Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

Nearly half of the global population—and 80 percent of patients in therapeutic areas such as immunology—are women. Yet, treatments are frequently developed without tailored insights for female patients, often ignoring critical biological differences such as hormonal impacts, genetic factors, and cellular sex. Historically, women’s health has been narrowly defined through the lens of reproductive organs, while for non-reproductive conditions, women were treated as “small men.” This lack of focus on sex-specific biology has contributed to significant gaps in healthcare.

A recent analysis found that women spend 25 percent more of their lives in poor health compared with men due to the absence of sex-based treatments. Addressing this disparity could not only improve women’s quality of life but also unlock over $1 trillion in annual global GDP by 2040.

Four key factors contribute to the women’s health gap: limited understanding of sex-based biological differences, healthcare systems designed around male physiology, incomplete data that underestimates women’s disease burden, and chronic underfunding of female-focused research. For instance, despite women representing 78 percent of U.S. rheumatoid arthritis patients, only 7 percent of related NIH funding in 2019 targeted female-specific studies.

However, change is happening. Companies have demonstrated how targeted R&D can drive better outcomes for women. These therapies achieved expanded FDA approvals after clinical trials revealed their unique benefits for female patients. Similarly, addressing sex-based treatment gaps in asthma, atrial fibrillation, and tuberculosis could prevent millions of disability-adjusted life years.

By closing the women’s health gap, biopharma companies can drive innovation, improve therapeutic outcomes, and build high-growth markets while addressing long-standing inequities. This untapped opportunity holds the potential to transform global health outcomes for women and create a more equitable future.

References

https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/life-sciences/our-insights/closing-the-womens-health-gap-biopharmas-untapped-opportunity?stcr=97136BA6BDD64C2396A57E9487438CC6

https://www.weforum.org

https://www.nih.gov

https://www.fda.gov

https://www.who.int

DeepSeek-V3 and Reasoning Model R1: Four Views (a) Explanations (b) The Chinese Perspective (c) DeepSeek Impact on Demand for Inference Chips & Training Chips, and (d) LPBI Group: Expert Content for ML Models in Healthcare, Pharmaceutical, Medical and Life Sciences

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

With the announcement of DeepSeek on January 27, 2025, it became compelling to cover several aspects of this hot Artificial Intelligence Technology.

This curation has four Parts: 

Part A: Explanations 

Part B: The Chinese Perspective

Part C: DeepSeek potential Impact on Demand for Inference Chips & Training Chips, and

Part D: LPBI Group: Expert Content for ML Models in Healthcare, Pharmaceutical, Medical and Life Sciences

 

Part A: Explanations by Morgan Brown

@morganb

Jan 27   Read on X

🧵 Finally had a chance to dig into DeepSeek’s r1…

Let me break down why DeepSeek’s  AI innovations are blowing people’s minds (and possibly threatening Nvidia’s $2T market cap) in simple terms… 

0/ first off, shout out to @doodlestein who wrote the must-read on this here:

The Short Case for Nvidia StockAll the reasons why Nvidia will have a very hard time living up to the currently lofty expectations of the market.https://youtubetranscriptoptimizer.com/blog/05_the_short_case_for_nvda

1/ First, some context: Right now, training top AI models is INSANELY expensive. OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. spend $100M+ just on compute. They need massive data centers with thousands of $40K GPUs. It’s like needing a whole power plant to run a factory. 

2/ DeepSeek just showed up and said “LOL what if we did this for $5M instead?” And they didn’t just talk – they actually DID it. Their models match or beat GPT-4 and Claude on many tasks. The AI world is (as my teenagers say) shook. 

3/ How? They rethought everything from the ground up. Traditional AI is like writing every number with 32 decimal places. DeepSeek was like “what if we just used 8? It’s still accurate enough!” Boom – 75% less memory needed. 

4/ Then there’s their “multi-token” system. Normal AI reads like a first-grader: “The… cat… sat…” DeepSeek reads in whole phrases at once. 2x faster, 90% as accurate. When you’re processing billions of words, this MATTERS. 

5/ But here’s the really clever bit: They built an “expert system.” Instead of one massive AI trying to know everything (like having one person be a doctor, lawyer, AND engineer), they have specialized experts that only wake up when needed.

[color added by curator, See Part D, below]

6/ Traditional models? All 1.8 trillion parameters active ALL THE TIME. DeepSeek? 671B total but only 37B active at once. It’s like having a huge team but only calling in the experts you actually need for each task. 

7/ The results are mind-blowing:
– Training cost: $100M → $5M
– GPUs needed: 100,000 → 2,000
– API costs: 95% cheaper
– Can run on gaming GPUs instead of data center hardware 

8/ “But wait,” you might say, “there must be a catch!” That’s the wild part – it’s all open source. Anyone can check their work. The code is public. The technical papers explain everything. It’s not magic, just incredibly clever engineering. 

9/ Why does this matter? Because it breaks the model of “only huge tech companies can play in AI.” You don’t need a billion-dollar data center anymore. A few good GPUs might do it. 

10/ For Nvidia, this is scary. Their entire business model is built on selling super expensive GPUs with 90% margins. If everyone can suddenly do AI with regular gaming GPUs… well, you see the problem. 

11/ And here’s the kicker: DeepSeek did this with a team of <200 people. Meanwhile, Meta has teams where the compensation alone exceeds DeepSeek’s entire training budget… and their models aren’t as good. 

12/ This is a classic disruption story: Incumbents optimize existing processes, while disruptors rethink the fundamental approach. DeepSeek asked “what if we just did this smarter instead of throwing more hardware at it?” 

13/ The implications are huge:
– AI development becomes more accessible
– Competition increases dramatically
– The “moats” of big tech companies look more like puddles
– Hardware requirements (and costs) plummet 

14/ Of course, giants like OpenAI and Anthropic won’t stand still. They’re probably already implementing these innovations. But the efficiency genie is out of the bottle – there’s no going back to the “just throw more GPUs at it” approach. 

15/ Final thought: This feels like one of those moments we’ll look back on as an inflection point. Like when PCs made mainframes less relevant, or when cloud computing changed everything.

 AI is about to become a lot more accessible, and a lot less expensive. The question isn’t if this will disrupt the current players, but how fast.

/end 

P.S. And yes, all this is available open source. You can literally try their models right now. We’re living in wild times! 🚀 

Momma, I’m going viral! No substack or gofundme to share but a few things to add/clarify:

1/ The DeepSeek app is not the same thing as the model. Apps are owned and operated by a Chinese corporation, the model itself is open source.

2/ Jevon’s paradox is the counter argument. Thanks papa @satyanadella. Could be a mix shift in chip type, compute type, etc. but we’re constrained by power and compute right now, not demand constrained.

3/ The techniques used are not ground breaking. It’s the combination of them w/the relative model performance that is so exciting. These are common eng techniques that combined really fly in the face of more compute is the only answer for model performance. Compute is no longer a moat.

4/ Thanks to all for pointing out my NVIDIA market cap numbers miss and other nuances – will do better next time, coach. 🫡 

SOURCE

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1883686162709295541.html#google_vignette

 

Part B: The Chinese Perspective

© 2025 Jordan Schneider

DeepSeek: The View from China

China’s takes are better than yours

 

SOURCE

From: ChinaTalk <chinatalk@substack.com> on behalf of ChinaTalk <chinatalk@substack.com>
Reply-To: ChinaTalk <reply+2ktto4&8t4ds&&6fa8442469b96573268378f7538ff49c28c45589f5811b2a55b30e89ee8ff94d@mg1.substack.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 at 9:54 AM
To: Aviva Lev-Ari <avivalev-ari@alum.berkeley.edu>
Subject: DeepSeek: The View from China

And

https://www.chinatalk.media/p/deepseek-the-view-from-china

https://open.substack.com/pub/chinatalk/p/deepseek-the-view-from-china?r=8t4ds&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

The Mystical DeepSeek. ‘The most important thing about DeepSeek is pushing intelligence’

  1. Founder and CEO Liang Wenfeng is the core person of DeepSeek. He is not the same type of person as Sam Altman. He is very knowledgeable about technology.
  2. DeepSeek has a good reputation because it was the first to release the reproducible MoE, o1, etc. It succeeded in acting early, but whether or not it did the absolute best remains to be seen. Moving forward, the biggest challenges are that resources are limited and can only be invested in the most high-potential areas. DeepSeek’s research and culture are still strong, and if given 100,000 or 200,000 chips, they might be able to do better.
  3. From its preview to its official release, DeepSeek’s model’s long-context capabilities have improved rapidly. DeepSeek’s long-context 20K can be achieved with very conventional methods.
  4. The CEO of Scale.ai said that DeepSeek has 50,000 chips, but that is definitely not reality. According to public information, DeepSeek had 10,000 old A100 chips and possibly 3,000 H800 cards before the ban. DeepSeek pays great attention to compliance and has not purchased any non-compliant GPUs, so it should have few chips. The way the United States uses GPUs is too extravagant.
  5. DeepSeek focused all its efforts on a single goal and subsequently gave up many things, such as multimodality. DeepSeek is not just serving people, but seeking intelligence itself, which may have been a key factor in its success.
  6. In some ways, quant trading can be said to be the business model of DeepSeek. Huanfang (another quantitative investment company founded by Liang Wenfeng) is the product of the last round of machine learning. DeepSeek’s highest priority is to push intelligence. Money and commercialization are not high priorities. China needs several leading AI labs to explore things that can beat OpenAI. Intelligence takes a long time to develop, and has begun to differentiate again this year, so new innovations are bound to result.
  7. From a technical perspective, DeepSeek has been instrumental as a training ground for talent.
  8. The business model of AI labs in the United States is not good either. AI does not have a good business model today and will require viable solutions in the future. Liang Wenfeng is ambitious; DeepSeek does not care about the model and is just heading towards AGI.
  9. Many of the insights from DeepSeek’s paper involve saving hardware costs. On a couple of big dimensions of scaling, DeepSeek’s techniques are able to reduce costs.
  10. In the short-term, everyone will be driven to think about how to make AI more efficient. In the long-run, questions about computing power will remain. Demand for compute remains strong and no company has enough.
  11. Discussing DeepSeek’s organization:
    1. When investing, we always choose the most advanced talent. But we see from DeepSeek’s model (the team is mostly smart young people who graduated from domestic universities) that a group that coheres well may also gradually advance their skills together. It has yet to be seen whether poaching one person might break DeepSeek’s advantage, but for now this seems unlikely.
    2. While there’s a lot of money in the market, DeepSeek’s core advantage is its culture. The research culture of DeepSeek and ByteDance are similar, and both are critical for determining the availability of funding and long-term viability. Only with an important business model can there be a sustainable culture. Both DeepSeek and ByteDance have very good business models.
  12. Why did DeepSeek catch up so fast?
    1. Reasoning models require high-quality data and training. For LLMs or multimodal AI, it’s difficult to catch up with a closed source model from scratch. The architecture of pure reasoning models hasn’t changed much, so it’s easier to catch up in reasoning.
    2. One reason R1 caught up quickly was that the task was not particularly difficult. Reinforcement learning only made the model choices more accurate. R1 did not break through the efficiency of Consensus 32, spending 32 times the efficiency, which is equivalent to moving from deep processing to parallelization, which is not pushing the boundaries of intelligence, just making it easier.

Pioneers vs. Chasers: ‘AI Progress Resembles a Step Function – Chasers Require 1/10th the Compute’

Points 13 – 17

[Points 18-48 was a long technical discussion we’ve machine-translated below]

Why didn’t the other companies take the DeepSeek approach: ‘Models from the big labs need to maintain a low profile’

Points 49, 50

The Divergence and Bets of 2025 Technology: ‘Can We Find Architectures Beyond Transformer?’

Points 51 – 56

Have developers moved from closed-source models to DeepSeek? ‘Not yet’

Points 57 – 62

OpenAI Stargate’s $500B Narrative and Changes in Computing Power Demand

  1. The emergence of DeepSeek has led people to question the latest $500B narrative from Nvidia and OpenAI. There’s no verdict yet on compute — and OpenAI’s $500B narrative is their attempt to throw themselves a lifeline.
  2. Regarding the doubts about OpenAI’s $500B infrastructure investment: because OpenAI is a commercial company, it could be risky if debt is involved.
  3. $500B is an extreme number — likely to be executed over 4 or 5 years. SoftBank and OpenAI are the leading players (the former providing capital, the latter technology) — but SoftBank’s current funds can’t support $500B; rather SoftBank is using its assets as collateral. OpenAI, meanwhile, isn’t very cash-rich either, and other AI companies are more technical participants than they are funding providers. So it will be a struggle to fully realize the $500B vision.
  4. OpenAI’s $500B computing power makes sense: during the exploration phase, the cost of trial and error is high, with both human and investment costs being substantial. But although the path isn’t clear and getting from o1 to R1 won’t be easy, at least we can see what the finish line looks like: we can track the intermediate markers, and from day one, aim for others’ proven end states; this gives us a better bearing on our progress. Being at the frontier exploring the next generation is most resource-intensive. The followers don’t bear exploration costs — they’re always just following. If Google/Anthropic succeed in their exploration areas, they might become the frontier company.
  5. In the future, Anthropic might replace all their inference with TPU or AWS chips.
  6. Domestic Chinese companies were previously constrained by computing power, but now it’s proven that the potential technical space is vast. For more efficient models, we might not need especially large cards — we can provide relatively customized chips that can be adapted for compatibility with AMD and ASIC. From an investment perspective, Nvidia’s moat is very high, but ASIC will have yet greater opportunities.
  7. The DeepSeek situation isn’t really about compute — it’s about America realizing China’s capabilities and efficiency.DeepSeek isn’t Nvidia’s vulnerability; Nvidia will grow as long as AI grows. Nvidia’s strength is its ecosystem, which has been built up over a long time. Indeed, when technology develops rapidly, the ecosystem is crucial. The real crisis comes, though, when technology matures like electricity: it becomes commoditized; then, everyone will focus on products, and many ASIC chips will emerge for specific scenario optimization.

 

Impact on the Secondary Market: ‘Short-term sentiment is under pressure, but the long-term narrative continues’

Points 70 – 74

Open-Source vs Closed Source: ‘If capabilities are similar, closed source will struggle.’

Points 75 – 78

The Impact of DeepSeek’s Breakthrough: ‘Vision Trumps Technology’

  1. DeepSeek’s breakthrough made the outside world realize China’s AI strength. Previously, outsiders thought China’s AI progress lagged America by two years, but DeepSeek shows the gap is actually 3 to 9 months, and in some areas, even shorter.
  2. When it comes to technologies and sectors that America has historically blocked China from accessing, if China can break through nonetheless, those sectors ultimately become highly competitive. AI might follow this pattern — and DeepSeek’s success may well prove this.
  3. DeepSeek didn’t suddenly explode. R1’s impressive results reverberated throughout America’s entire AI establishment.
  4. DeepSeek stands on the shoulders of giants — but exploring the frontier still requires much more time and human capital cost. R1 doesn’t mean that future training costs will decrease.
  5. AI explorers definitely need more computing power; China, as a follower, can leverage its engineering advantages. How Chinese large-model teams use less computing power to produce results, thereby having some definite resilience — or even doing better — might end up being how the US-China AI landscape plays out in the future.
  6. China is still replicating technical solutions; reasoning was proposed by OpenAI in o1, so the next gap between various AI labs will be about who can propose the next reasoning. Infinite-length reasoning might be one vision.
  7. The core difference between different AI labs’ models lies not in technology, but in what each lab’s next vision is.
  8. After all, vision matters more than technology.

Technical Discussion

There was a deep technical discussion in the article that we’ve machine-translated below.

Technical Detail 1: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT). ‘No need for SFT on the reasoning level’

Points 18 – 27

Technical Detail 2: Data. ‘DeepSeek values data annotation’

Points 28 – 30

Technical Detail 3: Distillation. ‘The limit of distillation is that model diversity drops

Points 31 – 43

Technical Detail 4: Process Reward. ‘The upper limit of process reward is human, but the upper limit of outcome supervision is the model itself.’

Points 44 – 48

 

SOURCE of the Chinese Perspective

https://www.chinatalk.media/p/deepseek-the-view-from-china?utm_source=substack&publication_id=4220&post_id=155916148&utm_medium=email&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=email-share&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=8t4ds&triedRedirect=true

 

Part C: DeepSeek Impact on Demand for “Inference Chips” and “Training Chips”

 

Watch Full Interviews with Ark’s Cathie Wood

 

  • Ark’s Wood on DeepSeek, AI, Crypto, Trump | Cathie Wood Full Interview

https://youtu.be/EKELCEW8lNo?si=Zri9QqcMHsESgO8N

 

  • Cathie Wood Talks DeepSeek Lessons, Musk, Driverless Cars & UK

https://youtu.be/aThejSuMX-I?si=e9uM7TpoQ1Neb-cT

 

“Inference Chips” and “Training Chips”: Technology explained

 

AI Chips Explained: Training vs. Inference Processors Unveiled

https://www.friendsofthemetaverse.com/blog/ai-chips-explained-training-vs-inference-processors-unveiled

 

Inference chips and training chips are both types of AI chips that serve different purposes. Training chips are used to develop AI models, while inference chips are used to deploy those models in real-world applications. 

An “inference chip” is designed to efficiently execute a trained AI model on new data to make predictions in real-time, prioritizing low latency and power consumption, while a “training chip” is optimized for the computationally intensive process of initially training a machine learning model, requiring high processing power and memory bandwidth, often at the cost of power efficiency; essentially, inference chips are for “applying” the learned model, while training chips are for “learning” the model itself. 

 

SOURCE

https://www.google.com/search?q=training+chips+vs+inference+chips&oq=Training+Chips+vs+Inference+chips&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBggAEEUYOzIGCAAQRRg7Mg0IARAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBBAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBxAAGIAEGKIE0gEKMTc2OTVqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Training vs. Inference (But, Really: Training Then Inference)

To recap: the AI training stage is when you feed data into your learning algorithm to produce a model, and the AI inference stage is when your  algorithm uses that training to make inferences from data. Here’s a chart for quick reference: 

Table

Inference

Feed training data into a learning algorithm

Apply the model to the inference data

Produces a model comprising code and data

Produces output data

One time-ish (Requirement to retain training data in case of re-training.)

Often continuous

Inference

Apply the model to the inference data

Produces output data

Often continuous

The difference may seem inconsequential at first glance, but defining these two stages helps to show implications for AI adoption particularly with businesses. That is, given that it’s much less resource intensive (and therefore, less expensive), it’s likely to be much easier for businesses to integrate already-trained AI algorithms with their existing systems. 

And, as always, we’re big believers in demystifying terminology for discussion purposes. Let us know what you think in the comments, and feel free to let us know what you’re interested in learning about next.

SOURCE

AI 101: Training vs. Inference

November 9, 2023 by Stephanie Doyle

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/ai-101-training-vs-inference/

 

r/AMD_Stock

“AI is really two markets, training and inference. Inference is going to be 100 times bigger than training. Nvidia is really good at training but very miscast at inference.” – Chamath Palihapitiya

Let’s discuss.

Below I layout AMD investor relevant time stamps:

7:35 – Meta AI business strategy

10:00 – Open source impact on LLM marketplace

12:10 – Telecom analogy (capex discussion)

16:35 – Closed source model economic viability

19:50 – Meta overspend on training (Nvidia)

SOURCE

https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD_Stock/comments/1cf765y/ai_is_really_two_markets_training_and_inference/

 

Part D: LPBI Group: Expert Content for ML Models in Healthcare, Pharmaceutical, Medical and Life Sciences

 

LPBI Group’s Journal http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com had a fully developed ontology for the Healthcare, Pharmaceutical, Medical and Life Sciences domains of knowledge.

The ontology comprises of +750 categories of research. Each category consists of multiple scientific articles that were curated by domain knowledge experts in the fields of Healthcare, Pharmaceutical, Medical and Life Sciences.

  • Each article is a token, a Non Fungible Token (NFT) = a mutually exclusive scientifically written piece that makes a Prior Art artifact from the intellectual property law perspective and copyright law.
  • Each category of research is “An expert system knowledge base”
  • Examples: The last column in this table represents the number of articles in this category of research
  • Each curation is written by an expert in this domain, and
  • Each one of the 469 articles in Example #1, in this category of research had been assigned THIS category by an EXPERT in this domain. 
  • The universe of 469 articles represents an “Expert System Knowledge Base” in the domain of biological networks, gene regulation and evolution
  • Example #1 comprises of 469 NFTs
  • Example #2 comprises of 1,022 NFTs
  • Example #3 comprises of 681 NFTs
  • An ML model can be trained on the content of a Master file that included the content of all the 469 article files mentioned in Example #1 – that process is performed on Training Chips
  • The outcomes of the model involve the phase of Inference. That process is performed on Inference Chips.

 

Example #1: 469 articles in Biological Networks, Gene Regulation and Evolution

Expert, Author, Writer (EAW): Dr. Larry Bernstein
Degree: BS, MS, MD
Specialty: Clinical Pathology
e-Mail: larry.bernstein@gmail

N = 469

Biological Networks, Gene Regulation and Evolution

 

Points (a) to (f) are applicable as well to Example #2, and #3, below. Or for any other category of research from the universe of +750 categories that consists of +50 articles

 

Example #2: 1,022 articles in CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy

Contributor EAW: Prabodh kumar Kandala, PhD Specialty: Preclinical Oncology, Prabodh.kandala@gmail.com

Contributor EAW: Ritu Saxena, PhD
ritu.uab@gmail.com

Contributor EAW: Dr. Larry Bernstein
Degree: BS, MS, MD
Specialty: Clinical Pathology
e-Mail: larry.bernstein@gmail.com

Contributor EAW: Stephen J. Williams
Degree: Ph.D. Pharmacology
Specialty: cancer pharmacology, ovarian specialty
e-Mail: sjwilliamspa@comcast.net
Phone: 215-487-0259

Contributor EAW: Tilda Barliya
Degree: PhD
Specialty: Cancer biology, cell biology, nanotechnology and drug delivery
e-Mail: tildabarliya@gmail.com
Phone: +972-50-8622289

N = 1,022

CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy

 

Example #3: 681 articles in Frontiers in Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disorders

EAW: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

EAW: Justin D. Pearlman
Degree: MD ME PhD MA FACC
Specialty: Internal Medicine, Cardiology, Cardiovascular Radiology, Image Processing, Computer Science, Electronic Records
jdpmdphd@gmail.com
Phone:617-894-6888

N = 681

Frontiers in Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disorders

 

Respectively, the categories of research are

  • “Expert systems domain knowledge bases”
  • They are ready for ML model development in each of the domains that a category comprises more than 50 articles.
  • Total number of categories of research in the Journal’s Ontology N = 757 on 1/28/2025

Paul G. Yock, Recipient of the 2024 National Medal of Technology and Innovation, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at Stanford Medical School

Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

NMTI Citation

Paul G. Yock, Stanford University 

For innovations in interventional cardiology. Paul Yock’s visionary work understanding the human heart is applied around the world today to improve patient care and save countless lives. His creation of the Biodesign approach to training future leaders of biotechnology and health care ensures his insights and experience will benefit generations to come.

SOURCES

https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/2024-national-medal-technology-and-innovation-laureates-honored-white-house

National Medal of Technology and Innovation (NMTI)

https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-programs-and-awards/national-medal-technology-and-innovation-nmti

Recipients of the 2024 National Medal of Technology and Innovation, administered by President Joe Biden and Laureates of the National Medal of Science, administered by NSF

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2025/01/13/recipients-of-the-2024-national-medal-of-technology-and-innovation-administered-by-president-joe-biden-and-laureates-of-the-national-medal-of-science-administered-by-nsf/

 

Paul Yock – The Martha Meier Weiland Professor in the School of Medicine and Professor of Bioengineering, Cardiovascular Medicine, and (by courtesy) of Mechanical Engineering

Scientific Leadership Council Member, Clark Center Faculty

Recipients of the 2024 National Medal of Technology and Innovation, administered by President Joe Biden and Laureates of the National Medal of Science, administered by NSF

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

NSF congratulates recipients of the prestigious National Medal of Science and National Medal of Technology and Innovation awards

January 7, 2025

President Joe Biden revealed the newest honorees of the recipients of the  National Medal of Science and the National Medal of Technology and Innovation. The laureates were honored during a prestigious ceremony at the White House last Friday. These esteemed awards celebrate groundbreaking contributions that have advanced knowledge, driven progress and tackled the world’s most critical needs while underscoring the vital role of research and creativity in fostering a brighter, more sustainable future.

Among this year’s honorees are several distinguished individuals with ties to NSF. John Dabiri, Feng Zhang and Jennifer Doudna are former recipients of NSF’s prestigious Alan T. Waterman Award, which recognizes exceptional early-career scientists and engineers for their transformative contributions. Keivan Stassun, a current member of the National Science Board and a former member of NSF’s Committee for Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering, has been a leader in advancing diversity, equity and inclusion in STEM.

These honorees exemplify NSF’s enduring role in fostering groundbreaking research, nurturing talent and driving innovation across the scientific and engineering enterprise. Among the recipients, NSF has funded, at some point in their careers, all 14 recipients of the National Medal of Science and eight of the nine recipients of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation.

SOURCES

https://new.nsf.gov/honorary-awards/national-medal-science

White House Briefing

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2025/01/03/president-biden-honors-nations-leading-scientists-technologists-and-innovators/

 

The 2024 National Medal of Technology and Innovation (NMTI) Laureates were honored and celebrated at the White House on Friday, January 3 for their trailblazing achievements in science, technology, and innovation.

Nine individuals and two companies were recognized for their groundbreaking accomplishments, ranging from the “camera-on-a-chip” technology integrated into most smartphones today, to improvements in mammogram and other optoelectric technologies that can better detect breast cancer, to the mRNA vaccines that treated a global pandemic, and more.

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Derrick Brent delivered remarks at the special medaling ceremony of the NMTI, which is administered by the USPTO. Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Arati Prabhakar presented the Laureates with their NMTI medals alongside 14 Laureates of the National Medal of Science, administered by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

“These medals celebrate some of your greatest achievements,” said Acting USPTO Director Brent in his remarks. “Yet, they also bestow upon you a unique responsibility: mentoring and inspiring the next generation of innovators. Paying it forward is our obligation to history, and to our future.”

Recipients of the 2024 National Medal of Technology and Innovation

Martin Cooper, Illinois Institute of Technology and Dyna LLC

For inventing the handheld cellular phone and revolutionizing worldwide communications. Martin Cooper delivered breakthroughs for cellular telephone and network technologies that have dramatically altered the world as we know it—changing our sense of proximity to others around the globe, the way we perceive ourselves, and our universe of possibilities.

Jennifer A. Doudna, Innovative Genomics Institute

For development of the revolutionary CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology, with widespread applications in agriculture and health research. Jennifer Doudna’s innovations are fundamentally transforming our collective health and well-being and have contributed to the development of treatments for sickle cell disease, cancer, type 1 diabetes, and more.

Eric R. Fossum, Dartmouth College

For inventing world-changing “camera-on-a-chip” technology that has turned billions of phones into cameras and transformed everyday life. When NASA needed smaller cameras to take into space, Eric Fossum developed a groundbreaking image sensor and then worked to use it in medicine, business, security, entertainment, and more, while also mentoring legions of young entrepreneurs pushing the bounds of innovation.

Paula T. Hammond, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

For groundbreaking research in nanoscale engineering. Paula Hammond pioneered novel materials that have revolutionized how we deliver cancer drugs to cancer patients and how we store solar energy. An inventor and mentor, Paula has paved the way for a more diverse, inclusive scientific workforce that taps into the full talents of our nation.

Kristina M. Johnson, Johnson Energy Holdings, LLC

For pioneering work that has transformed optoelectronic devices, 3D imaging, and color management systems. Kristina Johnson has channeled her ingenuity and optimism into developing technologies that have improved processes for mammograms and pap smears, promoted clean energy, elevated the entertainment industry, and more—while working to expand the field of STEM for all Americans.

Victor B. Lawrence, Bell Labs and Stevens Institute of Technology

For a lifetime of prolific innovation in telecommunications and high-speed internet technology. Victor Lawrence has dedicated his life to expanding the realm of possibilities worldwide. By bringing fiber-optic connectivity to the African continent and improving global internet accessibility, he has enhanced the security, opportunity, and well-being of people around the world.

David R. Walt, Harvard Medical School

For setting a new gold standard in genetic analysis that is transforming medical research, care, and well-being. David Walt pioneered the use of microwell arrays to analyze thousands of genes at once and detect single molecules, making DNA sequencing exponentially more accurate and affordable, and promising simple biomarker blood tests that may revolutionize our approach to cancer and other conditions—giving people renewed hope.

Paul G. Yock, Stanford University 

For innovations in interventional cardiology. Paul Yock’s visionary work understanding the human heart is applied around the world today to improve patient care and save countless lives. His creation of the Biodesign approach to training future leaders of biotechnology and health care ensures his insights and experience will benefit generations to come.

Feng Zhang, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

For development of the revolutionary CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology, with widespread applications in agriculture and health research. Feng Zhang’s innovations are fundamentally transforming our collective health and well-being and have contributed to the development of treatments for sickle cell disease, cancer, type 1 diabetes, and more.

National Medal of Technology and Innovation Organization Recipients

Moderna, Inc.

For saving millions of lives around the world by harnessing mRNA vaccine technology to combat a global pandemic. In 2020, Moderna rapidly developed and deployed a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine that was essential to ending the COVID-19 pandemic, opening new frontiers in immunology and advancing America’s leadership in research innovation.

Pfizer Inc.

For saving millions of lives around the world by harnessing mRNA vaccine technology to combat a global pandemic. In 2020, Pfizer rapidly developed and deployed a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine that was essential to ending the COVID-19 pandemic, opening new frontiers in immunology and advancing America’s leadership in research innovation.

SOURCES

https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/2024-national-medal-technology-and-innovation-laureates-honored-white-house

National Medal of Technology and Innovation (NMTI)

https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-programs-and-awards/national-medal-technology-and-innovation-nmti

 

On January 3, 2025, President Biden honored the nation’s leading scientists, technologists, and innovators

Jennifer Doudna, professor of chemistry and molecular and cell biology, and a Nobel Laureate in chemistry, has been honored by President Biden with the National Medal of Technology and Innovation as a pioneer of CRISPR gene editing. This award is one of the nation’s highest honors for exemplary achievement and leadership in science and technology. Read the White House briefing(link is external) to read about Doudna and the other recipients of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation.

SOURCE

https://chemistry.berkeley.edu/news/doudna-receives-national-medal-technology-and-innovation

14 Laureates of the National Medal of Science, administered by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

  • Huda AkilUniversity of Michigan
  • Barry BarishCalifornia Institute of Technology
  • Gebisa EjetaPurdue University
  • Eve MarderBrandeis University
  • Gregory PetskoHarvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital
  • Myriam SarachikThe City College of New York
  • Subra SureshMassachusetts Institute of Technology and Brown University
  • Shelley TaylorUCLA
  • Sheldon WeinbaumThe City College of New York
  • Richard B. AlleyPennsylvania State University
  • Larry Martin BartelsVanderbilt University
  • Bonnie L. BasslerPrinceton University
  • Angela Marie BelcherMassachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Helen M. BlauStanford University
President Biden Awards National Medals of Science and ...

The 2024 National Medal of Science recipients made contributions in many fields, including astronomy, biology, and engineering. 

Astronomy 
  • Wendy Freedman
    University of Chicago astronomer who studied the Hubble constant and the expansion of the universe
  • Keivan Stassun
    Vanderbilt University astrophysicist who studied star formation and exoplanets
Biology
  • Teresa Woodruff

    Michigan State University professor who studied ovarian biology, fertility preservation, and women’s health 

  • Helen Blau

    Stanford University researcher who contributed to the development of gene editing techniques 

Engineering
  • Ingrid Daubechies

    Duke University mathematician who developed wavelet theory, which improved signal processing and image compression 

  • John Dabiri

    California Institute of Technology aeronautics engineer who studied fluid mechanics and biomechanics, particularly in designing wind turbines 

  • Emery Brown

    Massachusetts General Hospital professor who studied the effects of anesthesia on the brain 

The National Medal of Science is the highest science award in the United States. The NSF administers the award, which is selected by a presidential committee.
SOURCE

 

ADDENDUM

Established in 1959, the National Medal of Science is administered for the White House by the National Science Foundation. The medal recognizes individuals who have made outstanding contributions to science and engineering.

The National Medal of Technology and Innovation was established in 1980 and is administered for the White House by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Patent and Trademark Office. It recognizes individuals and organizations for their lasting contributions to America’s competitiveness and quality of life and helped strengthen the nation’s technological workforce.

Chicoric Acid: A Natural Boost for Glucose Metabolism via AMPK Activation

Reporter: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

The study published in Journal of Functional Foods explores the molecular mechanisms underlying chicoric acid’s (CA) role in glucose metabolism. Chicoric acid, a natural polyphenolic compound found in plants like chicory and basil, has garnered attention for its anti-inflammatory and antidiabetic properties. The researchers investigated its potential to regulate glucose uptake and insulin sensitivity, focusing on the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathway.

The experiments demonstrated that chicoric acid significantly enhances glucose uptake in insulin-sensitive and insulin-resistant cells. This effect was primarily mediated through the activation of AMPKα, a key metabolic regulator that responds to energy stress. The phosphorylation of AMPKα triggered downstream signaling cascades, including the activation of Akt, a protein crucial for glucose transporter type 4 (GLUT4) translocation to the cell membrane, thereby facilitating glucose uptake.

Interestingly, the study also noted that inhibiting AMPK activity reduced CA-induced Akt phosphorylation, confirming that AMPK activation is essential for chicoric acid’s metabolic effects. Furthermore, CA showed potential in improving insulin sensitivity, which is impaired in type 2 diabetes, by mitigating cellular oxidative stress and inflammation.

The findings suggest that chicoric acid could serve as a promising therapeutic candidate for managing diabetes and metabolic disorders. By targeting the AMPKα-Akt signaling axis, CA offers a dual benefit of improving glucose metabolism and reducing insulin resistance, highlighting its potential as a natural alternative for metabolic health interventions.

References

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1756464619302774

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22436748

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11742412

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12145153

SNU-BioTalk 2025: Symphony of Cellular Signals in Metabolism and Immune Response – International Conference at Sister Nivedita University, Kolkata, India on 16 & 17 January 2025

Joint Convenor: Dr. Sudipta Saha (Member of LPBI since 2012)

About the Conference:

The International Conference on ‘Symphony of Cellular Signals in Metabolism and Immune Response’ focuses on the complex signalling pathways governing cellular functions in health and disease. It will explore the cellular mechanisms that regulate metabolism, immune responses, and survival, highlighting advances in medical science and biotechnology. Bringing together leading experts and emerging researchers, the conference will feature keynote lectures, panel discussions, research presentations, and interactive sessions, all designed to foster collaboration and innovation. By promoting an exchange of ideas, the event aims to drive transformative insights and solutions that impact human health and sustainable healthcare practices.

The conference will also be livestreamed on YouTube and Facebook

This programme will also host I-STEM: Indian Science, Technology and Engineering facilities Map (I-STEM) is a dynamic and interactive national portal for research cooperation.

Thrust areas:

  • Intracellular signalling processes of cellular metabolism
  • Signalling pathways in physiological and pathological processes
  • Signalling in innate and adaptive immunity

Conference Webpage: https://www.snuniv.ac.in/snu-biotalk-2025/

NU-BioTalk 2025 Abstract Submission Form: https://forms.gle/ygdGqtuBGa7DEhDFA

SNU-BioTalk 2025 Registration Form: https://forms.gle/unasPpByLmYwrRBM6

Programme Schedule:

YouTube Links of Live Telecast:

Day 1:

Day 2:

Media:

Newspaper:

The Telegraph – Click to View

 

Abstract Book

Scan to Download:

Click: 

Abstract Book

Real Time Coverage Morning Session on Precision Oncology: Advancing Precision Medicine Annual Conference, Philadelphia PA November 2 2024

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

9:20-9:50

How Can We Close the Clinical Practice Gaps in Precision Medicine?

Susanne Munksted, Diaceutics

Studies are showing that genetic tests are being ordered at a sufficient rate however it appears there are problems in interpretation and developing treatment plans based on omics testing results

 

  • 30 % of patients in past and now currently half of all patients are not being given the proper treatment based on genomic testing results (ASCO)
  • E.g. only 1.5% with NTRK fusions received a NTRK based therapy (this was > 4000 patients receiving wrong therapy)
  • A lung oncologist may only see one patient with NTRK fusion in three years

 

Precision Medicine Practice Gaps

48% of oncologist surveyed  agreed pathologist needs to be more informed and relevant in the decision making process with regard to tests needing to be ordered

95% said need to flip cost issues ; what does it cost not to get a test … i.e. what is the cost of the wrong therapy

We need a new commercialization model for therapeutic development for this new era of “n of one” patient

9:50-10:15

Implementation of a CLIA-based Reverse Phase Protein Array Assay for Precision Oncology Applications: Proteomics and Phosphoproteomics at the Bedside (CME Eligible)

Emanuel Petricoin, George Mason University

There are some tumor markers approved by FDA that cant just be measured by NGS and are correlated with a pathologic complete response

 

  • Many point mutations will have no actionable drug
  • Many alterations are post-genomic meaning there is a post translational component to many prognostic biomarkers
  • Prevalence of point mutation with no actionable mutation is a limit of NGS
  • It is important to look at phospho protein spectrum as a potential biomarker

 

Reverse phase protein proteomic analysis

  • Made into CLIA based array
  • They trained centers around the US on the technology and analysis
  • Basing proteomics or protein markers by traditional IHC requires much antibody validation so if the mass spectrometry field can catch up it would be very powerful
  • With multiple MRM.MS there is too low abundance of phosphoproteins to allow for good detection

 

They  conducted the I-SPY2 trial for breast cancer and determining if phosphoproteins could be a good biomarker panel

  • They found they could predict a HER2 response better than NGS
  • There were patients who were predicted HER2 negative that actually had an activated HER2 signaling pathway by proteomics so NGS must have had a series of false negatives
  • HER2 co phosphorylation predicts pathologic complete response and predicts therapy by herceptin
  • They found patients classified as HER2 negative by FISH were HER2 positive by proteomics and had HER2 activation

10:15-11:10

Liquid Biopsy MRD to Escalate or De-escalate Therapy (CME Eligible)

Adrian Lee

Adrian Lee, UPMC

Marija Balic, UPMC

Howard McLeod

Howard McLeod, Utah Tech University

Muhammed, Murtaza, University of Wisconsin-Madison

 

11:15-11:25  PRODUCT PRESENTATION  204A

SpaceIQ™ – Powering Next Generation Precision Therapeutics with AI-Driven Spatial Biomarkers

Dusty Majumdar, PredxBio 

Single Cell and Spatial Omics

 

  • Single cell transcriptomics technology have been scaled up very nicely over the past ten years
  • Spatial informatics field is lacking in innovations
  • Can get a terabyte worth of data from analysis of one slide

11:25-11:35  PRODUCT PRESENTATION  204C

10x Genomics

11:40-12:35

Transcriptomics and AI in Transforming Precision Diagnosis

Maher Albitar, Genomic Testing Cooperative

Transciptomica and AI:Transforming Precision diagnosis

-The Genomics Testing Coopererative at www.genomictestingcooperative.com

 

Advantages of transcriptomics

– mutation frequency and allele variant detection now at 80% (higher sensitivity in mutation detection)

 

– transcriptomics has good detection of chromosomal translocations

– great surrogate for IHC and detect splicing alterations

– can use AI to predict % of PDL1 in tumor cells versus immune cells

– they have developed a software UMAP (uniform manifold approximation and projection) to supervise cluster analysis

– the group has used AI to predict prognosis and survival using transcriptomics data

Marija Balic, UPMC

Andrew Pecora, Hackensack University Medical Center 

12:35-1:00

The Impact of Multi-Omics in the Context of the APOLLO-2 Moonshot Program (CME Eligible)

 

 

Coverage Afternoon Session on Precision Oncology: Advancing Precision Medicine Annual Conference, Philadelphia PA November 1 2024

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Unlocking the Next Quantum Leap in Precision Medicine – A Town Hall Discussion (CME Eligible)

Co-Chairs

Amanda Paulovich, Professor, Aven Foundation Endowed Chair
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

Susan Monarezm Deputy Director ARPA-H

Henry Rodriguez, NCI/NIH

Eric Schadt, Pathos

Ezra Cohen, Tempus

Jennifer Leib, Innovation Policy Solutions

Nick Seddon, Optum Genomics

Giselle Sholler, Penn State Hershey Children’s Hospital

Janet Woodcock, formerly FDA

Amanda Paulovich: Frustrated by the variability in cancer therapy results.  Decided to help improve cancer diagnostics

  •  We have plateaued on relying on single gene single protein companion diagnostics
  • She considers that regulatory, economic, and cultural factors are hindering the innovation and resulting in the science way ahead of the clinical aspect of diagnostics
  • Diagnostic research is not as well funded as drug discovery
  • Biomarkers, the foundation for the new personalized medicine, should be at forefront Read the Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell
  • FDA is constrained by statutory mandates 

 

Eric Schadt

Pathos

 

  • Multiple companies trying to chase different components of precision medicine strategy including all the one involved in AI
  • He is helping companies creating those mindmaps, knowledge graphs, and create more predictive systems
  • Population screening into population groups will be using high dimensional genomic data to determine risk in various population groups however 60% of genomic data has no reported ancestry
  • He founded Sema4 but many of these companies are losing $$ on these genomic diagnostics
  • So the market is not monetizing properly
  • Barriers to progress: arbitrary evidence thresholds for payers, big variation across health care system, regulatory framework

 

Beat Childhood Cancer Consortium Giselle

 

  • Consortium of university doctors in pediatrics
  • They had a molecular tumor board to look at the omics data
  • Showed example of choroid plexus tumor success with multi precision meds vs std chemo
  • Challenges: understanding differences in genomics test (WES, NGS, transcriptome etc.
  • Precision medicine needs to be incorporated in med education.. Fellowships.. Residency
  • She spends hours with the insurance companies providing more and more evidence to justify reimbursements
  • She says getting that evidence is a challenged;  biomedical information needs to be better CURATED

 

Dr. Ezra Cohen, Tempest

 

  • HPV head and neck cancer, good prognosis, can use cituximab and radiation
  • $2 billion investment at Templest of AI driven algorithm to integrate all omics; used LLM models too

Dr. Janet Woodcock

 

  • Our theoretical problem with precision and personalized medicine is that we are trained to think of the average patient
  • ISPAT II trial a baysian trial; COVID was a platform trial
  • She said there should there be NIH sponsored trials on adaptive biomarker platform trials

This event will be covered by the LPBI Group on Twitter.  Follow on

@Pharma_BI

@StephenJWillia2

@Aviva1950

@AdvancingPM

using the following meeting hashtags

#AdvancingPM #precisionmedicine

Real Time Coverage Morning Session on Precision Oncology: Advancing Precision Medicine Annual Conference, Philadelphia PA November 1 2024

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Notes from Precision Medicine for Rare Diseases 9:00AM – 10:50

Precision Medicine and markers Cure models vs disease models  Dr Ekker from UT MD Anderson

 

  • UT MD Anderson zebrafish disease model program now focusing more on figuring the mechanisms by which a disease model is reverted to normal upon CRISPR screens
  • Traditional drug development process long and expensive
  • 2nd in class only takes 4 years while 3rd in class drugs take only 1.5 years
  • Health-in-a-fish: using a CRE system to go from disease to normal
  • The theory is making a CRE or CURE avatar; taking a diseased zebrafish and reverse engineering the disease genome
  • He used transposon based CRE mutational mutants with protein trap and 3’ exon trap (transposon based mutagenesis)
  • He reverted the diseased gene by CRE
  • He feels that can scale up to using organoids to develop more cure based models

 

FDA Christine Nguyen MD regulatory perspective of framework of drug approval for rare diseases

  • 1 in 10 Amercians have rare diseases; 70% genetic and half are children
  • Due to Orphan Drug Act in 2023 half of novel drugs approved for rare diseases
  • CDER and FDA 550 unique drugs for over 1000 rare diseases
  • Clinical and surrogate validated endpoints are important for traditional approvals
  • For accelerated approval need predictive surrogate endpoint of clinical benefit
  • For accelerated approval needs completion of a confirmatory trials so FDA has new authority under FDORA; FDA can dictate trial milestones
  • Candidate surrogate endpoints: known to predict (validated) for traditional approval but reasonably likely to predict for accelerated approval
  • Does surrogate endpoint associated with a causal pathway?  Also important to understand the magnitude of benefit so surrogate should be quantitative not just qualitative
  • RDEA is a series of 3 public workshops at FY2027 to promote innovation and novel endpoints and guidance

 

Frank Sasinowski FDA regulatory flexibility beyond One Positive Adequate and Well Controlled Trial

  •  As we move to rare diseases we may only have one well controlled study so FDA feels we need new regulatory frameworks and guidelines especially for rare disease clinical trails especially with precision medicine
  • Accelerated approval does not mean your evidence is any less stringent that traditional approval (only difference is endpoint but quality of evidence the same)

 

  • Confirmatory evidence is a primary concern
  • In 2021 FDA coordinated with the two divisions CBER and CDER
  • Sometimes a primary endpoint shows positive benefit but secondary endpoints may not; FDA now feels that results from one well designed AWC gives confirmatory evidence
  • FDA can be flexible by taking in consideration the quantity and quality of confirmatory evidence and the totality of evidence
  • So pharmacology studies, natural history etc.  can be enough
  • For a drug like Lamzede for mannosidosis there were no positive endpoint studies or for ADA SCID disease there was other compelling evidence
  • The FDA does have flexibility when it comes to advanced precision medicines and ultr rare diseases

10:50 Do we Really Need Liquid Biopsy? A Panel Discussion on the Issues Hampering the full Adoption of Liquid Biopsy

  • In Mexico leading cancer is colorectal but only have the FIT test and noone except one organization who issupplying health access
  • Access to precision medicine is a concern:  the communication between the patient, who is pushing this more than healthcare, needs to be coordinated better with all stakeholders in care
  • We also need to educate many physicians even oncologists (like in Virginia) a better understanding of genetics and omics
  • FT3 consortium does testing to therapy (multistakeholder group comprised of patient advocacy groups); focus on amplifying global efforts to increase access; they are trying to make a roadmap to help access in other countries; when it comes to precision medicine it is usually the nurses that are aksing for training because they are usually the first responders for the patient’s questions
  • In rural areas just getting access to liquid biopsy is a concern and maybe satellite sites might be useful because the time to schedule is getting worse (like 3 or more months)
  •  A recent paper showed that liquid biopsy may actually perpetuate health disparities and not ameliorate them
  • BloodPAC: there are barriers to LB access and adoption so consortium felt that there were many areas that need to be addressed: financial, access, disparities, education
  • ctDNA to define variants was the past focus; there is growing realization that there are representatives populations in your R&D studies
  • Submission of data to BloodPac is easier to do for tissue not for liquid biopsy;  there is lack of harmonization across many of these databanks
  • Reimbursement: is a barrier to access for liquid biopsy
  • Illumina: challenge finding clinical utility for payers; FDA approval is not as hard; show improved outcomes for patients; Medicare is starting to approve some tests but the criteria bar keeps changing with payers; 
  • How do we leverage the on-market data to support performance of your diagnostic test or genomic panel

 

This event will be covered by the LPBI Group on Twitter.  Follow on

@Pharma_BI

@StephenJWillia2

@Aviva1950

@AdvancingPM

using the following meeting hashtags

#AdvancingPM #precisionmedicine

Real Time Coverage Advancing Precision Medicine Annual Conference, Philadelphia PA November 1,2 2024

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Source: https://www.advancingprecisionmedicine.com/apm-annual-conference-and-exhibition-in-philadelphia/ 

This event will be covered by the LPBI Group on Twitter.  Follow on

@Pharma_BI

@StephenJWillia2

@Aviva1950

@AdvancingPM

using the following meeting hashtags

#AdvancingPM #precisionmedicine

The Advancing Precision Medicine (APM) Annual Conference 2024 will take place at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia,  November 1-2, 2024. Located in the heart of the biopharma ecosystem and with easy access to some of the most renowned academic and research institutions in the world, the APM Annual Conference 2024 will attract all segments of the precision medicine landscape.

The event will consist of two parallel tracks composed of keynote addresses, panel discussions and fireside chats which will encourage audience participation. Over the course of the two-day event leaders from industry, healthcare, regulatory bodies, academia and other pertinent stakeholders will share an intriguing and broad scope of content.

his event will consist of three immersive tracks, each crafted to explore the multifaceted dimensions of precision medicine. Delve into Precision Oncology, where groundbreaking advancements are reshaping the landscape of cancer diagnosis and treatment. Traverse the boundaries of Precision Medicine Outside of Oncology, as we probe into the intricate interplay of genetics, lifestyle, and environment across a spectrum of diseases and conditions including rare disease, cardiology, ophthalmology, and neurodegenerative disease. Immerse yourself in AI for Precision Medicine, where cutting-edge technologies are revolutionizing diagnostics, therapeutics, and patient care. Additionally, explore the emerging frontiers of Spatial Biology and Mult-Omics, where integrated approaches are unraveling the complexities of biological systems with unprecedented depth and precision.

Whether you are a seasoned researcher, a dedicated clinician, or a visionary industry professional, this conference serves as a vibrant hub of knowledge exchange, collaboration, and innovation. Elevate your expertise, expand your network, and chart the course of your career trajectory amidst a community of like-minded individuals.  Join us as we embark on this transformative journey, where the possibilities are as limitless as the potential of precision medicine itself.

Agenda – What’s on when

7:30 – 8:25

Registration and Check-in          Meeting Room 203          Philadelphia Convention Center

8:25 – 8:30

Welcome and Introduction

8:30 – 9:00

Opening Keynote

Advancing Precision Medicine in the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiometabolic Disease (CME Eligible)

Daniel Rader

Daniel Rader, Penn Medicine and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

9:00 – 10:20

9:00-10:20

Diagnosis to Treatment – A Case Study in Non Small Cell Lung Cancer

Jason Crites

Moderator: Jason Crites, Assurance Health Data

Miriam Bredella, NYU Lagone Health

Robert Dumanois

Rob Dumanois, Thermo Fisher Scientific

Joe Lennerz

Joe Lennerz, BostonGene

10:20 – 10:50

Networking, Exhibits and Product Presentations

10:25-10:35  PRODUCT PRESENTATION  204C

The Genexus Integrated Sequencer System:
NGS Results in 24 hours for Oncology Genomic Profiling

Jeff Smith,  Thermo Fisher Scientific

10:35-10:45  PRODUCT PRESENTATION  204A

Shifting the Paradigm in Patient Management with MRD Testing: Why Evidence-Generated Performance and Experience is Key

Karen Lin, Natera

10:50 – 12:50

10:50-11:50

Who Needs Liquid Biopsy? Opportunities to Increase Access and Improve Outcomes

Nicole St. Jean, GSK

Phil Febbo,  Veracyte, Inc.

Andrea Ferreira-Gonzalez, Virginia Commonwealth University

Lauren Leiman, BloodPAC

Nicole Sheahan, Global Colon Cancer Association

11:50-12:50

Advancing Digital Pathology and Precision Medicine – Where Are We Now?

Shruti Mathur, Genentech

Luke Benko, Roche Diagnostics

Kimberly GasuadJK Life Sciences

Eric Walk, PathAI

10:50-11:10

Real World Data vs Multi Modal Omics Data for Therapeutic Discovery (CME Eligible)

Adam Resnick, CHOP

11:10-11:30

An Academic Perspective on Rare Disease Target Discovery to Commercial Treatment Development (CME Eligible)

Hakon Hakonarson

Hakon Hakonarson, CHOP

11:30-11:50

NCATS Perspective on Success and Failures of Drug Repurposing for Rare Disease (CME Eligible)

PJ Brooks, NIH

11:50-12:10

Pharma Perspective and Realities (CME Eligible)

Sundeep Dugar, Rarefy Therapeutics

12:10-12:50

A Panel Discussion: Scaling Precision Therapeutic Development for Rare Disease (CME Eligible)

Marni Falk

Marni Falk, CHOP

Stephen Ekker, University of Texas at Austin

Christine Nguyen, FDA

Frank Sasinowski, Hyman, Phelps & McNamara

Adam Resnick, CHOP

Hakon Hakonarson

Hakon Hakonarson, CHOP

Sundeep Dugar, Rarefy Therapeutics

PJ Brooks, NIH

12:50 – 1:50

Lunch & Product Presentations

1:10-1:25  PRODUCT PRESENTATION  204C

The Power of ctDNA Testing in Therapy Selection and Recurrence Monitoring

Taylor Jensen,  LabCorp

1:50 – 3:50

1:50-3:50

Unlocking the Next Quantum Leap in Precision Medicine – A Town Hall Discussion (CME Eligible)

Co-Chairs

Amanda Paulovich

Amanda Paulovich, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center

Henry Rodriguez

Henry Rodriguez, NCI/NIH

Eric Schadt

Eric Schadt, Pathos

Participants

Ezra Cohen, Tempus

Jennifer Leib, Innovation Policy Solutions

Susan Monarez, ARPA-H

Nick Seddon, Optum Genomics 

Giselle Sholler, Penn State Hershey Children’s Hospital

Janet Woodcock

Janet Woodcock, Former FDA

1:50-2:50

Advancing Precision Medicine in Non-Oncology Therapeutic Areas

Moderator: Mike Montalto, Amgen

Scott Friedman, Mt. Sinai

Sana Syed, University of Virginia

Lei Zhao, Amgen

2:50-3:20

Towards a Precision Neuroimmunology Platform (CME Eligible)

Amit Bar-Or, Penn Medicine

3:20-3:50

3:50 – 4:20

Networking and Exhibits

4:20 – 6:15

4:20-4:45

Advancing Precision Medicine: Polygenic Risk Scores and Beyond (CME Eligible)

Dokyoon Kim, Penn Medicine

4:45-5:30

The Rocky Road to Clinical Trial Diversity (CME Eligible)

Ysabel Duron, The Latino Cancer Institute

Porscha Johnson, PJW Clinical Pharmacy Consulting

Victor LaGroon, Department of Veterans Affairs

5:30-6:15

In the Rising Age of Women’s Health, How Do We Build Diagnostics to Last?

Oriana Papin Zoghbi, AOADx

Sarah Huah, Johnson & Johnson

6:30 – 7:00

Evening Keynote

Reimagining Health Equity in the Era of Precision Medicine (CME Eligible)

Rick Kittles

Rick Kittles, Morehouse School of Medicine

7:00 – 7:45

Cocktail Networking Reception 

November 02, 2024

8:00-8:55

Registration and Check-in          Meeting Room 203          Philadelphia Convention Center