Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Medical Education: Lessons Learned From a Belgian Initiative

peer reviewedIn the last decades, the medical practice has been facing noteworthy transformations driven by the advancement of innovative technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI). This rapid and widespread transition generated the increasing need for an adequate education curriculum, capable of properly teaching medical students about the prospects and potentials of AI in healthcare. In this paper, we aim to present and describe the elaboration and implementation of a new academic program at the University of Mons (UMONS) designed to educate medical students about AI in healthcare. The course Pizzolla, Aro, Duez, De Lièvre, and Briganti was implemented in the 2022-2023 academic year aiming to train the next generation of healthcare professionals to effectively leverage AI in their work, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes and advances in medical research

Blockade of the co-inhibitory molecule PD-1 unleashes ILC2-dependent antitumor immunity in melanoma.

Group 2 innate lymphoid cells (ILC2s) are essential to maintain tissue homeostasis. In cancer, ILC2s can harbor both pro-tumorigenic and anti-tumorigenic functions, but we know little about their underlying mechanisms or whether they could be clinically relevant or targeted to improve patient outcomes. Here, we found that high ILC2 infiltration in human melanoma was associated with a good clinical prognosis. ILC2s are critical producers of the cytokine granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, which coordinates the recruitment and activation of eosinophils to enhance antitumor responses. Tumor-infiltrating ILC2s expressed programmed cell death protein-1, which limited their intratumoral accumulation, proliferation and antitumor effector functions. This inhibition could be overcome in vivo by combining interleukin-33-driven ILC2 activation with programmed cell death protein-1 blockade to significantly increase antitumor responses. Together, our results identified ILC2s as a critical immune cell type involved in melanoma immunity and revealed a potential synergistic approach to harness ILC2 function for antitumor immunotherapies

Regulated short selling after the global financial crisis: a comparative law perspective.

The regulation of short selling is one of the most debated topics of the immediate post-crisis financial regulatory landscape. Notwithstanding, nothing – or at least very little – has been written about it moving the analysis of such controversial issue from a legal perspective. \ud Against this background, the main purpose of this work is to complement the ongoing international policy discussion enriching the existent debate with new considerations which are deemed to be essential for a deeper understanding of such investment technique. In particular, it presents a comprehensive analysis of short selling regimes as currently in place in the United States and at the European Union level, in the wider context of transatlantic dialogues.\ud In doing so, the study of short selling regulations is proposed along to two main descriptive lines of research, which are clearly reflected in two distinct, although interconnected, parts.\ud Common thread of Part I (Short Selling Regulation from a Comparative Perspective) can be identified in the need to provide solid methodological justification to the research. \ud Chapter 1 investigates first of all the reasons behind the adoption of a comparative law perspective in the analysis of short selling regulation, moving from the scrutiny of short selling as described until now by economic studies. In particular, it moves from commenting on the status quo of research – with reference both to the identification of the different ‘mechanisms’ of short sales and to their impact on financial markets – evidencing economists’ difficulties in providing an uncontroversial response on whether regulatory intervention in this field is need. A legal perspective becomes thus critical in order to fill the gaps left by economic analysis, bringing to the debate considerations on the role of regulation in the direction of financial markets and on the necessity to provide market operators with a safe environment relying on legal certainty of financial operations. In this sense, the research further investigate the added value of a comparative approach in addressing risks posed by potential divergences in the regulation of short selling, in particular with reference to risks of ‘regulatory arbitrage’, upholding the key role of comparative law in the as transitional step towards international regulatory harmonization. \ud Chapter 2 faces instead the absence of comparative law research in the field of financial regulation, questioning the appropriateness of the comparative law traditional methodology once applied to the topic in hand. In this respect, criticisms move from evidencing that financial regulation has been traditionally disregarded as object of comparison, tracing back this lack of interest in the difficulties in ascribing it within classical comparative law categories. In this sense, this work support the abandonment of a rigid compartmentalization – addressing in particular, the private/public law distinction, legal families, and the impact of globalization on comparative studies – in order to show that comparative studies on financial regulation are possible, but require a flexible methodology.\ud Lastly, Chapter 3 will deal with the rationale behind a comparison of short selling regulations enacted by two different ‘forms of government’: the United States, as main point of reference and pioneer in the regulation of financial markets since the Great Crush of 1929, and the European Union, as its emerging new counter-party in international regulatory dialogues. In this context, it held that despite institutionally different – the former being a federal State and the latter a supranational organization – regulatory choices recently undertaken by the European Union show strong signs of convergence towards the traditional approach which characterizes financial regulation in the United States, at least from the perspective of the interaction between the Union and its Member States. This position is supported by the analysis of the U.S. ´dual system’ of financial regulation against strong harmonization trends in the EU Framework, observed from the adoption of the EU Financial Services Action Plan to the project for a EU Single European Rulebook. As a consequence, comparison of these two sets of rules represents, at the current stage, the most appropriate choice for a comparative analysis of short selling regulations, also in light of the increasing importance of transatlantic regulatory dialogues.\ud Part II of the research (Short Selling Regulatory Choices – European Union and United States Compared) is then dedicated to the in depth comparative analysis of the current regulatory framework of short selling in the in the United States and in the European Union, in order to support the methodological assumption on the convergence of the two normative frameworks. \ud Chapter 4, after addressing the main evolutionary steps in the regulation of short selling from an historical perspective, provides an overview of the regulations which are in force, at the current juncture, in the two systems. In particular, space is given to the regulatory debates which led to the enactment of Regulation SHO for United States and of Regulation 236/2012 for the European Union, offering a preliminary outline of the main legislative measures governing short selling. \ud Chapter 5 thus enters into the detail of the analysis of the content of the two regulatory regimes. In particular, it describes the scope of application of Regulation 236/2012 and Regulation SHO, moving the analysis from emphasising the importance of legal definitions in the context of short selling. Against a widespread common understanding on the mechanics of short sales, the absence of clear legal definitions represented a misleading element in the study of short selling regulations, since generic reference to this practice has often led researchers to take for granted that measures adopted in different legislations were referring to the exact same phenomenon. Consistently, short selling is described focusing on the definitions provided under the two regulatory frameworks, with specific reference to the impact of the concept of ‘ownership’, of the calculation of ‘positions’ and of the privileged treatment of professional investors embodied in the U.S. regime. Scope of the two frameworks is then completed by the identification of the instruments covered and of their geographical applicability, with specific reference to the controversial issue of extraterritoriality.\ud Chapter 6 presents the core provisions of the two regulatory frameworks, namely the way in which EU and U.S. legislators addressed short selling with reference to transparency of transactions and to the particular risks posed by ‘naked’ short selling. With respect to the first, it provides on overview on pro and cons of two divergent approaches: a notification and disclosure regime, as adopted in the EU, and a ‘marking’ system, as in force in the U.S. As for the second, it addressed the instruments adopted by the EU and U.S. regulators in order to curb the risks connected to ‘naked’ short selling. Main focus is posed on the functioning of ‘locate rules’ and on the application of ‘buy-in’ or ‘close-out’ requirements, with references to the measures implemented in order to address short selling when used as instrument for market abuses. In addition, attention is paid to the exceptions provided for the applicability of those rules, with emphasis on the different approaches adopted in the treatment of ‘market marking’ activities.\ud Ultimately, Chapter 7 completes the analysis of short selling regulatory frameworks addressing powers of intervention granted to national competent authorities in order to face risks posed by short under specific circumstances. In particular, it describes the treatment of short selling in declining markets, under discretional and automatic ‘circuit breakers’, as well as extra-ordinary powers triggered by ‘exceptional’ or ‘emergency’ circumstances. In this context, particular attention is paid to the European regime, setting forth rules for the interaction among Member States competent authorities and the European Securities and Markets Authority. Cooperation arrangements are also taken into consideration under an international dimension, identifying the main instruments which foster the establishment of effective information sharing systems and collaboration in the enforcement of short selling regulatory regimes.\u