Consulo Indicium
Information for your Consideration…
Cellular Rejuvenation But Beyond Our Reach Today – One of the issues faced in all living cellular organisms (or, at least as we know it today), is that all cells eventually die – some faster than others. And, they die because their mitochondria simply give up the ghost. However, a new study is pointing to a way to combat the aging of cells and the genesis of degenerative diseases. The research suggests that creating mini mitochondria factories helps to recharge damaged cells in a dish, providing proof-of-concept work that could potentially pave the way to new regenerative medicine therapies.
The aging of cells in humans is particularly a problem in heart and brain cells, along with other critical organs in the body. So, to solve the problem, scientists have been working on methods to “recharge” the cells by inserting mitochondria into existing cells. However, an approach that works cell-by-cell is not workable given the number of cells in the human body. Where would one start? It’s impossible to increase the livelihood of cells on a one-by-one basis. So, researchers have been working on a method to transform “donor stem cells” into tiny mitochondria factories that are transplanted into existing organs, resulting in the integration of a mitochondria engine for the purpose of recharging old or damaged cells. The researchers started by going down this road because it was determined that cells can suck up mitochondria from their neighbors. BUT…one-cell-to-one-cell transplants are simply insufficient to make a difference among aging cells.
However, in the new study, the scientists were able to insert microscopic flower-shaped particles that served as carriers of molybdenum disulfide. When the particles are absorbed by stem cells in a petri dish, a molecular pathway was activated that boosted mitochondria production in cells. This is good news, but the solution needs further research to determine the best methodology for applying the findings. While it is a “down-the-road” solution, it seems to be “on-the-road” to potential success. It’s worth keeping an eye on this innovative approach for solving the “aging” issue. While it’s exciting, I’m not holding my breath for personal success but rather for the next generation…😊. For further information check here.
I Just Had To Share This Item – It’s the time of year when the “light hearted” commentary begins to emerge and, after the events of the last year – I thought it would be useful to share a brief that came across my “Family Medicine” weekly notice. It was an overview of an article that appeared in the annual special Christmas issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The issue is filled with various research projects that hold “…an element of humor running through them.” The article that was noted consisted of a true research project by Tobin Joseph, et.al. entitled: “Dexterity Assessment of Hospital Workers: Prospective Comparative Study.” The study consisted of using a children’s game where the study subjects “…move a loop along a convoluted wire and if you touch it, it buzzes, meaning that you've been unable to complete the task.” All participating members of the study were given 5 minutes to complete the task.
Of the 254 healthcare professionals that participated in the study, the following distribution was represented: 64 surgeons, 60 non-surgical physicians, 69 nurses, and 61 non-clinical staff. The age distribution of participants was not revealed. The completion rate for the buzz-wire game was: 84% of surgeons (n = 54) compared with only 57% of physicians (n = 34), 54% of nurses (n = 37), and 51% of nonclinical staff (n = 31) (P < .001). In addition, a “time to event analysis” revealed that surgeons were markedly more successful in completing the game than other participants, independent of age and gender. However, surgeons exhibited another interesting characteristic. As a group, the surgeons had the highest rate of swearing during the course of the game at 50%, followed by nurses at 30%, non-surgical physicians at 25%, and non-clinical staff at 23%. For those of us in the healthcare field, we probably would have predicted such a finding with an 80% confidence level. However, that analysis was not included in the study.
In their conclusion, the researchers noted that surgeons show higher levels of dexterity but much higher levels of swearing. In addition, the study highlights the diverse skill set across the different hospital groups in terms of manual dexterity. However, further research will be required to adequately assess the implications of swearing as a component in successfully completing the problem to determine the potential impact of such activity on the game. A corollary component of research could also be the impact on those clinicians and healthcare professionals who are observing the surgeons at work. Perhaps next time… Finally, it should be noted that research into the hypoalgesic effect of swearing has shown that the use of profanity can also help reduce the sensation of pain. This phenomenon is particularly strong in people who do not use such words on a regular basis. The FickFiles will keep a close watch on both phenomena as part of ongoing analysis and research related to important findings in healthcare.
What is PeerCheck™? As my regular readers know, one of the issues we are facing in healthcare is the “reliability” of information provided by AI systems. It’s an area that deserves – not our attention – but also the involvement of the medical and healthcare community to assure that the information we obtain and use is, in fact, “reliable”. A new initiative has been established, PeerCheck™ by Doximity, which strives to ensure the promise of AI in medicine remains grounded in the tradition of human wisdom. The new system basically unites experts with AI clinical insights provided from all manner of sources and engages real-life clinicians in evaluating the veracity of the findings provided by the AI system under question. To begin, volunteer reviewers can sign up with PeerCheck™. As a volunteer, you then define your areas of clinical expertise where you hold knowledge that is germane to selected topics. When information is captured on those topics, you are called upon to evaluate the veracity of the findings and file a report when your findings become a part of the PeerCheck™ system with you attributed as a reviewer. Your name and link in the Doximity system are attached to the validation you provide. Furthermore, your contribution is also reviewed by the PeerCheck™ project, and for your efforts, you’ll receive a $100 stipend. It’s an interesting approach that will, no doubt, meet some challenges down the road. However, it will also keep the “human element” engaged in the content of the AI systems as they also continue their evolution.
Two final points:
- The issue: Liability. To manage this problem, Doximity has agreed to handle all liability issues related to content for those who sign up.
- The problem: As of this writing, not a single USA clinician has signed up to participate!!
Hmmmm…