Lots of debate this week on whether journals should ban AI in peer review. We actually tested this in our new preprint, and the results were pretty clear to me. For context, I've reviewed for most of the big journals and evaluated 1,000 human reviews as an editor. I love to read and evaluate science. TLDR: From now on I won't do any peer review without AI. For clinical trials, I'd even call human-only review dangerous 🧵

Stop 👏 using 👏 AI 👏 detectors If something is good, it’s good. If it’s bad, it’s bad. Whether AI helped write it doesn’t change that. Nobody asks today if you used a calculator when you got the right result. Judge the quality. Plus, AI detectors don’t even work (or the Declaration Of Independence was written by AI)

This will be a growing challenge for authors. At @ResearchHub we regularly received reviews that were longer than the manuscript itself. Whether a review was written with AI is secondary. What we need is an agreement on what is expected from authors. And obviosuly with AI we can have way more detailed reviews now! I am totally ok with a preprint co-existing with its reviews. I do not think authors should be expected to do every requested experiment, or even be asked for new experiments at all, unless a key control is missing. The preprint, the reviews and any follow-up experiments can simply co-exist to give the maximum context to the reader/AI agent Historically it has been a flex to do every experiment a reviewer asks for, but I personally do not see the logic. I never received funding for those experiments, and I may not even want them in my manuscript.

Really cool new model out of the @Sergiu_P_Pasca lab at Stanford. They engineered mice missing most of their cortex and hippocampus, then transplanted human brain organoids into that space. The grafts matured, wired up with the host brain, and even rescued working memory deficits in the animals (now out in Nature). Awesome piece in @TheScientistLLC by Mariella Careaga digging into it, happy to have contributed a few thoughts. Check out the few story here:

Catalyst NYC last week brought together people from across the research and funding world to talk about where science funding and translation are heading. Amazing lineup, from Joni L Rutter (@NIH /NCATS) and Bridget Turaga (@NSF) to biotech founders, investors, and patient advocates. My personal highlight was the talk by @JAC0BSTERN on going founder mode on cancer. He walked through the N=1, data-driven approach he and @sytses took to Sid's osteosarcoma: maximal diagnostics, single-cell and multiomic profiling, and personalized therapies built around one patient's tumor. Coming from cell therapy and multiomics myself, it was striking to see that level of individualized, engineering-minded medicine performed in real time! We presented with @ResearchHub & @ResearchHubF new ideas and implementations on how funding can become faster, more open, and reviewed in real time. Great talks by @joycesticks and @jeffyfish9 on ResearchHub's new funding model and the really cool new idea of auto-generated proposals that could turn soon your ongoing work into fundable projects almost on its own. More coming soon! Interesting times ahead for how research gets funded. #CatalystNYC# #OpenScience# #TranslationalScience#

Do microplastics affect brain function? Plastic particles have been detected in human brain tissue, accumulating around blood vessels, and at higher concentrations in some individuals with dementia. We still don’t know if they disrupt the blood-brain barrier (BBB). We don’t know if carriers of APOE4 (a major genetic risk factor) are more vulnerable. That’s the question Gavin Spillard, a talented student in my lab, decided to go after. Last week over lunch, he brought this up. We looked at what’s known and what isn’t, and it was clear this is the kind of question that would normally take close to a year to fund. We already have the tools in place. So instead of waiting, we decided to just go for it. Through my work with ResearchHub, I can now partially fund projects like this using yield from my endowment. I covered half the microgrant myself, and now we’ll see if we can move from idea to data in a few weeks. If this research matters to you, consider contributing. We plan to compare how APOE3 vs APOE4 human iPSC-pericytes handle microplastics, measure uptake and transcriptional response, and test effects in BBB models and brain tissue. Then ask if we can reverse any APOE-specific signatures pharmacologically. As a thank you, every contributor receives a unique image of a pericyte in your favorite color 🧫 . Read the full project in the comments! We also appreciate any feedback for this preregistration!

I just funded: Microplastic exposure as a potential APOE-dependent risk factor for human blood-brain barrier dysfunction on @ResearchHub using the $RSC yield from my ResearchHub Endowment. This is a proposal from Gavin, a super talented student in our lab. Check it out 👇