Search

Topics expected to influence personalized medicine (PM), where medical decisions, practices, and treatments are tailored to the individual patient, are reviewed. Lack of discrimination due to different biological conditions that express similar values of numerical variables (ambiguity) is regarded to be a major potential barrier for PM. This material explores possible causes and sources of ambiguity and offers suggestions for mitigating the impacts of uncertainties. Three causes of ambiguity are identified: (1) delayed adoption of innovations, (2) inadequate emphases, and (3) inadequate processes used when new medical practices are developed and validated. One example of the first problem is the relative lack of medical research on "compositional data" -the type that characterizes leukocyte data. This omission results in erroneous use of data abundantly utilized in medicine, such as the blood cell differential. Emphasis on data output ‒not biomedical interpretation that facilitates the use of clinical data‒ exemplifies the second type of problems. Reliance on tools generated in other fields (but not validated within biomedical contexts) describes the last limitation. Because reductionism is associated with these problems, non-reductionist alternatives are reviewed as potential remedies. Data structuring (converting data into information) is considered a key element that may promote PM. To illustrate a process that includes data-information-knowledge and decision-making, previously published data on COVID-19 are utilized. It is suggested that ambiguity may be prevented or ameliorated. Provided that validations are grounded on biomedical knowledge, approaches that describe certain criteria - such as non-overlapping data intervals of patients that experience different outcomes, immunologically interpretable data, and distinct graphic patterns - can inform, at personalized bases, earlier and/or with fewer observations., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

To rapidly prognosticate and generate hypotheses on pathogenesis, leukocyte multi-cellularity was evaluated in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients treated in India or the United States (152 individuals, 384 temporal observations). Within hospital (<90-day) death or discharge were retrospectively predicted based on the admission complete blood cell counts (CBC). Two methods were applied: (i) a "reductionist" one, which analyzes each cell type separately, and (ii) a "non-reductionist" method, which estimates multi-cellularity. The second approach uses a proprietary software package that detects distinct data patterns generated by complex and hypothetical indicators and reveals each data pattern's immunological content and associated outcome(s). In the Indian population, the analysis of isolated cell types did not separate survivors from non-survivors. In contrast, multi-cellular data patterns differentiated six groups of patients, including, in two groups, 95.5% of all survivors. Some data structures revealed one data point-wide line of observations, which informed at a personalized level and identified 97.8% of all non-survivors. Discovery was also fostered: some non-survivors were characterized by low monocyte/lymphocyte ratio levels. When both populations were analyzed with the non-reductionist method, they displayed results that suggested survivors and non-survivors differed immunologically as early as hospitalization day 1., Competing Interests: Author AA was employed by the company Stremble Ventures, LTD. Author AR is a co-inventor of the temporary guides used to recognize data patterns (European Union patent number 2959295, US patent number 10,429,389 B2). The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Verma, Libertin, Gupta, Khanna, Kumar, Arora, Krishna, Fasina, Hittner, Antoniades, van Regenmortel, Durvasula, Kempaiah and Rivas.)

This review discusses the philosophical foundations of what used to be called "the scientific method" and is nowadays often known as the scientific attitude. It used to be believed that scientific theories and methods aimed at the truth especially in the case of physics, chemistry and astronomy because these sciences were able to develop numerous scientific laws that made it possible to understand and predict many physical phenomena. The situation is different in the case of the biological sciences which deal with highly complex living organisms made up of huge numbers of constituents that undergo continuous dynamic processes; this leads to novel emergent properties in organisms that cannot be predicted because they are not present in the constituents before they have interacted with each other. This is one of the reasons why there are no universal scientific laws in biology. Furthermore, all scientific theories can only achieve a restricted level of predictive success because they remain valid only under the limited range of conditions that were used for establishing the theory' in the first place. Many theories that used to be accepted were subsequently shown to be false, demonstrating that scientific theories always remain tentative and can never be proven beyond and doubt. It is ironical that as scientists have finally accepted that approximate truths are perfectly adequate and that absolute truth is an illusion, a new irrational sociological phenomenon called Post-Truth conveyed by social media, the Internet and fake news has developed in the Western world that is convincing millions of people that truth simply does not exist. Misleading information is circulated with the intention to deceive and science denialism is promoted by denying the remarkable achievements of science and technology during the last centuries. Although the concept of intentional design is widely used to describe the methods that biologists use to make discoveries and inventions, it will be argued that the term is not appropriate for explaining the appearance of life on our planet nor for describing the scientific creativity of scientific investigators. The term rational for describing the development of new vaccines is also unjustified. Because the analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic requires contributions from biomedical and psycho-socioeconomic sciences, one scientific method alone would be insufficient for combatting the pandemic., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

More than 130,000 peer-reviewed studies have been published within one year after COVID-19 emerged in many countries. This large and rapidly growing field may overwhelm the synthesizing abilities of both researchers and policy-makers. To provide a sinopsis, prevent errors, and detect cognitive gaps that may require interdisciplinary research methods, the literature on COVID-19 is summarized, twice. The overall purpose of this study is to generate a dialogue meant to explain the genesis of and/or find remedies for omissions and contradictions. The first review starts in Biology and ends in Policy. Policy is chosen as a destination because it is the setting where cognitive integration must occur. The second review follows the opposite path: it begins with stated policies on COVID-19 and then their assumptions and disciplinary relationships are identified. The purpose of this interdisciplinary method on methods is to yield a relational and explanatory view of the field -one strategy likely to be incomplete but usable when large bodies of literature need to be rapidly summarized. These reviews identify nine inter-related problems, research needs, or omissions, namely: (1) nation-wide, geo-referenced, epidemiological data collection systems (open to and monitored by the public); (2) metrics meant to detect non-symptomatic cases -e.g., test positivity-; (3) cost-benefit oriented methods, which should demonstrate they detect silent viral spreaders even with limited testing; (4) new personalized tests that inform on biological functions and disease correlates, such as cell-mediated immunity, co-morbidities, and immuno-suppression; (5) factors that influence vaccine effectiveness; (6) economic predictions that consider the long-term consequences likely to follow epidemics that growth exponentially; (7) the errors induced by self-limiting and/or implausible paradigms, such as binary and reductionist approaches; (8) new governance models that emphasize problem-solving skills, social participation, and the use of scientific knowledge; and (9) new educational programs that utilize visual aids and audience-specific communication strategies. The analysis indicates that, to optimally address these problems, disciplinary and social integration is needed. By asking what is/are the potential cause(s) and consequence(s) of each issue, this methodology generates visualizations that reveal possible relationships as well as omissions and contradictions. While inherently limited in scope and likely to become obsolete, these shortcomings are avoided when this 'method on methods' is frequently practiced. Open-ended, inter-/trans-disciplinary perspectives and broad social participation may help researchers and citizens to construct, de-construct, and re-construct COVID-19 related research., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)