Healthcare analytics, AI solutions for biological big data, providing an AI platform for the biotech, life sciences, medical and pharmaceutical industries, as well as for related technological approaches, i.e., curation and text analysis with machine learning and other activities related to AI applications to these industries.
Employment Trends in Biomedical – NIH Visualization Tool of Job Segmentation for Life Scientists
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Led by Tammy Collins, Ph.D., director of the NIEHS Office of Fellows’ Career Development, team members collected detailed career outcomes for more than 900 NIEHS postdoctoral fellows over the past 15 years. Postdoctoral fellows, or postdocs, are scientists who have received their doctoral degrees and are participating in a program that offers additional training.
Lead author and NIEHS computer scientist Hong Xu analyzed the data using the R Project for Statistical Computing, a free online program that displays data using graphs and charts. Shyamal Peddada, Ph.D., former NIEHS head of the Biostatistics and Computational Biology Branch, served as key advisor. The study appeared online in the journal Nature Biotechnology, and is the first standardized method for categorizing career outcomes of NIEHS postdocs.
NIEHS supports research to understand the effects of the environment on human health and is part of NIH. For more information on environmental health topics, visit www.niehs.nih.gov. Subscribe to one or more of the NIEHS news lists to stay current on NIEHS news, press releases, grant opportunities, training, events, and publications.
“We remain completely convinced of the high value of the Hypertension Guideline for the long-term heart and brain health of the American public and have found nothing that would dispute the motives or actions of our distinguished volunteer authors. We have, however, noted areas where our processes could be improved and have modified them.”
Based on the Open Payments database, Romano had initially alleged that Kim Williams Sr., MD, of Rush University and past president of the ACC, who was on the guideline writing committee, “received $19,594 in 2015 and $20,000 in 2016 in grant funding from Boston Scientific. Boston Scientific sells a device called the Vessix renal denervation system to treat hypertension. He disclosed no relationship with Boston Scientific.”
Last year, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology and many other cardiology organizations announced that the threshold for identifying hypertension had been officially lowered. The threshold for diagnosing and treating hypertension was now 130/80.
The document relies in part on the findings of the SPRINT trial, but no one really understands the blood pressures in that study. Strangely, the document applies its recommendations to people who were not even represented in the SPRINT trial. For example, it applies its recommendations to those with heart failure, even though there is no scientific basis for doing so.
Nevertheless, suddenly, 46% of Americans had hypertension. On the previous morning, 32% had the disease. Within 24 hours, millions of people were given a new label.
Furthermore, millions of people who thought they had well-controlled blood pressure (because it was below 140/90) now learned that they needed to do more to bring their blood pressures down.
In December, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) said they were not endorsing the new hypertension guideline.
American College of Physicians which proposed a target systolic blood pressure of 150 for people who were 60 years or older. Earlier this week, the ACP doubled down, issuing a statement criticizing the lower threshold.
The Fake Hypertension War – Medical politics and mud fights
Packer recently consulted for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiorentis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Novo Nordisk, Relypsa, Sanofi, Takeda, and ZS Pharma. He chairs the EMPEROR Executive Committee for trials of empagliflozin for the treatment of heart failure. He was previously the co-PI of the PARADIGM-HF trial and serves on the Steering Committee of the PARAGON-HF trial, but has no financial relationship with Novartis.
Developments in CRISPR Patent Dispute: EPO Revokes Broad’s CRISPR Patent, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 2: CRISPR for Gene Editing and DNA Repair
Developments in CRISPR Patent Dispute: EPO Revokes Broad’s CRISPR Patent
Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
UPDATED on 1/17/2020
On Thursday, [1/16/2020] the EPO appeals board indicated that it planned to refer the issue to an Enlarged Board of Appeals to decide three questions: whether a European patent application can be refused if it claims the same subject matter as a European patent which was granted to the same applicant and does not form part of the state of the art pursuant to relevant articles of European law; what the conditions for such a refusal could be, and how those conditions should be applied depending on certain filing details in the patent in question; and whether an applicant has a legitimate interest in the grant of a patent on the subsequent European patent application in view of the fact that the filing date and not the priority date is the relevant date for calculating the term of the European patent.
A day later, however, the appeals board reversed its decision to send the case to the enlarged board, and made the decision itself, ruling that the initial revocation of the patent for lack of novelty “in view of immediate prior art” was correct.
“This prior art became relevant because the opposition division did not acknowledge the patentee’s claim to priority from a US provisional application naming more applicants than the subsequent PCT application from which EP 2771468 is derived,” the appeals board wrote in its brief decision. “Since the omitted applicant had not transferred his rights to the applicants of the PCT application the priority claim was considered invalid.”
In a statement, the Broad once again noted that the EPO’s decision doesn’t involve the actual scientific merits of the patent application, but concerns the interpretation of rules that dictate what happens when the names of inventors differ across international applications. The institute noted that up to nine of its 21 CRISPR-Cas9 patents in Europe could be affected by the decision if the EPO doesn’t “harmonize” these requirements, but added that the majority of its patents in Europe will not be affected.
“These include the fundamental claims in EP 2825654B1, as well as others covering certain key therapeutic indications — including for previously untreatable diseases,” the institute said. “In addition, Broad has numerous other CRISPR-Cas9 patent applications pending in Europe that are not affected by this formalities issue, as well as granted and pending patents related to CRISPR-Cas12/Cpf1, which are not affected.”
In a statement on the decision, ERS Genomics CEO Eric Rhodes said the company is “pleased” to see the appeals board’s confirmation of the earlier revocation, adding, “To have the issue resolved finally provides some measure of clarity to those companies interested in using and commercializing CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Today’s ruling significantly reduces Broad’s CRISPR-Cas9 patent footprint in Europe and should make licensing decisions much easier for those looking to utilize CRISPR-Cas9 technology in Europe.”
Rhodes also noted to GenomeWeb that the Broad’s call for the parties to put litigation aside and make their technology widely available is an admirable goal, but also a complicated one.
ERS was founded to provide access to CRISPR-Cas9 intellectual property held by Emmanuelle Charpentier. This CRISPR IP is shared between her, Jennifer Doudna and the University of California, and the University of Vienna, and is separate from genome editing patents held by the Broad.
Rhodes noted that the company does make its own CRISPR IP widely available through licensing and other avenues, and although it would be better to have the IP held by the Broad and ERS available through only one source, “it’s a complicated situation.” Both sides involve multiple institutions and companies, making anything involving the pooling of patents a “complex logistical issue,” Rhodes added. There’s a willingness on both sides, but making it happen will be difficult.
Dublin-based ERS Genomics was founded to provide access to CRISPR–Cas9 intellectual property held by Emmanuelle Charpentier. This CRISPR IP is shared between her, Jennifer Doudna and the University of California, and the University of Vienna, and is separate from genome editing patents held by the Broad Institute.4 days ago
ERS Genomics Licenses CRISPR-Cas9 IP to Daiichi Sankyo …
4 days ago – Dublin-based ERS Genomics was founded to provide access to CRISPR–Cas9 intellectual property held by Emmanuelle Charpentier. This CRISPR IP is shared between her, Jennifer Doudna and the University of California, and the University of Vienna, and is separate from genome editing patents held by the Broad Institute.
ERS Genomics was formed to provide broad access to the foundational CRISPR–Cas9 intellectual property held by co-inventor and co-owner Dr. Emmanuelle …
ERS Genomics Licenses CRISPR Gene Editing Technology to …
5 days ago – DUBLIN–(BUSINESS WIRE)–ERS Genomics Limited, which was formed to provide broad access to the foundational CRISPR/Cas9 intellectual property co-owned by Dr. Emmanuelle Charpentier, today announced the signing of a license agreement with Daiichi Sankyo, a global pharmaceutical …
ERS Genomics Announces Agreement With New England …
CRISPR/Cas9 is a revolutionary technology that allows for precise, directed changes … ERS Genomics was formed to provide broad access to the foundational …
ERS Genomics | LinkedIn
Mixed views on Broad’s fate after EPO revokes CRISPR patent
The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard University is at risk of losing its dominant position over the intellectual property covering CRISPR gene-editing technology in Europe, after the European Patent Office (EPO) ruled today (January 17, 2018) that a foundational patent is revoked because the Broad did not meet EPO requirements to establish that its researchers were the first to use CRISPR in eukaryotes.
In addition to the highly publicized patent dispute between the Broad and the University of California over the rights to CRISPR gene editing in the U.S., the Broad has been fighting to maintain a number of patents over the technology in Europe. The issue revolves around a disagreement between the Broad and Rockefeller University over who should be named as inventors. The majority of patent applications filed by the Broad in Europe failed to name Rockefeller University itself, as well as Rockefeller researcher Luciano Marraffini, both of which were named on several of the documents filed to establish a priority date for the patent as early as December 2012. Changing the listed inventors goes against the EPO’s formal requirements for priority, leading the agency to rule this morning that the priority documents with the full list of inventors did not count toward establishing priority of the more-limited European filings.
“If you’ve got more than one person on a priority document, they are a singular legal unity,” explains Catherine Coombes, a senior patent attorney with HGF Limited in the U.K. “If you’re going to drop numbers . . . you need to transfer priority from everybody on the first.” Given the ongoing arbitration between the Broad and Rockefeller, it’s not surprising that the Broad did not procure this transfer, she adds.
Today’s decision is the first opposition heard in Europe, but at least 10 other Broad patents have been challenged, many of which have the same issue of leaving out certain inventors from those listed on the documents filed to establish priority. The EPO had put those other proceedings on hold while it looked into this first patent, Coombes says, but now it can apply its ruling to the other cases. “What we will expect to see over the next year or so is a number of the other Broad’s patents in Europe either being completely revoked or being severely limited in Europe.”
The Broad has announced that it will be appealing the EPO’s decision, but “I personally think it’s unlikely that we’ll see a change in direction,” Coombes says. She adds, however, that the institution does have one patent application that does name Rockefeller and Marraffini. “What I would suspect their patent attorneys would be doing is looking over the patent that doesn’t have this [priority] issue and trying to get more claims in that one.”
The Rockefeller University and Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard announce update to CRISPR-Cas9 portfolio filed by Broad
An update regarding inventorship and ownership of certain Broad filings relating to the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotic cells
New York, NY, and Cambridge, Mass., January 15th, 2018
— The Rockefeller University and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard have settled their disagreement regarding inventorship and ownership of certain Broad filings relating to the use of the CRISPR-Cas9 system in eukaryotic cells. Rockefeller believed that its faculty member Dr. Luciano Marraffini, co-author with Broad’s Dr. Feng Zhang, on a seminal paper published in Science in 2013, Multiplex Genome Engineering Using CRISPR/Cas Systems, should have been maintained in these Broad eukaryote filings.
It’s possible the Rockefeller dispute may work its way in to the interference proceedings involving the Broad and UC Berkeley. Earlier this summer, the patent examiner on the Rockefeller’s application gave an initial rejection to some of the claims because they overlap with UC Berkeley’s patent application. Sherkow said it’s possible the examiner’s decision could be used as evidence to persuade the patent judges that Berkeley was first to develop CRISPR as a gene-editing tool.
SEE
Gene Editing Consortium of Biotech Companies: CRISPR Therapeutics $CRSP, Intellia Therapeutics $NTLA, Caribou Biosciences, ERS Genomics, UC, Berkeley (Doudna’s IP) and University of Vienna (Charpentier’s IP), is appealing the decisionruled that there was no interference between the two sides, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, targeting patents from The Broad Institute.
Other potential casualties of the Rockefeller dispute are some of the Broad’s patents overseas, as Catherine Coombs describes today (August 31) in an opinion article. In a nutshell, patents abroad may be compromised if the applicants on US patents are not the same as those listed on corresponding international patents, Coombs explains.
Rockefeller, Marraffini, and Zhang all declined to comment on the ongoing dispute. The Broad offered a statement acknowledging that Rockefeller has been an important collaborator on CRISPR, and that the institutions share a couple of patent applications related to the tool’s application in prokaryotic cells. “Rockefeller has raised the question of whether its interests are more general,” the statement reads. “We appreciate that Rockefeller has raised this question and expect it will be resolved amicably between our institutions. This resolution will likely take some time.”
The disagreement between Rockefeller and the Broad concerns just one of hundreds of CRISPR-related patent families, noted Corinne Le Buhan, the CEO of IPStudies, a Switzerland-based firm that tracks CRISPR patents. Le Buhan said it’s likely more patent fights will arise. “There are lots of very close patents signed by different inventors,” she told The Scientist. “Based on what we’ve seen on the technology side we can anticipate there will be more disputes.”
Implants are gradually being used to treat various bone defects. A key factor for long term success of implants is the proper selection of the implant biomaterial. The biologic environment does not accept completely any material so to optimize biologic performance, implants should be selected to reduce the negative biologic response while maintaining adequate function. The implanted structure must if possible stimulate new bone formation, integrate with existing tissue and lastly be resorbed by the body to enable healthy bone growth.
The EU-funded MGNIM project which tailored biodegradable magnesium implant materials focused on producing aluminum- free Mg-based material suitable for bone applications. MAGNIM produced over 20 different Mg alloys and evaluated their mechanical and structural properties. In addition, they assessed their biological interaction, more specifically their corrosion-behavior. Out of these, two of the new alloys (Mg-2Ag and Mg-10Gd) were nominated for animal trials as pilot results indicated an anti-inflammatory function of degradation products.
The two new alloys, Mg-2Ag and Mg-10Gd as well as Mg alloy WE43 were tested in-vivo for biodegradability and functionality. Screws made of these materials were inserted into the femur of rats and their degradation was monitored. Imaging and histological data from explants revealed new bone formation in the screw implant site.
Even though the project has ended, additional testing in large animal models will be carried out prior to human clinical trials. MAGNIM partners propose to optimize implant material homogeneity and surface properties.
Two research groups from Harvard Medical School based at Dana Faber Cancer Institute have discovered a genetic mechanism in a cancer cells that influence whether they respond or resist to immunotherapy drugs, otherwise called as checkpoint inhibitors. The results are published in Science as part of two articles. One article is focused on clinical trial patients with advanced kidney cancer treated with checkpoint inhibitors comes from Eliezer van Allen’s group at Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Toni Choueiri group at Lank Center for Genitourinary Oncology at Dana Farber. The second articles is focused on identifying the immunotherapy resistance mechanism in melanoma cells comes from Kai Wucherpfennig at Dana-Farber and Shirley Liu at Dana -Farber. The two groups joined on that the resistance to immune checkpoint blockade is critically controlled by changes in a group of proteins that regulate how DNA is packaged in cells. The assortment of proteins, called a chromatin remodeling complex, is known as SWI/SNF. Its components are encoded by different genes, among them ARID2, PBRM1 and BRD7. SWI/SNF’s job is to open up stretches of tightly wound DNA so that its blueprints can be read by the cell to activate certain genes to make proteins.
Scientists led by Van Allen and Choueiri wanted a clarification for why some patients with a form of metastatic kidney cancer, clear cell renal carcinoma (ccRCC) gain clinical benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors that block the PD-1 checkpoint while others patients don’t. The researchers use whole exome DNA sequencing to analyze tumor samples from 35 patients treated in a clinical trial with Opdivo, a checkpoint blocker nivolumab to search for other characteristics of ccRCC tumors that influence immunotherapy response and/or resistance. The scientist discovered that patients from the trial benefited from the immunotherapy treatment with longer survival and progression free survival were those whose tumors lacked a functioning PRBM1 gene. Loss of PRBM1 gene function caused cancer cells to have increased expression of other genes including those in the gene pathway known as IL6/JAK-STAT3, which is involved in immune system stimulation.
When the PBRM1 gene was knocked out in experiments, the melanoma cells became more sensitive to interferon gamma produced by T cells and, in response, produced signaling molecules that recruited more tumor-fighting T cells into the tumor. The two other genes in the PBAF complex—ARID2 and BRD7—are also found mutated in some cancers, according to the researchers, and those cancers, like the melanoma lacking ARID2 function, may also respond better to checkpoint blockade. According to the researchers, finding ways to alter those target molecules “will be important to extend the benefit of immunotherapy to larger patient populations, including cancers that thus far are refractory to immunotherapy.”
A gene crucial for learning, called Arc can send genetic material from one neuron to another by using viruses was discovered by two independent team of scientist from University of Massachusetts Medical School and University of Utah which was published in Cell. According to Dr. Edmund Talley, a program director at National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke “this work is a great example of the importance of basic neuroscience research”.
Arc plays an important role in the brain’s ability to store new information, however little is known of how it works. According to the University of Utah scientists, research into the examination of the Arc gene began by introducing it into bacterial cells. When the cells made the Arc protein, it clumped together into a form that resembled a viral capsid, the shell that contains a virus’ genetic information. The Arc “capsids” appeared to mirror viral capsids in their physical structure in addition as their behavior and other properties.
At the same time, University of Massachusetts scientist led by Vivian Budnik, Ph. D and Travis Thomson, Ph.D. set out to scrutinize the contents of tiny sacks released by cells called extracellular vesicles. Their experiments in fruit flies revealed that motor neurons that control the flies’ muscles release vesicles containing a high concentration of the Arcgene’s messenger RNA (mRNA), the DNA-like intermediary molecule cells use to create the protein encoded by a DNA sequence.
Both groups similarly found evidence that Arc capsids contain Arc mRNA and that the capsids are released from neurons inside those vesicles. Also, both groups suggest that Arc capsids act like viruses by delivering mRNA to nearby cells. Furthermore, Dr. Shepherd’s team presented that the more active neurons are, the more of those vesicles they release. Dr. Shepherd’s group grew mouse neurons lacking the Arc gene in petri dishes filled with Arc-containing vesicles or Arc capsids alone. They revealed that the formerly Arc-less neurons took in the vesicles and capsids and used the Arc mRNA contained within to produce the Arc protein themselves. Finally, just like neurons that naturally manufacture the Arc protein, those cells made more of it when their electrical activity increased.
Both groups of scientists plan to examine why cells use this virus-like strategy to shuttle Arc mRNA between cells and which might allow the toxic proteins responsible for Alzheimer’s disease to spread through the brain.
3.1.5 2018 Annual World Medical Innovation Forum Artificial Intelligence April 23–25, 2018 Boston, Massachusetts | Westin Copley Place https://worldmedicalinnovation.org/, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 2: CRISPR for Gene Editing and DNA Repair
Early career Harvard Medical School investigators kick-off the 2018 World Medical Innovation Forum with rapid fire presentations of their high potential new technologies. Nineteen rising stars from Brigham Health and Massachusetts General Hospital will give ten-minute presentations highlighting their discoveries and insights that will disrupt the field of artificial intelligence. This session is designed for investors, leaders, donors, entrepreneurs and investigators and others who share a passion for identifying emerging high-impact technologies. To view speakers and topics, click here.
Senior clinical leaders, current and past Forum Chairs, will share perspectives on the range of impact of AI on clinical practice. Discussion will highlight the rapid evolution of AI as a practical clinical tool and short and mid-term prospects for adoption in cancer, cardiovascular and neurological care.
Vice Chair for Scientific Innovation, Department of Medicine, BWH; Chief Executive, One Brave Idea, BWH; Associate Professor of Medicine, HMS; 2017 Forum Co-Chair
Given the scarcity of late-stage assets, prolonged timelines and enormous costs of bringing drugs to market, AI-based approaches to target discovery, drug design and drug repurposing hold significant promise to positively disrupt the existing R&D paradigm.
The first wave of EHR adoption has focused primarily on digitizing the patient record – with a more recent focus on building interactive clinical decision support capabilities. Development and implementation of CDS applications currently requires clinical staff to observe trends in data, develop protocols to act on these trends and work with technical staff to codify the logic into executable form. As NLP and computer vision capabilities become more advanced, algorithms will identify and propose actions reflecting patterns in the data. The panel will discuss existing challenges and whether AI technology will ultimately support an unsupervised learning approach in the EHR to identify trends and possible responses at both the patient and population level?
AI based approaches to conduct faster and more efficient clinical trials are beginning to emerge. Current approaches include applying predictive tools to perform more targeted patient recruitment and more accurate eligibility assessment. Panelists will discuss timelines for AI technology to have a measurable effect on trial cost and time to conduct the trial. Bottlenecks to applying this technology at scale and whether there will be a measurable effect on the cost of bringing drugs to market over the next decade will also be examined.
Historical barriers have driven increased medical costs and decreasing access since the 1960s. The “Iron Triangle of Healthcare” continues to represent a tenuous balance of quality, cost and accessibility – economists have lamented attempts to optimize one characteristic at the expense of the others. The accumulation of innovations in care delivery (e.g. shift to lower cost providers and settings), population management, value based reimbursement and hospital administration are having a measurable effect. Can AI based technologies accelerate the pace of innovation and finally bend the cost and access curves in the US?
The drug development process is highly complex and has many drivers. The panel will discuss the strategic impact of AI on the entire process and the implications for healthcare overall. How will the combination of factors – research strategy, drug development, regulatory approvals, reimbursement and clinical effectiveness – be influenced by the implementation of AI. Panelists will discuss short and mid-term prospects and whether AI will ultimately lead to a restructuring of the pharma model to develop new therapies.
The promise of machine learning and big data in in healthcare seems boundless – but healthcare data is massive and complex, and organizing and managing this data is the first step to an AI-empowered healthcare system. Technology giants are investing in solutions to overcome these data engineering challenges, but with many visions of the future of healthcare data jockeying for dominance, what will the future of healthcare data really look like? Can we finally liberate the value of data for patient care? And how will it happen?
Gene sequencing technology has evolved considerably over the last 10 years, dramatically decreasing the cost to sequence a human genome. As the costs associated with the technical assay continue to decrease, data interpretation and reporting has become the new bottleneck. Can AI and ML based approaches be applied to better understand how genetic mutations play a role in diseases like cancer – where the high rate of mutation makes treatment challenging? And will continued democratization of genetic information help to accelerate the pace of innovation in the field?
Director, Bioinformatics Program, Cancer Center and Department of Pathology, MGH; Director, Institute Member, Broad Institute; Associate Professor of Pathology, HMS
Fueled by billions in venture investments, hundreds of new companies have emerged worldwide to develop and apply AI in health care. Beyond the US, China’s high AI priority has resulted in a vast array of technology driven start-ups. Global investors will discuss which area of machine learning will have the earliest meaningful impact? How do investors critically assess differentiation in such a crowded field? How are investment priorities set among the many divergent categories where AI will take hold?
Chief executives share perspectives on the impact of AI on their respective companies and industry segments. How prominently does AI figure into current investment strategies? And how are they measuring return on existing investments in AI? Panelist will be asked to take a position on whether AI is a truly transformational technology.
The increasing application of AI in health products puts pressure on the historical model of regulation – among them the agile development cycles and continuous learning environment that support AI / machine learning based algorithms. Panelists will discuss the regulatory approaches including the FDA’s recently announced Software Precertification pilot program.
Health systems are actively evaluating strategies to drive efficiency throughout hospital operations. The deployment of AI based technologies to automate organizational tasks (e.g. medical coding / billing, prior authorizations) and optimize resource utilization (e.g. smart scheduling, no-show prediction) promises to help hospital systems adapt to changing macro-economic factors. This panel will discuss the role of AI in hospital operations and assess various approaches to reduce healthcare administration costs and increase efficiency.
Medical device companies are focused on developing smaller, faster and smarter devices. New technologies will enhance the function of medical devices throughout patient care. Leveraging AI technology to more effectively interact with patients and inform / facilitate outcomes enables smart devices that can learn and improve performance over time. The nature of AI panel based devices, the challenges inherent in developing them and how such devices can evolve over the next 5 years and beyond will be examined.
Understanding how AI will be absorbed into a highly defined payment system is crucial to determining the rate and breadth that the technology will play in health care in the next decade. Two senior leaders will share their perspectives on how the technology will be paid for and what mechanisms will be used to arbitrate the scope and timing of those payments.
Diagnostic imaging is among the clinical fields receiving the greatest attention in the early stages of AI in healthcare. Even in this initial phase it appears that the technology may have profound effects on one of the most resource intensive fields in medicine. Panelists will consider the broad implications as well as topics such as how will role of radiologists evolve? Will AI tools ever become advanced enough to make decisions autonomously within the clinical workflow?
The sacred exchange between patient and clinician at the heart of medicine is increasingly under duress driven by a range of factors. Increasing clinician burnout is recognized as among the many negative consequences of this trend. Panelists will discuss how AI may improve the quality of the patient encounter, clinician workflow and ultimately clinician quality of life. Panelist will discuss how the new technology can meet these objectives when earlier information based technologies may have exacerbated the challenge.
The culture of innovation throughout Partners HealthCare naturally fosters robust discussions about new “disruptive” technologies and which ones will have the biggest impact on health care. The Disruptive Dozen was created to identify and rank the technologies that Partners faculty feel will break through over the next decade to significantly improve health care. This year, the Disruptive Dozen focuses on relevant advances and opportunities in artificial intelligence (AI).
Associate Director, Early Clinical Development, Respiratory Inflammation & Autoimmunity Therapeutics, AstraZeneca; Former Clinical and Research Fellow, BWH
Director, Bioinformatics Program, Cancer Center and Department of Pathology, MGH; Director, Institute Member, Broad Institute; Associate Professor of Pathology, HMS
Vice Chair for Scientific Innovation, Department of Medicine, BWH; Chief Executive, One Brave Idea, BWH; Associate Professor of Medicine, HMS; 2017 Forum Co-Chair
Cheif of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear and MGH; Chair, Department of Ophthalmology and David Glendenning Cogan Professor of Ophthalmology, HMS
Anesthesiologist and Director of Clinical Bioengineering, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, BWH; Professor of Anaesthesia, HMS
On 5/2015
2012pharmaceutical
sjwilliamspa