Research news from Bhupesh Prusty

[Sean]

The molecular signature between ME/CFS and long COVID can’t be compared easily as majority of the ME/CFS patients accumulate secondary biological features over time. It seems that how the body adopts to the stress of the disease over time makes it different.​

I assume he means 'adapts'?

It would be very surprising if there were no changes over time. Not just molecular, of course, but across all relevant health domains.

With at least some of those changes being necessary adaptations in order to survive such a major chronic adverse change in health and general life status. The rest being largely unavoidable adverse consequences, only mitigable to varying degrees.

 

[Mij]

Our next paper on ME/CFS biology is submitted today. Excited for all the efforts. But now comes the hard part of scientific publishing.

 

[Murph]

That sounds kina like a guy whose academic career has drained him of the joy of discovery. He's focused on the pain of the process not the potential for patients.

I know he recently moved university to sustain or get funding. Can't be easy. Hope he keeps trying. He hasn't thrilled me yet but I'm ready to ride through the trough of disiluisonment with this guy and pop out the other side.

 

[wigglethemouse]

That sounds kina like a guy whose academic career has drained him of the joy of discovery. He's focused on the pain of the process not the potential for patients.

A follow on tweet was very interesting where he posted this link that shares many publishers use AI peer review of submitted papers and thus submissions can be rejected very quickly.

Scientists hide messages in papers to game AI peer review

Some studies containing instructions in white text or small font — visible only to machines — will be withdrawn from preprint servers.

www.nature.com

He then followed up with an example where the AI peer review process fails.

"Anything which is novel & out of the conventional knowledge can be rejected by AI review process. Every novel work may not be attractive to general audiences or editors. Papers should be judged by their content, relevance to science and society and rigorous nature of experiments."

 

[Jesse]

A follow on tweet was very interesting where he posted this link that shares many publishers use AI peer review of submitted papers and thus submissions can be rejected very quickly.

Scientists hide messages in papers to game AI peer review

Some studies containing instructions in white text or small font — visible only to machines — will be withdrawn from preprint servers.

www.nature.com

He then followed up with an example where the AI peer review process fails.

"Anything which is novel & out of the conventional knowledge can be rejected by AI review process. Every novel work may not be attractive to general audiences or editors. Papers should be judged by their content, relevance to science and society and rigorous nature of experiments."

The wonders of AI..