Analytic philosophy for biomedical research: the imperative of applying yesterday's timeless messages to today's impasses

The mantra that "the best way to predict the future is to invent it" (attributed to the computer scientist Alan Kay) exemplifies some of the expectations from the technical and innovative sides of biomedical research at present. However, for technical advancements to make real impacts both on patient health and genuine scientific understanding, quite a number of lingering challenges facing the entire spectrum from protein biology all the way to randomized controlled trials should start to be overcome. The proposal in this chapter is that philosophy is essential in this process. By reviewing select examples from the history of science and philosophy, disciplines which were indistinguishable until the mid-nineteenth century, I argue that progress toward the many impasses in biomedicine can be achieved by emphasizing theoretical work (in the true sense of the word 'theory') as a vital foundation for experimental biology. Furthermore, a philosophical biology program that could provide a framework for theoretical investigations is outlined

Causal circuit explanations of behavior: Are necessity and sufficiency necessary and sufficient?

In the current advent of technological innovation allowing for precise neural manipulations and copious data collection, it is hardly questioned that the explanation of behavioral processes is to be chiefly found in neural circuits. Such belief, rooted in the exhausted dualism of cause and effect, is enacted by a methodology that promotes “necessity and sufficiency” claims as the goal-standard in neuroscience, thus instructing young students on what shall reckon as explanation. Here we wish to deconstruct and explicate the difference between what is done, what is said, and what is meant by such causal circuit explanations of behavior. Well-known to most philosophers, yet ignored or at least hardly ever made explicit by neuroscientists, the original grand claim of “understanding the brain” is imperceptibly substituted by the methodologically sophisticated task of empirically establishing counterfactual dependencies. But for the 21st century neuroscientist, after so much pride, this is really an excess of humility. I argue that to upgrade intervention to explanation is prone to logical fallacies, interpretational leaps and carries a weak explanatory force, thus settling and maintaining low standards for intelligibility in neuroscience. To claim that behavior is explained by a “necessary and sufficient” neural circuit is, at best, misleading. In that, my critique (rather than criticism) is indeed mainly negative. Positively, I briefly suggest some available alternatives for conceptual progress, such as adopting circular causality (rather than lineal causality in the flavor of top-down reductionism), searching for principles of behavior(rather than taking an arbitrary definition of behavior and rushing to dissect its “underlying” neural mechanisms), and embracing process philosophy (rather than substance-mechanistic ontologies). Overall, if the goal of neuroscience is to understand the relation between brain and behavior then, in addition to excruciating neural studies (one pillar), we will need a strong theory of behavior (the other pillar) and a solid foundation to establish their relation (the bridge)

Relevance of genetic testing in the gene-targeted trial era: the Rostock Parkinson\u27s disease study

\ua9 The Author(s) 2024. Estimates of the spectrum and frequency of pathogenic variants in Parkinson’s disease (PD) in different populations are currently limited and biased. Furthermore, although therapeutic modification of several genetic targets has reached the clinical trial stage, a major obstacle in conducting these trials is that PD patients are largely unaware of their genetic status and, therefore, cannot be recruited. Expanding the number of investigated PD-related genes and including genes related to disorders with overlapping clinical features in large, well-phenotyped PD patient groups is a prerequisite for capturing the full variant spectrum underlying PD and for stratifying and prioritizing patients for gene-targeted clinical trials. The Rostock Parkinson’s disease (ROPAD) study is an observational clinical study aiming to determine the frequency and spectrum of genetic variants contributing to PD in a large international cohort. We investigated variants in 50 genes with either an established relevance for PD or possible phenotypic overlap in a group of 12 580 PD patients from 16 countries [62.3% male; 92.0% White; 27.0% positive family history (FH+), median age at onset (AAO) 59 years] using a next-generation sequencing panel. Altogether, in 1864 (14.8%) ROPAD participants (58.1% male; 91.0% White, 35.5% FH+, median AAO 55 years), a PD-relevant genetic test (PDGT) was positive based on GBA1 risk variants (10.4%) or pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in LRRK2 (2.9%), PRKN (0.9%), SNCA (0.2%) or PINK1 (0.1%) or a combination of two genetic findings in two genes (∼0.2%). Of note, the adjusted positive PDGT fraction, i.e. the fraction of positive PDGTs per country weighted by the fraction of the population of the world that they represent, was 14.5%. Positive PDGTs were identified in 19.9% of patients with an AAO ≤ 50 years, in 19.5% of patients with FH+ and in 26.9% with an AAO ≤ 50 years and FH+. In comparison to the idiopathic PD group (6846 patients with benign variants), the positive PDGT group had a significantly lower AAO (4 years, P = 9 7 10−34). The probability of a positive PDGT decreased by 3% with every additional AAO year (P = 1 7 10−35). Female patients were 22% more likely to have a positive PDGT (P = 3 7 10−4), and for individuals with FH+ this likelihood was 55% higher (P = 1 7 10−14). About 0.8% of the ROPAD participants had positive genetic testing findings in parkinsonism-, dystonia/dyskinesia- or dementia-related genes. In the emerging era of gene-targeted PD clinical trials, our finding that ∼15% of patients harbour potentially actionable genetic variants offers an important prospect to affected individuals and their families and underlines the need for genetic testing in PD patients. Thus, the insights from the ROPAD study allow for data-driven, differential genetic counselling across the spectrum of different AAOs and family histories and promote a possible policy change in the application of genetic testing as a routine part of patient evaluation and care in PD

Clinical Characteristics Associated with Antibiotic Treatment Failure for Tuboovarian Abscesses

Objective:. Although parenteral antibiotic treatment is a standard approach for tuboovarian abscesses, a significant proportion of patients fail therapy and require interventional radiology (IR) guided drainage. The objective of this study is to assess if specific clinical factors are associated with antibiotic treatment failure. Study Design. Retrospective medical record review of patients hospitalized for tuboovarian abscesses from 2001 through 2012 was performed. Clinical characteristics were compared for patients who underwent successful parenteral antibiotic treatment, failed antibiotic treatment necessitating subsequent IR drainage, initial drainage with concurrent antibiotics, and surgery. Results. One hundred thirteen patients admitted for inpatient treatment were identified. Sixty-one (54%) patients were treated with antibiotics alone. Within this group, 24.6% failed antibiotic treatment and required drainage. Mean white blood cell count (K/μL) (18.7 ± 5.94 versus 13.9 ± 5.12) (p = 0.003), mean maximum diameter of tuboovarian abscess (cm) (6.8 ± 2.9 versus 5.2 ± 2.0) (p = 0.03), and length of stay (days) (9.47 ± 7.43 versus 4.59 ± 2.4) (p = 0.002) were significantly greater for patients who failed antibiotic treatment. Conclusions. Admission white blood cell count greater than 16 K/μL and abscess size greater than 5.18 cm are associated with antibiotic treatment failure. These factors may provide guidance for initial selection of IR guided drainage