A seven-year study reveals that variations in specific isotopes linked to magmatic ‘foams’ can be used to predict volcanic unrest.
Scientists have found a way to use the ratio of atoms in specific gases created by volcanic fumaroles (gaps in the Earth’s surface) to detect what’s happening to magma deep below.
Volcanic eruptions are dangerous and challenging to predict. Could the new findings change this?
Marco Ritzki/iStock.
Studies have shown poor balance can be associated with serious health problems – as well as increased risks of falls as we get older. But there are ways to make yours better.
AI can also be of benefit in the diagnosis and treatment of patients. Tools have been created that help diagnose a patient as well as a human would.
AI isn’t a new technology—it’s been researched and developed since the 1950s and is currently present in many of our daily routines. Most of these applications are so common that we don’t even notice them.
Our lives often depend on the healthcare industry. So, having a technology that allows you to speed up patient registration processes and help diagnose more quickly and effectively is essential. Every health center should consider the use of AI for the benefit of its processes so it can adapt to the modern world and its accelerated pace.
MUSC Hollings Cancer Center researcher Ashish Deshmukh, Ph.D., has identified a dramatic recent rise in cervical cancer incidence among women in their early 30s. This work was published Nov. 21 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
Cervical cancer is mostly related to human papillomavirus (HPV), and screening has made this cancer preventable. Yet, it is estimated that over 14,000 new cases will be diagnosed this year and more than 4,000 deaths will be attributed to cervical cancer.
“HPV is a group of over 200 viruses. At least 14 high-risk HPV types can cause several types of cancers, including cervical, anal and head and neck cancers. In the era of the overall decline in cancer incidence, cancers caused by HPV are unfortunately rising,” said Deshmukh, an associate professor in the Department of Public Health Sciences at MUSC.
Triple threat. Tripledemic. A viral perfect storm. These frightening phrases have dominated recent headlines as some health officials, clinicians, and scientists forecast that SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) could surge at the same time in Northern Hemisphere locales that have relaxed masking, social distancing, and other COVID-19 precautions.
But a growing body of epidemiological and laboratory evidence offers some reassurance: SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses often “interfere” with each other. Although waves of each virus may stress emergency rooms and intensive care units, the small clique of researchers who study these viral collisions say there is little chance the trio will peak together and collectively crash hospital systems the way COVID-19 did at the pandemic’s start.
“Flu and other respiratory viruses and SARS-CoV-2 just don’t get along very well together,” says virologist Richard Webby, an influenza researcher at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. “It’s unlikely that they will circulate widely at the same time.”
Circa 2020 face_with_colon_three
UNSW researchers have overcome a major design challenge on the path to controlling the dimensions of so-called DNA nanobots—structures that assemble themselves from DNA components.
Self-assembling nanorobots may sound like science fiction, but new research in DNA nanotechnology has brought them a step closer to reality. Future nanobot use cases won’t just play out on the tiny scale, but include larger applications in the health and medical field, such as wound healing and unclogging of arteries.
Spiraling costs, closed facilities, capacity issues, staff burnout, staff shortages, lots of chaos — sounds like an ailing industry — and that industry is healthcare. Can artificial intelligence help mend some of the problems faced by hospitals and healthcare providers? There has been progress on that front — not fast enough, but progress nonetheless.
While interest in healthcare AI is high, “the level of acculturation of C-level executives is lagging, especially for organizations that would need it the most — pharmas, medtechs and hospitals,” a recent Capgemini report relates. The problem, the study’s authors relate, is data. “Enhancing the patient care pathway and improving care delivery remain on the top of the organizations’ agendas,” according to the report’s team of coauthors, led by Charlotte Pierron-Perlès. However, only about a third of healthcare organizations surveyed by Capgemini prioritize the availability of patient information. “We do not see major progress from 2021 [the year of the previous study].”
The good news is that many healthcare providers are stepping up their AI work. “The healthcare industry is now starting to implement AI and machine learning solutions at increased scale and sophistication,” says Tony Ambrozie, CIO at Baptist Health South Florida. “AI and machine learning will augment their ability to make sense of the vast amounts of data available.”
The fourth discussion of the NEW NOW program, “Transhumanism: Beyond the Human Frontier?”, took place on December 16.
Together with our guest experts, we tried to identify the latest technology that has either already become a reality or is currently in development, focusing on the ethical aspects of the consequences that ensue. We reflected on the question of whether the realization of transhumanist ideas is likely to entail a radical change in the ways people relate to one another. How far are we prepared to go in changing our bodies in order to attain these enhanced capacities? We will attempt to identify the “human frontier”, beyond which the era of posthumanism awaits.
Speakers:
James “J.” Hughes Ph.D. is a bioethicist and sociologist who serves as the Associate Provost for the University of Massachusetts Boston (UMB), and as Senior Research Fellow at UMB’s Center for Applied Ethics. He holds a doctorate in Sociology from the University of Chicago where he taught bioethics at the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics. Since then Dr. Hughes has taught health policy, bioethics, medical sociology and research methods at Northwestern University, the University of Connecticut, and Trinity College.
Back pain is a common condition with numerous causes, including poor posture, overexertion, constant stress at work or at home, lack of exercise, and poor posture. For a considerable number of patients, the symptoms are chronic, meaning they last a long period or reoccur repeatedly. However, port and exercise therapy, when done properly, can provide alleviation.
Physiotherapy, as well as strength and stability exercises, are common treatment options. But how can the treatment be as effective as possible? Which method reduces pain the most effectively? A recent meta-analysis published in the Journal of Pain by Goethe University Frankfurt revealed new insights.
The researchers began with data from 58 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving over 10,000 individuals suffering from chronic low back pain throughout the globe. The relevant data from the original manuscripts were first filtered out and then analyzed in groups. When analyzing this data, the researchers looked at whether and how conventional forms of therapy and individualized treatment varied in terms of outcome. “Individualized” refers to some kind of personal coaching where therapists precisely target the needs and potentials of each patient and collaborate with them to choose the course of their treatment.
As part of its ongoing work to track variants, WHO’s Technical Advisory Group on SARS-CoV-2 Virus Evolution (TAG-VE) met on the 24 October 2022 to discuss the latest evidence on the Omicron variant of concern, and how its evolution is currently unfolding, in light of high levels of population immunity in many settings and country differences in the immune landscape. In particular, the public health implications of the rise of some Omicron variants, specifically XBB and its sublineages (indicated as XBB•, as well as BQ.1 and its sublineages (indicated as BQ.1•, were discussed. Based on currently available evidence, the TAG-VE does not feel that the overall phenotype of XBB* and BQ.1* diverge sufficiently from each other, or from other Omicron lineages with additional immune escape mutations, in terms of the necessary public health response, to warrant the designation of new variants of concern and assignment of a new label. The two sublineages remain part of Omicron, which continues to be a variant of concern. This decision will be reassessed regularly. If there is any significant development that warrant a change in public health strategy, WHO will promptly alert Member States and the public. XBB*XBB* is a recombinant of BA.2.10.1 and BA.2.75 sublineages. As of epidemiological week 40 (3 to 9 October), from the sequences submitted to GISAID, XBB* has a global prevalence of 1.3% and it has been detected in 35 countries. The TAG-VE discussed the available data on the growth advantage of this sublineage, and some early evidence on clinical severity and reinfection risk from Singapore and India, as well as inputs from other countries. There has been a broad increase in prevalence of XBB* in regional genomic surveillance, but it has not yet been consistently associated with an increase in new infections. While further studies are needed, the current data do not suggest there are substantial differences in disease severity for XBB* infections. There is, however, early evidence pointing at a higher reinfection risk, as compared to other circulating Omicron sublineages. Cases of reinfection were primarily limited to those with initial infection in the pre-Omicron period. As of now, there are no data to support escape from recent immune responses induced by other Omicron lineages. Whether the increased immune escape of XBB* is sufficient to drive new infection waves appears to depend on the regional immune landscape as affected by the size and timing of previous Omicron waves, as well as the COVID-19 vaccination coverage. BQ.1*BQ.1* is a sublineage of BA.5, which carries spike mutations in some key antigenic sites, including K444T and N460K. In addition to these mutations, the sublineage BQ.1.1 carries an additional spike mutation in a key antigenic site (i.e. R346T). As of epidemiological week 40 (3 to 9 October), from the sequences submitted to GISAID, BQ.1* has a prevalence of 6% and it has been detected in 65 countries. While there are no data on severity or immune escape from studies in humans, BQ.1* is showing a significant growth advantage over other circulating Omicron sublineages in many settings, including Europe and the US, and therefore warrants close monitoring. It is likely that these additional mutations have conferred an immune escape advantage over other circulating Omicron sublineages, and therefore a higher reinfection risk is a possibility that needs further investigation. At this time there is no epidemiologic data to suggest an increase in disease severity. The impact of the observed immunological changes on vaccine escape remains to be established. Based on currently available knowledge, protection by vaccines (both the index and the recently introduced bivalent vaccines) against infection may be reduced but no major impact on protection against severe disease is foreseen. Overall summaryThe Omicron variant of concern remains the dominant variant circulating globally, accounting for nearly all sequences reported to GISAID[1]. While we are looking at a vast genetic diversity of Omicron sublineages, they currently display similar clinical outcomes, but with differences in immune escape potential. The potential impact of these variants is strongly influenced by the regional immune landscape. While reinfections have become an increasingly higher proportion of all infections, this is primarily seen in the background of non-Omicron primary infections. With waning immune response from initial waves of Omicron infection, and further evolution of Omicron variants, it is likely that reinfections may rise further. The role of the TAG-VE is to alert WHO if a variant with a substantially different phenotype (e.g. a variant that can cause a more severe disease or lead to large epidemic waves causing increased burden to the healthcare system) is emerging and likely to pose a significant threat. Based on currently available evidence, the TAG-VE does not feel that the overall phenotype of XBB* and BQ.1* diverge sufficiently from each other, or from other Omicron sublineages with additional immune escape mutations, in terms of the necessary public health response, to warrant the designation of a new variant of concern and assignment of a new label, but the situation will be reassessed regularly. We note these two sublineages remain part of Omicron, which is a variant of concern with very high reinfection and vaccination breakthrough potential, and surges in new infections should be handled accordingly. While so far there is no epidemiological evidence that these sublineages will be of substantially greater risk compared to other Omicron sublineages, we note that this assessment is based on data from sentinel nations and may not be fully generalizable to other settings. Wide-ranging, systematic laboratory-based efforts are urgently needed to make such determinations rapidly and with global interpretability. WHO will continue to closely monitor the XBB* and BQ.1* lineages as part of Omicron and requests countries to continue to be vigilant, to monitor and report sequences, as well as to conduct independent and comparative analyses of the different Omicron sublineages. The TAG-VE meets regularly and continues to assess the available data on the transmissibility, clinical severity, and immune escape potential of variants, including the potential impact on diagnostics, therapeutics, and the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing infection and/or severe disease. [1] Weekly epidemiological update on COVID-19 — 26 October 2022 (who.int)
