simply not possible on most social apps today. Other platforms including Tumblr have shared plans to support the ActivityPub protocol in the future.

We’re committed to giving you more control over your audience on Threads – our plan is to work with ActivityPub to provide you the option to stop using Threads and transfer your content to another service. Our vision is that people using compatible apps will be able to follow and interact with people on Threads without having a Threads account, and vice versa, ushering in a new era of diverse and interconnected networks. If you have a public profile on Threads, this means your posts would be accessible from other apps, allowing you to reach new people with no added effort. If you have a private profile, you’d be able to approve users on Threads who want to follow you and interact with your content, similar to your experience on Instagram.

The benefits of open social networking protocols go well beyond the ways people can follow each other. Developers can build new types of features and user experiences that can easily plug into other open social networks, accelerating the pace of innovation and experimentation. Each compatible app can set its own community standards and content moderation policies, meaning people have the freedom to choose spaces that align with their values. We believe this decentralized approach, similar to the protocols governing email and the web itself, will play an important role in the future of online platforms.

Threads is Meta’s first app envisioned to be compatible with an open social networking protocol – we hope that by joining this fast-growing ecosystem of interoperable services, Threads will help people find their community, no matter what app they use.

What’s Next

We’re rolling out Threads today in more than 100 countries for iOS and Android, and people in those countries can download the app from the Apple App Store and Google Play Store.

In addition to working toward making Threads compatible with the ActivityPub protocol, soon we’ll be adding a number of new features to help you continue to discover threads and creators you’re interested in, including improved recommendations in feed and a more robust search function that makes it easier to follow topics and trends in real time.

Should Science Migrate over to Threads Instead of Twitter?

I have written multiple time of the impact of social media, Science and Web 2.0 and the new Science and Web 3.0 including

Will Web 3.0 Do Away With Science 2.0? Is Science Falling Behind?

Science Has A Systemic Problem, Not an Innovation Problem

It, as of this writing, appears it is not crucial that scientific institutions need to migrate over to Threads yet, although the impetus is certainly there. Many of the signups have of course been through Instagram (which is the only way to signup for now) and a search of @Threads does not show that large scientific organizations have signed up for now.

A search for NIH, NCBI, AACR, and Personalized Medicine Coalition or PMC which is the big MGH orgaization on personalized medicine appears to return nothing yet. Pfizer and most big pharma is on @Threads now but that is because they maintain a marketing thread on Instagram. How necessary is @Threads for communicating science over Science 3.0 platform remains to be seen. In addition, how will @Threads be used for real time scientific conference coverage? Will Meta be able to integrate with virtual reality?

Other articles of Note on this Open Access Scientific Journal Include:

Will Web 3.0 Do Away With Science 2.0? Is Science Falling Behind?

Science Has A Systemic Problem, Not an Innovation Problem

Relevance of Twitter.com forthcoming Payment System for Scientific Content Promotion and Monetization

Is It Time for the Virtual Scientific Conference?: Coronavirus, Travel Restrictions, Conferences Cancelled

Part One: The Process of Real Time Coverage using Social Media

Read Full Post »

OpenAI and ChatGPT face unique legal challenges over CopyRight Laws

Posted in Artificial Intelligence - General, ChatGPT at LPBI Group, ChatGPT in Academic Education, ChatGPT, GPT-4, Disputes and Settlements, Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property, Innovations, Commercialization, Investment in technological breakthrough, Law and Medicine Conflicts, Natural Language Processing (NLP), tagged AI, Artificial Intelligence ( AI), ChatGPT, ChatGPT-4, copyright law, Creative Commons, generative AI, Intellectual property, large language models, legal conflicts, Natural Language Processing (NLP), Open access, OpenAI on July 10, 2023| Leave a Comment »

OpenAI and ChatGPT face unique legal challenges over CopyRight Laws

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, PhD

In previous weeks on this page and on the sister page ChatGPT applied to Cancer & Oncology, a comparison between ChatGPT, OpenAI, and Google large language model based search reveals a major difference between the algorithms with repect to citation and author credit. In essence while Google returns a hyperlink to the information used to form an answer, ChatGPT and OpenAI are agnostic in crediting or citing the sources of information used to generate answers to queries. With ChatGPT the source data, or more specifically the training set used for the AI algorithm is never properly cited in the query results.

This, as outlined below, is making a big problem when it comes to copyright law and intelectual property. Last week a major lawsuit has been filed because of incorrect and citing, referencing, and attribution of ownership of intellectual property.

As Miles Klee reports in The Rolling Stone

“OpenAI faces allegations of privacy invasion and violating authors’ copyright — but this may be just the tip of the iceberg”

The burgeoning AI industry has just crossed another major milestone, with two new class-action lawsuits calling into question whether this technology violates privacy rights, scrapes intellectual property without consent and negatively affects the public at large. Experts believe they’re likely to be the first in a wave of legal challenges to companies working on such products. Both suits were filed on Wednesday and target OpenAI, a research lab consisting of both a nonprofit arm and a corporation, over ChatGPT software, a “large language model” capable of generating human-like responses to text input. One, filed by Clarkson, a public interest law firm, is wide-ranging and invokes the potentially “existential” threat of AI itself. The other, filed by the Joseph Saveri Law Firm and attorney Matthew Butterick, is focused on two established authors, Paul Tremblay and Mona Awad, who claim that their books were among those ChatGPT was trained on — a violation of copyright, according to the complaint. (Saveri and Butterick are separately pursuing legal action against OpenAI, GitHub and Microsoft over GitHub Copilot, an AI-based coding product that they argue “appears to profit from the work of open-source programmers by violating the conditions of their open-source licenses.”)

Saveri and Butterick’s latest suit goes after OpenAI for direct copyright infringement as well as violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Tremblay (who wrote the novel The Cabin at the End of the World) and Awad (author of 13 Ways of Looking at a Fat Girl and Bunny) are the representatives of a proposed class of plaintiffs who would seek damages as well as injunctive relief in the form of changes to ChatGPT. The filing includes ChatGPT’s detailed responses to user questions about the plots of Tremblay’s and Awad’s books — evidence, the attorneys argue, that OpenAI is unduly profiting off of infringed materials, which were scraped by the chat bot. While the suits venture into uncharted legal territory, they were more or less inevitable, according to those who research AI tech and privacy or practice law around those issues.

“[AI companies] should have and likely did expect these types of challenges,” says Ben Winters, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center and head of the organization’s AI and Human Rights Project. He points out that OpenAI CEO Sam Altman mentioned a few prior “frivolous” suits against the company during his congressional testimony on artificial intelligence in May. “Whenever you create a tool that implicates so much personal data and can be used so widely for such harmful and otherwise personal purposes, I would be shocked there is not anticipated legal fire,” Winters says. “Particularly since they allow this sort of unfettered access for third parties to integrate their systems, they end up getting more personal information and more live information that is less publicly available, like keystrokes and browser activity, in ways the consumer could not at all anticipate.”

Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/chatgtp-openai-lawsuits-copyright-artificial-intelligence-1234780855/

At the heart of the matter is ChatGPT and OpenAI use of ‘shadow libraries’ for AI training datasets, in which the lawsuit claims is illegal.

An article by Anne Bucher in topclassactions.com explains this:

Source: https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/class-action-news/class-action-lawsuit-claims-chatgpt-uses-copyrighted-books-without-authors-consent/

They say that OpenAI defendants “profit richly” from the use of their copyrighted materials and yet the authors never consented to the use of their copyrighted materials without credit or compensation.

ChatGPT lawsuit says OpenAI has previously utilized illegal ‘shadow libraries’ for AI training datasets

Although many types of material are used to train large language models, “books offer the best examples of high-quality longform writing,” according to the ChatGPT lawsuit.

OpenAI has previously utilized books for its AI training datasets, including unpublished novels (the majority of which were under copyright) available on a website that provides the materials for free. The plaintiffs suggest that OpenAI may have utilized copyrighted materials from “flagrantly illegal shadow libraries.”

Tremblay and Awad note that OpenAI’s March 2023 paper introducing GPT-4 failed to include any information about the training dataset. However, they say that ChatGPT was able to generate highly accurate summaries of their books when prompted, suggesting that their copyrighted material was used in the training dataset without their consent.

They filed the ChatGPT class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of U.S. residents and entities that own a U.S. copyright for any work used as training data for the OpenAI language models during the class period.

Earlier this year, a tech policy group urged federal regulators to block OpenAI’s GPT-4 AI product because it does not meet federal standards.

What is the general consensus among legal experts on generative AI and copyright?

From Bloomberg Law: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/XDDQ1PNK000000/copyrights-professional-perspective-copyright-chaos-legal-implic

Copyright Chaos: Legal Implications of Generative AI

Contributed by Shawn Helms and Jason Krieser, McDermott Will & Emery

Copyright Law Implications – The Ins and Outs

Given the hype around ChatGPT and the speculation that it could be widely used, it is important to understand the legal implications of the technology. First, do copyright owners of the text used to train ChatGPT have a copyright infringement claim against OpenAI? Second, can the output of ChatGPT be protected by copyright and, if so, who owns that copyright?

To answer these questions, we need to understand the application of US copyright law.

Copyright Law Basics

Based on rights in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress passed the first copyright law in 1790. It has been amended several times. Today, US copyright law is governed by the Copyright Act of 1976. This law grants authors of original works exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and display their work. Copyright protection applies from the moment of creation, and, for most works, the copyright term is the life of the author plus 70 years after the author’s death. Under copyright law, the copyright holder has the exclusive right to make copies of the work, distribute it, display it publicly, and create derivative works based on it. Others who want to use the work must obtain permission from the copyright holder or use one of the exceptions to copyright law, such as fair use.

The purpose of copyright law is to incentivize authors to create novel and creative works. It does this by granting authors exclusive rights to control the use of their work, thus allowing them to financially benefit from their works. Copyright law also encourages the dissemination of knowledge by allowing others to use copyrighted works under certain conditions, such as through the fair use doctrine, which allows for limited use of copyrighted material for the purposes of criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. By protecting the rights of authors and creators while also allowing for the use of copyrighted works for the public benefit, copyright law aims to strike a balance between the interests of authors and the public.

Inputs – Training ChatGPT with Copyrighted Material

ChatGPT was trained on a large training dataset sourced from the internet, including a vast amount of text from websites, articles, books, social media posts, and academic papers. Importantly, ChatGPT was not aware of the source of the data, it only saw the text and learned the patterns and relationships between the words, phrases and sentences. The vast majority of the text used to train ChatGPT was certainly subject to copyright protection—except for text that is in the public domain like facts or discoveries or works whose term of copyright protection has ended.

Did the ChatGPT training process violate the copyright of the original authors? To answer that question we must determine: if during the training process OpenAI copied the underlying works—because copyright infringement requires an act of copying works that are protected by copyright; is the output of ChatGPT a “derivative work” under copyright law; and would such copying or production of a derivate work fall under the “fair use” exception of copyright law.

Copying During Training

We are not aware of publicly available information regarding whether, during the training process, the training text for ChatGPT was copied or simply referenced. Therefore, we asked ChatGPT and received this answer:

Prompt: During the ChatGPT training process, was the underlying training text copied into a OpenAI database?

Answer: During the training process, text from various sources is used to train the ChatGPT model. It is likely that the text was copied into an internal database at OpenAI for the purpose of training the model. However, the training text is typically preprocessed to remove any sensitive information such as personal identifiers, copyrighted text, etc. In addition, the text is also used to train the model and not stored in a database. The model uses the text to learn patterns and structure of the language and once the training is done, it doesn’t require the text anymore.

So, it seems that during the training process, text was copied. It is also interesting that ChatGPT stated that the training text was “preprocessed” to remove any copyrighted text. That seems highly unlikely since otherwise nearly all text would have been removed.

Is ChatGPT Output a Derivative Work?

Under US copyright law, the owner of a copyright has the exclusive right “to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” A “derivative work” is “a work based upon one or more preexisting works.” ChatGPT is trained on preexisting works and generates output based on that training.

As Daniel Gervais, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School who specializes in intellectual property law, says, the definition of a derivative work under copyright law “could loosely be used as a definition of machine learning when applied to the creation of literary and artistic productions because AI machines can produce literary and artistic content (output) that is almost necessarily ‘based upon’ a dataset consisting of preexisting works.” Under this view, it seems that all ChatGPT output is a derivative work under copyright law.

On a related point, it is worth noting that in producing its output, ChatGPT is not “copying” anything. ChatGPT generates text based on the context of the input and the words and phrase patterns it was trained on. ChatGPT is not “copying” and then changing text.

What About Fair Use?

Let’s assume that the underlying text was copied in some way during the ChatGPT training process. Let’s further assume that outputs from Chatto are, at least sometimes, derivative works under copyright law. If that is the case, do copyright owners of the original works have a copyright infringement claim against OpenAI? Not if the copying and the output generation are covered by the doctrine of “fair use.” If a use qualifies as fair use, then actions that would otherwise be prohibited would not be deemed an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use, the factors include:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.
The nature of the copyrighted work.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In this case, assuming OpenAI copied copyrighted text as part of the ChatGPT training process, such copying was not for a commercial purpose and had no economic impact on the copyright owner. Daniel Gervais says “it is much more likely than not” that training systems on copyrighted data will be covered by fair use.

In determining if a commercial use will be considered “fair use,” the courts will primarily look at the scope and purpose of the use and the economic impact of such use. Does the use in question change the nature of the underlying copyright material in some material way (described as a “transformative” use) and does it economically impact the original copyright holder?

Without a specific example, it is difficult to determine exactly if a resulting output from ChatGPT would be fair use. The fact that ChatGPT does not copy and has been trained on millions of underlying works, it seems likely most output would be fair use—without using significant portions of any one protected work. In addition, because of the vast corpus of text used to train ChatGPT, it seems unlikely that ChatGPT output will have a negative economic impact on any one copyright holder. But, given the capabilities of ChatGPT, that might not always be the case.

Imagine if you asked ChatGPT to “Write a long-form, coming of age, story in the style of J.K. Rowling, using the characters from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.” In that case, it would seem that the argument for fair use would be weak. This story could be sold to the public and could conceivably have a negative economic impact on J.K. Rowling. A person that wants to read a story about Harry Potter might buy this story instead of buying a book by J. K. Rowling.

Finally, it is worth noting that OpenAI is a non-profit entity that is a “AI research and deployment company.” It seems that OpenAI is the type of research company, and ChatGPT is the type of research project, that would have a strong argument for fair use. This practice has been criticized as “AI Data Laundering,” shielding commercial entities from liability by using a non-profit research institution to create the data set and train AI engines that might later be used in commercial applications.

Outputs – Can the Output of ChatGPT be Protected by Copyright

Is the output of ChatGPT protected by copyright law and, if so, who is the owner? As an initial matter, does the ChatGPT textual output fit within the definition of what is covered under copyright law: “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.”

The text generated by ChatGPT is the type of subject matter that, if created by a human, would be covered by copyright. However, most scholars have opined, and the US Copyright Office has ruled that the output of generative AI systems, like ChatGPT, are not protectable under US copyright law because the work must be an original, creative work of a human author.

In 2022, the US Copyright Office, ruling on whether a picture generated completely autonomously by AI could be registered as a valid copyright, stated “[b]because copyright law as codified in the 1976 Act requires human authorship, the [AI Generated] Work cannot be registered.” The U.S. Copyright Office has issued several similar statements, informing creators that it will not register copyright for works produced by a machine or computer program. The human authorship requirement of the US Copyright Office is set forth as follows:

The Human Authorship Requirement – The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being. The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879).

While such policies are not binding on the courts, the stance by the US Copyright Office seems to be in line with the purpose of copyright law flowing from the Constitution: to incentivize humans to produce creative works by giving them a monopoly over their creations for a limited period of time. Machines, of course, need and have no such motivation. In fact, copyright law expressly allows a corporation or other legal entity to be the owner of a copyright under the “work made for hire” doctrine. However, to qualify as a work made for hire, the work must be either work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, or be prepared by a party who “expressly agrees in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.” Only humans can be employees and only humans or corporations can enter a legally binding contract—machines cannot.

Medicine with GPT-4 & ChatGPT

ChatGPT applied to Cancer & Oncology

ChatGPT applied to Medical Imaging & Radiology

ChatGPT applied to Cardiovascular diseases: Diagnosis and Management

The Use of ChatGPT in the World of BioInformatics and Cancer Research and Development of BioGPT by MIT

Read Full Post »

The Use of ChatGPT in the World of BioInformatics and Cancer Research and Development of BioGPT by MIT

Posted in Advanced Computing Platform, Artificial Intelligence - Breakthroughs in Theories and Technologies, Artificial Intelligence - General, Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care, Artificial Intelligence in CANCER, Artificial Intelligence in Health Care - Tools & Innovations, BioIT: BioInformatics, BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics, Biological Networks, Biological Networks, Gene Regulation and Evolution, ChatGPT in Academic Education, ChatGPT, GPT-4, Deep Learning, Intelligent Information Systems, Machine Learning, Natural Language Processing (NLP), Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), tagged Artificial intelligence, Artificial Intelligence (AI), artificial intelligence in drug design, BioGPT, bioinformatic tools, BioPERL, ChatGPT, gene sequencing, microsoft, MIT, Natural Language Processing (NLP), systems biology on June 12, 2023| 3 Comments »

The Use of ChatGPT in the World of BioInformatics and Cancer Research and Development of BioGPT by MIT

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Chatbots are being used in multiple interdisciplanary areas in research and medicine and so it was a natural progression to incorporate artificial intelligence (AI), natural language processing (NLP), and chatbot technology like ChatGPT into bioinformatic analysis.

“In domains like informatics, management and marketing, media and communication science, languages and philosophy, psychology and sociology, engineering, design, and human-computer interaction, the fast expanding body of chatbot study is clearly interdisciplinary.

The field of bioinformatics is a natural fit for incorporting this technology. The curated information below shows some use examples of this technology in bioinformatics related to cancer research.

The text in this reference source was actually generated by ChatGPT (https://chat.openai.com/chat)

Source: https://omicstutorials.com/using-chatgpt-in-bioinformatics-and-biomedical-research/

How ChatGPT can be used in bioinformatics research?
ChatGPT is a variant of the GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer) language model that was designed to generate human-like text in a conversational setting. It is not directly related to bioinformatics, which is the field of study that deals with the storage, retrieval, and analysis of biological data, particularly in the context of genetics and genomics. However, ChatGPT could potentially be used in a bioinformatics context as a tool for generating natural language descriptions of genetic or genomic data, or for generating responses to queries about such data.

For example, a researcher could use ChatGPT to generate descriptions of genetic variants or gene expression patterns based on input data. This could be useful for generating summaries of results for reports or papers, or for generating explanations of complex concepts for non-expert audiences. ChatGPT could also be used to generate responses to queries about genetic or genomic data, such as “What is the function of gene X?” or “What are the potential consequences of variant Y?”

It’s worth noting that ChatGPT is just one of many tools and techniques that can be used in bioinformatics, and it is unlikely to be the most suitable or effective option in every situation. There are many specialized tools and resources available for working with biological data, and it is often necessary to use a combination of these tools to fully analyze and understand the data.

Generating descriptions of genetic or genomic data: ChatGPT could be used to generate natural language descriptions of genetic or genomic data based on input data. For example, suppose a researcher has a dataset containing information about gene expression levels in different tissues. The researcher could use ChatGPT to generate a description of the data, such as:
“Gene X is highly expressed in the liver and kidney, with moderate expression in the brain and heart. Gene Y, on the other hand, shows low expression in all tissues except for the lung, where it is highly expressed.”

Thereby ChatGPT, at its simplest level, could be used to ask general questions like “What is the function of gene product X?” and a ChatGPT could give a reasonable response without the scientist having to browse through even highly curated databases lie GeneCards or UniProt or GenBank. Or even “What are potential interactors of Gene X, validated by yeast two hybrid?” without even going to the curated InterActome databases or using expensive software like Genie.

Summarizing results: ChatGPT could be used to generate summaries of results from genetic or genomic studies. For example, a researcher might use ChatGPT to generate a summary of a study that found a association between a particular genetic variant and a particular disease. The summary might look something like this:
“Our study found that individuals with the variant form of gene X are more likely to develop disease Y. Further analysis revealed that this variant is associated with changes in gene expression that may contribute to the development of the disease.”

It’s worth noting that ChatGPT is just one tool that could potentially be used in these types of applications, and it is likely to be most effective when used in combination with other bioinformatics tools and resources. For example, a researcher might use ChatGPT to generate a summary of results, but would also need to use other tools to analyze the data and confirm the findings.

ChatGPT is a variant of the GPT (Generative Pre-training Transformer) language model that is designed for open-domain conversation. It is not specifically designed for generating descriptions of genetic variants or gene expression patterns, but it can potentially be used for this purpose if you provide it with a sufficient amount of relevant training data and fine-tune it appropriately.

To use ChatGPT to generate descriptions of genetic variants or gene expression patterns, you would first need to obtain a large dataset of examples of descriptions of genetic variants or gene expression patterns. You could use this dataset to fine-tune the ChatGPT model on the task of generating descriptions of genetic variants or gene expression patterns.

Here’s an example of how you might use ChatGPT to generate a description of a genetic variant:

First, you would need to pre-process your dataset of descriptions of genetic variants to prepare it for use with ChatGPT. This might involve splitting the descriptions into individual sentences or phrases, and encoding them using a suitable natural language processing (NLP) library or tool.

Next, you would need to fine-tune the ChatGPT model on the task of generating descriptions of genetic variants. This could involve using a tool like Hugging Face’s Transformers library to load the ChatGPT model and your pre-processed dataset, and then training the model on the task of generating descriptions of genetic variants using an appropriate optimization algorithm.

Once the model has been fine-tuned, you can use it to generate descriptions of genetic variants by providing it with a prompt or seed text and asking it to generate a response. For example, you might provide the model with the prompt “Generate a description of a genetic variant associated with increased risk of breast cancer,” and ask it to generate a response. The model should then generate a description of a genetic variant that is associated with increased risk of breast cancer.

It’s worth noting that generating high-quality descriptions of genetic variants or gene expression patterns is a challenging task, and it may be difficult to achieve good results using a language model like ChatGPT without a large amount of relevant training data and careful fine-tuning.

To train a language model like chatGPT to extract information about specific genes or diseases from research papers, you would need to follow these steps:

Gather a large dataset of research papers that contain information about the specific genes or diseases you are interested in. This dataset should be diverse and representative of the types of papers you want the model to be able to extract information from.

Preprocess the text data in the research papers by tokenizing the text and creating a vocabulary. You may also want to consider lemmatizing or stemming the text to reduce the dimensionality of the dataset.

Train the language model on the preprocessed text data. You may want to fine-tune a pre-trained model such as chatGPT on your specific dataset, or you can train a new model from scratch.

ChatGPT could also be useful for sequence analysis

A few examples of sequence analysis a ChatGPT could be useful include:

Protein structure
Identifying functional regions of a protein
Predicting protein-protein interactions
Identifying protein homologs
Generating Protein alignments

All this could be done without having access to UNIX servers or proprietary software or knowing GCG coding

ChatGPT in biomedical research
There are several potential ways that ChatGPT or other natural language processing (NLP) models could be applied in biomedical research:

Text summarization: ChatGPT or other NLP models could be used to summarize large amounts of text, such as research papers or clinical notes, in order to extract key information and insights more quickly.

Data extraction: ChatGPT or other NLP models could be used to extract structured data from unstructured text sources, such as research papers or clinical notes. For example, the model could be trained to extract information about specific genes or diseases from research papers, and then used to create a database of this information for further analysis.

Literature review: ChatGPT or other NLP models could be used to assist with literature review tasks, such as identifying relevant papers, extracting key information from papers, or summarizing the main findings of a group of papers.

Predictive modeling: ChatGPT or other NLP models could be used to build predictive models based on large amounts of text data, such as electronic health records or research papers. For example, the model could be trained to predict the likelihood of a patient developing a particular disease based on their medical history and other factors.

It’s worth noting that while NLP models like ChatGPT have the potential to be useful tools in biomedical research, they are only as good as the data they are trained on, and it is important to carefully evaluate the quality and reliability of any results generated by these models.

ChatGPT in text mining of biomedical data
ChatGPT could potentially be used for text mining in the biomedical field in a number of ways. Here are a few examples:

Extracting information from scientific papers: ChatGPT could be trained on a large dataset of scientific papers in the biomedical field, and then used to extract specific pieces of information from these papers, such as the names of compounds, their structures, and their potential uses.

Generating summaries of scientific papers: ChatGPT could be used to generate concise summaries of scientific papers in the biomedical field, highlighting the main findings and implications of the research.

Identifying trends and patterns in scientific literature: ChatGPT could be used to analyze large datasets of scientific papers in the biomedical field and identify trends and patterns in the data, such as emerging areas of research or common themes among different papers.

Generating questions for further research: ChatGPT could be used to suggest questions for further research in the biomedical field based on existing scientific literature, by identifying gaps in current knowledge or areas where further investigation is needed.

Generating hypotheses for scientific experiments: ChatGPT could be used to generate hypotheses for scientific experiments in the biomedical field based on existing scientific literature and data, by identifying potential relationships or associations that could be tested in future research.

PLEASE WATCH VIDEO

In this video, a bioinformatician describes the ways he uses ChatGPT to increase his productivity in writing bioinformatic code and conducting bioinformatic analyses.

He describes a series of uses of ChatGPT in his day to day work as a bioinformatian:

Using ChatGPT as a search engine: He finds more useful and relevant search results than a standard Google or Yahoo search. This saves time as one does not have to pour through multiple pages to find information. However, a caveat is ChatGPT does NOT return sources, as highlighted in previous postings on this page. This feature of ChatGPT is probably why Microsoft bought OpenAI in order to incorporate ChatGPT in their Bing search engine, as well as Office Suite programs

ChatGPT to help with coding projects: Bioinformaticians will spend multiple hours searching for and altering open access available code in order to run certain function like determining the G/C content of DNA (although there are many UNIX based code that has already been established for these purposes). One can use ChatGPT to find such a code and then assist in debugging that code for any flaws

ChatGPT to document and add coding comments: When writing code it is useful to add comments periodically to assist other users to determine how the code works and also how the program flow works as well, including returned variables.

One of the comments was interesting and directed one to use BIOGPT instead of ChatGPT

@tzvi7989

1 month ago (edited)

0:54 oh dear. You cannot use chatgpt like that in Bioinformatics as it is rn without double checking the info from it. You should be using biogpt instead for paper summarisation. ChatGPT goes for human-like responses over precise information recal. It is quite good for debugging though and automating boring awkward scripts

So what is BIOGPT?

BioGPT https://github.com/microsoft/BioGPT

The BioGPT model was proposed in BioGPT: generative pre-trained transformer for biomedical text generation and mining by Renqian Luo, Liai Sun, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, Sheng Zhang, Hoifung Poon and Tie-Yan Liu. BioGPT is a domain-specific generative pre-trained Transformer language model for biomedical text generation and mining. BioGPT follows the Transformer language model backbone, and is pre-trained on 15M PubMed abstracts from scratch.

The abstract from the paper is the following:

Pre-trained language models have attracted increasing attention in the biomedical domain, inspired by their great success in the general natural language domain. Among the two main branches of pre-trained language models in the general language domain, i.e. BERT (and its variants) and GPT (and its variants), the first one has been extensively studied in the biomedical domain, such as BioBERT and PubMedBERT. While they have achieved great success on a variety of discriminative downstream biomedical tasks, the lack of generation ability constrains their application scope. In this paper, we propose BioGPT, a domain-specific generative Transformer language model pre-trained on large-scale biomedical literature. We evaluate BioGPT on six biomedical natural language processing tasks and demonstrate that our model outperforms previous models on most tasks. Especially, we get 44.98%, 38.42% and 40.76% F1 score on BC5CDR, KD-DTI and DDI end-to-end relation extraction tasks, respectively, and 78.2% accuracy on PubMedQA, creating a new record. Our case study on text generation further demonstrates the advantage of BioGPT on biomedical literature to generate fluent descriptions for biomedical terms.

Tips:

BioGPT is a model with absolute position embeddings so it’s usually advised to pad the inputs on the right rather than the left.
BioGPT was trained with a causal language modeling (CLM) objective and is therefore powerful at predicting the next token in a sequence. Leveraging this feature allows BioGPT to generate syntactically coherent text as it can be observed in the run_generation.py example script.
The model can take the past_key_values (for PyTorch) as input, which is the previously computed key/value attention pairs. Using this (past_key_values or past) value prevents the model from re-computing pre-computed values in the context of text generation. For PyTorch, see past_key_values argument of the BioGptForCausalLM.forward() method for more information on its usage.

This model was contributed by kamalkraj. The original code can be found here.

This repository contains the implementation of BioGPT: Generative Pre-trained Transformer for Biomedical Text Generation and Mining, by Renqian Luo, Liai Sun, Yingce Xia, Tao Qin, Sheng Zhang, Hoifung Poon and Tie-Yan Liu. BioGPT is a github which is being developed by MIT in collaboration with Microsoft. It is based on Python.

License

BioGPT is MIT-licensed. The license applies to the pre-trained models as well.

Contributing

This project welcomes contributions and suggestions. Most contributions require you to agree to a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) declaring that you have the right to, and actually do, grant us the rights to use your contribution. For details, visit https://cla.opensource.microsoft.com.

When you submit a pull request, a CLA bot will automatically determine whether you need to provide a CLA and decorate the PR appropriately (e.g., status check, comment). Simply follow the instructions provided by the bot. You will only need to do this once across all repos using our CLA.

This project has adopted the Microsoft Open Source Code of Conduct. For more information see the Code of Conduct FAQ or contact opencode@microsoft.com with any additional questions or comments.

As of right now this does not seem Open Access, however a sign up is required!

We provide our pre-trained BioGPT model checkpoints along with fine-tuned checkpoints for downstream tasks, available both through URL download as well as through the Hugging Face 🤗 Hub.

Model	Description	URL	🤗 Hub
BioGPT	Pre-trained BioGPT model checkpoint	link	link
BioGPT-Large	Pre-trained BioGPT-Large model checkpoint	link	link
BioGPT-QA-PubMedQA-BioGPT	Fine-tuned BioGPT for question answering task on PubMedQA	link
BioGPT-QA-PubMedQA-BioGPT-Large	Fine-tuned BioGPT-Large for question answering task on PubMedQA	link
BioGPT-RE-BC5CDR	Fine-tuned BioGPT for relation extraction task on BC5CDR	link
BioGPT-RE-DDI	Fine-tuned BioGPT for relation extraction task on DDI	link
BioGPT-RE-DTI	Fine-tuned BioGPT for relation extraction task on KD-DTI	link
BioGPT-DC-HoC	Fine-tuned BioGPT for document classification task on HoC	link

So far as to date (6/12/2023) there are three papers referencing BioGPT on PubMed (abstracts and links below)

BioGPT: generative pre-trained transformer for biomedical text generation and mining.

Luo R, Sun L, Xia Y, Qin T, Zhang S, Poon H, Liu TY.Brief Bioinform. 2022 Nov 19;23(6):bbac409. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbac409.PMID: 36156661

We evaluate BioGPT on six biomedical natural language processing tasks and demonstrate that our model outperforms previous models on most tasks. …Our case study on text generation further demonstrates the advantage of BioGPT on biomedical literature to generate fl …

Here they show the advantages of BioGPT over BioBERT and ChatGPT in an example of text extraction and question answer

Table 7. Example of generated text

Input Model Text

Bicalutamide GPT-2 Bicalutamide, a synthetic bicalutamide derivative, was found to increase the cellular proliferation

of C. elegans cells. This effect was not observed with the other synthetic bicalutamide derivatives. This is in line with our previous work which showed that bicalutamide increases the proliferation of C. elegans cells but not in the presence of synthetic bicalutamide.

BioGPT Bicalutamide (Casodex) is an androgen receptor (AR) antagonist approved for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in patients who have progressed on or are ineligible for docetaxel chemotherapy, as well as for the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer in men who have not progressed on or are ineligible for docetaxel chemotherapy, as well as for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) in men who have not progressed on or are ineligible for docetaxel chemotherapy.

Janus kinase 3 (JAK-3) GPT-2 Janus kinase 3 (JAK-3) mediates the conversion of glucose to glycogen in skeletal muscle. The
increase in glucose uptake by skeletal muscle is believed to be associated with a reduction in muscle protein breakdown and with the release of ketone bodies, which contribute to the metabolism of glucose.

BioGPT Janus kinase 3 (JAK-3) is a member of the Janus kinase (JAK) family of non-receptor tyrosine kinases and plays an important role in the regulation of cell proliferation, differentiation, survival, migration and angiogenesis.

Apricitabine GPT-2 Apricitabine, duloxetine and citalopram) were investigated in patients with a history of
treatment-resistant depression (n = 10). We found that treatment with the three drugs significantly decreased depressive symptoms, but not depressive symptoms over the next 12 weeks. We conclude that antidepressant drugs that reduce depressive symptoms and reduce depressive symptoms over time may be beneficial in patients with recurrent depression.

BioGPT Apricitabine is an oral prodrug of 5-aza-2 ’-deoxycytidine (5-aza-CdR), a DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) inhibitor, which has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in combination with low-dose cytarabine (Ara-C) and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk MDS or AML.

Xylazine GPT-2 Xylazine, the ‘active ingredient’ in ‘bath salts’ (see above) has been linked to numerous deaths,
including those of former University of California, Berkeley, professor Andrew Anglin, who posted

a video of himself having a bath filled with it.

BioGPT Xylazine is an alpha 2-adrenoceptor agonist which has been used as a sedative and analgesic in veterinary medicine for many years, but its effects on the cardiovascular system have not been extensively studied in the dog, and its effects on the central nervous system (CNS) have not been well characterized in the dog, despite the fact that xylazine has been widely used as a sedative and analgesic in veterinary medicine for more than 30 years.

Psoralen GPT-2 Psoralen, the city of the spiritualist, and had been given to him by God, who wished to show him
the way of salvation, and to draw him back to the true life of Christ, and to bring him into communion with his fellow-man.

BioGPT Psoralen photochemotherapy (PUVA) is a well-established treatment for psoriasis, but its use is limited by the risk of skin cancer, particularly squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the head and neck (H & N), which is the most common site of skin cancer in the United States (US)

CP-673451 GPT-2 CP-673451) and 4-5-6-3-1-2-3-4-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15-16-17-18-19-20-21-22-23-24-25-26-27-

28-29-30-31-32-33-34-35-36-37-38-39-40-41-42-43-44-45-46-47-48-49-50…

BioGPT CP-673451 is a potent, selective, and orally active inhibitor of human neutrophil elastase (HNE) and human cathepsin G (CatG) with in vitro and in vivo anti-inflammatory activity in a variety of animal models of inflammation and in a model of acute lung injury (ALI) in the rat induced by intratracheal instillation of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), a model of acute lung injury (ALI) in which neutrophils play an important role.

BIIB-021 GPT-2 BIIB-021A-2-1.pdf. Wright, C. (2002). ‘The War on Terror: A Legal Theory of Terrorist Attacks,’ in
L.E.R. Wright, S.R. Warrick and J.H. Rothman (Eds.), The War on Terror: Essays in Honor of Michael T. Klare (New York: Oxford University Press), 143-57.

BioGPT BIIB-021 is a novel, orally active, non-peptide bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist with potent and long-lasting anti-inflammatory activity in animal models of acute and chronic inflammation and in a rat model of adjuvant-induced arthritis (AIA), an animal model of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and in a rat model of collagen-induced arthritis (CIA), an animal model of collagen-induced arthritis (CIA), in which arthritis is induced by immunization with bovine type II collagen (CII).

Note how BioGPT is more descriptive and accurate!

EGFI: drug-drug interaction extraction and generation with fusion of enriched entity and sentence information.

Huang L, Lin J, Li X, Song L, Zheng Z, Wong KC.Brief Bioinform. 2022 Jan 17;23(1):bbab451. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbab451.PMID: 34791012

The rapid growth in literature accumulates diverse and yet comprehensive biomedical knowledge hidden to be mined such as drug interactions. However, it is difficult to extract the heterogeneous knowledge to retrieve or even discover the latest and novel knowledge in an efficient manner. To address such a problem, we propose EGFI for extracting and consolidating drug interactions from large-scale medical literature text data. Specifically, EGFI consists of two parts: classification and generation. In the classification part, EGFI encompasses the language model BioBERT which has been comprehensively pretrained on biomedical corpus. In particular, we propose the multihead self-attention mechanism and packed BiGRU to fuse multiple semantic information for rigorous context modeling. In the generation part, EGFI utilizes another pretrained language model BioGPT-2 where the generation sentences are selected based on filtering rules.

Results: We evaluated the classification part on ‘DDIs 2013’ dataset and ‘DTIs’ dataset, achieving the F1 scores of 0.842 and 0.720 respectively. Moreover, we applied the classification part to distinguish high-quality generated sentences and verified with the existing growth truth to confirm the filtered sentences. The generated sentences that are not recorded in DrugBank and DDIs 2013 dataset demonstrated the potential of EGFI to identify novel drug relationships.

Availability: Source code are publicly available at https://github.com/Layne-Huang/EGFI.

GeneGPT: Augmenting Large Language Models with Domain Tools for Improved Access to Biomedical Information.

Jin Q, Yang Y, Chen Q, Lu Z.ArXiv. 2023 May 16:arXiv:2304.09667v3. Preprint.PMID: 37131884 Free PMC article.

While large language models (LLMs) have been successfully applied to various tasks, they still face challenges with hallucinations. Augmenting LLMs with domain-specific tools such as database utilities can facilitate easier and more precise access to specialized knowledge. In this paper, we present GeneGPT, a novel method for teaching LLMs to use the Web APIs of the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) for answering genomics questions. Specifically, we prompt Codex to solve the GeneTuring tests with NCBI Web APIs by in-context learning and an augmented decoding algorithm that can detect and execute API calls. Experimental results show that GeneGPT achieves state-of-the-art performance on eight tasks in the GeneTuring benchmark with an average score of 0.83, largely surpassing retrieval-augmented LLMs such as the new Bing (0.44), biomedical LLMs such as BioMedLM (0.08) and BioGPT (0.04), as well as GPT-3 (0.16) and ChatGPT (0.12). Our further analyses suggest that: (1) API demonstrations have good cross-task generalizability and are more useful than documentations for in-context learning; (2) GeneGPT can generalize to longer chains of API calls and answer multi-hop questions in GeneHop, a novel dataset introduced in this work; (3) Different types of errors are enriched in different tasks, providing valuable insights for future improvements.

PLEASE WATCH THE FOLLOWING VIDEOS ON BIOGPT

This one entitled

Microsoft’s BioGPT Shows Promise as the Best Biomedical NLP

gives a good general description of this new MIT/Microsoft project and its usefullness in scanning 15 million articles on PubMed while returning ChatGPT like answers.

Please note one of the comments which is VERY IMPORTANT

@rufus9322

2 months ago

bioGPT is difficult for non-developers to use, and Microsoft researchers seem to default that all users are proficient in Python and ML.

Much like Microsoft Azure it seems this BioGPT is meant for developers who have advanced programming skill. Seems odd then to be paying programmers multiK salaries when one or two Key Opinion Leaders from the medical field might suffice but I would be sure Microsoft will figure this out.

ALSO VIEW VIDEO

This is a talk from Microsoft on BioGPT

Multiple Lung Cancer Genomic Projects Suggest New Targets, Research Directions for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Posted in Artificial Intelligence in CANCER, Biological Networks, Biomarkers & Medical Diagnostics, CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy, Cancer Prevention: Research & Programs, ChatGPT, GPT-4, Computational Biology/Systems and Bioinformatics, Gene Regulation and Evolution, Genome Biology, Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Machine Learning, Personalized and Precision Medicine & Genomic Research, tagged antitumor therapy, Artificial intelligence, Bioinformatics, Cancer - General, Cell Biology, Computational Biology/Systems and Bioinformatics, DNA, DNA Sequencing, driver mutations, gene expression, genetics, genome, genomics, GPT, informatics, InfraNodus, knowledge graph, Lung cancer, mutation, mutational analysis, National Institutes of Health, Non-small cell lung cancer, Personalized medicine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Prostate cancer, research, smoking, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), The Clinical Lung Cancer Genome Project (CLCGP), whole exome sequencing on September 5, 2014| Leave a Comment »

Multiple Lung Cancer Genomic Projects Suggest New Targets, Research Directions for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Curator, Writer: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

UPDATED 08/11/2025

Human Curation vs. AI tools: ChatGPT & Knowledge Graphs [KG] Output: A case study for the following original curation:

Multiple Lung Cancer Genomic Projects Suggest New Targets, Research Directions for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/09/05/multiple-lung-cancer-genomic-projects-suggest-new-targets-research-directions-for-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/

This update was performed by the following methods:

A. GPT 5 Text analysis and Reasoning

B. Insertion of Knowledge Graph on topic Curation of Genomic Analysis from Non Small Cell Lung Cancer Studies from Nodus Labs using InfraNodus software

C. Domain Knowledge Expert evaluation of the Update outcomes

This article has the following Structure:

Part A: Introduction to LLM, Knowledge Graph software InfraNodus, ChatGPT5 and Background Information on curated material for Test Case

Part B: InfraNodus Analysis of manual curation and Knowledge Graph Creation

Part C: Chat GPT 5 Analysis of Manually Curated Material

Part D: Curation entitled Multiple Lung Cancer Genomic Projects Suggest New Targets, Research Directions for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer originally published on 09/05/2014

Results of Article Update with GPT 5

1. GPT5 alone was not able to understand the goal of the article, namely to determine knowledge gaps in a particular research area involving 5 genomic studies on lung cancer patients

2. GPT5 alone was not able to group concepts or comonalities between biological pathways unless supplied with a manually curated list of KEGG pathways from a list of mutated genes. However this precluded any effect that fusion proteins had on the analysis and so GPT5 would only concentrate on mutated genes commonly found in literature

3. GPT was not able to access some of the open Access databases like NCBI Gene Ontology database

Results of Article Update with KnowledgeGraph presentation to GPT 5

4. As the Knowledge Graph understood the importance of fusion proteins and transversions, the knowledgegraph augmented the GPT analysis and so enriched the known pathways as well as could correctly identify the less represented pathways in the knowledge graph

5. This led to the identification of many novel signaling pathways not identified in the original analysis, and was able to perform this task with ease and speed

6. GPT with InfraNodus Analysis was able to propose pertinent questions for future research (the goal of the original curation) such as:

How does the interaction between [[EGFR]] mutations and sex-specific gene alterations, including [[RBM10]], influence treatment outcomes in lung adenocarcinoma?
How does the intersection of mutational patterns from smoking influence pathway activation in NSCLC, and can identifying these interactions improve targeted therapy development?

Novelty in comparison to Original article published on 09/05/2014

7. it appears that manual curation is necessary to assist in the building of relevant knowledge graphs in the biomedical fields to augment generative AI analysis

8. by itself, generative AI is not optimized for inference of higher concepts from biomedical text, and therefore, at this point, requires the input from human curators developing domain-specific knowledge graphs

9. The combination of ChatGPT5 and Knowledge graphs of this manually curated biomedical text added a further layer of complexity of gaps of knowledge not seen in the original curations including the need to study noncanonical signaling pathways like WNT and Hedgehog in smoker versus nonsmoker cohorts of lung cancer patients

A Comparison of Manual Expert-Curative and an LLM-based analysis of Knowledge Gaps in Non Small Lung Cancer Whole Exome Sequencing Studies and a Use Case Example of Chat GPT 5

Part A: Introduction to LLM, Knowledge Graph software InfraNodus, ChatGPT5 and Background Information on curated material for Test Case

The development of Large Language Models (LLMs), together with development of knowledge graphs, have facilitated the ability to analyze text and determine the relationships among the various concepts contained within series of texts. These concepts and relationships can be visualized, and new insights inferred from these visualizations. As a result, this type of analysis suggests new directions and lines of research.

Alternatively, these types of visualizations can also reveal gaps in knowledge which should be addressed. A new type of LLM and visualization tools have been developed to understand the gaps in knowledge in biomedical text.

Nodus Labs InfrNodus AI Knowledge Graph Software Tools Allow Text Relationship Visualization and Integrated AI Functionality

Infranodus makes knowlegde graphs from text and then is able to visualize the relationships between concepts (or nodes). In doing so, the tool also highlights the various knowledge gaps (or large differences between nodes) which can be used to investigate new hypotheses and research directions of previously univestigated relationships between concepts. This generates new research questions, in which these gaps can be used as prompts in the software’s integrated AI tool. The AI tool, much like a GPT, returns recommendations for research to be conducted in the area.

https://infranodus.com/

In addition, the InfraNodus software can detect if text is too biased on a particular concept or conclusion, and using a GPT3 or GPT4, can determine if the nodes are too dispersed and will recommend which gaps should be focused on.

The software can upload any biomedical text in various formats

A full demonstration is on their website but a good summary is found on their Youtube site at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCEhiIJsmrg

A couple of use cases include

AI-Assisted Thinking & Insight Generation:
AI Writing & Creative Thinking
Mind Mapping
Brainstorming
Knowledge Graphs & Personal Notes
Introspection & Self-Reflection
Marketing & Consulting:
Market Research
Customer Reviews, Voice of Customer
Search Engine Optimization
Qualitative Research & Thematic Analysis
Innovation & Trend Research
Research, Text Visualization & Analysis:
Text Network Analysis
Text Mining & Topic Modeling
Overview and Summarization

Previously we had manually curated and analyzed the knowledge gaps from a series of publications on whole exome sequencing of biopsied tumors from cohorts of non small lung cancer patients. This curation (from 2016) is seen in the lower half of this updated link below and I separated with a bar and highlighted in Yellow as Text for AI Analysis.

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/09/05/multiple-lung-cancer-genomic-projects-suggest-new-targets-research-directions-for-non-small-cell-lung-cancer/

A literature analysis of the driver mutations found in five NSLC exome sequencing projects:

Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers. Nature 2012, 489(7417):519-525.
A genomics-based classification of human lung tumors. Science translational medicine 2013, 5(209):209ra153.
Govindan R, Ding L, Griffith M, Subramanian J, Dees ND, Kanchi KL, Maher CA, Fulton R, Fulton L, Wallis J et al: Genomic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in smokers and never-smokers. Cell 2012, 150(6):1121-1134.
Imielinski M, Berger AH, Hammerman PS, Hernandez B, Pugh TJ, Hodis E, Cho J, Suh J, Capelletti M, Sivachenko A et al: Mapping the hallmarks of lung adenocarcinoma with massively parallel sequencing. Cell 2012, 150(6):1107-1120.
Peifer M, Fernandez-Cuesta L, Sos ML, George J, Seidel D, Kasper LH, Plenker D, Leenders F, Sun R, Zander T et al: Integrative genome analyses identify key somatic driver mutations of small-cell lung cancer. Nature genetics 2012, 44(10):1104-1110.

were performed.

The purpose of this analysis was to uncover biological functions related to the sets of mutated genes with limited research publications in the area of non small cell lung cancer. The identification of such biological functions would represent a gap in knowledge in this disease. In addition, this analysis attempted to find new lines of research or potential new biotargets to investigate for lung cancer therapy.

However this manual method is time consuming and may miss relationships not defined in a GO ontology or gene knowledgebases.

Therefore we turned to an AI-driven approach:

Using InfraNodus ability to develop a knowledge graph based on our curation and determine if the AI platform could infer knowledge gaps
Utilize Chat GPT5 to analyze the same curated set to determine if OpenAI analysis would lead to the similar analysis from curated material
Determine if combining a knowledge graph within GPT would lead to a higher level of analysis

See below (Part D) of this update for the curated studies which were included in this analysis and the text which was entered into both InfraNodus and Chat GPT5.

As a summary, it seems that manual curation is necessary to assist in the building of relevant knowledge graphs in the biomedical fields to augment generative AI analysis. In addition, it appears that , by itself, generative AI is not optimized for inference of higher concepts from biomedical text, and therefore, at this point, requires the input from human curators developing domain-specific knowledge graphs.

Part B. InfraNodus Analysis of manual curation and Knowledge Graph Creation

Methods:

Text of the curation was copied and directly pasted into the text analysis module of InfraNodus. There was no editing of words however genes in the curation were linked to their GeneCard entry. GeneCards is a database run by the Weizmann Institute. InfraNodus utilizes a combination of LLMs and its own GraphRAG system to provide insights from text analysis. While it leverages various models, including those from OpenAI and Anthropic, it’s not limited to a single LLM. Instead, InfraNodus integrates these models within its GraphRAG framework, which enhances their capabilities by adding a relational understanding of the context through a knowledge graph.

InfraNodus then autogenerates a knowledge graph and returns entities and relationships between entities. InfraNodus offers the opportunity to modify the knowledge graph however for this analysis we used the first graph InfraNodus generated. Inspection of this graph (as shown below) was deemed reasonable.

Results

The knowledge graph of the input text is shown below:

InfraNodus generated Knowledge Graph of 5 WES Non Smal Cell Lung Cancer studies involving smokers and non smokers

Four main concepts were returned: tumors, genes, literature, and mutations.

A snapshot of the Analysis window is given below. It should be noted that InfraNodus felt there needed to be more connections between Pathway and Mutational Patterns.

An InfraNodus reposrt with Knowlege Graph on Whole Exome Sequencing studies in NSCLC to determine mutational spectrum in smokers versus non smokers

Auto generated summary report

Context name: text_250808T0144

Created on: aug 7, 2025 9:47 pm

Last updated on: aug 7, 2025 10:10 pm

Main concepts:

[[tumors]], analysis, [[mutations]], identify, [[lung]], [[genes]]

Main topics:

Tumor Genomics: [[tumors]] [[lung]] reveal
Genetic Alterations: identify [[genes]] study
Pathway Analysis: analysis pathway literature
Mutation Patterns: [[mutations]] [[egfr]] [[rbm10]]

Structural gap (topics to connect):

Pathway Analysis: analysis pathway
Smoking Influence: mutational [[smoking]]

Topical connectors:

alk clinical [[egfr]] mutational pathway [[paper]] found key literature study [[genomic]] reveal [[transversion]]

Top relations / ngrams:

1) [[lung]] [[tumors]]

2) alk fusion

3) link function

4) eml alk

5) function [[gene_ontology]]

Modulary: 0.47

Relations:

InfraNodus identified 744 relations between entities (nodes)

A list of some of the more frequent are given here:

source	target	occurrences	weight	betweenness
[[lung]]	[[tumors]]	8	24	0.4676
analysis	pathway	5	12	0.2291
significantly	[[genes]]	5	9	0.1074
significantly	[[mutated]]	4	12	0.0281
[[mutated]]	[[genes]]	4	12	0.0847
[[transversion]]	high	3	12	0.0329
[[smoking]]	history	3	10	0.0352
study	identify	3	9	0.2051
mutational	pattern	3	9	0.0921
[[rbm10]]	[[mutations]]	3	8	0.1776
literature	analysis	3	7	0.2218
[[egfr]]	[[mutations]]	3	7	0.2139
[[transversion]]	group	3	7	0.0259
enriched	cohort	3	6	0.0219
[[whole_exome_sequencing]]	[[tumors]]	3	6	0.3485
identify	[[genes]]	3	6	0.2268
including	analysis	3	5	0.1985
alteration	[[genes]]	3	4	0.1298
[[tumors]]	analysis	3	4	0.5192
alk	fusion	2	15	0.0671
link	function	2	14	0.0269
function	[[gene_ontology]]	2	13	0.0054

Notice how the betweenness or importance of connection of disparate concepts vary but are high between concepts like tumors and analysis, or lung and tumor, however many important linked concepts like alk and fusion may have low betweenness but are mentioned frequently and have a much higher weight or closeness to each other. Gene-mutations-transversions-smoking seem to have a high correspondence to each other

For a full list please see the file

InfraNodus relations five WES studies on NSCLC and smoking

sjwilliams_text_250808T0144_nodedataon NSCLCWESstudies

Generated the following responses using AI to bridge the gap between

Mutation Patterns: [[mutations]], [[egfr]], [[rbm10]]and
Genetic Alterations: identify, [[genes]], study:The recent comprehensive studies on lung adenocarcinoma have significantly advanced our understanding of the genetic landscape by identifying key mutations and their intricate interactions. Notably, EGFR and RBM10 exhibit distinct mutational patterns, with RBM10 inactivations being notably enriched in male cohorts. This gender-linked enrichment underscores a potential differential oncogenic pathway involving ERBB2 and RB1 alterations.Moreover, these projects emphasize the quest to map significant gene alterations within lung adenocarcinoma. The identification of such genes not only corroborates prior reports but also expands upon them by highlighting new connections between mutation signatures and clinical factors like smoking history. These findings are crucial as they can inform future therapeutic targeting strategies, ensuring that personalized treatment approaches consider both gender-specific genomic enrichments and mutation-driven tumorigenesis pathways elucidated through rigorous analyses.elaborate

<MainTopics>

Tumor Genomics: [[tumors]], [[lung]], reveal, base, [[genomic]], [[data]], classification, subtype,
Genetic Alterations: identify, [[genes]], study, alteration, reported, significantly, [[lung_adenocarcinoma]], key,
Pathway Analysis: analysis, pathway, literature, including, activation, target, [[nsclc]], [[patients]],
Mutation Patterns: [[mutations]], [[egfr]], [[rbm10]], male, enriched, cohort, [[erbb2]], noted,
Smoking Influence: mutational, [[smoking]], [[transversion]], pattern, high, notably, [[smokers]], show,
Research Strategies: found, [[paper]], [[omics]], unique, profile, result, multus, characterization,
Targeted Therapy: alk, [[lung_cancer]], fusion, [[therapy]], ro, eml, include, targeted,
Mutation Signatures: clinical, [[tumor]], approach, mutation, sample, signature, gender, specific,
Gene Function: link, [[gene]], note, function, author, [[gene_ontology]],

</MainTopics>

<TopicalGap>:

Genetic Alterations: identify [[genes]]
Mutation Patterns: [[mutations]] [[egfr]]

</TopicalGap>

questions generated using AI to help you explore “alk, clinical, [[egfr]], mutational, pathway, [[paper]], found, key, literature, study, [[genomic]], reveal, [[transversion]]…”:How do mutational patterns, specifically EGFR mutations and transversions related to smoking history, influence the effectiveness of targeted therapies in NSCLC patients?elaborate

ideas generated using AI to help you explore “alk, clinical, [[egfr]], mutational, pathway, [[paper]], found, key, literature, study, [[genomic]], reveal, [[transversion]]…”:Develop a predictive model that utilizes genomic data and smoking history to forecast patient response to targeted therapies. This model would identify key mutational signatures linked to EGFR and other genes, highlighting the impact of smoking-induced transversions on drug efficacy.elaborate

Project Notes

”

The recent comprehensive studies on lung adenocarcinoma have significantly advanced our understanding of the genetic landscape by identifying key mutations and their intricate interactions. Notably, EGFR and RBM10 exhibit distinct mutational patterns, with RBM10 inactivations being notably enriched in male cohorts. This gender-linked enrichment underscores a potential differential oncogenic pathway involving ERBB2 and RB1 alterations.

Moreover, these projects emphasize the quest to map significant gene alterations within lung adenocarcinoma. The identification of such genes not only corroborates prior reports but also expands upon them by highlighting new connections between mutation signatures and clinical factors like smoking history. These findings are crucial as they can inform future therapeutic targeting strategies, ensuring that personalized treatment approaches consider both gender-specific genomic enrichments and mutation-driven tumorigenesis pathways elucidated through rigorous analyses.”

<ConceptualGateways>

alk

clinical

[[egfr]]

mutational

pathway

[[paper]]

found

key

literature

study

[[genomic]]

reveal

[[transversion]]

</ConceptualGateways>

How do mutational patterns, specifically EGFR mutations and transversions related to smoking history, influence the effectiveness of targeted therapies in NSCLC patients?

The report from the NCI Bulletin outlines significant advancements in understanding lung cancer through genome sequencing projects. These studies have revealed a plethora of genetic and epigenetic alterations across various forms of lung tumors, including adenocarcinomas, squamous cell carcinomas, and small cell lung cancers. Notably, some identified alterations could be targeted by existing therapies, providing potential new avenues for treatment.Dr. Meyerson emphasizes the complexity of these genetic changes, highlighting that distinct mechanisms inactivating genes can vary between tumors. The report also notes gaps in knowledge regarding non-coding DNA alterations, which comprise a major part of the human genome.Key findings include:1. Comprehensive genomic analyses revealing unique driver mutations in lung adenocarcinoma, such as those affecting MET and ERBB2, alongside significant mutations in known cancer drivers like TP53 and KRAS.2. A classification system based on genomic data enabling more accurate patient stratification—achieving a 75% classification rate of lung cancer subtypes.3. Smoking history is shown to influence mutational patterns significantly, with smokers exhibiting a higher incidence of point mutations compared to never-smokers.Moreover, the integration of genomic data and pathway analysis highlighted recurrent mutations across various pathways related to tumorigenesis, suggesting new therapeutic targets and underscoring the importance of personalized medicine approaches that factor in gender-specific mutation distributions.This synthesis of findings not only corroborates earlier studies but also extends our understanding of the interplay between genomic alterations, smoking habits, and clinical outcomes in lung cancer. Future research is needed to explore the implications of these findings further and to develop targeted therapies that leverage the identified genetic alterations.

Tumor Genomics
Genetic Alterations
Pathway Analysis
Mutation Patterns

Main Ideas Summary from Infranodus:

The report from the NCI Bulletin highlights significant developments in lung cancer genomics through five genome sequencing projects. These studies have uncovered various genetic and epigenetic alterations across multiple forms of lung cancer, including adenocarcinomas, squamous cell cancers, and small cell lung cancers. Notably, these alterations may correspond to existing drugs, offering new avenues for targeted therapy.

Key findings include the identification of unique mutations in genes like NF1, MET, and ERBB2, with particular attention to smoking’s role in mutational patterns. The analysis shows that smokers exhibit a higher incidence of specific point mutations, marking a distinct divergence in mutation profiles compared to never-smokers.

The research also emphasizes the need for continued exploration of the data to link mutation signatures with clinical outcomes, particularly regarding gender-specific differences in mutation prevalence. Emerging insights suggest that pathways involving MYC and alterations in splicing factors could be vital targets for future therapeutic strategies.

Overall, the studies collectively underscore an urgent need for integrating genomic data into clinical practice, which can lead to more personalized treatment approaches for lung cancer patients by considering both the genetic landscape of tumors and their histories, such as smoking exposure. The ongoing efforts to map gene alterations within lung adenocarcinoma not only reinforce existing knowledge but also reveal new potential therapeutic targets that can significantly impact patient outcomes.

Questions to Explore from InfraNodus:

How does the interaction between [[EGFR]] mutations and sex-specific gene alterations, including [[RBM10]], influence treatment outcomes in lung adenocarcinoma?

How does the intersection of mutational patterns from smoking influence pathway activation in NSCLC, and can identifying these interactions improve targeted therapy development?

Part C: Chat GPT 5 Analysis of Manually Curated Material

Now let us see how Chat GPT5 analyzed the same material.

Methods

Nice — I’ll work from the KEGG-pathway list shown in your text (the table of pathways with PubMed counts) and call out major KEGG pathways that are not represented there.

Important caveat: “Not represented in the table” below means not listed in the KEGG-pathway hits shown in your pasted literature analysis, not that these pathways never play a role in lung cancer. Absence from that table can reflect lack of reporting in the specific WES/WGS studies or the PubMed keyword search used — it’s not proof the pathway is uninvolved biologically.

The above Important caveat was very important because it showed that ChatGPT5 could understand what my experimental goals were, or at least understood the problem I was presenting to ChatGPT5!

Major KEGG pathways missing from the provided KEGG list

(However Note that GPT did NOT take into account the mutational spectrum of the studies or the gene lists supplied in the curation)

These are commonly cited cancer-related KEGG pathways that do not appear in the table you gave:

Wnt signaling pathway
Notch signaling pathway
Hedgehog signaling pathway
TGF-beta signaling pathway
Hippo signaling pathway
p53 signaling pathway — (note: TP53 is mutated in many tumors, so p53 biology is implicated in the text, but “p53 signaling” does not appear in that KEGG hits table)
Apoptosis (intrinsic/extrinsic apoptotic pathways)
Autophagy
NF-kappa B signaling pathway
Ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis / proteasome
DNA repair pathways (several separate KEGG entries):
- Homologous recombination
- Mismatch repair
- Nucleotide excision repair
- Base excision repair
- Fanconi anemia pathway
Cellular metabolism pathways commonly in cancer:
- Glycolysis / Gluconeogenesis
- Citrate cycle (TCA cycle) / Oxidative phosphorylation
- Fatty acid metabolism / beta-oxidation
- Pentose phosphate pathway
Immune-signaling / antigen processing:
- T cell receptor signaling pathway
- B cell receptor signaling pathway
- Antigen processing and presentation
Autocrine/paracrine inflammation/chemokine signaling beyond the one low-count entry (general cytokine networks other than the single “cytokine–cytokine receptor interaction” hit)
Signal transduction modules sometimes separate in KEGG:g. Calcium signaling was listed in your table, but other modules like cGMP–PKG signaling or PKA/PKC broader signaling networks are not.

Quick summary

The KEGG table in your text highlights many cancer and receptor-tyrosine/MAPK/PI3K related pathways (cell cycle, MAPK, ErbB, JAK-STAT, focal adhesion, etc.). What’s not listed are numerous developmental morphogen pathways (Wnt/Notch/Hedgehog/TGF-β/Hippo), many DNA-repair and core metabolic pathways, canonical apoptosis/autophagy/ubiquitin pathways, and broad adaptive-immune signaling pathways.

If you want, I can:

(A) cross-check this against the full KEGG pathway list and produce a definitive “KEGG universe → present vs absent in your table” spreadsheet, or
(B) prioritize which of the missing pathways you’d most want investigated in lung tumor sequencing data and suggest genes to look for.

Which follow-up would you prefer?

Now taking out the KEGG list I gave GPT in order to force GPT to do a similar but unbiased analysis

From the studies you’ve shared, we can identify which KEGG pathways are under-represented (i.e., appear less frequently altered than expected) in the altered genes in lung cancer.

To do this, we note that the researchers used KEGG and other pathway analysis tools (PathScan, literature curation, proteomics) to see which biological pathways the mutated genes mapped to.
While many well-known cancer pathways were found to be activated (MAPK, PI3K-AKT, mTOR, cell cycle, oxidative stress, etc.), a few key pathways were reported as unexpectedly low in mutation frequency despite their known role in cancer biology.

KEGG Pathways Under-Represented in Altered Genes in Lung Cancer

From the descriptions in Papers 1–5, these are the main pathways that appear under-represented:

MAPK signaling pathway
- Normally, MAPK is a major cancer driver pathway. In this dataset, MAPK activity was high in proteomics, but many tumors lacked mutations in MAPK pathway genes.
- This means MAPK activation is often non-mutational (possibly via upstream signaling, epigenetic changes, or ligand activation), so in mutation-based KEGG enrichment it is under-represented.
PI3K-Akt signaling pathway
- Like MAPK, the PI3K-Akt pathway was highly activated in proteomics, but often without mutations in PI3K pathway genes.
- Under-represented in gene mutation lists, despite strong functional activation.
mTOR signaling pathway
- Functional activation was observed (especially when STK11 was mutated), but most tumors had no mTOR-pathway gene mutations.
- Under-represented when looking only at altered genes.
JAK-STAT signaling pathway
- Mentioned as novel pathway alterations in some tumors, but in KEGG enrichment analysis, JAK-STAT genes did not appear as a dominant mutated group—implying low mutation frequency compared to other cancer types.
Oxidative phosphorylation & metabolic pathways
- While oxidative stress response genes (e.g., KEAP1) were sometimes mutated, the oxidative phosphorylation KEGG pathway itself did not emerge as mutation-enriched, suggesting functional changes occur via other mechanisms (e.g., hypoxia signaling).
Histone modification / chromatin remodeling pathways
- While some epigenetic regulators (ARID1A, CREBBP, EP300, MLL) were mutated, KEGG’s “Chromatin remodeling” and “Histone modification” groupings were less represented than expected given the role of epigenetics in lung cancer, indicating epigenetic dysregulation is often non-mutational.

Why They Are Under-Represented

Proteomics revealed activation without DNA mutation (e.g., ligand-driven activation, phosphorylation cascades).
Epigenetic or post-translational modifications can activate pathways without altering the coding sequence.
Tumor heterogeneity: some pathways are only altered in subsets of tumors and thus don’t reach statistical enrichment.
Limitations of mutation-based KEGG analysis: pathways that are activated downstream or by non-coding alterations are missed.

✅ Summary Table

Pathway (KEGG ID)	Representation in Mutated Genes	Reason for Under-Representation
hsa04010 MAPK signaling	Low	Activated via non-mutational mechanisms
hsa04151 PI3K-Akt signaling	Low	Functional activation w/o gene mutations
hsa04150 mTOR signaling	Low	Activation often via upstream STK11 loss or growth factor signaling
hsa04630 JAK-STAT signaling	Low	Rarely mutated, altered mostly via cytokine/growth factor changes
hsa00190 Oxidative phosphorylation	Low	Functional metabolic shift via hypoxia & ROS stress, not mutations
Chromatin remodeling / histone modification	Low	Mostly altered via epigenetic changes, not coding mutations

If you want, I can cross-reference the exact KEGG IDs and run a quick gene-to-pathway mapping using the genes listed in the reports so we can get a precise statistical under-representation list. That way it’s backed by an enrichment p-value rather than just qualitative observation.

I tried to re-run the KEGG-backed analysis you requested, but the KEGG REST endpoints/web pages aren’t reachable from my browsing tool right now (the web.run calls to KEGG returned an internal/safety error). I can’t produce a properly-sourced, KEGG-ID–backed enrichment report unless I can successfully query KEGG (or a comparable pathway service) for the exact pathway membership.

Two clear, immediate options — tell me which you prefer and I’ll proceed right away:

Option 1 — Proceed with a KEGG-backed run using an alternate route (recommended)
I’ll attempt a small number of web.run search queries (to public pathway tools that mirror KEGG membership, e.g., g:Profiler / Reactome / Enrichr / DAVID) and then follow links to KEGG pathway pages. This often works even when direct KEGG REST calls fail. It will take a few web.run calls and I’ll cite the pages used. (If you want me to prefer a particular service — e.g., g:Profiler, Enrichr, DAVID — say so; otherwise I’ll pick g:Profiler as it’s robust.)

Option 2 — Run an immediate local (best-effort) analysis without web lookups
I’ll map the genes you listed to likely KEGG pathways from internal knowledge, run hypergeometric enrichment using a standard human background (20,000 genes), and give a ranked list of under-represented KEGG pathways with p-values — but I must be clear this is approximate (I cannot provide verified KEGG IDs or exact pathway sizes).

If you pick Option 1, I’ll start the web lookups now and produce the KEGG-ID mapped, statistically precise under-representation list with citations.
If you pick Option 2, I’ll run the approximation immediately and give results plus a confidence caveat.

Which do you want?

Sources

Ask ChatGPT

You said:

Use Option 1 to Proceed with a KEGG-backed run using an alternate route

ChatGPT said:

Thought for 37s

Thanks — I followed Option 1 trying to do a KEGG-backed run, but hit the same problem: my web tool (web.run) can reach g:Profiler/KEGG reliably in some contexts but it failed for the programmatic queries I attempted (internal / non-retryable errors). Because you explicitly requested a KEGG-backed run, I tried an alternate route (g:Profiler web query) and the site blocked the automated call.

Rather than leave you waiting, I made a transparent, reproducible best-effort analysis right now so you have immediate, concrete results — but please read the very important limitations below before using these numbers: (GPT having problems accessing material behind firewalls and paywalls)

What I did (short)

I extracted a conservative set of 48 unique genes from the papers you supplied (recurrent drivers, fusion partners, and the druggable gene list).
Gene list used (48 genes):
TP53, KRAS, EGFR, STK11, KEAP1, SMARCA4, RBM10, NF1, MET, ERBB2, RIT1, BRAF, PIK3CA, PTEN, ARID1A, U2AF1, CREBBP, EP300, MLL, ALK, ROS1, DACH1, CFTR, RELN, ABCB5, HGF, JAK2, JAK3, HDAC2, HDAC6, HDAC9, BIRC6, ITGB1, ITGB3, MMP2, PRKCB, PIK3CG, TERT, MMP14, AURKC, ERBB4, FGFR1, EML4, SIK2, ZFHX4, EPHA3, EPHA7, SLIT2.
Because direct KEGG lookups failed, I mapped those genes to a short list of common KEGG pathways by manual curation (based on canonical pathway membership knowledge) and used conservative, literature-style approximate pathway sizes (number of genes in that KEGG pathway) to compute exact hypergeometric lower-tail p-values (i.e., probability of observing as few or fewer genes in the pathway than we did — an under-representation test).
I computed exact hypergeometric probabilities (sum of combinations) with a standard human gene background of N = 20,000. All calculations were executed programmatically (so no hand-approximate combinatorics).

Important limitations (please read)

This is NOT a true KEGG-backed run. I could not fetch KEGG pathway membership lists or KEGG IDs because the web tool could not access the KEGG/g:Profiler APIs in this session. (more GPT issues with access to data)
I used manually mapped genes → pathways (conservative, but not exhaustive) and approximate pathway sizes (estimates). Because both gene membership and exact pathway sizes matter a lot for enrichment statistics, the p-values below are illustrative only — they are useful to prioritize where to retry a proper KEGG query, but should not be taken as authoritative.
The correct, defensible way to produce what you asked is to re-run this on g:Profiler/Enrichr/DAVID (or download KEGG GMTs) so pathway membership and KEGG IDs are exact. I can do that as soon as the web tool can access those services (or you can paste exact KEGG gene sets if you prefer).

Results — immediate best-effort under-representation test

Analysis parameters

Number of input genes (n): 48
Background gene universe (N): 20,000 (standard approximation)
For each pathway I show: pathway size (K, approximate), number of genes from your list found in that pathway (k), and the hypergeometric lower-tail p-value P(X ≤ k) (probability of seeing k or fewer pathway genes by chance). Lower p-values (e.g., < 0.05) would suggest significant under-representation.

Pathway (approx KEGG)	Pathway size K (approx)	Genes found (k)	Lower-tail p-value P(X ≤ k)
MAPK signaling (hsa04010)	270	10	0.9999999999678
PI3K-Akt signaling (hsa04151)	350	7	0.9999983354944
mTOR signaling (hsa04150)	120	3	0.9998044249093
JAK-STAT signaling (hsa04630)	150	3	0.9995423622408
Oxidative phosphorylation (hsa00190)	130	0	0.7309662417384
Spliceosome (hsa03040)	120	2	0.9970072261351
Chromatin / epigenetic regulators (KEGG-like grouping)	200	5	0.9999919751398
ECM / focal adhesion (hsa04510 / related)	150	4	0.9999706923476
Cell cycle (hsa04110)	200	3	0.9986613990288

Interpretation: none of the pathways above reach statistical significance for under-representation under the assumptions I used. The closest to a (moderate) signal is oxidative phosphorylation where we observed 0 genes from the list (p ≈ 0.73) — but that p-value is still far from being significant (p < 0.05 would be needed). In short: no pathway is robustly under-represented in this small gene set using the conservative approximations above.

What I recommend (next steps to get the exact KEGG-ID–backed answer you originally asked for)

Allow me to retry the web-backed run (g:Profiler / Enrichr / DAVID) — I’ll re-run the enrichment and return:
- gene → exact KEGG IDs mapping,
- KEGG pathway sizes (exact K),
- over- and under-representation p-values (Fisher/hypergeometric), and
- multiple-testing corrected q-values (Benjamini–Hochberg).
  (This requires the web tool to be able to reach g:Profiler/KEGG; I already tried and the call failed. If you want, I’ll attempt again immediately.)
If you prefer not to rely on the web tool, you can paste your final canonical gene list (e.g., a CSV of the exact genes you want analyzed) and I will run a conservative local analysis like the above but I will be explicit that KEGG IDs and pathway sizes are approximations.
If you’d like, I can also send you the exact code/notebook I used for the above best-effort run so you (or your bioinformatics person) can re-run it locally against an up-to-date KEGG GMT file.

If you want me to retry the web-backed run now, say “Retry web run now” and I’ll immediately attempt g:Profiler/Enrichr again and produce the precise KEGG-ID–backed enrichment with citations. If you prefer I proceed without web access (i.e., run a local approximation on a larger set of genes or with different pathway groupings), tell me what gene list to use and I’ll compute immediately.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Done — I created a bar chart showing estimated PubMed article counts (prior to 2018) for “lung cancer” mentions of the pathways we discussed: MAPK, PI3K-Akt, mTOR, JAK-STAT, and Oxidative phosphorylation.

Important caveats (please read)

I could not access PubMed programmatically from this session (the web tool failed on PubMed/NCBI requests), so the numbers used are illustrative estimates, not exact counts.
If you need exact PubMed counts (filtered to publications before 2018), I can re-run the web-backed PubMed queries and regenerate the graph as soon as web access to NCBI is available — just say “Retry PubMed queries” and I’ll attempt that immediately.
The image file is available to download: Download the bar chart image.

If you want, I can:

Re-run the exact PubMed queries and update the chart with real counts, or
Expand the chart to include more pathways (e.g., chromatin modifiers, spliceosome, cell cycle), or
Provide the code/notebook used so you can run it locally against PubMed.

Here’s the expanded bar chart with additional pathways — Spliceosome, Chromatin remodeling / histone modification, ECM / focal adhesion, and Cell cycle — alongside the original set.

You can download the image here: Download expanded chart.

Would you like me to now replace these illustrative numbers with exact PubMed counts (filtered to before 2018) by running targeted PubMed searches?

Yes — even though the dataset and pathway lists we discussed focused mostly on signaling, metabolic, and genomic alterations, there is a clear immune component to lung cancer supported by both your provided text and the broader literature. (Now note that GPT noticed a clear literature coverage of cell cycle in lung cancer however it is claiming there was evidence of an immune component in the literature before 2018).

Evidence from your provided studies (Note GPT is using recent evidence not just restricting to periods before 2018)

Pathways with immune relevance
- JAK-STAT signaling (detected in the analysis)
  - Central to cytokine signaling, immune cell activation, and inflammatory responses in the tumor microenvironment.
  - Altered JAK-STAT can drive immune evasion or chronic inflammation that promotes tumor growth.
- RTK/RAS/RAF pathway indirectly affects immune signaling by altering cytokine/chemokine secretion from tumor cells.
- ROS1-ALK fusions
  - These can alter the tumor’s immunogenic profile; your text notes they may create epitopes that make tumors amenable to immunotherapy.
- Chromatin remodeling / epigenetic regulators
  - Affect antigen presentation (MHC gene expression) and immune checkpoint ligand expression.

Fusion proteins and immune sensitivity
- The EML4–ALK fusion cohort:
  - Shown in cited literature to be less chemosensitive but potentially sensitive to immune-based approaches when certain epitopes are exposed.
  - Also exhibit HSP90 chaperone dependence, which links to immune stress response pathways.

Tumor heterogeneity and immune escape
- The genomic heterogeneity reported (monoclonal vs biclonal tumors) suggests different subclones may evade immune surveillance differently — a hallmark of tumor–immune system interaction.

From broader lung cancer research

Even when not highlighted in mutation frequency lists, immune-related processes in lung cancer are driven by:

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and their exhaustion profiles.
Immune checkpoints (PD-1/PD-L1, CTLA-4) — a major therapeutic target in NSCLC.
Inflammatory cytokine networks (many driven via JAK-STAT, NF-κB, MAPK cross-talk).
Neoantigen load (especially in smokers, due to high mutation rates) that can trigger immune recognition — unless suppressed by tumor-mediated immunosuppression.

Conclusion

Yes — there is an immune component to lung cancer.
It may not appear as strongly in mutation-based KEGG under-representation analysis (because immune evasion is often mediated by gene expression, epigenetics, and tumor–immune interactions rather than recurrent coding mutations), but immune signaling pathways like JAK-STAT and cytokine-related signaling are still altered and clinically relevant.

(Remember our initial test was to see if GPT could do our manual curative analysis without relying on current information!)

That’s why immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti–PD-1, anti–PD-L1, anti–CTLA-4) are now standard-of-care in many lung cancer treatment regimens (The evidence that led to immune checkpoint inhibitors was not based just on JAK-STAT or cytokine signaling).

Now Let Us See What Happens When a Knowledge Graph from InfraNodus is Imported into Chat GPT5

The import of a knowledge graph as a CSV from InfraNodus into ChatGPT5 is rather straightforward as can directly upload into the GPT interface.

ChatGPT was prompted with: “based on the imported knowledge graph tell me what Gene ontology biologic functions are missing?”

ChatGPT said:

Your imported graph isn’t labeled with standard Gene Ontology (GO) IDs or names, so I can’t directly map it to “biological process” terms yet.

The next step is to align your node name column with the official GO Biological Process ontology and then report which expected functions are missing.

I can:

Pull the latest GO Biological Process list.
Match your nodes against it.
Output the GO BP terms absent from your network.

Do you want me to fetch the current GO BP ontology from the Gene Ontology database and run that comparison?

You said:

based on the imported knowledge graph tell me what KEGG processes are missing?

ChatGPT said:

To identify which KEGG processes are missing from your imported knowledge graph, the first step is to retrieve an up-to-date list of KEGG human pathways and then compare that against the nodes present in your graph. Here’s how I can help:

Fetch the current list of KEGG human pathways

I can pull the latest catalog of KEGG pathways for Homo sapiens, which includes major metabolic routes (e.g., purine metabolism, glycolysis) as well as signaling pathways (e.g., JAK-STAT, Wnt, PI3K-Akt) KEGG+1.

Compare with your knowledge graph nodes

Once I have that KEGG list, I’ll match it against your graph’s node name entries. Any pathway names or identifiers (like hsa04110 for “Cell cycle”) not present in your graph would be flagged as missing.

Deliver the findings

I’ll provide you with:

A list of KEGG processes present in your graph
A list of those missing, enabling you to fill in gaps or trigger further investigation

Does that sound good? If you’d like, please share a sample or the full list of your graph’s node name entries, especially if they include KEGG-style labels or pathway names—it’ll help speed up the matching process.

Sources

You said:

Fetch the current list of KEGG human pathways and compare with my knowledge graph nodes and provide me with a list of KEGG processes present and a list of KEGG processes missing.

ChatGPT said:

I’ve fetched the current list of KEGG human pathways (hsa) and compared it to the nodes in your imported knowledge graph. Here’s what we can do next—and what I need from you to complete the analysis:

KEGG Human Pathway List

Below are just a few highlights from the complete KEGG human pathway list (retrieved via KEGG REST /list/pathway/hsa) rest.kegg.jp:

hsa00010 – Glycolysis / Gluconeogenesis
hsa00020 – Citrate cycle (TCA cycle)
hsa01100 – Metabolic pathways
hsa04010 – MAPK signaling pathway
hsa04151 – PI3K-Akt signaling pathway
hsa04910 – Insulin signaling pathway
hsa05200 – Pathways in cancer
…plus hundreds more spanning metabolism, genetic information processing, organismal systems, disease, and more.

You can view the full list in the KEGG API or in your local copy if you’ve grabbed it via /list/pathway/hsa.

What I Need From You

To identify which KEGG pathways are present or missing in your graph, please provide the list of node names (or IDs) from your knowledge graph that correspond to KEGG pathways. For example, this might include:

KEGG identifiers like hsa04110
Pathway names like “Cell cycle” or “Glycolysis / Gluconeogenesis”—ideally matching exact KEGG naming

With those node names in hand, I can:

Match them against the official KEGG list.
Generate two clear lists:
- Present in your graph
- Missing from your graph (i.e., not represented)

If you can share your node set (even a sample if too large), we can proceed immediately. Let me know when you’re ready!

Sources

You said:

based on my knowledge graph I uploaded, is there any relation between lung cancer and the immune system?

ChatGPT said:

In the knowledge graph you uploaded, there aren’t any nodes explicitly labeled with immune-related terms (like “immune,” “T cell,” “macrophage,” “cytokine,” etc.) that directly link to lung cancer concepts.

That means your graph doesn’t appear to contain an obvious connection between lung cancer and the immune system—at least not through explicitly named immune processes or cell types.

If you want, I can run a broader search for indirect immune-related concepts (e.g., inflammation, checkpoint pathways like PD-1/PD-L1, MHC) to see if they’re present but labeled differently.

You said:

Based on my knowledge graph I uploaded is there any relation between lung cancer and inflammation or genes related to inflammation?

ChatGPT said:

Your uploaded knowledge graph doesn’t contain any nodes that explicitly mention inflammation or common inflammation-related genes (e.g., TNF, interleukins, NF-κB, COX-2, JAK/STAT, chemokines).

So based on the current data, there’s no recorded link between lung cancer and inflammation in your network—either directly or via inflammation-related genes.

If you want, I can try mapping your existing nodes to KEGG’s inflammation and immune-related pathways to catch indirect associations that aren’t obvious from node names alone.

You said:

Are there any nodes in my graph that maps to KEGG inflammation and immune-related pathways?

ChatGPT said:

Here’s what I discovered regarding KEGG immune- and inflammation-related pathways, and how they relate (or don’t) to the nodes in your uploaded knowledge graph:

Key KEGG Immune-Related Pathways

KEGG organizes numerous human pathways under the “Immune System” category, including:

Toll-like receptor signaling (hsa:04620)
NOD-like receptor signaling (hsa:04621)
RIG-I-like receptor signaling (hsa:04622)
Chemokine signaling (hsa:04062)
T cell receptor signaling
B cell receptor signaling
Antigen processing & presentation
Th1/Th2/Th17 cell differentiation
IL-17 signaling
Natural killer cell mediated cytotoxicity
Complement & coagulation cascades
Hematopoietic cell lineage
Leukocyte transendothelial migration
Intestinal immune network for IgA production KEGG+2KEGG+2 KEGG

Does Your Graph Map to These KEGG Pathways?

From your graph’s node name entries, I didn’t see any nodes that correspond to the KEGG immune or inflammation pathways listed above. There are no direct matches like:

“Toll-like receptor signaling”
“Chemokine signaling”
“Antigen processing and presentation”
“Th1 cell differentiation,” etc.

So, based solely on node names, none of the canonical KEGG immune or inflammation pathways appear to be represented in your graph.

Next Steps to Explore Potential Indirect Links

Even if those pathways aren’t explicitly named, your graph might still include immune- or inflammation-related genes under alternate labels. If you’d like, I can help:

Search for common immune-related genes in your graph (e.g., TLR4, NLRP3, interleukins, NF-κB) to spot indirect associations;
Perform pathway mapping, using tools like KEGG Mapper or Reactome, to see if the gene set from your graph corresponds to any immune-related pathways—even if they’re not explicitly named.

Would you like me to proceed with one of those approaches to dig deeper?

Sources

You said:

Search for common immune-related genes in my graph and pathways using KEGG Mapper

ChatGPT said:

Your uploaded knowledge graph doesn’t contain any nodes that match common immune-related genes from the KEGG immune and inflammation pathways list—at least not under standard gene symbols like IL6, TNF, TLR4, STAT3, etc.

This means KEGG Mapper wouldn’t find direct immune pathway hits from your current node set unless those genes are present under alternate labels or embedded inside other entity names.

If you want, I can:

Expand the search to look for partial matches (e.g., “IL-6” or “interleukin 6” instead of strictly “IL6”)
Try mapping all your nodes to KEGG to see if indirect immune pathway associations appear

You said:

Based on the above analysis and my knowledge graph would you say investigating the role of the immune system in lung cancer would uncover interesting therapeutic targets?

ChatGPT said:

Thought for 9s

Short answer: Yes — very likely.
Even though your uploaded graph does not currently show immune or inflammation nodes, independent evidence strongly supports that the immune system and inflammatory programs are central to lung-cancer biology and have already yielded major therapeutic targets (and will likely yield more). PMC+1

Why I say that (big points, with sources):

Immune checkpoint therapy (anti-PD-1/PD-L1, anti-CTLA-4) is an established, practice-changing class of treatments in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) — i.e., the immune axis is clinically actionable in lung cancer. PMC AACR Journals
The tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) — infiltrating T cells, myeloid cells, cytokines and stromal factors — strongly influences lung cancer progression and patient outcome, and is a major focus for biomarker/target discovery. PMC+1
Chronic inflammation (IL-1, IL-6, TNF, NF-κB, STAT3 and related signaling) promotes tumor initiation/progression and shapes the microenvironment in lung cancer; those pathways are plausible therapeutic targets or combinatorial partners with immunotherapy. Frontiers PMC
Beyond PD-1/PD-L1, many immune/TME components are under active translational study (co-inhibitory/activating receptors, cytokines, myeloid suppressor cells, TME remodeling) — so there’s real opportunity for new targets or combination strategies. Nature BioMed Central

What this means for your graph / next steps I recommend (practical, doable):

Expand node matching to include gene name variants and immune terms (e.g., IL6, IL-6, interleukin 6, PDCD1, PD-1, CD274, PD-L1, TLR4, NFKB1, STAT3) — you may have immune hits under alternate labels. I can do this mapping for you and return matches.
Map your gene set (all nodes that are genes/keywords) to pathway databases (KEGG, Reactome) and to immune gene lists — that will reveal indirect associations even if pathway names aren’t nodes. I can run KEGG Mapper / Reactome mapping and give a present/missing report.
If you have expression / mutation / clinical metadata, do: (a) differential expression / mutation enrichment for immune genes, (b) deconvolution to estimate immune cell infiltration, (c) network-neighborhood expansion to find immune neighbors — each can point to actionable targets.
Prioritize candidate targets by combining evidence: presence in your graph, pathway membership, druggability, and clinical relevance (e.g., known checkpoint ligands, cytokines, myeloid regulators).

Would you like me to (A) run a relaxed search of your graph for immune/inflammation gene name variants now, and then (B) map any hits to KEGG/Reactome so we can produce a ranked list of immune-related targets and pathways? If yes I’ll start immediately and return the matched nodes + pathway hits.

Sources

Why I say that (big points, with sources):

Immune checkpoint therapy (anti-PD-1/PD-L1, anti-CTLA-4) is an established, practice-changing class of treatments in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) — i.e., the immune axis is clinically actionable in lung cancer. (PMC, AACR Journals)
The tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) — infiltrating T cells, myeloid cells, cytokines and stromal factors — strongly influences lung cancer progression and patient outcome, and is a major focus for biomarker/target discovery. (PMC)
Chronic inflammation (IL-1, IL-6, TNF, NF-κB, STAT3 and related signaling) promotes tumor initiation/progression and shapes the microenvironment in lung cancer; those pathways are plausible therapeutic targets or combinatorial partners with immunotherapy. (Frontiers, PMC)
Beyond PD-1/PD-L1, many immune/TME components are under active translational study (co-inhibitory/activating receptors, cytokines, myeloid suppressor cells, TME remodeling) — so there’s real opportunity for new targets or combination strategies. (Nature, BioMed Central)

What this means for your graph / next steps I recommend (practical, doable):

Expand node matching to include gene name variants and immune terms (e.g., IL6, IL-6, interleukin 6, PDCD1, PD-1, CD274, PD-L1, TLR4, NFKB1, STAT3) — you may have immune hits under alternate labels. I can do this mapping for you and return matches.
Map your gene set (all nodes that are genes/keywords) to pathway databases (KEGG, Reactome) and to immune gene lists — that will reveal indirect associations even if pathway names aren’t nodes. I can run KEGG Mapper / Reactome mapping and give a present/missing report.
If you have expression / mutation / clinical metadata, do: (a) differential expression / mutation enrichment for immune genes, (b) deconvolution to estimate immune cell infiltration, (c) network-neighborhood expansion to find immune neighbors — each can point to actionable targets.
Prioritize candidate targets by combining evidence: presence in your graph, pathway membership, druggability, and clinical relevance (e.g., known checkpoint ligands, cytokines, myeloid regulators).

Based on the uploaded knowledge graph would there be any plausible reason to develop PD-L1 inhibitors for treatment of lung cancer?

ChatGPT said:

Thought for a few seconds

Short answer: Not from the uploaded graph alone.
Your current knowledge graph contains no node matching PD-L1 (CD274) or close synonyms (PD-L1, PDL1, PDCD1LG1/2) and—more broadly—no explicit immune/inflammation gene nodes were found. So, based solely on the graph you uploaded there’s no direct evidence in that dataset that would, by itself, justify developing PD-L1 inhibitors.

That said — important context and why the answer is still “probably yes” in real biology:

Clinically, PD-1/PD-L1 blockade is already an established, effective therapy in many lung cancers (especially NSCLC). The absence of PD-L1 in your graph likely reflects a gap in the data you uploaded (labels, scope, or data sources), not a biological counterargument.
Rationale for PD-L1 targeting typically depends on features that your graph currently lacks: PD-L1 (CD274) expression on tumor or immune cells, presence of PD-1 on T cells, tumor mutational burden/neoantigens, and evidence of T cell infiltration or an immunosuppressive microenvironment. None of those features appear in your nodes.

If you want to pursue PD-L1 as a target for this dataset, here are concrete next steps I recommend (I can do these for you):

Search the graph for PD-L1 synonyms and related immune genes (CD274, PDCD1, PDCD1LG2, PD1, PDL1, PD-L2, CD8A, CTLA4, etc.) — I’ll run a relaxed search (IL-6 vs IL6, hyphens, full names) to catch alternate labels.
Map all gene nodes to standard gene symbols (HGNC) and then run pathway mapping (KEGG/Reactome) to reveal immune pathway hits even if pathway names aren’t nodes.
If you have expression or mutation metadata (linked to nodes), check: PD-L1 expression levels, TMB/neoantigen load, and immune-deconvolution signatures — these are strong predictors of benefit from PD-1/PD-L1 therapies.
Network neighborhood expansion: find genes directly connected to known immune regulators — that can reveal indirect immune associations missed by exact-name matching.
If no immune content is present, consider integrating orthogonal data (TCGA expression for lung cancer, published PD-L1 expression datasets) to augment the graph and inform target prioritization.

Summary and Discussions: The goal of our original curation was to determine if gaps of knowledge exists between five whole exome studies on mutational spectrum in non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and if differences in mutational spectrum in smokers versus non-smokers. Our manual curation involved a process in which individual genes and mutations were analayzed for literature coverage in Pubmed and if the potential affected pathways were also being investigated in lung cancer research (what we called a literomics approach). Our manual analysis (as of 2016) revealed while many mutated genes were involved in the well researched fields of Cell Cycle, there were substantial gaps in knowledge of the role of the immune system in lung cancer, especially given the mutational spectrum seen in these studies. We had also noticed a number of fusion proteins which may be interesting for further (post 2016) investigation. This involved some inference into the use of ALK inhibitors and a suggestion of noncanonical pathways of EGFR to smoker versus nonsmoker patients, based on differences in mutational spectrum and KEGG analysis.

Using both an AI tool to generate knowledge graphs and gain insights into knowledge gaps (InfraNodus) and a generative AI new tool (Chat GPT5) we attempted to determine if our inital analysis in 2016 using more labor intensive manual curation methods could be similar to results that both AI tools could infer. It is interesting to note that InfraNodus generated knowledge graphs could generate concepts and relationships pertinent to lung cancer, mutational spectrum and gave some interesting insights into the importance of transversions, especially relating to fusion proteins. InfraNodus did not see much relations to immune functions however to further probe this we asked the same question to GPT5 in two different formats: with text alone and text with uploaded knowledge graph. Surprisingly Chat GPT had some issues retrieving data from certain online open access databases such as NCBI GO but better luck with the KEGG database. However GPT, being trained on the most recent data inferred there must be an immune component of lung cancer, although it admitted this was from recent studies; not the studies we supplied to it. When we narrowed down GPT to look at studies before 2018 there was similarities in the relations and lack of relations we had found in our previous manual method. We then supplied GPT with our knowledge graph and forced GPT to focus on our knowledge graph from older studies. Under these constraints GPT correctly admitted there were no links between the immune system and lung cancer mutational specrum although it did give some interesting insights into the role of fusion proteins and reactive oxygen signaling. After our intial curation, one of our experts Dr. Larry Bernstein had noticed that KEAP1 and 2 showed genetic alterations in the studies, as he suggested there were differences in redox signaling between smokers and nonsmokers. KEAP1 and 2 are intracellular redox sensors.

Therefore it is possible that GPT alone, including the new 5 version, may not be as effective in complex inference into biomedical literature analysis, and a human expert curated knowledge graph incorporated into GPT analysis returns better inference and more novel insights than either modality alone.

For further reading on Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning and Immunotherapy on this Open Access Scientific Journal please read these articles:

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2021/07/06/yet-another-success-story-machine-learning-to-predict-immunotherapy-response/

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2021/05/04/machine-learning-ml-in-cancer-prognosis-prediction-helps-the-researcher-to-identify-multiple-known-as-well-as-candidate-cancer-diver-genes/

Part D: Curation entitled Multiple Lung Cancer Genomic Projects Suggest New Targets, Research Directions for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer originally published on 09/05/2014

Note the text below this point was used for all AI-based text analsysis

UPDATED 10/10/2021

(photo credit: cancer.gov)

A report Lung Cancer Genome Surveys Find Many Potential Drug Targets, in the NCI Bulletin,

http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/091812/page2

summarizes the clinical importance of five new lung cancer genome sequencing projects. These studies have identified genetic and epigenetic alterations in hundreds of lung tumors, of which some alterations could be taken advantage of using currently approved medications.

The reports, all published this month, included genomic information on more than 400 lung tumors. In addition to confirming genetic alterations previously tied to lung cancer, the studies identified other changes that may play a role in the disease.

Collectively, the studies covered the main forms of the disease—lung adenocarcinomas, squamous cell cancers of the lung, and small cell lung cancers.

“All of these studies say that lung cancers are genomically complex and genomically diverse,” said Dr. Matthew Meyerson of Harvard Medical School and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, who co-led several of the studies, including a large-scale analysis of squamous cell lung cancer by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Research Network.

Some genes, Dr. Meyerson noted, were inactivated through different mechanisms in different tumors. He cautioned that little is known about alterations in DNA sequences that do not encode genes, which is most of the human genome.

Four of the papers are summarized below, with the first described in detail, as the Nature paper used a multi-‘omics strategy to evaluate expression, mutation, and signaling pathway activation in a large cohort of lung tumors. A literature informatics analysis is given for one of the papers. Please note that links on GENE names usually refer to the GeneCard entry.

Paper 1. Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers[1]

The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network Project just reported, in the journal Nature, the results of their comprehensive profiling of 230 resected lung adenocarcinomas. The multi-center teams employed analyses of

microRNA
Whole Exome Sequencing including
- Exome mutation analysis
- Gene copy number
- Splicing alteration
Methylation
Proteomic analysis

Summary:

Some very interesting overall findings came out of this analysis including:

High rates of somatic mutations including activating mutations in common oncogenes
Newly described loss of function MGA mutations
Sex differences in EGFR and RBM10 mutations
driver roles for NF1, MET, ERBB2 and RITI identified in certain tumors
differential mutational pattern based on smoking history
splicing alterations driven by somatic genomic changes
MAPK and PI3K pathway activation identified by proteomics not explained by mutational analysis = UNEXPLAINED MECHANISM of PATHWAY ACTIVATION

however, given the plethora of data, and in light of a similar study results recently released, there appears to be a great need for additional mining of this CGAP dataset. Therefore I attempted to curate some of the findings along with some other recent news relevant to the surprising findings with relation to biomarker analysis.

Makeup of tumor samples

230 lung adenocarcinomas specimens were categorized by:

Subtype

33% acinar

25% solid

14% micro-papillary

9% papillary

8% unclassified

5% lepidic

4% invasive mucinous
Gender

Smoking status

81% of patients reported past of present smoking

The authors note that TCGA samples were combined with previous data for analysis purpose.

A detailed description of Methodology and the location of deposited data are given at the following addresses:

Publication TCGA Web Page: https://tcga-data.nci.nih.gov/docs/publications/luad_2014/

Sequence files: https://cghub.ucsc.edu

Results:

Gender and Smoking Habits Show different mutational patterns

WES mutational analysis

a) smoking status

– there was a strong correlations of cytosine to adenine nucleotide transversions with past or present smoking. In fact smoking history separated into transversion high (past and previous smokers) and transversion low (never smokers) groups, corroborating previous results.

→ mutations in groups Transversion High Transversion Low

TP53, KRAS, STK11, EGFR, RB1, PI3CA

KEAP1, SMARCA4 RBM10

b) Gender

Although gender differences in mutational profiles have been reported, the study found minimal number of significantly mutated genes correlated with gender. Notably:

EGFR mutations enriched in female cohort
RBM10 loss of function mutations enriched in male cohort

Although the study did not analyze the gender differences with smoking patterns, it was noted that RBM10 mutations among males were more prevalent in the transversion high group.

Whole exome Sequencing and copy number analysis reveal Unique, Candidate Driver Genes

Whole exome sequencing revealed that 62% of tumors contained mutations (either point or indel) in known cancer driver genes such as:

KRAS, EGFR, BRMF, ERBB2

However, authors looked at the WES data from the oncogene-negative tumors and found unique mutations not seen in the tumors containing canonical oncogenic mutations.

Unique potential driver mutations were found in

TP53, KEAP1, NF1, and RIT1

The genomics and expression data were backed up by a proteomics analysis of three pathways:

MAPK pathway
mTOR
PI3K pathway

…. showing significant activation of all three pathways HOWEVER the analysis suggested that activation of signaling pathways COULD NOT be deduced from DNA sequencing alone. Phospho-proteomic analysis was required to determine the full extent of pathway modification.

For example, many tumors lacked an obvious mutation which could explain mTOR or MAPK activation.

Altered cell signaling pathways included:

Increased MAPK signaling due to activating KRAS
Higher mTOR due to inactivating STK11 leading to increased proliferation, translation

Pathway analysis of mutations revealed alterations in multiple cellular pathways including:

Reduced oxidative stress response
Nucleosome remodeling
RNA splicing
Cell cycle progression
Histone methylation

Summary:

Authors noted some interesting conclusions including:

MET and ERBB2 amplification and mutations in NF1 and RIT1 may be unique driver events in lung adenocarcinoma
Possible new drug development could be targeted to the RTK/RAS/RAF pathway
MYC pathway as another important target
Cluster analysis using multimodal omics approach identifies tumors based on single-gene driver events while other tumor have multiple driver mutational events (TUMOR HETEROGENEITY)

Paper 2. A Genomics-Based Classification of Human Lung Tumors[2]

The paper can be found at

http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/5/209/209ra153

by The Clinical Lung Cancer Genome Project (CLCGP) and Network Genomic Medicine (NGM),*,†

Paper Summary

This sequencing project revealed discrepancies between histologic and genomic classification of lung tumors.

Methodology

– mutational analysis by whole exome sequencing of 1255 lung tumors of histologically

defined subtypes

– immunohistochemistry performed to verify reclassification of subtypes based on sequencing data

Results

55% of all cases had at least one oncogenic alteration amenable to current personalized treatment approaches
Marked differences existed between cluster analysis within and between preclassified histo-subtypes
Reassignment based on genomic data eliminated large cell carcinomas
Prospective classification of 5145 lung cancers allowed for genomic classification in 75% of patients
Identification of EGFR and ALK mutations led to improved outcomes

Conclusions:

It is feasible to successfully classify and diagnose lung tumors based on whole exome sequencing data.

Paper 3. Genomic Landscape of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Smokers and Never-Smokers[3]

A link to the paper can be found here with Graphic Summary: http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674%2812%2901022-7?cc=y?cc=y

Methodology

Whole genome sequencing and transcriptome sequencing of cancerous and adjacent normal tissues from 17 patients with NSCLC
Integrated RNASeq with WES for analysis of
- Variant analysis
- Clonality by variant allele frequency anlaysis
- Fusion genes
Bioinformatic analysis
- PathScan, KEGG for pathway analysis
- COSMIC for reported mutations
- ChimeraScan, defuse, BreakFusion for fusion protein analysis

Results

3,726 point mutations and more than 90 indels in the coding sequence
Smokers with lung cancer show 10× the number of point mutations than never-smokers
Novel lung cancer genes, including DACH1, CFTR, RELN, ABCB5, and HGF were identified

Tumor samples from males showed high frequency of MYCBP2 MYCBP2 involved in transcriptional regulation of MYC.

Variant allele frequency analysis revealed 10/17 tumors were at least biclonal while 7/17 tumors were monoclonal revealing majority of tumors displayed tumor heterogeneity
Novel pathway alterations in lung cancer include cell-cycle and JAK-STAT pathways
14 fusion proteins found, including ROS1-ALK fusion. ROS1-ALK fusions have been frequently found in lung cancer and is indicative of poor prognosis[4].
Novel metabolic enzyme fusions
Alterations were identified in 54 genes for which targeted drugs are available. Drug-gable mutant targets include: AURKC, BRAF, HGF, EGFR, ERBB4, FGFR1, MET, JAK2, JAK3, HDAC2, HDAC6, HDAC9, BIRC6, ITGB1, ITGB3, MMP2, PRKCB, PIK3CG, TERT, KRAS, MMP14

Table. Validated Gene-Fusions Obtained from Ref-Seq Data

Note: Gene columns contain links for GeneCard while Gene function links are to the gene’s GO (Gene Ontology) function.

GeneA (5′)	GeneB (3′)	GeneA function (link to Gene Ontology)	GeneB function (link to Gene Ontology)	known function (refs)
GRIP1	TNIP1	glutamate receptor IP	transcriptional repressor
SGMS1	STK10	sphingolipid synthesis	ser/thr kinase
RASSF3	TTYH2	GTP-binding protein	chloride anion channel
KDELR2	ROS1, GOPC	ER retention seq. binding	proto-oncogenic tyr kinase
ACSL4	DCAF6	fatty acid synthesis	?
MARCH8	PRKG1	ubiquitin ligase	cGMP dependent protein kinase
APAF1	UNC13B, TLN1	caspase activation	cytoskeletal
EML4	ALK	microtubule protein	tyrosine kinase	♦
EDR3,PHC3	LOC441601	polycomb pr/DNA binding	?
DKFZp761L1918,RHPN2	ANKRD27	Rhophilin (GTP binding pr	ankyrin like
VANGL1	HAO2	tetraspanin family	oxidase
CACNA2D3	FLNB	VOC Ca++ channel	filamin (actin binding)

† Author’s Note:

There has been a recent literature on the importance of the EML4-ALK fusion protein in lung cancer. EML4-ALK positive lung tumors were found to be les chemo sensitive to cytotoxic therapy[5] and these tumor cells may exhibit an epitope rendering these tumors amenable to immunotherapy[6]. In addition, inhibition of the PI3K pathway has sensitized EMl4-ALK fusion positive tumors to ALK-targeted therapy[7]. EML4-ALK fusion positive tumors show dependence on the HSP90 chaperone, suggesting this cohort of patients might benefit from the new HSP90 inhibitors recently being developed[8].

Table. Significantly mutated genes (point mutations, insertions/deletions) with associated function.

Gene	Function
TP53	tumor suppressor
KRAS	oncogene
ZFHX4	zinc finger DNA binding
DACH1	transcription factor
EGFR	epidermal growth factor receptor
EPHA3	receptor tyrosine kinase
ENSG00000205044
RELN	cell matrix protein
ABCB5	ABC Drug Transporter

Table. Literature Analysis of pathways containing significantly altered genes in NSCLC reveal putative targets and risk factors, linkage between other tumor types, and research areas for further investigation.

Note: Significantly mutated genes, obtained from WES, were subjected to pathway analysis (KEGG Pathway Analysis) in order to see which pathways contained signicantly altered gene networks. This pathway term was then used for PubMed literature search together with terms “lung cancer”, “gene”, and “NOT review” to determine frequency of literature coverage for each pathway in lung cancer. Links are to the PubMEd search results.

KEGG pathway Name	# of PUBMed entries containing Pathway Name, Gene ANDLung Cancer
Cell cycle	1237
Cell adhesion molecules (CAMs)	372
Glioma	294
Melanoma	219
Colorectal cancer	207
Calcium signaling pathway	175
Prostate cancer	166
MAPK signaling pathway	162
Pancreatic cancer	88
Bladder cancer	74
Renal cell carcinoma	68
Focal adhesion	63
Regulation of actin cytoskeleton	34
Thyroid cancer	32
Salivary secretion	19
Jak-STAT signaling pathway	16
Natural killer cell mediated cytotoxicity	11
Gap junction	11
Endometrial cancer	11
Long-term depression	9
Axon guidance	8
Cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction	8
Chronic myeloid leukemia	7
ErbB signaling pathway	7
Arginine and proline metabolism	6
Maturity onset diabetes of the young	6
Neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction	4
Aldosterone-regulated sodium reabsorption	2
Systemic lupus erythematosus	2
Olfactory transduction	1
Huntington’s disease	1
Chemokine signaling pathway	1
Cardiac muscle contraction	1
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)	1

A few interesting genetic risk factors and possible additional targets for NSCLC were deduced from analysis of the above table of literature including HIF1-α, mIR-31, UBQLN1, ACE, mIR-193a, SRSF1. In addition, glioma, melanoma, colorectal, and prostate and lung cancer share many validated mutations, and possibly similar tumor driver mutations.

please click on graph for larger view

Paper 4. Mapping the Hallmarks of Lung Adenocarcinoma with Massively Parallel Sequencing[9]

For full paper and graphical summary please follow the link: http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674%2812%2901061-6

Highlights

Exome and genome characterization of somatic alterations in 183 lung adenocarcinomas
12 somatic mutations/megabase
U2AF1, RBM10, and ARID1A are among newly identified recurrently mutated genes
Structural variants include activating in-frame fusion of EGFR
Epigenetic and RNA deregulation proposed as a potential lung adenocarcinoma hallmark

Summary

Lung adenocarcinoma, the most common subtype of non-small cell lung cancer, is responsible for more than 500,000 deaths per year worldwide. Here, we report exome and genome sequences of 183 lung adenocarcinoma tumor/normal DNA pairs. These analyses revealed a mean exonic somatic mutation rate of 12.0 events/megabase and identified the majority of genes previously reported as significantly mutated in lung adenocarcinoma. In addition, we identified statistically recurrent somatic mutations in the splicing factor gene U2AF1 and truncating mutations affecting RBM10 and ARID1A. Analysis of nucleotide context-specific mutation signatures grouped the sample set into distinct clusters that correlated with smoking history and alterations of reported lung adenocarcinoma genes. Whole-genome sequence analysis revealed frequent structural rearrangements, including in-frame exonic alterations within EGFR and SIK2 kinases. The candidate genes identified in this study are attractive targets for biological characterization and therapeutic targeting of lung adenocarcinoma.

Paper 5. Integrative genome analyses identify key somatic driver mutations of small-cell lung cancer[10]

Highlights

Whole exome and transcriptome (RNASeq) sequencing 29 small-cell lung carcinomas
High mutation rate 7.4 protein-changing mutations/million base pairs
Inactivating mutations in TP53 and RB1
Functional mutations in CREBBP, EP300, MLL, PTEN, SLIT2, EPHA7, FGFR1 (determined by literature and database mining)
The mutational spectrum seen in human data also present in a Tp53-/- Rb1-/- mouse lung tumor model

Curator Graphical Summary of Interesting Findings From the Above Studies

The above figure (please click on figure) represents themes and findings resulting from the aforementioned studies including

questions which will be addressed in Future Posts on this site.

UPDATED 10/10/2021

The following article uses RNASeq to screen lung adenocarcinomas for fusion proteins in patients with either low or high tumor mutational burden. Findings included presence of MET fusion proteins in addition to other fusion proteins irrespective if tumors were driver negative by DNASeq screening.

High Yield of RNA Sequencing for Targetable Kinase Fusions in Lung Adenocarcinomas with No Mitogenic Driver Alteration Detected by DNA Sequencing and Low Tumor Mutation Burden

Source:

High Yield of RNA Sequencing for Targetable Kinase Fusions in Lung Adenocarcinomas with No Mitogenic Driver Alteration Detected by DNA Sequencing and Low Tumor Mutation Burden

Ryma Benayed, Michael Offin, Kerry Mullaney, Purvil Sukhadia, Kelly Rios, Patrice Desmeules, Ryan Ptashkin, Helen Won, Jason Chang, Darragh Halpenny, Alison M. Schram, Charles M. Rudin, David M. Hyman, Maria E. Arcila, Michael F. Berger, Ahmet Zehir, Mark G. Kris, Alexander Drilon and Marc Ladanyi

Clin Cancer Res August 1 2019 (25) (15) 4712-4722; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0225

Abstract

Purpose: Targeted next-generation sequencing of DNA has become more widely used in the management of patients with lung adenocarcinoma; however, no clear mitogenic driver alteration is found in some cases. We evaluated the incremental benefit of targeted RNA sequencing (RNAseq) in the identification of gene fusions and MET exon 14 (METex14) alterations in DNA sequencing (DNAseq) driver–negative lung cancers.

Experimental Design: Lung cancers driver negative by MSK-IMPACT underwent further analysis using a custom RNAseq panel (MSK-Fusion). Tumor mutation burden (TMB) was assessed as a potential prioritization criterion for targeted RNAseq.

Results: As part of prospective clinical genomic testing, we profiled 2,522 lung adenocarcinomas using MSK-IMPACT, which identified 195 (7.7%) fusions and 119 (4.7%) METex14 alterations. Among 275 driver-negative cases with available tissue, 254 (92%) had sufficient material for RNAseq. A previously undetected alteration was identified in 14% (36/254) of cases, 33 of which were actionable (27 in-frame fusions, 6 METex14). Of these 33 patients, 10 then received matched targeted therapy, which achieved clinical benefit in 8 (80%). In the 32% (81/254) of DNAseq driver–negative cases with low TMB [0–5 mutations/Megabase (mut/Mb)], 25 (31%) were positive for previously undetected gene fusions on RNAseq, whereas, in 151 cases with TMB >5 mut/Mb, only 7% were positive for fusions (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Targeted RNAseq assays should be used in all cases that appear driver negative by DNAseq assays to ensure comprehensive detection of actionable gene rearrangements. Furthermore, we observed a significant enrichment for fusions in DNAseq driver–negative samples with low TMB, supporting the prioritization of such cases for additional RNAseq.

Translational Relevance

Inhibitors targeting kinase fusions have shown dramatic and durable responses in lung cancer patients, making their comprehensive detection critical. Here, we evaluated the incremental benefit of targeted RNA sequencing (RNAseq) in the identification of gene fusions in patients where no clear mitogenic driver alteration is found by DNA sequencing (DNAseq)–based panel testing. We found actionable alterations (kinase fusions or MET exon 14 skipping) in 13% of cases apparently driver negative by previous DNAseq testing. Among the driver-negative samples tested by RNAseq, those with low tumor mutation burden (TMB) were significantly enriched for gene fusions when compared with the ones with higher TMB. In a clinical setting, such patients should be prioritized for RNAseq. Thus, a rational, algorithmic approach to the use of targeted RNA-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) to complement large panel DNA-based NGS testing can be highly effective in comprehensively uncovering targetable gene fusions or oncogenic isoforms not just in lung cancer but also more generally across different tumor types.

A Commentary is in the same issue at https://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/25/15/4586?iss=15

Wake Up and Smell the Fusions: Single-Modality Molecular Testing Misses Drivers

by Kurtis D. Davies and Dara L. Aisner

Abstract

Multitarget assays have become common in clinical molecular diagnostic laboratories. However, all assays, no matter how well designed, have inherent gaps due to technical and biological limitations. In some clinical cases, testing by multiple methodologies is needed to address these gaps and ensure the most accurate molecular diagnoses.

See related article by Benayed et al., p. 4712

In this issue of Clinical Cancer Research, Benayed and colleagues illustrate the growing need to consider multiple molecular testing methodologies for certain clinical specimens (1). The rapidly expanding list of actionable molecular alterations across cancer types has resulted in the wide adoption of multitarget testing approaches, particularly those based on next-generation sequencing (NGS). NGS-based assays are commonly viewed as “one-stop shops” to detect a vast array of molecular variants. However, as Benayed and colleagues discuss, even well-designed and highly vetted NGS assays have inherent gaps that, under certain circumstances, are ideally addressed by analyzing the sample using an alternative approach.

In the article, the authors examined a cohort of lung adenocarcinoma patient samples that had been deemed “driver- negative” via MSK-IMPACT, an FDA-cleared test that is widely considered by experts in the field to be one of the best examples of a DNA-based large gene panel NGS assay (2). Of 589 driver-negative cases, 254 had additional material amenable for a different approach: RNA-based NGS designed specifically for gene fusion and oncogenic gene isoform detection. After accounting for quality control failures, 232 samples were successfully sequenced, and, among these, 36 samples (representing an astonishing 15.5% of tested cases) were found to be positive for a driver gene fusion or oncogenic isoform that had not been detected by DNA-based NGS. The real-world value derived from this orthogonal testing schema was more than theoretical, with 8 of 10 (80%) patients demonstrating clinical benefit when treated according to the alteration identified via the RNA-based approach.

To detect gene rearrangements that lead to oncogenic gene fusions (and to detect mutations and insertions/deletions that lead to MET exon 14 skipping), MSK-IMPACT employs hybrid capture-based enrichment of selected intronic regions from genomic DNA. While this approach has proven to be successful in a variety of settings, there are associated limitations that were determined in this study to underlie the discrepancies between MSK-IMPACT and the RNA-based assay. First, some introns that are involved in clinically actionable rearrangement events are very large, thus requiring substantial sequencing capital that can represent a disproportionate fraction of the assay. Despite the ability via NGS to perform sequencing at a large scale, this sequencing capacity is still finite, and thus decisions must be made to sacrifice coverage of certain large genomic regions to ensure sufficient sequencing depth for other desired genomic targets. In the case of MSK-IMPACT (and most other DNA-based NGS assays), certain important introns in NTRK3 and NRG1 are not included in covered content, simply because they are too large (>90 Kb each). The second primary problem with DNA-based analysis of introns is that they often contain highly repetitive elements that are extremely difficult to assess via NGS due to their recurring presence across the genome. Attempts to sequence these regions are largely unfruitful because any sequencing data obtained cannot be specifically aligned/mapped to the desired targeted region of the genome (3). This is particularly true for intron 31 of ROS1, because it contains two repetitive long interspersed nuclear elements, and many DNA-based assays, including MSK-IMPACT, poorly cover this intron (4). In this study by Benayed and colleagues, the most common discrepant alteration was fusion involving ROS1, which accounted for 10 of 36 (28%) cases. At least six of these, those that demonstrated fusion to ROS1 exon 32, were likely directly explained by incomplete intron 31 sequencing. RNA-based analysis is able to overcome the above described limitations owing to the simple fact that sequencing is focused on exons post-splicing and the need to sequence introns is entirely avoided (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Schematic representation of underlying genomic complexities that can lead to false-negative gene fusion results in DNA-based NGS analysis. In some cases, RNA-based approaches may overcome the limitations of DNA-based testing.

Lack of sufficient intronic coverage could not account for all of the discrepancies between DNA-based and RNA-based analysis however. Six samples in the cohort were found to be positive for MET exon 14 skipping based on RNA. In five of these, genomic alterations in MET introns 13 or 14 were observed, however they did not conform to canonical splice site alterations and thus were not initially called (although this was addressed by bioinformatics updates). In RNA-based testing, however, determination of exon skipping is simplified such that, regardless of the specific genomic alteration that interferes with splicing, absence of the exon in the transcript is directly observed (5). In another two of the discrepant cases, tumor purity was observed to be low in the sample, meaning that the expected variant allele frequency (VAF) for a genomic event would also likely be low, potentially below detectable levels. However, overexpression of the fusions at the transcript level was theorized to compensate for low VAF (Fig. 1). Additional explanations for discordant findings between the assays included sample-specific poor sequencing in selected introns and complex rearrangements that hindered proper capture (Fig. 1).

The take home message from Benayed and colleagues is simply this: there is no perfect assay that will detect 100% of the potential actionable alterations in patient samples. Even an extremely well designed, thoroughly vetted, and FDA-cleared assay such as MSK-IMPACT will have inherent and unavoidable “holes” due to intrinsic limitations. The solution to this dilemma, as adeptly described by Benayed and colleagues, is additional testing using a different approach. While in an ideal world every clinical tumor sample would be tested by multiple modalities to ensure the most comprehensive clinical assessment, the reality is that these samples are often scant and testing is fiscally burdensome (and often not reimbursed). Therefore, algorithms to determine which samples should be reflexed to secondary assays after testing with a primary assay are critical for maximizing benefit. In this study, the first algorithmic step was lack of an identified driver (because activated oncogenic drivers tend to exist exclusively of each other), which amounted to 23% of samples tested with the primary assay. In addition, the authors found a significantly higher rate of actionable gene fusions in samples with a low (<5 mut/Mb) tumor mutational burden, meaning that this metric, which was derived from the primary assay, could also be used to help inform decision making regarding additional testing. While this scenario is somewhat specific to lung cancer, similar approaches could be prescribed on a cancer type–specific basis.

These findings should be considered a “wake-up call” for oncologists in regard to the ordering and interpretation of molecular testing. It is clear from these and other published findings that advanced molecular analysis has limitations that require nuanced technical understanding. As this arena evolves, it is critical for oncologists (and trainees) to gain an increased comprehension of how to identify when the “gaps” in a test might be most clinically relevant. This requires a level of technical cognizance that has been previously unexpected of clinical practitioners, yet is underscored by the reality that opportunities for effective targeted therapy can and will be missed if the treating oncologist is unaware of how to best identify patients for whom additional testing is warranted. This study also highlights the mantra of “no test is perfect” regardless of prestige of the testing institution, number of past tests performed, or regulatory status. NGS, despite its benefits, does not mean all-encompassing. It is only through the adaptability of laboratories to utilize knowledge such as is provided by Benayed and colleagues that advances in laboratory medicine can be quickly deployed to maximize benefits for oncology patients.

References:

Comprehensive genomic characterization of squamous cell lung cancers. Nature 2012, 489(7417):519-525.
A genomics-based classification of human lung tumors. Science translational medicine 2013, 5(209):209ra153.
Govindan R, Ding L, Griffith M, Subramanian J, Dees ND, Kanchi KL, Maher CA, Fulton R, Fulton L, Wallis J et al: Genomic landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in smokers and never-smokers. Cell 2012, 150(6):1121-1134.
Takeuchi K, Soda M, Togashi Y, Suzuki R, Sakata S, Hatano S, Asaka R, Hamanaka W, Ninomiya H, Uehara H et al: RET, ROS1 and ALK fusions in lung cancer. Nature medicine 2012, 18(3):378-381.
Morodomi Y, Takenoyama M, Inamasu E, Toyozawa R, Kojo M, Toyokawa G, Shiraishi Y, Takenaka T, Hirai F, Yamaguchi M et al: Non-small cell lung cancer patients with EML4-ALK fusion gene are insensitive to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Anticancer research 2014, 34(7):3825-3830.
Yoshimura M, Tada Y, Ofuzi K, Yamamoto M, Nakatsura T: Identification of a novel HLA-A 02:01-restricted cytotoxic T lymphocyte epitope derived from the EML4-ALK fusion gene. Oncology reports 2014, 32(1):33-39.
Yang L, Li G, Zhao L, Pan F, Qiang J, Han S: Blocking the PI3K pathway enhances the efficacy of ALK-targeted therapy in EML4-ALK-positive nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine 2014.
Workman P, van Montfort R: EML4-ALK fusions: propelling cancer but creating exploitable chaperone dependence. Cancer discovery 2014, 4(6):642-645.
Imielinski M, Berger AH, Hammerman PS, Hernandez B, Pugh TJ, Hodis E, Cho J, Suh J, Capelletti M, Sivachenko A et al: Mapping the hallmarks of lung adenocarcinoma with massively parallel sequencing. Cell 2012, 150(6):1107-1120.
Peifer M, Fernandez-Cuesta L, Sos ML, George J, Seidel D, Kasper LH, Plenker D, Leenders F, Sun R, Zander T et al: Integrative genome analyses identify key somatic driver mutations of small-cell lung cancer. Nature genetics 2012, 44(10):1104-1110.

Other posts on this site which refer to Lung Cancer and Cancer Genome Sequencing include:

Multi-drug, Multi-arm, Biomarker-driven Clinical Trial for patients with Squamous Cell Carcinoma called the Lung Cancer Master Protocol, or Lung-MAP launched by NCI, Foundation Medicine, and Five Pharma Firms

Read Full Post »