On the heels of a post I did at The Scientist (“Amazing Rats”), where I proposed a new model of intelligence based on a animal’s ability to solve problems rather than its communication skill, I read a blog post by Jonah Lehrer at The Frontal Cortex where he gives his take on what intelligence really means. Rather than smarts merely defined by how many facts someone can cram into their heads, Lehrer argues that a better measure of intelligence is to look at how well people (or animals) can shift their selective attention. Facts are just facts, but the intelligent being can manipulate and organize the information for the task at hand, which places a high demand on the attention circuits in the brain.
Read MoreWhen something’s wrong with the body, the innate immune system kicks into high gear, sending inflammatory molecules through the body, which help recruit macrophages – the cellular garbage collectors – to the scene. Recent publications show systemic inflammation goes hand-in-hand with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and atherosclerotic vessels. Researchers have been trying to pinpoint which inflammatory markers could potentially be used as biomarkers for CVD risk or progression. Current efforts have zeroed in on one marker in particular, the C-reactive protein, in the hopes of finding a way to assess a person’s risk for CVD both non-invasively and well before a cardiovascular event occurs. Preliminary evidence has shown that in the normal population, the higher the C-reactive protein level, the higher the risk for CVD. But what exactly is a normal population? These days, a full serving of heart disease often comes with a heaping side of Type II diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, or chronic kidney disease, creating a so-called “co-morbidity” of chronic diseases. Not surprisingly, these secondary disease states also affect the levels of C-reactive protein in the blood. So when a patient has more than one chronic condition, how useful is measuring the C-reactive protein level in predicting CVD risk?
Read MoreEver since I saw the press releases yesterday telling of a new article to be released in Nature showing that brain-training software was ineffective, I knew a storm was brewing. The paper was still under embargo at that point, so I was anxiously awaiting its release today. Slowly, but surely, the mainstream media got wind of the paper, running headlines like “Brain Games Don’t Make You Smarter”. Then the blogosphere lit up, with ongoing chatter throughout the day on this controversial paper. I was stuck in the lab all day, and couldn’t put a post together, so I’m a little late to the party. But I wanted to give you a rundown of what exactly the study found, and point out a few intricacies of their findings.
Read MoreObesity (determined by BMI) and blood glucose levels are by far the best predictors of whether a person will develop diabetes. Yet doctors are always on high alert for new biomarkers that may be more sensitive indicators of which patients will develop diabetes in the near future. The idea of using biomarkers to predict diabetes is not entirely new. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) values are now routinely being monitored to screen for at-risk patients. However, a new study in PLoS One shows that several new biomarkers in the blood may further our understanding of exactly who’s at risk for diabetes, and increase our knowledge of the etiology of the disease.
Read MoreI had the opportunity to write a post at the new blog of The Scientist magazine, "Naturally Selected". The post is not about preventive medicine. Rather, it taps into my neuroscience roots, and discusses the basis of intelligence in animals. Here's an excerpt:
Read MoreAs a follow-up to my post "The Truth About Cholesterol", here's a report from Slate showing that all LDLs are not created equal, and some types are more dangerous than others. Moreover, the article discusses how America's "War on Fat" steered us away from butter and lard, but led us to an arguably more dangerous food, the refined carbohydrate. Post your thoughts!
Read MoreIn Chapter 6 of The Decision Tree, "Screening for Everything", Thomas talks about the human papilloma virus (HPV), the virus that causes cervical cancer. Traditionally, doctors detected HPV by looking for irregular cells in the pap smear. But now, a cheap ($5) test can detect and analyze the DNA of the virus, determining if it is the high- or low-risk type, which can determine the likelihood of a patient developing cervical cancer. One problem remains: you still have to get women into the clinic to be tested. However, a new study in the British Medical Journal shows that home testing is not only a reality, but it may actually boost compliance rates. Roughly 28% of women using the home testing kit, which consisted of a simple cervicovaginal lavage, effectively screened themselves, while only about 17% of women required to go into the doctor's office for screening showed up.
Read MoreOne of the great humdingers in the current debate over healthcare reform is the duplicitous role of technology in increasing costs. Sophisticated medical technologies save thousands of lives every year, giving us scans that spot tumors early and devices that keep our hearts beating and our blood flowing. But these miracle technologies come with a paradox. In nearly every sector of the economy, technology drives costs down - just as your digital camera gets cheaper and better every year, so technology drives down the cost of manufacturing, the cost of retailing, the cost of research. But for some reason, in healthcare, technology has the opposite effect; it doesn't cut costs, it raises them. In fact, medical technologies - from CT scans to stents to biologics - are a significant factor in the 10% annual growth rate of healthcare spending, a rate that's nearly triple the pace of inflation. (Overall, the US is now estimated to spend a stunning $2.7 trillion on healthcare in 2010.)
Read MoreCheck out this study. Researchers found that when "teenage" rats (30-45 days old) consumed massive amounts of sugar, they became extremely difficult to train as adults. For two weeks or so during adolescence, one group of rats had free access to a tasty 5% sucrose solution, while the control group only had water available. Similar to some American teenagers, the experimental group of rats consumed about 20% of their daily caloric intake as simple sugar.
Read More