Photo by Jose Antonio Gallego Vu00e1zquez on Pexels.com There are numerous studies and I have highlighted the most pertinent aspects of the molecular landscape to bring you to speed. In one word-potential. Molecular amalgamation of the studies in clinic is time consuming, expensive and not standardised. Most important aspect of this paper? 10 gene signature … Continue reading Genomic landscape for tumours: Is there any evidence?
Good science, Bad Science: Why don’t we get a “cure” for cancer?
This post was "inspired" by an editorial from Scientific American (and I am riding its coattails) because I needed someone to call out the broken process. The essay does make some generalisations, however. Yet, it is still relevant because we, as scientists (and clinicians) owe it to our patients who look up to us. We … Continue reading Good science, Bad Science: Why don’t we get a “cure” for cancer?
National Cancer Database: The Past, Present, and Future of the Cancer Registry and Its Efforts to Improve the Quality of Cancer Care
(The highlights appear in standard text as bulleted lists while my comments appear as block quotes). Page 1 In those early days, hospital registrars would source paper charts to abstract tumor cases into hospital registries. During the annual Call for Data, years of completed cases were submitted to the NCDB via mailing floppy disks. This … Continue reading National Cancer Database: The Past, Present, and Future of the Cancer Registry and Its Efforts to Improve the Quality of Cancer Care
Integrating the #Science of How We #Learn into #Education #Technology
This is an interesting paper coming out from HBR about the "science of learning". The conflict of interest isn't mentioned here so I am assuming it is likely to a "plant". However, I am not missing the woods for the trees. This also has implications in medical training where emulation is encouraged rather than thinking. … Continue reading Integrating the #Science of How We #Learn into #Education #Technology