Aug 23, 2022Liked by Arpan Parikh, MD MBA FAPA, Amit Parikh, MD
Thanks for writing this, extremely clear and digestable--personally was listening to a popular podcast called the All-In Podcast and they were talking about exactly this issue but without the important clinical intuition demonstrated here!
Not an expert, but my hypothesis re: 1) apart from the obvious one of stigma is lack of great measurability. Cancer has much more defined diagnostic criteria linked to physical measurements that are discrete, as opposed to it feels like items like the GAD-7 are self-reported and not measuring the fundamental physical components that cause anxiety/depression. This also makes it more difficult to extrapolate potential cost-savings without a high degree of variance -> less incentive for grant funding/research. On example in mental health, Alzheimers, stands out which has received a ton of funding (albeit recent Nature article debunking this)-- I believe it's because there was something measurable (e.g. amyloid plaques) that one could point to and try to develop therapeutics for.
Aug 22, 2022Liked by Arpan Parikh, MD MBA FAPA, Amit Parikh, MD
To your second question about medical misinformation (+ disinformation) running rampant, I feel like the pandemic has really highlighted the need for a more robust, unified federal public health system.
Health communication is its own art for a reason; building trust with the public by communicating in a straightforward manner, while still giving the tools to follow up on nuance for those who want to go deeper, would go a long way toward combating sensationalized headlines. Axios’s “Smart Brevity” style is a great example of trying to appeal to multiple audiences when reporting on complex issues!
Aug 22, 2022Liked by Arpan Parikh, MD MBA FAPA, Amit Parikh, MD
Thanks for writing this up. I was waiting for more thoughtful responses to the review. Do you know of any others? I'm surprised that their review found no direct correlations at all. I previously assumed at least some of the GWAS studies had good data. Is it correct to assume the umbrella review method doesn't do an adequate job job considering heterogeneous populations/responses (eg maybe data on some subgroups of patients with depression show more direct links with serotonin and some subgroups do not)?
Thanks for writing this, extremely clear and digestable--personally was listening to a popular podcast called the All-In Podcast and they were talking about exactly this issue but without the important clinical intuition demonstrated here!
Not an expert, but my hypothesis re: 1) apart from the obvious one of stigma is lack of great measurability. Cancer has much more defined diagnostic criteria linked to physical measurements that are discrete, as opposed to it feels like items like the GAD-7 are self-reported and not measuring the fundamental physical components that cause anxiety/depression. This also makes it more difficult to extrapolate potential cost-savings without a high degree of variance -> less incentive for grant funding/research. On example in mental health, Alzheimers, stands out which has received a ton of funding (albeit recent Nature article debunking this)-- I believe it's because there was something measurable (e.g. amyloid plaques) that one could point to and try to develop therapeutics for.
To your second question about medical misinformation (+ disinformation) running rampant, I feel like the pandemic has really highlighted the need for a more robust, unified federal public health system.
Health communication is its own art for a reason; building trust with the public by communicating in a straightforward manner, while still giving the tools to follow up on nuance for those who want to go deeper, would go a long way toward combating sensationalized headlines. Axios’s “Smart Brevity” style is a great example of trying to appeal to multiple audiences when reporting on complex issues!
Thanks for writing this up. I was waiting for more thoughtful responses to the review. Do you know of any others? I'm surprised that their review found no direct correlations at all. I previously assumed at least some of the GWAS studies had good data. Is it correct to assume the umbrella review method doesn't do an adequate job job considering heterogeneous populations/responses (eg maybe data on some subgroups of patients with depression show more direct links with serotonin and some subgroups do not)?
Super insightful! Thanks guys.