Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence (LPBI) Group

Posts Tagged ‘science 3.0’

Science Has A Systemic Problem, Not an Innovation Problem

Posted in Big Data & Analytics, BioMed e-Books e-Series by LPBI Group, Curation, Curation methodology, Discovery process, Innovations, LPBI Group, e-Scientific Media, DFP, R&D-M3DP, R&D-Drug Discovery, US Patents: SOPs and Team Management, LPBI Management, Open Access Journals, Scientific Publishing, Systematic Error (Bias), Trends in Global Economy, tagged @science 2_0, Curation, economic policy, Excitation-contraction coupling, journal citation, Open access, Open Access Online Scientific Journal, science 3.0, science funding, science policy, scientific curation, Scientific Publishing on December 12, 2022| Leave a Comment »

Science Has A Systemic Problem, Not an Innovation Problem

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

    A recent email, asking me to submit a survey, got me thinking about the malaise that scientists and industry professionals frequently bemoan: that innovation has been stymied for some reason and all sorts of convuluted processes must be altered to spur this mythical void of great new discoveries…..  and it got me thinking about our current state of science, and what is the perceived issue… and if this desert of innovation actually exists or is more a fundamental problem which we have created.

The email was from an NIH committee asking for opinions on recreating the grant review process …. now this on the same day someone complained to me about a shoddy and perplexing grant review they received.

The following email, which was sent out to multiple researchers, involved in either NIH grant review on both sides, as well as those who had been involved in previous questionnaires and studies on grant review and bias.  The email asked for researchers to fill out a survey on the grant review process, and how to best change it to increase innovation of ideas as well as inclusivity.  In recent years, there have been multiple survey requests on these matters, with multiple confusing procedural changes to grant format and content requirements, adding more administrative burden to scientists.

The email from Center for Scientific Review (one of the divisions a grant will go to before review {they set up review study sections and decide what section a grant should be  assigned to} was as follows:

Update on Simplifying Review Criteria: A Request for Information

https://www.csr.nih.gov/reviewmatters/2022/12/08/update-on-simplifying-review-criteria-a-request-for-information/

NIH has issued a request for information (RFI) seeking feedback on revising and simplifying the peer review framework for research project grant applications. The goal of this effort is to facilitate the mission of scientific peer review – identification of the strongest, highest-impact research. The proposed changes will allow peer reviewers to focus on scientific merit by evaluating 1) the scientific impact, research rigor, and feasibility of the proposed research without the distraction of administrative questions and 2) whether or not appropriate expertise and resources are available to conduct the research, thus mitigating the undue influence of the reputation of the institution or investigator.

Currently, applications for research project grants (RPGs, such as R01s, R03s, R15s, R21s, R34s) are evaluated based on five scored criteria: Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, and Environment (derived from NIH peer review regulations 42 C.F.R. Part 52h.8; see Definitions of Criteria and Considerations for Research Project Grant Critiques for more detail) and a number of additional review criteria such as Human Subject Protections.

NIH gathered input from the community to identify potential revisions to the review framework. Given longstanding and often-heard concerns from diverse groups, CSR decided to form two working groups to the CSR Advisory Council—one on non-clinical trials and one on clinical trials. To inform these groups, CSR published a Review Matters blog, which was cross-posted on the Office of Extramural Research blog, Open Mike. The blog received more than 9,000 views by unique individuals and over 400 comments. Interim recommendations were presented to the CSR Advisory Council in a public forum (March 2020 video, slides; March 2021 video, slides). Final recommendations from the CSRAC (report) were considered by the major extramural committees of the NIH that included leadership from across NIH institutes and centers. Additional background information can be found here. This process produced many modifications and the final proposal presented below. Discussions are underway to incorporate consideration of a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) and rigorous review of clinical trials RPGs (~10% of RPGs are clinical trials) within the proposed framework.

Simplified Review Criteria

NIH proposes to reorganize the five review criteria into three factors, with Factors 1 and 2 receiving a numerical score. Reviewers will be instructed to consider all three factors (Factors 1, 2 and 3) in arriving at their Overall Impact Score (scored 1-9), reflecting the overall scientific and technical merit of the application.

• Factor 1: Importance of the Research (Significance, Innovation), numerical score (1-9)
• Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility (Approach), numerical score (1-9)
• Factor 3: Expertise and Resources (Investigator, Environment), assessed and considered in the Overall Impact Score, but not individually scored

Within Factor 3 (Expertise and Resources), Investigator and Environment will be assessed in the context of the research proposed. Investigator(s) will be rated as “fully capable” or “additional expertise/capability needed”. Environment will be rated as “appropriate” or “additional resources needed.” If a need for additional expertise or resources is identified, written justification must be provided. Detailed descriptions of the three factors can be found here.

Now looking at some of the Comments were very illuminating:

I strongly support streamlining the five current main review criteria into three, and the present five additional criteria into two. This will bring clarity to applicants and reduce the workload on both applicants and reviewers. Blinding reviewers to the applicants’ identities and institutions would be a helpful next step, and would do much to reduce the “rich-getting-richer” / “good ole girls and good ole boys” / “big science” elitism that plagues the present review system, wherein pedigree and connections often outweigh substance and creativity.

I support the proposed changes. The shift away from “innovation” will help reduce the tendency to create hype around a proposed research direction. The shift away from Investigator and Environment assessments will help reduce bias toward already funded investigators in large well-known institutions.

As a reviewer for 5 years, I believe that the proposed changes are a step in the right direction, refocusing the review on whether the science SHOULD be done and whether it CAN BE DONE WELL, while eliminating burdensome and unhelpful sections of review that are better handled administratively. I particularly believe that the de-emphasis of innovation (which typically focuses on technical innovation) will improve evaluation of the overall science, and de-emphasis of review of minor technical details will, if implemented correctly, reduce the “downward pull” on scores for approach. The above comments reference blinded reviews, but I did not see this in the proposed recommendations. I do not believe this is a good idea for several reasons: 1) Blinding of the applicant and institution is not likely feasible for many of the reasons others have described (e.g., self-referencing of prior work), 2) Blinding would eliminate the potential to review investigators’ biosketches and budget justifications, which are critically important in review, 3) Making review blinded would make determination of conflicts of interest harder to identify and avoid, 4) Evaluation of “Investigator and Environment” would be nearly impossible.

Most of the Comments were in favor of the proposed changes, however many admitted that it adds additional confusion on top of many administrative changes to formats and content of grant sections.

Being a Stephen Covey devotee, and just have listened to  The Four Principles of Execution, it became more apparent that issues that hinder many great ideas coming into fruition, especially in science, is a result of these systemic or problems in the process, not at the level of individual researchers or small companies trying to get their innovations funded or noticed.  In summary, Dr. Covey states most issues related to the success of any initiative is NOT in the strategic planning, but in the failure to adhere to a few EXECUTION principles.  Primary to these failures of strategic plans is lack of accounting of what Dr. Covey calls the ‘whirlwind’, or those important but recurring tasks that take us away from achieving the wildly important goals.  In addition, lack of  determining lead and lag measures of success hinder such plans.

In this case a lag measure in INNOVATION.  It appears we have created such a whirlwind and focus on lag measures that we are incapable of translating great discoveries into INNOVATION.

In the following post, I will focus on issues relating to Open Access, publishing and dissemination of scientific discovery may be costing us TIME to INNOVATION.  And it appears that there are systemic reasons why we appear stuck in a rut, so to speak.

The first indication is from a paper published by Johan Chu and James Evans in 2021 in PNAS:

 

Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science

Chu JSG, Evans JA. Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Oct 12;118(41):e2021636118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021636118. PMID: 34607941; PMCID: PMC8522281

 

Abstract

In many academic fields, the number of papers published each year has increased significantly over time. Policy measures aim to increase the quantity of scientists, research funding, and scientific output, which is measured by the number of papers produced. These quantitative metrics determine the career trajectories of scholars and evaluations of academic departments, institutions, and nations. Whether and how these increases in the numbers of scientists and papers translate into advances in knowledge is unclear, however. Here, we first lay out a theoretical argument for why too many papers published each year in a field can lead to stagnation rather than advance. The deluge of new papers may deprive reviewers and readers the cognitive slack required to fully recognize and understand novel ideas. Competition among many new ideas may prevent the gradual accumulation of focused attention on a promising new idea. Then, we show data supporting the predictions of this theory. When the number of papers published per year in a scientific field grows large, citations flow disproportionately to already well-cited papers; the list of most-cited papers ossifies; new papers are unlikely to ever become highly cited, and when they do, it is not through a gradual, cumulative process of attention gathering; and newly published papers become unlikely to disrupt existing work. These findings suggest that the progress of large scientific fields may be slowed, trapped in existing canon. Policy measures shifting how scientific work is produced, disseminated, consumed, and rewarded may be called for to push fields into new, more fertile areas of study.

So the Summary of this paper is

• The authors examined 1.8 billion citations among 90 million papers over 241 subjects
• found the corpus of papers do not lead to turnover of new ideas in a field, but rather the ossification or entrenchment of canonical (or older ideas)
• this is mainly due to older paper cited more frequently than new papers with new ideas, potentially because authors are trying to get their own papers cited more frequently for funding and exposure purposes
• The authors suggest that “fundamental progress may be stymied if quantitative growth of scientific endeavors is not balanced by structures fostering disruptive scholarship and focusing attention of novel ideas”

The authors note that, in most cases, science policy reinforces this “more is better” philosophy”,  where metrics of publication productivity are either number of publications or impact measured by citation rankings.  However, using an analysis of citation changes occurring in large versus smaller fields, it becomes apparent that this process is favoring the older, more established papers and a recirculating of older canonical ideas.

“Rather than resulting in faster turnover of field paradigms, the massive amounts of new publications entrenches the ideas of top-cited papers.”  New ideas are pushed down to the bottom of the citation list and potentially lost in the literature.  The authors suggest that this problem will intensify as the “annual mass” of new publications in each field grows, especially in large fields.  This issue is exacerbated by the deluge on new online ‘open access’ journals, in which authors would focus on citing the more highly cited literature. 

We maybe at a critical junction, where if many papers are published in a short time, new ideas will not be considered as carefully as the older ideas.  In addition,

with proliferation of journals and the blurring of journal hierarchies due to online articles-level access can exacerbate this problem

As a counterpoint, the authors do note that even though many molecular biology highly cited articles were done in 1976, there has been extremely much innovation since then however it may take a lot more in experiments and money to gain the level of citations that those papers produced, and hence a lower scientific productivity.

This issue is seen in the field of economics as well

Ellison, Glenn. “Is peer review in decline?” Economic Inquiry, vol. 49, no. 3, July 2011, pp. 635+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A261386330/AONE?u=temple_main&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=f5891002. Accessed 12 Dec. 2022.

Abstract: 

Over the past decade, there has been a decline in the fraction of papers in top economics journals written by economists from the highest-ranked economics departments. This paper documents this fact and uses additional data on publications and citations to assess various potential explanations. Several observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the Internet improves the ability of high-profile authors to disseminate their research without going through the traditional peer-review process. (JEL A14, 030)

The facts part of this paper documents two main facts:

1. Economists in top-ranked departments now publish very few papers in top field journals. There is a marked decline in such publications between the early 1990s and early 2000s.

2. Comparing the early 2000s with the early 1990s, there is a decline in both the absolute number of papers and the share of papers in the top general interest journals written by Harvard economics department faculty.

Although the second fact just concerns one department, I see it as potentially important to understanding what is happening because it comes at a time when Harvard is widely regarded (I believe correctly) as having ascended to the top position in the profession.

The “decline-of-peer-review” theory I allude to in the title is that the necessity of going through the peer-review process has lessened for high-status authors: in the old days peer-reviewed journals were by far the most effective means of reaching readers, whereas with the growth of the Internet high-status authors can now post papers online and exploit their reputation to attract readers.

Many alternate explanations are possible. I focus on four theories: the decline-in-peer-review theory and three alternatives.

1. The trends could be a consequence of top-school authors’ being crowded out of the top journals by other researchers. Several such stories have an optimistic message, for example, there is more talent entering the profession, old pro-elite biases are being broken down, more schools are encouraging faculty to do cutting-edge research, and the Internet is enabling more cutting-edge research by breaking down informational barriers that had hampered researchers outside the top schools. (2)

2. The trends could be a consequence of the growth of revisions at economics journals discussed in Ellison (2002a, 2002b). In this more pessimistic theory, highly productive researchers must abandon some projects and/or seek out faster outlets to conserve the time now required to publish their most important works.

3. The trends could simply reflect that field journals have declined in quality in some relative sense and become a less attractive place to publish. This theory is meant to encompass also the rise of new journals, which is not obviously desirable or undesirable.

The majority of this paper is devoted to examining various data sources that provide additional details about how economics publishing has changed over the past decade. These are intended both to sharpen understanding of the facts to be explained and to provide tests of auxiliary predictions of the theories. Two main sources of information are used: data on publications and data on citations. The publication data include department-level counts of publications in various additional journals, an individual-level dataset containing records of publications in a subset of journals for thousands of economists, and a very small dataset containing complete data on a few authors’ publication records. The citation data include citations at the paper level for 9,000 published papers and less well-matched data that is used to construct measures of citations to authors’ unpublished works, to departments as a whole, and to various journals.

Inside Job or Deep Impact? Extramural Citations and the Influence of Economic Scholarship

Josh Angrist, Pierre Azoulay, Glenn Ellison, Ryan Hill, Susan Feng Lu. Inside Job or Deep Impact? Extramural Citations and the Influence of Economic Scholarship.

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC LITERATURE

Abstract

Does academic economic research produce material of general scientific value, or do academic economists write only for peers? Is economics scholarship uniquely insular? We address these questions by quantifying interactions between economics and other disciplines. Changes in the influence of economic scholarship are measured here by the frequency with which other disciplines cite papers in economics journals. We document a clear rise in the extramural influence of economic research, while also showing that economics is increasingly likely to reference other social sciences. A breakdown of extramural citations by economics fields shows broad field influence. Differentiating between theoretical and empirical papers classified using machine learning, we see that much of the rise in economics’ extramural influence reflects growth in citations to empirical work. This growth parallels an increase in the share of empirical cites within economics. At the same time, some disciplines that primarily cite economic theory have also recently increased citations of economics scholarship.

Citation

Angrist, Josh, Pierre Azoulay, Glenn Ellison, Ryan Hill, and Susan Feng Lu. 2020. “Inside Job or Deep Impact? Extramural Citations and the Influence of Economic Scholarship.” Journal of Economic Literature, 58 (1): 3-52.DOI: 10.1257/jel.20181508

VOL. 58, NO. 1, MARCH 2020

(pp. 3-52)

So if innovation is there but it may be buried under the massive amount of heavily cited older literature, do we see evidence of this in other fields like medicine?

Why Isn’t Innovation Helping Reduce Health Care Costs?

• Eli M. Cahan
• Bob Kocher
• Roger Bohn

JUNE 4, 202010.1377/forefront.20200602.168241

 

Source: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20200602.168241/#:~:text=Performance%2Denhancing%20innovations%20frequently%20create,prices%20compared%20to%20existing%20alternatives 

 

National health care expenditures (NHEs) in the United States continue to grow at rates outpacing the broader economy: Inflation- and population-adjusted NHEs have increased 1.6 percent faster than the gross domestic product (GDP) between 1990 and 2018. US national health expenditure growth as a share of GDP far outpaces comparable nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (17.2 versus 8.9 percent).

Multiple recent analyses have proposed that growth in the prices and intensity of US health care services—rather than in utilization rates or demographic characteristics—is responsible for the disproportionate increases in NHEs relative to global counterparts. The consequences of ever-rising costs amid ubiquitous underinsurance in the US include price-induced deferral of care leading to excess morbidity relative to comparable nations.

These patterns exist despite a robust innovation ecosystem in US health care—implying that novel technologies, in isolation, are insufficient to bend the health care cost curve. Indeed, studies have documented that novel technologies directly increase expenditure growth.

Why is our prolific innovation ecosystem not helping reduce costs? The core issue relates to its apparent failure to enhance net productivity—the relative output generated per unit resource required. In this post, we decompose the concept of innovation to highlight situations in which inventions may not increase net productivity. We begin by describing how this issue has taken on increased urgency amid resource constraints magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic. In turn, we describe incentives for the pervasiveness of productivity-diminishing innovations. Finally, we provide recommendations to promote opportunities for low-cost innovation.

 

 

Net Productivity During The COVID-19 Pandemic

The issue of productivity-enhancing innovation is timely, as health care systems have been overwhelmed by COVID-19. Hospitals in Italy, New York City, and elsewhere have lacked adequate capital resources to care for patients with the disease, sufficient liquidity to invest in sorely needed resources, and enough staff to perform all of the necessary tasks.

The critical constraint in these settings is not technology: In fact, the most advanced technology required to routinely treat COVID-19—the mechanical ventilator—was invented nearly 100 years ago in response to polio (the so-called iron lung). Rather, the bottleneck relates to the total financial and human resources required to use the technology—the denominator of net productivity. The clinical implementation of ventilators has been illustrative: Health care workers are still required to operate ventilators on a nearly one-to-one basis, just like in the mid-twentieth century. 

High levels of resources required for implementation of health care technologies constrain the scalability of patient care—such as during respiratory disease outbreaks such as COVID-19. Thus, research to reduce health care costs is the same kind of research we urgently require to promote health care access for patients with COVID-19.

Types Of Innovation And Their Relationship To Expenditure Growth

The widespread use of novel medical technologies has been highlighted as a central driver of NHE growth in the US. We believe that the continued expansion of health care costs is largely the result of innovation that tends to have low productivity (exhibit 1). We argue that these archetypes—novel widgets tacked on to existing workflows to reinforce traditional care models—are exactly the wrong properties to reduce NHEs at the systemic level.

Exhibit 1: Relative productivity of innovation subtypes

Source: Authors’ analysis.

Content Versus Process Innovation

Content (also called technical) innovation refers to the creation of new widgets, such as biochemical agents, diagnostic tools, or therapeutic interventions. Contemporary examples of content innovation include specialty pharmaceuticals, molecular diagnostics, and advanced interventions and imaging.

These may be contrasted with process innovations, which address the organized sequences of activities that implement content. Classically, these include clinical pathways and protocols. They can address the delivery of care for acute conditions, such as central line infections, sepsis, or natural disasters. Alternatively, they can target chronic conditions through initiatives such as team-based management of hypertension and hospital-at-home models for geriatric care. Other processes include hiring staff, delegating labor, and supply chain management.

Performance-Enhancing Versus Cost-Reducing Innovation

Performance-enhancing innovations frequently create incremental outcome gains in diagnostic characteristics, such as sensitivity or specificity, or in therapeutic characteristics, such as biomarkers for disease status. Their performance gains often lead to higher prices compared to existing alternatives.  

Performance-enhancing innovations can be compared to “non-inferior” innovations capable of achieving outcomes approximating those of existing alternatives, but at reduced cost. Industries outside of medicine, such as the computing industry, have relied heavily on the ability to reduce costs while retaining performance.

In health care though, this pattern of innovation is rare. Since passage of the 2010 “Biosimilars” Act aimed at stimulating non-inferior innovation and competition in therapeutics markets, only 17 agents have been approved, and only seven have made it to market. More than three-quarters of all drugs receiving new patents between 2005 and 2015 were “reissues,” meaning they had already been approved, and the new patent reflected changes to the previously approved formula. Meanwhile, the costs of approved drugs have increased over time, at rates between 4 percent and 7 percent annually.

Moreover, the preponderance of performance-enhancing diagnostic and therapeutic innovations tend to address narrow patient cohorts (such as rare diseases or cancer subtypes), with limited clear clinical utility in broader populations. For example, the recently approved eculizimab is a monoclonal antibody approved for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria—which effects 1 in 10 million individuals. At the time of its launch, eculizimab was priced at more than $400,000 per year, making it the most expensive drug in modern history. For clinical populations with no available alternatives, drugs such as eculizimab may be cost-effective, pending society’s willingness to pay, and morally desirable, given a society’s values. But such drugs are certainly not cost-reducing.

Additive Versus Substitutive Innovation

Additive innovations are those that append to preexisting workflows, while substitutive innovations reconfigure preexisting workflows. In this way, additive innovations increase the use of precedent services, whereas substitutive innovations decrease precedent service use.

For example, previous analyses have found that novel imaging modalities are additive innovations, as they tend not to diminish use of preexisting modalities. Similarly, novel procedures tend to incompletely replace traditional procedures. In the case of therapeutics and devices, off-label uses in disease groups outside of the approved indication(s) can prompt innovation that is additive. This is especially true, given that off-label prescriptions classically occur after approved methods are exhausted.

Eculizimab once again provides an illustrative example. As of February 2019, the drug had been used for 39 indications (it had been approved for three of those, by that time), 69 percent of which lacked any form of evidence of real-world effectiveness. Meanwhile, the drug generated nearly $4 billion in sales in 2019. Again, these expenditures may be something for which society chooses to pay—but they are nonetheless additive, rather than substitutive.

Sustaining Versus Disruptive Innovation

Competitive market theory suggests that incumbents and disruptors innovate differently. Incumbents seek sustaining innovations capable of perpetuating their dominance, whereas disruptors pursue innovations capable of redefining traditional business models.

In health care, while disruptive innovations hold the potential to reduce overall health expenditures, often they run counter to the capabilities of market incumbents. For example, telemedicine can deliver care asynchronously, remotely, and virtually, but large-scale brick-and-mortar medical facilities invest enormous capital in the delivery of synchronous, in-house, in-person care (incentivized by facility fees).

The connection between incumbent business models and the innovation pipeline is particularly relevant given that 58 percent of total funding for biomedical research in the US is now derived from private entities, compared with 46 percent a decade prior. It follows that the growing influence of eminent private organizations may favor innovations supporting their market dominance—rather than innovations that are societally optimal.

Incentives And Repercussions Of High-Cost Innovation

Taken together, these observations suggest that innovation in health care is preferentially designed for revenue expansion rather than for cost reduction. While offering incremental improvements in patient outcomes, therefore creating theoretical value for society, these innovations rarely deliver incremental reductions in short- or long-term costs at the health system level.

For example, content-based, performance-enhancing, additive, sustaining innovations tend to add layers of complexity to the health care system—which in turn require additional administration to manage. The net result is employment growth in excess of outcome improvement, leading to productivity losses. This gap leads to continuously increasing overall expenditures in turn passed along to payers and consumers.

Nonetheless, high-cost innovations are incentivized across health care stakeholders (exhibit 2). From the supply side of innovation, for academic researchers, “breakthrough” and “groundbreaking” innovations constitute the basis for career advancement via funding and tenure. This is despite stakeholders’ frequent inability to generalize early successes to become cost-effective in the clinical setting. As previously discussed, the increasing influence of private entities in setting the medical research agenda is also likely to stimulate innovation benefitting single stakeholders rather than the system.

Exhibit 2: Incentives promoting low-value innovation

Source: Authors’ analysis adapted from Hofmann BM. Too much technology. BMJ. 2015 Feb 16.

From the demand side of innovation (providers and health systems), a combined allure (to provide “cutting-edge” patient care), imperative (to leave “no stone unturned” in patient care), and profit-motive (to amplify fee-for-service reimbursements) spur participation in a “technological arms-race.” The status quo thus remains as Clay Christensen has written: “Our major health care institutions…together overshoot the level of care actually needed or used by the vast majority of patients.”

Christensen’s observations have been validated during the COVID-19 epidemic, as treatment of the disease requires predominantly century-old technology. By continually adopting innovation that routinely overshoots the needs of most patients, layer by layer, health care institutions are accruing costs that quickly become the burden of society writ large.

Recommendations To Reduce The Costs Of Health Care Innovation

Henry Aaron wrote in 2002 that “…the forces that have driven up costs are, if anything, intensifying. The staggering fecundity of biomedical research is increasing…[and] always raises expenditures.” With NHEs spiraling ever-higher, urgency to “bend the cost curve” is mounting. Yet, since much biomedical innovation targets the “flat of the [productivity] curve,” alternative forms of innovation are necessary.

The shortcomings in net productivity revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic highlight the urgent need for redesign of health care delivery in this country, and reevaluation of the innovation needed to support it. Specifically, efforts supporting process redesign are critical to promote cost-reducing, substitutive innovations that can inaugurate new and disruptive business models.

Process redesign rarely involves novel gizmos, so much as rejiggering the wiring of, and connections between, existing gadgets. It targets operational changes capable of streamlining workflows, rather than technical advancements that complicate them. As described above, precisely these sorts of “frugal innovations” have led to productivity improvements yielding lower costs in other high-technology industries, such as the computing industry.

Shrank and colleagues recently estimated that nearly one-third of NHEs—almost $1 trillion—were due to preventable waste. Four of the six categories of waste enumerated by the authors—failure in care delivery, failure in care coordination, low-value care, and administrative complexity—represent ripe targets for process innovation, accounting for $610 billion in waste annually, according to Shrank.

Health systems adopting process redesign methods such as continuous improvement and value-based management have exhibited outcome enhancement and expense reduction simultaneously. Internal processes addressed have included supply chain reconfiguration, operational redesign, outlier reconciliation, and resource standardization.

Despite the potential of process innovation, focus on this area (often bundled into “health services” or “quality improvement” research) occupies only a minute fraction of wallet- or mind-share in the biomedical research landscape, accounting for 0.3 percent of research dollars in medicine. This may be due to a variety of barriers beyond minimal funding. One set of barriers is academic, relating to negative perceptions around rigor and a lack of outlets in which to publish quality improvement research. To achieve health care cost containment over the long term, this dimension of innovation must be destigmatized relative to more traditional manners of innovation by the funders and institutions determining the conditions of the research ecosystem.

Another set of barriers is financial: Innovations yielding cost reduction are less “reimbursable” than are innovations fashioned for revenue expansion. This is especially the case in a fee-for-service system where reimbursement is tethered to cost, which creates perverse incentives for health care institutions to overlook cost increases. However, institutions investing in low-cost innovation will be well-positioned in a rapidly approaching future of value-based care—in which the solvency of health care institutions will rely upon their ability to provide economically efficient care.

Innovating For Cost Control Necessitates Frugality Over Novelty

Restraining US NHEs represents a critical step toward health promotion. Innovation for innovation’s sake—that is content-based, incrementally effective, additive, and sustaining—is unlikely to constrain continually expanding NHEs.

In contrast, process innovation offers opportunities to reduce costs while maintaining high standards of patient care. As COVID-19 stress-tests health care systems across the world, the importance of cost control and productivity amplification for patient care has become apparent.

As such, frugality, rather than novelty, may hold the key to health care cost containment. Redesigning the innovation agenda to stem the tide of ever-rising NHEs is an essential strategy to promote widespread access to care—as well as high-value preventive care—in this country. In the words of investors across Silicon Valley: Cost-reducing innovation is no longer a “nice-to-have,” but a “need-to-have” for the future of health and overall well-being this country.

So Do We Need A New Way of Disseminating Scientific Information?  Can Curation Help?

We had high hopes for Science 2.0, in particular the smashing of data and knowledge silos. However the digital age along with 2.0 platforms seemed to excaccerbate this somehow. We still are critically short on analysis!

Old Science 1.0 is still the backbone of all scientific discourse, built on the massive amount of experimental and review literature. However this literature was in analog format, and we moved to a more accesible digital open access format for both publications as well as raw data. However as there was a structure for 1.0, like the Dewey decimal system and indexing, 2.0 made science more accesible and easier to search due to the newer digital formats. Yet both needed an organizing structure; for 1.0 that was the scientific method of data and literature organization with libraries as the indexers. In 2.0 this relied on an army mostly of volunteers who did not have much in the way of incentivization to co-curate and organize the findings and massive literature.

The Intenet and the Web is rapidly adopting a new “Web 3.0” format, with decentralized networks, enhanced virtual experiences, and greater interconnection between people. Here we start the discussion what will the move from Science 2.0, where dissemination of scientific findings was revolutionized and piggybacking on Web 2.0 or social media, to a Science 3.0 format. And what will it involve or what paradigms will be turned upside down?

We have discussed this in other posts such as

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

and

Curation Methodology – Digital Communication Technology to mitigate Published Information Explosion and Obsolescence in Medicine and Life Sciences

For years the pharmaceutical industry has toyed with the idea of making innovation networks and innovation hubs

It has been the main focus of whole conferences

Tales from the Translational Frontier – Four Unique Approaches to Turning Novel Biology into Investable Innovations @BIOConvention #BIO2018

However it still seems these strategies have not worked

Is it because we did not have an Execution plan? Or we did not understand the lead measures for success?

Other Related Articles on this Open Access Scientific Journal Include:

Old Industrial Revolution Paradigm of Education Needs to End: How Scientific Curation Can Transform Education

Analysis of Utilizing LPBI Group’s Scientific Curation Platform as an Educational Tool: New Paradigm for Student Engagement

Global Alliance for Genomics and Health Issues Guidelines for Data Siloing and Sharing

Multiple Major Scientific Journals Will Fully Adopt Open Access Under Plan S

eScientific Publishing a Case in Point: Evolution of Platform Architecture Methodologies and of Intellectual Property Development (Content Creation by Curation) Business Model 

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Read Full Post »

• Follow Blog via Email

  Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  Email Address

  Follow

  Join 9,329 other subscribers

• Recent Posts

  • The Future of AI in Cardiology November 5, 2023
  • Overview of Alzheimer’s Disease and Novel Treatments Targeting Beta-Amyloid Deposits October 7, 2023
  • The Implications and Association of Stair Climbing with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) October 6, 2023
  • The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2023 October 2, 2023
  • The Current Impact and Future of Technology within Cardiovascular Surgery September 23, 2023
  • The Continued Impact and Possibilities of AI in Medical and Pharmaceutical Industry Practices September 18, 2023
  • Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are important for sperm tolerance and male fertility September 11, 2023
  • ChatGPT Chemistry Assistant for Text Mining and the Prediction of metal–organic framework (MOF) synthesis August 27, 2023
  • Eight Subcellular Pathologies driving Chronic Metabolic Diseases – Methods for Mapping Bioelectronic Adjustable Measurements as potential new Therapeutics: Impact on Pharmaceuticals in Use August 19, 2023
  • ChatGPT Searches and Advent of Meta Threads: What it Means for Social Media and Science 3.0 July 11, 2023

• Archives

  Archives Select Month November 2023  (1) October 2023  (3) September 2023  (3) August 2023  (2) July 2023  (2) June 2023  (7) May 2023  (4) April 2023  (2) March 2023  (5) February 2023  (2) January 2023  (3) December 2022  (2) October 2022  (6) September 2022  (2) August 2022  (1) July 2022  (3) June 2022  (3) May 2022  (8) April 2022  (10) March 2022  (7) February 2022  (7) January 2022  (3) December 2021  (3) November 2021  (4) October 2021  (11) September 2021  (5) August 2021  (8) July 2021  (21) June 2021  (8) May 2021  (10) April 2021  (8) March 2021  (15) February 2021  (17) January 2021  (20) December 2020  (10) November 2020  (12) October 2020  (26) September 2020  (17) August 2020  (22) July 2020  (27) June 2020  (33) May 2020  (26) April 2020  (42) March 2020  (22) February 2020  (11) January 2020  (7) December 2019  (20) November 2019  (13) October 2019  (11) September 2019  (3) August 2019  (8) July 2019  (25) June 2019  (47) May 2019  (40) April 2019  (27) March 2019  (29) February 2019  (17) January 2019  (50) December 2018  (14) November 2018  (17) October 2018  (18) September 2018  (17) August 2018  (8) July 2018  (20) June 2018  (22) May 2018  (17) April 2018  (12) March 2018  (20) February 2018  (26) January 2018  (16) December 2017  (6) November 2017  (20) October 2017  (13) September 2017  (16) August 2017  (16) July 2017  (19) June 2017  (20) May 2017  (32) April 2017  (21) March 2017  (10) February 2017  (24) January 2017  (21) December 2016  (43) November 2016  (8) October 2016  (40) September 2016  (67) August 2016  (59) July 2016  (75) June 2016  (37) May 2016  (95) April 2016  (152) March 2016  (175) February 2016  (196) January 2016  (139) December 2015  (90) November 2015  (287) October 2015  (237) September 2015  (115) August 2015  (96) July 2015  (63) June 2015  (44) May 2015  (53) April 2015  (76) March 2015  (95) February 2015  (83) January 2015  (75) December 2014  (75) November 2014  (88) October 2014  (135) September 2014  (117) August 2014  (88) July 2014  (88) June 2014  (109) May 2014  (60) April 2014  (85) March 2014  (58) February 2014  (72) January 2014  (107) December 2013  (104) November 2013  (136) October 2013  (62) September 2013  (32) August 2013  (46) July 2013  (74) June 2013  (110) May 2013  (112) April 2013  (86) March 2013  (92) February 2013  (63) January 2013  (63) December 2012  (46) November 2012  (71) October 2012  (84) September 2012  (82) August 2012  (122) July 2012  (59) June 2012  (34) May 2012  (46) April 2012  (2)

• Categories

  Categories Select Category 3D Printing for Medical Application  (234)    3D Plotting Scaffolds  (43)    BioInks  (33)       Biopolymer Blend Open Porous  (17)       Dental Applications  (10)    BioPrinting in Regenerative Medicine  (74)       Cell Level  (14)       MicroEngineering Cell-Tissue & Systems  (30)       Tissue Engineering  (35)    Cardiovascular and Vascular Systems  (29)       Artificial Vascular Structures  (9)       Cardiovascular Tissue  (8)    Drug Development using MultiOrgan Chip  (11)    Drug Development/Formulation using 3D Printing  (8)    MEMS  (16)       Bio-MEMS  (12)    Organ-on-a-Chip  (11)    Programmable Sensors (Carbon Nano Tubes)  (5) 3rd Party IP: Drug DIscovery  (1) 4D Printing and Meta Materials  (9) Academic Publishing  (222)    Key Opinion Leaders in eScientific Publishing – Interviews with  (8) Advanced Drug Manufacturing Technology  (93)    Antimalarial Preparation  (8)    Autologous Cell Therapy  (12)    Automated Cell Processing  (13) Allergy and Infectious Diseases  (12) Alzheimer’s Disease  (160)    Etiology  (77)    Medical Device Therapies for Altzheimer’s Disease  (14)    Pharmacotherapy and Cell Activity  (50) Anticancer Resistance  (28) Art Exhibits on the Human Condition  (1) Art Inspires Science  (3) Artificial Heart  (2) Artificial Intelligence – General  (192)    An executive’s guide to AI  (9)    Artificial Intelligence – Breakthroughs in Theories and Technologies  (93)    Artificial Intelligence Applications in Health Care  (94)       Artificial Intelligence in CANCER  (27)       Artificial Intelligence in Health Care – Tools & Innovations  (55)    Artificial Intelligence in Medicine – Application for Diagnosis  (52)       Artificial intelligence applications for cardiology  (23)          AI-assisted Cardiac MRI  (9)       Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatry  (5)       Deep Learning in Pathology  (14)    Artificial Intelligence in Medicine – Applications in Therapeutics  (48)    ChatGPT, GPT-4  (4)       ChatGPT at LPBI Group  (2)       ChatGPT in Academic Education  (3)    Machine Learning  (46)       Deep Learning  (8)       Natural Language Processing (NLP)  (24)    Machine learning in predicting type 2 diabetes  (2) Auditory and vision  (13) Autism Spectrum Disorders  (10) Autoimmune Inflammatory DIseases  (21)    Crohn’s disease  (5)    Tolerance-inducing Autoimmune Disease Therapeutics  (4)    Ulcerative Colitis  (3) Autophagosome  (3) Bacterial Resistance  (25) Behavior  (26) Behavioral Genetics  (21) Big Data  (77)    Intelligent Information Systems  (47) Bio Instrumentation in Experimental Life Sciences Research  (365)    Analytical Instruments Industry  (5)    Microfuidics  (8) Bio-Ethics  (14) BioBanking  (33) Biodegradable Drug-eluting Material  (7) Bioengineering & reverse engineering design  (42) BioIT: BioInformatics  (143) BioIT: BioInformatics, NGS, Clinical & Translational, Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics, Clinical Genomics, Cancer Informatics  (125)    Advanced Computing Platform  (31)       Blockchain Transactions System  (6)          Platform for Content Monetization embedded Content Promotion  (1)    Pancreatic adenocarcinoma classifier  (4)    Simulation Modeling in NGS  (3) Biological Engineering  (41) Biological Networks  (190) Biological Networks, Gene Regulation and Evolution  (474)    Virology  (10) Biomarkers & Medical Diagnostics  (565)    VOC – Volatile Organic Compounds as BioMarkers  (2) Biomedical Measurement Science  (173) BioSimilars  (111) BioTechnology – Venture Creation  (125)    Foundations for supporting Science and Education  (12)    Philanthropy to Academic Institution  (2) BioTechnology – Venture Creation, Venture Capital  (105)    Seeking Talent  (3) BiVAD  (1) Blindness  (6) Bone Disease and Musculoskeletal Disease  (82) Brain Basis of Emotion  (5) Business Career Consideration  (1) Ca2+ triggered activation  (59) Calcium  (19) Calcium Signaling  (68) Calmodulin Kinase and Contraction  (35) Cancer – General  (177) Cancer and Current Therapeutics  (396)    interventional oncology  (42)       Breast Cancer – impalpable breast lesions  (17)       Prostate Cancer: Monitoring vs Treatment  (8) CANCER BIOLOGY & Innovations in Cancer Therapy  (1,092)    Anaerobic Glycolysis  (51)    Cachexia  (18)    Cancer Genomics  (69)       Circulating Tumor Cells (CTC)  (19)          Liquid Biopsy Chip detects an array of metastatic cancer cell markers in blood  (14)             mRNA  (5)          MagSifter chip  (1)       KRAS Mutation  (6)       Li-fraumeni syndrome.  (3)       TP53 – Germline mutations  (5)    cancer metabolism  (20)    Funding Opportunities for Cancer Research  (11)    Genomic Expression  (143)    Glioblastoma  (7)    Hexokinase  (14)    Loss of function gene  (18)    Metabolic Immuno-Oncology  (16)    Metastasis Process  (13)    Methylation  (32)    Microbiome and Responses to Cancer Therapy  (5)    Monoclonal Immunotherapy  (27)    mtDNA  (13)    Oxidative phosphorylation  (56)    Pancreatic cancer  (9)    Pyruvate Kinase  (27)    The NCI Formulary  (1)    tumor microenvironment  (13)    Warburg effect  (50) Cancer Informatics  (93) Cancer Prevention: Research & Programs  (125) Cancer Screening  (102) Cancer Vaccines: Targeting Cancer Genes for Immunotherapy  (25)    Engineering Enhanced Cancer Vaccines  (3) cancer-general  (1) Cardiac and Cardiovascular Surgical Procedures  (321)    Aortic Valve: TAVR, TAVI vs Open Heart Surgery  (87)       Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch (PPM) in TAVI vs SAVR  (2)       TAVI vs Open Heart Surgery  (6)       Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement via the Transcarotid Access  (2)       Transcaval TAVR Procedure  (3)       Valve-in-Valve Procedure  (4)    Atrial Fibrilation (a-Fib), Cardiac Pacing and Arrhythmias  (17)    BackBeat’s Cardiac Neuromodulation Therapy (CNT) bioelectronic therapy  (1)    CABG  (47)    Cancer Surgery of the Heart  (10)    Cardiovascular Fluid Management: algorithms  (1)    Heart Transplant  (15)    Heart-Lung Transplant  (10)    Implantation  (2)    Left Main Coronary Artery Disease (LMCAD)  (3)    Mechanical Assist Devices: LVAD, RVAD, BiVAD, Artificial Heart  (19)    Mitral Valve: Repair and Replacement  (63)       TMVR – Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair  (4)    PCI  (104)       Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (BVS)  (3)       Invasive FFR for PCI  (2)       Multivessel PCI FFR Guidance  (1)       Robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention  (1)       Stent Retriever in endovascular thrombectomy  (2)    Peripheral Arterial Disease & Peripheral Vascular Surgery  (63)       Abdominal Aorta  (20)       Carotid Artery  (15)       Limb ischemia  (4)       Thoracic Aorta  (16)    Pulmonary Valve Replacement and Repair  (3)    Renal Denervation  (20)    Replacement  (1)    Robotically assisted Cardiothoracic Surgery  (1)    Tricuspid Valve Repair  (7)    Vena Caval Filters: Device for Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism and Thrombosis  (1) Cardiovascular Pharmacogenomics  (169) Cargo  (3) Cell Biology  (320) Cell Biology, Signaling & Cell Circuits  (663)    Apoptosis  (17)    Autophagy-Modulating Proteins  (6)    “Antibody–enzyme conjugates”  (5)    Cell Processing System in Cell Therapy Process Development  (25)    Endoplasmic reticulum  (3)    Enzymatic mechanism underlying the synthesis of adenosine triphosphate (ATP)  (3)    Ubiquitin  (10) Cerebrovascular and Neurodegenerative Diseases  (123)    Stroke  (9) Chemical Biology and its relations to Metabolic Disease  (461)    #BIGAxisSummit  (1)    Gut Microbiome and Obesity  (8) Chemical Genetics  (349) Child and Adolescent Psychiatry  (13) Childhood cancer  (15) Childhood malnutrition  (3) children  (2) Circulating Progenitor Cells  (27)    Bone marrow derived cells  (17)    Endothelial cells  (7)    Umbilical cord cells  (6) Clinical & Translational  (235) Clinical Diagnostics  (216)    Mass automation of plasma proteins  (13) Clinical Genomics  (136) Coagulation Therapy and Internal Bleeding  (83) Cognition  (46) Commercialization  (20) Components and IRB related issues  (4) Computational Biology/Systems and Bioinformatics  (465)    Computational Histopathology  (3)    Meta-analysis of transcriptome data  (9) Conference Coverage with Social Media  (476)    MassBio  (3) coronavirus  (18) COVID-19  (20) CRISPR/Cas9 & Gene Editing  (188)    CRISPR alternative for editing genes without cutting  (14)       CAST – Alternative to CRISPR/Cas9  (3)       Transposon-encoded CRISPR–Cas systems direct RNA-guided DNA integration  (4)    CRISPR applied to Human Germ Line  (10)       Gene Editing Impact on Longevity  (4) CT  (19) Cytokines  (20) Cytoskeleton  (84) Developmental biology  (107) Diabetes Mellitus  (142)    Artificial Pancreas for Type 2 Diabetes  (1)    Artificial Pancreas for Type1 Diabetes  (5)    Gestational diabetes  (2) Diagnostic Immunology  (58) Diagnostics and Lab Tests  (127)    Liquid Biopsy: Circulating Tumor Cells in Urine and Blood  (8) Digital HealthCare – biotech & internet joint ventures  (46) Disease Biology  (333) Disease Biology, Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic Drugs  (484) DNA repair  (72)    Apoptosis  (12)    Autophagy  (13)    Cell death pathways  (19)    Proteolysis  (8)    Proteosome  (8) Drug Delivery Platform Technology  (156)    Drug Carrier Design  (20)       Medication Remote Compliance Monitoring  (3)    Exosomes: Natural Carriers for siRNA Delivery  (9) Drug Toxicity  (74) Ecosystems & Industrial Concentration in the Medical Device Sector  (172)    Cardiac & Vascular Repair Tools Subsegment  (128)    Exec Compensation in the Cardiac & Vascular Repair Tools Subsegment  (14)    Massachusetts Niche Suppliers and National Leaders  (20) Electronic Health Record  (9) Embryology  (24) Empathy  (6) Endocrine Diseases  (60) Enzyme Induction  (46)    ion-transporting enzyme  (2)    K + -ATPase.  (1)    Na +  (2) Epigenetics and Environmental Factors  (32) Ethics and Leadership  (10) Executive Compensation – Big Pharma  (3) Fat soluble vitamins  (4) FDA  (68) FDA Regulatory Affairs  (355)    FDA, CE Mark & Global Regulatory Affairs: process management and strategic planning – GCP, GLP, ISO 14155  (52)    ISO 10993 for Product Registration: FDA & CE Mark for Development of Medical Devices and Diagnostics  (30) Fetal Ultrasound  (2) Fiction and medicine  (5) Frontiers in Cardiology and Cardiovascular Disorders  (920)    Acute Myocardial Infarction  (62)       Cardiogenic Shock  (5)    Anemia in CVD Patients  (6)    Cardio-Oncology  (4)    Cardiomyopathy  (57)    Cardiovascular Research  (187)       Myocardial metabolism, Myocardial ischemia, myocardial perfusion, Myocardial adenine nucleotide metabolism  (64)       Pre-Clinical Animal Model Development  (23)    Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension (CTEPH) and Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH)  (20)    Cost of Inpatient Stay for Cardiovascular Diagnosis for Admission  (1)    Electrophysiology  (108)       Ablation Procedure vs Drug Therapy  (2)       Arrhythmia Detection with Machine Learning Algorithms  (6)       Cardiotoxic Risks of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors  (1)       Genomic Analysis of EKG Electrophysiology Genomics  (3)       implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and External Defibrillation  (1)       implantable pacemaker  (2)       Rare heart rhythm disorders and Long QT syndrome (LQTS)  (6)    Epigenetics and Cardiovascular Risks  (57)    Heart Failure (HF)  (48)       Acute coronary syndrome  (6)       congestive heart failure  (18)    Medical Devices R&D and Inventions  (208)       Assist Devices: LV  (3)       RV  (1)       Stents & Tools  (89)       Valves & Tools  (65)    Origins of Cardiovascular Disease  (419)       Atherogenic Processes & Pathology  (178)       Congenital Heart Disease  (34)          Genetic Mutations in Congenital Heart Disease  (4)       inflammation independent of lipid levels  (12)       Systemic Inflammatory Diseases as CVD Risk  (11)    Pharmacotherapy of Cardiovascular Disease  (353)       HTN  (173)       HTN in Youth  (8)       Resident-cell-based  (43)       Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH)  (1)       Transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM)  (1)    Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection (SCAD)  (6)    Stroke  (14)       endovascular thrombectomy  (5)    Vascular Diseases  (21)       mesenteric ischemia  (3) Future Pandemics Inform-graphics  (1) Gastroenterology  (38) Gene Regulation  (228) Gene Regulation and Evolution  (135) Genetics & Innovations in Treatment  (172) Genetics & Pharmaceutical  (199) Genome Biology  (959)    Exosomes  (24)    Gene Therapy & Gene Editing Development  (38)    mRNA Therapeutics  (17)    Mutagenesis  (26)    Single Cell Genomics  (22)    Single-cell sequencing  (18)    Variation in human protein-coding regions  (32) Genomic Endocrinology  (42) Genomic Testing: Methodology for Diagnosis  (412) Genomics Pharmacy  (38) Global Market of Medical Devices Technology  (2) Global Medical Publishers by Country  (3) Global Partnering & Biotech Investment  (45) GLP  (4) Glycobiology: Biopharmaceutical Production  (15) Glycobiology: Biopharmaceutical Production, Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics  (27) Health Care System by Country  (49)    AI Models in Healthcare  (8)    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services  (8)    Health in Israel  (2)    United States  (24)       Hospital-based Medical Innovations  (8)       Medical Recertification and Maintenance of Certification (MOC)  (1) Health Economics and Outcomes Research  (378)    Women Health  (15)       Heart and Brain Disease in Women  (3) Health Law & Patient Safety  (162)    and Bioethics  (13)    Biotechnology  (11)    Health Law Policy  (12) HealthCare IT  (136) Healthcare Reform  (112)    Accountable Care Organizations  (26)    Affordable Care Act  (29)       Repair  (1)       Repeal ACA  (1)       Replace  (1)    Federal Budget Appropriations  (26)    Healthcare costs and reimbursement  (55)    Indigent Nutrition  (14)    Medicare and Medicaid  (20)    Prescription Drugs Costs  (21)    Skilled Nursing Facilities  (6)    Technology Capital Expenses  (15)    Uninsured and Underinsured  (20) Hematology  (99)    Acute lymphocytic leukemia  (18)    Acute myelocytic leukemia  (21)    Hematopoiesis  (48)    Lymphoma  (21) History and physical exam  (6) Human aging  (27) Human Immune System in Health and in Disease  (237) Human Sensation and Cellular Transduction: Physiology and Therapeutics  (21) Image Processing/Computing  (41) Imaging-based Cancer Patient Management  (116) Immuno-Oncology & Genomics  (126)    mRNA platform in Drug DIscovery  (6) Immunodiagnostics  (128)    Cancer-Immune Interactions  (20)    CNS-Immune Interface  (3)    Neuronal Circuits  (4) Immunology  (114)    Adaptive Immune Response to Biomaterials and Tissue Repair  (10)    Antibody Responses Predict Antigen Exposure  (15)    Cytokine Receptor Structure  (8)    Human Antibody Response  (17)    Human Circulating Antibody Repertoire  (10)    Human Naive B Cell Repertoire  (8)    MHC Repertoires for Antigen Prediction  (8)    Protection Against Autoimmune Disease  (9)    Synthetic Immunology: Hacking Immune Cells  (12) Immunotherapy  (121)    CAR-T  (13)    combination immunotherapies.  (11)    Efficacy of Anti-Tumor T Cells  (11)    Engineering Better T Cells  (7)    Immune Engineering  (13)    Immune Modulatory  (13)    Integrin-targeted Combination Immunotherapy  (5)    Modulating Macrophages in Cancer Immunotherapy  (11)    NK Cell-Based Cancer Immunotherapy  (16)    Synergistic Innate and Adaptive Immunotherapy  (13) Income Disparity  (2) Infectious Disease & New Antibiotic Targets  (162)    Antibiotic resistance  (7)    Viral diseases  (37)       Myocarditis  (1) Infectious Disease Immunodiagnostics  (56)    Virology – Vector-borne DIsease  (17) Inflammasome  (26)    Anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs (TNF inhibitors)  (2) Innovation in Immunology Diagnostics  (107)    Universal Immune Cell Therapies (uICT)  (10) Innovations  (185)    R&D Expenditure  (8) Innovations in Neurophysiology & Neuropsychology  (142)    Age and Life Expectancy  (1)    autism spectrum disorder  (1)    Circadian Rhythm and Sleep  (6)    hNPCs  (1)    Nervous System Function  (2)    Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis  (1) Intellectual Property  (76)    Disputes and Settlements  (9)    IP Valuation Models – Pricing Intangible Assets  (5)    Patent Law in Biotech  (12) Intellectual Property, Innovations, Commercialization, Investment in technological breakthrough  (108) International Global Work in Pharmaceutical  (188) Interventional Oncology: Radiofrequency Ablation, Transarterial Chemoembolization, Microwave Ablation and Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)  (12) Interviews with Scientific Leaders  (302)    Albany Medical Center Prize in Medicine and Biomedical Research  (1)    Annual Breakthrough Prize  (2)    Annual Lewis S. Rosenstiel Award  (1)    Awards in Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine  (4)    CEOs of Biotech Companies  (2)    Gerald D Aurbach Award for Outstanding Translational Research  (1)    Interviews with Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs)  (7)    James Prize in Science and Technology Integration  (1)    Jessie Stevenson Kovalenko Medal – Medical Sciences  (1)    Lemelson-MIT Prize  (1)    Life Sciences Breakthrough Prize  (3)    Mosteller Statistician of the Year Award  (1)    Mourning the Loss of a Scientific Leader  (2)    National Academy of Sciences AWARDS  (2)    Nobel Prize Winners  (21)    Noble Prize (Not Nobel Prize)  (1)    Paul Marks Prize for Cancer Research  (1)    Russ Prize recognizes bioengineering achievements worldwide  (1)    The Dan David Prize  (5)    Warren Alpert Foundation Prize Recipients  (3)    Wolf Prize  (1)    Wolf Prize in Medicine  (1)    women in science  (3) Investment in Technological Breakthrough  (60) Ionic Transporters Na+  (25) IP Development by LPBI Group Team  (10) IP Development by LPBI Group Team & Other Organizations  (7) ISO 14155  (3) Joint Venture – SBH & M3DP: SOP and Arrangements  (1) Justice & Law  (1) K  (15) Lab-on-a-chip  (2) Landscape  (1) Lasers and photonics  (18)    Midrange IR spectroscopy  (1) Law and Medicine Conflicts  (14) Leadership, Power, Social Interlocking Connections  (13) Lipid metabolism  (109)    Fatty acids  (38)    Lipids  (38)    PCSK9 Inhibitor Therapy  (19) Lipidomics  (11) Liposome  (4) Liver & Digestive Diseases Research  (120) LPBI Group, e-Scientific Media, DFP, R&D-M3DP, R&D-Drug Discovery, US Patents: SOPs and Team Management  (129)    Award Nominations  (5)    BioMed e-Books e-Series by LPBI Group  (8)    Feedback from Investors: LPBI Portfolio of Five Businesses  (2)    LPBI Group Founder – Aviva Lev-Ari  (22)    PhD  (1)    RN  (1) LPBI Management  (15) Massachusetts Academy of Sciences (MAS)    (2) Materials Science & Engineering  (37)    Organic BioElectronics  (2) Math  (13)    Great Discoveries  (7) Mechanical Assist Devices: LVAD  (4) Medical and Population Genetics  (191) Medical Devices R&D Investment  (239)    21st Century Cures Act  (2)    CE Mark & Global Regulatory Affairs: process management and strategic planning – GCP  (13)    Rhythm management device hardware: dual-chamber pacemakers  (1)       Systolic HTN  (1) Medical Imaging Technology  (55) Medical Imaging Technology, Image Processing/Computing, MRI, CT, Nuclear Medicine, Ultra Sound  (160)    Circumferential-Intravascular-Radioluminescence-Photoacoustic-Imaging (CIRPI)  (3)    Echocardiography  (2)    MRI  (17)    Noninvasive Diagnostic Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) CT  (5)    Ultra Sound  (7) Melatonin & Circadian Regulation  (9) memory loss  (1) Metabolism  (236)    Biochemical pathways  (142)       Enzymes and isoenzymes  (72)          Dehydrogenase  (16)          Kinase  (28)          Phosphatase  (9)          Phosphorylase  (22)          tyrosine decarboxylases  (3)    Inosine nucleotides  (9)    Leloir pathway  (6)    microbiome  (7)    Pentose monophosphate shunt  (14)    Pyridine nucleotides  (28)       Pyridine nucleotide transhydrogenase  (7) Metabolomics  (318) Methods  (37) Mg++  (10) Microbiologial genetics  (34) Microbiology  (67)    Virology  (14) Micronutrients  (16) Microvesicle  (7) Microwave Ablation and Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)  (1) Mobile Healthcare  (4) Molecular Genetics & Pharmaceutical  (375)    Organoids  (3) Monoclonal antibody therapy  (13) Mutant Gene Expression  (42) Myocardial adenine nucleotide metabolism  (6) Myocardial Ischemia  (26) Myocardial Metabolism  (36) Na-K transport  (40) Na-K-ATPase  (27) Nanotechnology for Drug Delivery  (97) Nephrology  (46) Nephrology & Regenerative medicine  (9) Neurodegenerative Diseases  (88)    hNPCs  (3)    MS  (5) Neurohumoral Transmission  (67)    Ca2+ triggered activation  (20)    Calmodulin  (13)    Parkinson’s disease dyskinesia levodopa  (3)    PKC  (13)    Synaptic vesicle  (20) Neurological Diseases  (121) Neuroscience  (126) Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)  (25)    Nanopore sequencing  (1) NIH Common Fund  (1) Nitric Oxide in Health and Disease  (136) Nuclear Medicine  (11) Nutrigenomics  (68) Nutrition  (194)    Nutritional Supplements: Atherogenesis, lipid metabolism  (49) Nutrition and Phytochemistry  (61)    Minerals in Medicine  (4)    Plant extract  (22) Nutrition Disorders  (30) Nutritional Supplements: Atherogenesis  (31) Obesity  (18) Oligonucleotide Therapeutics & Delivery  (7) Oncolytic virus & OncoViro-Therapy  (21)    Synthetic Virology  (1) Organ-on-a-Chip & 3D Printing in Life Sciences  (7) Pain: Etiology, Genetics & Innovations in Treatment  (24) Parasitology  (5)    Malaria  (4)    Tropical diseases  (1) Patents  (34) Patient Experience  (64)    Art therapy  (1)    Hospital reputation  (7)    Humor  (1)    Music therapy  (2)    Pain Alleviation  (7)    Patient Outlook  (28)    Reputation of Interventionist  (4)    Support Staff  (13)    Supportive therapies  (6)       laughfter  (1)    Surgical Procedure  (7) Patient Experience: Personal Memories of Invasive Medical Intervantion  (30) Patient’s Voice: Personal Experience with Invasive Medical Procedures  (18) Perioperative Statins at Noncardiac Surgery  (2) Personal Health Applications: Tech Innovations serves HealhCare  (36) Personalized and Precision Medicine & Genomic Research  (716)    Longevity  (1)    New Drug Approval  (4)    Patient-centered Medicine  (35)       cell-based therapy  (8)       stem cell biology and patient-specific  (6)    Personalized Medicine Coalition  (8)    Precision Cancer Medicine  (18) Phagophore  (2) Pharmaceutical Analytics  (259)    Pharmacologic toxicities  (61) Pharmaceutical Discovery  (106)    Rapid automation of plasma protein pools  (16) Pharmaceutical Drug Discovery  (196)    Drug Development Process  (53)       Drug Discovery Chemistry  (28)    drug repurposing  (10) Pharmaceutical Industry Competitive Intelligence  (338)    Pharmacovigilance  (6)    Value-based Drug Pricing  (8) Pharmaceutical R&D Informatics  (42) Pharmaceutical R&D Investment  (297) Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics  (24) Pharmacogenomics  (157) Photography Collection  (1) Physics  (12) Placenta  (7) Population genetics  (25) Population Health Management  (192)    Evolution of Biology Through Culture  (14)    U.S. Employment-to-Population Ratio  (8) Population Health Management, Genetics & Pharmaceutical  (623)    COVID-19  (155)       Biomarkers: Inflammation  (36)       Cancer Researchers Fighting COVID-19  (14)       COVID-19 effects on Human Heart  (15)       COVID-19: Pandemic Surgery Guidance  (19)       Economic Impact of Coronavirus Pandemic  (41)       number of asymptomatic infections  (27)       Treatment Protocols for COVID-19  (62)    SARS-CoV-2  (138)       Coronavirus Gene Expression  (65)          SARS-CoV-2 circulating variants   (14)          SARS-CoV-2 Viral Variants  (18)       Glycosylation and its Role in SARS-CoV-2 Viral Pathogenesis  (2)       Immune-Mediation (independent immunopathology: lung and reticuloendothelial system)  (29)       Mechanisms of infection by SARS-CoV-2  (21)       SAR-Cov-2 a vasculotropic (blood vessels) RNA Virus  (35)          SARS-COV2 Hijacking the Complement and Coagulation Systems  (19)       Seasonality & Environmental Factors in Resurgence  (26)       Serology tests for coronavirus antibodies  (44)       T-cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection  (14)       Vaccinology  (51)          Mechanism of Thrombosis with AZ & J&J COVID-19 Vaccines  (5)       Virtual Drug Molecule Screening targeting SAR-CoV-2 proteins  (8)    Virus Infective Acute Respiratory Syndrome: SARS-CoV  (92) Population Health Management, Nutrition and Phytochemistry  (151) Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Reproductive Genomics  (13) Protein-energy malnutrition  (12) Proteomics  (360)    Amino acids  (52)    Proteins  (134) Pulmonary diseases  (16)    Lung and pulmonology  (15) Pulmonary pathology  (8) Radio Frequency (RF)-based Surgical Solutions  (2) REAL TIME Conference Coverage Twitter’s Hashtags and Handles per Presentation/session  (31) Regenerative Biology and Medicine  (92) Regulated Clinical Trials: Design, Methods, Components and IRB related issues  (265) Reproductive Andrology, Embryology, Genomic Endocrinology, Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Reproductive Genomics  (113) Reproductive Biology & Bio Instrumentation  (78) RNA Biology  (81)    RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutic  (4) RNA Biology, Cancer and Therapeutics  (61) RVAD  (1) SBIR, SBA, NIH, NSF  (3) Schizophrenia  (16) Scientific & Biotech Conferences: Press Coverage  (174) Scientific Publishing  (607)    Curation  (584)       Curation methodology  (40)       De novo synthesis  (16)       Dialectic  (17)       Discovery process  (71)       Evolutionary cognition  (52)       Experimental validation  (90)       Explanatory  (91)       Historical relevance  (71)       Technology Advance Assessment of  (69)       Theoretic convergence  (27)    Open Access Journals  (37) Scientist: Career considerations  (195)    Big Data & Analytics  (16)    Data Science  (12)    Women in Life Sciences  (11) Scoop.it  (19) Sensors & Analytics  (18) Sepsis  (2) Severe Autism  (3) Signaling  (100)    Phosphorylation  (42)    S-nitrosylation  (13)    Ubiquitinylation  (33) Signaling & Cell Circuits  (129) single cell sequencing  (2) Small Molecules in Development of Therapeutic Drugs  (70) Social Development  (15) Specialized 3D BioPrinters (Cornea  (1) Statistical Methods for Research Evaluation  (137) Stem Cells for Regenerative Medicine  (175)    Cardiac muscle regeneration  (19)    Competition in regenerative stem cell science  (17)    Human neural progenitor cells  (7)    Skeletal muscle regeneration  (9) STORM  (2) Stress Disorders  (19) Substance Abuse  (4) Systemic Inflammatory Response Related Disorders  (160)    Inflammatory Pathophysiology  (8) Technology Transfer: Biotech and Pharmaceutical  (352) therapeutics  (3) Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine  (22) Tissue Microenvironment  (4) Transarterial Chemoembolization  (2) Transcriptomics  (43) Transformative Technologies in Healthcare  (14) Translational Science  (225)    Best evidence  (52)    Bias measurement tools  (2)    Evidence-based decision-making  (27)    Inferential analysis  (25)    Intra-rater error  (1)    Quality Assurance  (8)    Random Error  (2)    Systematic Error (Bias)  (6)    Total error  (2)    Translational Effectiveness  (49)    Translational Research  (89) Trends in Global Economy  (6) Uncategorized  (1,009) Unfolded Protein Response (UPR)  (6) US and Global Economy: Trends and Findings  (8) Venture Capital  (44)    Income Geographic Distribution  (2)    Institutional Capital Raised by Female Founders  (5) virology  (9) Vision  (7) Voices of Patients and Healthcare Providers  (21) Water Transporters  (8) Wearable Tech + Digital Health  (4) Anemia  (21) Neutropenia  (8) Neutrophilia  (9) Platelet count disorder  (9) Folate and B12  (7) Iron deficiency  (5) Myelodysplasia  (12) Myelofibrosis  (10)

• Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

• • 2012pharmaceutical
  • Amandeep Kaur
  • Aashir Awan, Phd
  • Abhisar Anand
  • Adina Hazan
  • Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
  • alexcrystal6
  • anamikasarkar
  • apreconasia
  • aptubman
  • Arav Gandhi
  • aviralvatsa
  • David Orchard-Webb, PhD
  • danutdaagmailcom
  • Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
  • Dror Nir
  • dsmolyar
  • Ethan Coomber
  • evelinacohn
  • Gail S Thornton
  • Irina Robu
  • jayzmit48
  • jdpmd
  • jshertok
  • kellyperlman
  • Ed Kislauskis
  • larryhbern
  • Madison Davis
  • marzankhan
  • megbaker58
  • ofermar2020
  • Dr. Pati
  • pkandala
  • ritusaxena
  • Rick Mandahl
  • sjwilliamspa
  • Srinivas Sriram
  • stuartlpbi
  • Dr. Sudipta Saha
  • tildabarliya
  • zraviv06
  • zs22