3 ms·

This is spot-on. A corollary is that the best way to fight these diseases is by doing "maintenance" early on. But we currently don't have good enough models of

by dsign 2y ago

This is spot-on. A corollary is that the best way to fight these diseases is by doing "maintenance" early on. But we currently don't have good enough models of all those multiple systems, and a functional, "good" state may vary significantly from individual to individual. Yet, those computational models could, in due time, save lives. Be as it may, I don't believe we can create those models manually, one by one. It's just too complicated and costly, and as this article shows, prone to turf politics. The good news is that we are having great advances in molecular simulation, and there are gargantuan investments coming to develop the world's computational capabilities. Furthermore, even the current crop of AI tools is good enough to locate and make information accessible to non-experts. So, if you are looking for a hobby in front of a computer, consider given these computational problems some attention.

Earw0rm 2y ago
Yep, I neglected to consider that the system isn't just self-regulating but also self-calibrating. Even if we can't _fix_ all those systems, getting reliable predictive/status markers would be a good start. Just being able to scan for ten or twenty blood markers and work out which aspect/s of health someone needs to focus their efforts on improving. It doesn't feel like we're a million miles from being able to do that now. As to the multiple systems - we probably want to add hormonal and short/medium term regulatory systems to that list (being able to activate even a 40yr old's motivational/dopamine response in a 75yr old would be a significant step). And take into account that there are designed-in trade-offs (slower cellular repair in ageing bodies is very possibly an evolutionary adaptation to deal with higher cancer risk in cells with more mutation damage, for example).
- thereticent 2y ago
  You just described the exact end goal of my overall research program, if we can keep the stroke, AD, and Down syndrome + AD cohorts running. Associating blood biomarkers differentially with individual disease processes and comorbid health factors is the holy grail. Perverse professional norms and plenty of miscreants have made it a much harder road for other dementia researchers, but it's worth keeping on, and there are so many avenues that haven't been pursued.

by dsign 2y ago

Earw0rm 2y ago

Yep, I neglected to consider that the system isn't just self-regulating but also self-calibrating. Even if we can't _fix_ all those systems, getting reliable predictive/status markers would be a good start. Just being able to scan for ten or twenty blood markers and work out which aspect/s of health someone needs to focus their efforts on improving. It doesn't feel like we're a million miles from being able to do that now. As to the multiple systems - we probably want to add hormonal and short/medium term regulatory systems to that list (being able to activate even a 40yr old's motivational/dopamine response in a 75yr old would be a significant step). And take into account that there are designed-in trade-offs (slower cellular repair in ageing bodies is very possibly an evolutionary adaptation to deal with higher cancer risk in cells with more mutation damage, for example).

thereticent 2y ago
You just described the exact end goal of my overall research program, if we can keep the stroke, AD, and Down syndrome + AD cohorts running. Associating blood biomarkers differentially with individual disease processes and comorbid health factors is the holy grail. Perverse professional norms and plenty of miscreants have made it a much harder road for other dementia researchers, but it's worth keeping on, and there are so many avenues that haven't been pursued.