Only a tiny fraction of the compounds tested for different diseases ever make it to clinical trials. Now a report in Science suggests that the results of even encouraging clinical trials are later refuted with surprising frequency.
Scientists from the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece analyzed published studies, from 1990 to 2004, of promising new drug candidates or medical devices. (A sampling is shown at below.) Of 32 interventions described in these papers, each of which had been cited more than 1,000 times, 13 were later shown not to work or to be less effective than originally thought.
Seven of the studies investigated new applications of well-known compounds; of these, six were later refuted. The report concludes that studies of new compounds and devices are a better use of research money.
“For common diseases, continuing to play with old agents and interventions is unlikely to give us much hope for finding some major effective intervention that we were not already aware of,” says John Ioannidis, senior author of the study.
Source: John Ioannidis
How a Russian cyberwar in Ukraine could ripple out globally
Soldiers and tanks may care about national borders. Cyber doesn't.
Meet Altos Labs, Silicon Valley’s latest wild bet on living forever
Funders of a deep-pocketed new "rejuvenation" startup are said to include Jeff Bezos and Yuri Milner.
Meta’s new learning algorithm can teach AI to multi-task
The single technique for teaching neural networks multiple skills is a step towards general-purpose AI.
Going bald? Lab-grown hair cells could be on the way
These biotech companies are reprogramming cells to treat baldness, but it’s still early days.
Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.