A nanoelectronics-blood-based diagnostic biomarker for ME/CFS (2019) Esfandyarpour, Davis et al

Discussion in 'ME/CFS research' started by Sly Saint, Apr 29, 2019.

  1. InitialConditions

    InitialConditions Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    North-West England
  2. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,837
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    Who has commented in the Telegraph? Is that also SW

    Is the comment coming from him ie their top “eminence” an indication that they
    1 recognise the scientific credibility Ron D/Stanford brings to the work
    2 are worried he may be on to something
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2019
    MEMarge, Inara, Keebird and 6 others like this.
  3. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,736
    Sir Simon.
     
    MEMarge, DokaGirl, JaneL and 4 others like this.
  4. John Mac

    John Mac Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,006
    http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...al-biomarker-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-me/

    To avoid giving them traffic
    http://web.archive.org/save/http://...al-biomarker-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-me/

    Science Media Centre: Expert Reaction

    Prof Chris Ponting, Chair of Medical Bioinformatics and Principal Investigator at the MRC Human Genetics Unit, University of Edinburgh, said:

    “Esfandyarpour and colleagues show that people with ME/CFS are different from healthy controls with regards to their blood samples’ electrical properties. Excitingly, they appear to have discovered a distinguishing feature of ME/CFS, and one that can be measured simply and cheaply. Before this approach is tested clinically, however, three things will be needed. First, results should be replicated in a second cohort of individuals. Second, the device should be tested whether it sets apart ME/CFS not just from general health but also from other disorders. Finally, early indications that the device can distinguish severely- from moderately-affected people with ME/CFS need to be tested thoroughly. These results also now narrow down the possible molecular and cellular causes of this devastating set of conditions.”


    Prof Kevin McConway, Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics, The Open University, said:

    “This research is interesting, and if it can be the start of developing a blood-based diagnostic marker for ME/CFS, that would be great. But it’s important to understand that this is only a pilot study. There’s a long way to go, with many possible pitfalls that could still derail the development, before it gets to something that’s useful in practice.



    Prof Sir Simon Wessely, Regius Chair of Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London (IoPPN), and President, Royal Society of Medicine, said:


    “There have been many previous attempts to find a specific biomarker for CFS. The problem is not differentiating patients with CFS from healthy controls. The issue is can any biomarker distinguish CFS patients from those with other fatiguing illnesses? And second, is it measuring the cause, and not the consequence, of illness? This study does not provide any evidence that either has finally been achieved. It is also regrettable that it is claimed that such a test would give “scientific proof” of the existence of the condition, and prove it is “not imaginary”. You don’t need a blood test to prove that an illness exists, and nor does the absence of such a test mean that it is “all in the mind”. Any sub who runs a headline that says ‘new test proves CFS is real and not psychiatric’ should be ashamed of themselves.”
     
    MEMarge, sb4, hinterland and 12 others like this.
  5. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,736
    Try this link instead (if you don't want to give them the hits): http://web.archive.org/web/http://w...al-biomarker-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-me/
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
    MEMarge, Hutan, DokaGirl and 6 others like this.
  6. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,736
    Interestingly, some papers have still run the headline SW warns against.
     
  7. InitialConditions

    InitialConditions Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    North-West England
    Eugh. I can see this spiraling out of control.... we just can't do nuance in 2019 can we? The Stanford press release is short on those key 'qualifiers' that frame the results in the wider context.
     
  8. Hoopoe

    Hoopoe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,424
    Wessely seems a little sour and a little too eager to distance himself from the "all in the mind" position (in the SMC expert reaction).
     
    MEMarge, sb4, Cinders66 and 17 others like this.
  9. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,837
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    Ok so it’s just a regurgitation of Reuters
     
    MEMarge, DokaGirl, JaneL and 4 others like this.
  10. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,736
    Agreed.
    Also agreed.
     
    MEMarge, Gecko, DokaGirl and 4 others like this.
  11. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,736
    And SMC before it.
     
    MEMarge, Gecko, DokaGirl and 4 others like this.
  12. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,837
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    Surely not fancy him pointing out a headline like that and some journalists using it.......

    ETA #weaselwords
     
    MEMarge, JaneL, DokaGirl and 4 others like this.
  13. John Mac

    John Mac Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,006
    MEMarge, JaneL, sb4 and 8 others like this.
  14. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,837
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    MEMarge, JaneL, DokaGirl and 3 others like this.
  15. John Mac

    John Mac Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,006
    MEMarge, JaneL, sb4 and 4 others like this.
  16. InitialConditions

    InitialConditions Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,669
    Location:
    North-West England
    MEMarge, JaneL, Woolie and 15 others like this.
  17. NelliePledge

    NelliePledge Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,837
    Location:
    UK West Midlands
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2019
    MEMarge, JaneL, DokaGirl and 5 others like this.
  18. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,659
    Location:
    Canada
    JaneL, Hutan, DokaGirl and 5 others like this.
  19. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    15,175
    Location:
    London, UK
    Does anyone know how to access the paper itself? I am surprised to find that mY UCL account does not seem to access it - presumably because it is still 'e-hot'. Normally I can get access to all routine journals.

    The abstract is disappointing - not what I would hope of a scientific paper, but I think that may be the journal spin these days. No actual data, just interpretation. If that is the way science is done these days goodness help us.
     
    Manuela B., Forestvon, JaneL and 5 others like this.
  20. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    15,175
    Location:
    London, UK
    Well to be fair that seems to be what the abstract implies.
     
    MEMarge, JaneL, DokaGirl and 2 others like this.

Share This Page