Everyone knows the mitochondria is the "powerhouse of the cell." But have you seen how beautifully its movement was captured by Dr. Patrick C. Hickey in this 5th place #SmallWorldInMotion winning video? 🏆 Now you have! bit.ly/3TgEWKn

Check out the newly organized website of Cancer Sciences, the home of enterprise basic and translational oncology research at the Cleveland Clinic lerner.ccf.org/cancer-scienc…

⚡️Randomized phase III trial of adjuvant RT vs observation after gross total resection of WHO grade 2 meningioma just got published ⚡️ 157 pts ➡️ 78 RT ➡️ 79 observation ➡️ RT = 60 Gy/30 fx ➡️ median follow-up ~5 years At ~5 years: 🔁 Recurrence: 14% with RT vs 30% with obs 📈 5-year DFS: 80% vs 64% ❗️There was no difference in OS, but only 13 pts died in the entire trial, and 95% CI was huge 0.27-3.05. So one really can't tell from this study whether RT improves, worsens, or has no effect on OS. It was simply far too underpowered for that endpoint. Could salvage tx in the obs arm attenuate OS difference? Possibly. More pts in the obs arm required 2nd-line tx (20% vs 10% with RT), but ROAM doesn't quite establish that salvage tx explains the lack of OS difference - it is a plausible interpretation, but not a proven conclusion. ✔️QoL and neurocognitive outcomes were similar which is reassuring, but QoL data were available in only 38% of pts at 5 yrs, while by 2 yrs ~45% of neurocognitive data were missing. So there is simply too much missing data to conclude that either strategy leads to better or worse QoL or neurocognitive function. After all, if a tumor recurs and a pt needs salvage surgery and/or RT, it is plausible that QoL could worsen simply from the burden of additional tx 🎯 My take-home: RT reduces the risk of recurrence after GTR of grade 2 meningioma But, just like in breast, prostate, and other cancers with otherwise favorable prognosis, there will be a sizable group of pts who would never recur even without additional tx. Here, about 70% of pts observed had not recurred at ~5 years. So, as with most things in oncology, selection is really the 🔑 I’d particularly consider RT in younger patients and those with higher-risk clinical and/or molecular features and in cases where postop 68Ga-DOTATATE PET detects residual disease that may not be clearly visible on MRI.

Well, being delayed at La Guardia isn’t so bad now. If we had the new LGA when I was living in NY, quality of life would have been measurably higher

In 1980, 21% of NIH-funded principal investigators were under age 35. By 2015, this proportion was 3%. The dramatic ageing of independent scientists is bad because old people are simply worse at science than young people. Latest meta-scientific deep-dive from me 🧵 ⬇️

Every Midwesterner this week

Excited to share our new paper, out today in @ScienceMagazine! We developed senescence-modulating nanoparticles (SMNPs) that target P-selectin+ pathogenic senescent-like macrophages in fibrotic tissues and tumors. science.org/doi/10.1126/scie…

Lighting up your screen: a larval zebrafish's cellular activity. Developed by researchers at our Janelia Research Campus, WHaloCaMP is a biosensor that detects calcium signals & offers a window into how cells & organs work together. 🎥 Helen Farrants, HHMI JRC

VeloSano is truly inspirational. Community support makes breakthroughs in cancer possible. I am grateful to everyone who rode, cheered, and donated. #Research @CleClinicMD #cancerresearch #VeloSano

if institutional status becomes moral currency, physicians can feel pressure to accept conditions they would otherwise question. Gratitude is subtly framed as professionalism, and professionalism becomes equated with quiet acceptance. opmed.doximity.com/articles/…

Great to see neoantigen based therapies show benefit in a phase 3 trial. It’s been a long road!

Get rid of the term provider and “caregiver “

Get rid of the term "provider" in health care! The need and steps for action. @AnnalsofIM acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/…

POV you’re in a Minneapolis suburb

Excited to share our second paper on #quantum machine learning out now in Science Advances! 🎉 Here we developed a model to predict neoantigen immunogenicity using a quantum convolutional neural network. #AI #immunology #immunology #quantum science.org/doi/10.1126/scia…

Your academic CV is NOT linked to your ability to make big discoveries. 1. Andre Geim, a co-discoverer of graphene, wrote in his Nobel Lecture article: “So, at the age of 33 and with an h index of 1 (latest papers not yet published), I entered the Western job market for postdocs.” 2. Albert Einstein searched for a teaching position for two years. He had to accept a position at a Patent Office, where in a SINGLE year he wrote FOUR papers that completely revolutionized science (the photoelectric effect, Brownian motion, special relativity, and E=mc2). Only few years later did he finally enter academia, becoming a lecturer at the University of Bern. Not even a professor. 3. Katalin Karikó... Her mRNA grant proposals were repeatedly rejected. She was demoted out of the faculty position to a senior research investigator. She remained in a low-status research position for 10 years. She had little grant funding and no independent laboratory. And yet she persisted with her ideas about modified RNA, eventually discovering how it could suppress inflammation and receiving the 2023 Nobel Prize (with Drew Weissman). It was a very hard path. Other examples include Frances Arnold, Michael Brown, Randy Schekman, who got Nobel Prizes for the discoveries they made as young PIs in newly established labs. And many others. 📍So, let’s keep in mind that: 1. Big discoveries are often unforeseen. They emerge from wild hypotheses, random research and risky projects (e.g. graphene was a tiny side project!). Make sure you have such projects in your lab. 2. Most truly impactful discoveries did not require high h-indices, excessive funding or a high-IF journal. They required CREATIVE people and persistence. 3. Rejection of your proposal does NOT mean it proposes bad science. Such rejections represent the opinion of one person who has a rather subjective idea of what ‘good science’ means. 4. For younger people, it’s easier to do risky research. If we lock them to unnecessarily high tenure-track requirements, such discoveries become UNLIKELY. A strong scientist is not defined by high “academic metrics”. A strong scientist is the one who proposes risky creative endeavors outside the conventional boundaries. Who sees risk as an opportunity to make discoveries. And who is constantly seeking out these risks in the lab. __ My new conversation with the leading expert in creativity research - Prof. Keith Sawyer - about discoveries, academia and professional myths: piped.video/HiDZfBJIBIw ___

This has got to be one of my favorite email signature lines, and needless to add the person is a biostatistician: “If at first you don’t succeed, try two more times so your failure is statistically significant.”

New @WhiteHouse #science report with interesting initiatives 1. Federal funding shifts from projects and institutions toward people 2. Changes to peer review 3. Universities are no longer treated as the default home of federally funded science whitehouse.gov/wp-content/up…

Nobel-prize-winning chemist Omar Yaghi has left the United States for a full-time position at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China, where he will lead a new AI-assisted materials discovery institute. go.nature.com/4eR8Dtt

Multiple videos on TikTok show the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool's freshly applied blue paint is now peeling off in chunks and floating atop the water I'm not a paint expert but seems bad?