Although the results may not be that surprising to readers of this blog, I was intrigued by Wired Science’s coverage of a new paper in the journal Science that showed that  highly interconnected soical networks are much more powerful that randomly connected groups for changing behaviors.

In other words, when starting a new, healthy behavior (say exercise), knowing ten random people who run may help motivate you.  But if that group of ten people is a close-knit group of running buddies who all know each other, the chances of sticking to your new routine go up.  Way up.

photo via Flickr/vestman

Tweet This Post

It’s my first trip to London, or to the UK for that matter.  The city itself has the distinctive, quintessential, old-world charm I pictured, yet it’s blanketed with the expected conveniences of modern technology.  My office for the past two days has rotated between a few wifi-enabled local pubs, a scene that may in fact be the clearest example of the integration of the old and the new.

Some simple trip stats thus far:  Days in London: two.  Number of times I’ve ordered fish and chips as a meal: two.  Number of close calls I’ve had with speeding cars after looking in the wrong direction while crossing the street: four (This is in spite of the clearly marked ‘Look Left’ or ‘Look Right’ warnings pasted in the crosswalk).

Read more…

Tweet This Post

Exercising people are happy people.

Nonsense. Ever see someone’s face at mile 20 of a marathon? Do they look happy to you?

OK, maybe people aren’t happy while exercising, but evidence shows they’re better off, in general, after the fact. Physical activity has a positive effect on mood, and is considered a valid treatment strategy to battle anxiety disorders and even depression. Although most explanations are somewhat wishy-washy, researchers believe that hedonistic value of exercise is important in mental health. Exercise simply makes us feel good about ourselves. And this is not only true in humans, but in animals, as well. Rats and mice that are given free access to a running wheel will use it, and lab rodents typically won’t do anything that doesn’t provide them some sort of pleasure.

Read more…

Tweet This Post

It’s 6am and my alarm clock is buzzing, but I don’t hear it. I don’t even move. But the incessant noise wakes my wife, and her gentle nudges (read: elbows) and soft whispers (read: expletives) eventually convince me to get out of bed. Read more…

Tweet This Post

My inbox flooded with links to the report released by NIH (and evangelized by TIME) stating that lifestyle interventions (diet, physical activity, mental exercises, etc.) may not be that effective in preventing Alzheimer’s Disease.

Before I mount my full counterattack, I need to carefully read through the studies the meta-analysis cites.  Still, a quick glance at the exclusion criteria of the meta-analysis reveals the authors limited their review to studies using patients over the age of fifty.  So really, these results imply that lifestyle modifications may not prevent, delay, or treat Alzheimer’s Disease if you start these changes later in life.

My second point is that all lifestyle modifications are not created equal.  Scientific evidence in animal studies suggests that of all interventions, aerobic exercise is our best chance of staving off cognitive decline.  In fact, this meta-analysis also found some correlation between exercise and preserving or improving cognitive ability.

There’s a good article in The Economist that discusses the failures of the drug industry to find a solution to treating Alzheimer’s Disease.  One particular quote resonates with my feelings on the NIH report:

Another fundamental problem is that, whatever is causing the damage, treatment is starting too late. By the time someone presents behavioural symptoms, such as forgetfulness, his brain is already in a significant state of disrepair. Even a “cure” is unlikely to restore lost function.

Tweet This Post

We’ve all heard the mantra: keep LDL levels – the “bad” cholesterol – down, and the “good” HDL cholesterol up. But thanks in part to the ubiquity of statins, such as Lipitor, which allow us to simply pop a pill to limit LDL production in the body, we’ve recently adopted tunnel vision when thinking about managing cholesterol. LDL levels are all we seem to care about now, as we strive for lower and lower numbers at each visit to the doctor’s office.

However, I think we’re missing the bigger picture by focusing solely on LDL. First, it’s made us reliant on medication to solve a problem that can many times be addressed with changes in diet and exercise regimes. Once someone starts Lipitor treatment, they’ll be taking it for life, and if LDL levels don’t quite get as low as they should, it’s all too easy to solve the problem by increasing the dose. When patients first begin Lipitor treatment, physicians typically prescribe the lowest possible amount, 10mg. However, dosing can go as high as 80mg, which begs the question: Do higher doses of the drug really improve outcomes?

Read more…

Tweet This Post

[this is a post I did for TheHealthcareBlog, crossposted here]

Want to know the future of medicine and healthcare in one sentence?

For my money, it goes like this: The real opportunity in healthcare is to combine our personal data with the huge amount of general biomedical and public health research, in order to create customized information that’s specific to our person and our circumstance. We need relevance, and the right information at the right time will help us make better choices for prevention, helping us stay healthier longer, it’ll help us navigate diagnosis, letting us select screening tests that are useful and not unnecessarily fearful, and it’ll let us make better decisions on care and treatment – when we’re trying to choose among various treatments to find our way back to health.

It’s in the last category – care and treatment – that I wrote a recent post at the Huffington Post about one man’s story with prostate cancer. Tom Neville got a diagnosis and then had to struggle to find information to help him make sense of what to do. Ultimately, he chose surgery, but the difficulty of the choice led him to create Soar Biodynamics, a company that offers decision-making support for men assessing their prostate health.

You can read his story here and learn more about his tool here, but for the purposes of this post I wanted to consider the kind of decision-making tool he created. It’s called a nomogram, and it’s one of my favorite discoveries in researching The Decision Tree.

A nomogram is basically a calculator – a way to assess our risk or outcome for a particular condition. A nomogram starts with an interface where a few telling datapoints can be entered, and then turns to an algorithm that crunch those numbers together with broader data about the condition. The result is a statistical prediction – the prediction can concern the outcome of the disease, or it can be a recommendation for particular treatment (a medical nomogram is not to be confused with mathematical nomograms, which are tools for calculating geometrical something or others).

The Framingham Risk Calculator, which calculates your risk of heart disease, is a kind of nomogram. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the research institute and hospital in New York City, has developed almost a dozen nomograms for a range of cancer conditions. There are tools for predicting the spread of breast cancer, a tool for assessing lung cancer risk among smokers, a tool for predicting the prognosis after colon cancer surgery, and more. Dr. Pierre Karakiewicz at the University of Ottawa has developed nomogram.org, which offers prediction calculators on four different types of cancer. Nomograms are one of the best examples of Decision Tree thinking, the sorts of tools that are easy for patients and doctors alike to use and understand—particularly when they’re available online and free of charge. They’re brilliant and auspicious because the turn research around so that it faces the patient: An individual can interrogate medical science for how it applies to his specific circumstances, rather than having to navigate through stacks of research papers and findings for some wisp of relevance.

Nomograms are especially powerful when they’re combined with a screening test, because they help people understand what to make of the test and point to what to do with the result. They immediately customize the clinical data, be they nanograms-per-milliliter figures or spots on mammograms. Nomograms let patients ignore the inscrutable repository of jargon that is medical research in favor of something personal, something real, and something to go on. They allow us to make sense of a screening test’s result, and allow us to take some measure of meaning from it.

The University of Texas at San Antonio, for instance, has developed a prostate risk calculator that lets a man enter his PSA level along with his age, race, family history, and a couple of other metrics and churns out his risk of developing prostate cancer. Importantly, the calculator also calculates the risk of a high-grade cancer, accounting for the fact that not all prostate cancers are lethal. The value of such a tool, says Ian M. Thompson, professor and chairman of the department of urology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, who developed the calculator, is that it turns the PSA figure from one isolated data point into one of many inputs. “We need to build in characteristics about the person, their age, their race, their family history,” says Dr. Thompson. “It’s not just what one test tells us.”

Nomograms, of course, are no substitute for a doctor’s definitive assessment and treatment (or better yet, more than one doctor). And they are only as good as the data that goes into them; if they’re not kept up to date on the latest information and research, they can lead people astray. But especially for conditions where we have some agency – where we can take actions today that can enhance our tomorrow – they are a terrific tool.

The catch with nomograms is that they must be developed one disease at a time, which means they don’t scale up so well. Each one takes a great deal of work and expertise. But if I had millions of dollars for philanthropy, I’d spread it around to smart researchers across a lot of fields where nomograms could help people assess their risk for disease and potentially take actions today. It would be money well spent.

Calculator image via Flickr by Ian Ruotsala

Tweet This Post

I just finished reading Dave Dobbs’ new article in the the December issue of The Atlantic, “The Science of Success”.  Dobbs turns the classic question of Nature vs. Nurture, whether our genes or our environment are the deterministic drivers of our fate, on its head.  Traditionally, those who support “nature” say that our genes are most influential in defining us.  On the other hand, those that support the “nurture” side say that our environment plays a more important role.

Based on new research, Dobbs introduces the idea of two types of people, “dandelions” and “orchids”.  Dandelions can thrive anywhere, despite their environment or upbringing.  Orchids, however, are more temperamental, and require a stable environment to survive.  At first glance, the orchids may seem like a liability, and in fact, they often carry genes that make them susceptible to mood disorders and psychological disease.  The astounding part of Dobbs’ report is that he shows that given the right care, or environment, the orchids don’t just do OK, but far surpass the dandelions in perfomance.  In other words, given the right training, orchids may in fact be destined for greatness.

This finding redefines conditions we typically may have classified as undesirable.  ADHD, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder, are no longer conditions to dread, because given the right training, people with these predispositions may in fact be the true “movers and shakers” in the world.

Please read the full article for yourself.  And, as always, I’d welcome a discussion here…

Tweet This Post

While attending the Institute for the Future’s Health Horizons Fall Conference on Monday, one thing became eminently clear. The 21st century will be the era of brain, the last great scientific frontier. Due to societal shifts, environmental changes, and the fact that we are just living longer, we are poised to see a sharp rise in cases of diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, autism, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The only thing worse than the increasing prevalence of brain disease is the sobering fact that few viable treatments currently exist.

For years, we’ve heard the mantra of behavior change and health. Exercise more and you’ll cut your risk for heart disease and stroke. Eat more fruits and vegetables and you can decrease your risk for colon cancer (or possibly prostate cancer, as discussed in a previous Decision Tree post, “Why Behavior Change is Better Medicine than Drugs”). Could behavior change serve our brain health as well as it did other organs of the body?

Read more…

Tweet This Post

I just wanted to offer a rebuttal to the following tweet that popped up on my stream today:

@GuyKawasaki The reward system actually reduces motivation http://om.ly/MHzl

First, let’s take a look at the cited study.  The experimental groups were defined as:

The children were then randomly assigned to one of the following conditions:

1. Expected reward. In this condition children were told they would get a certificate with a gold seal and ribbon if they took part.
2. Surprise reward. In this condition children would receive the same reward as above but, crucially, weren’t told about it until after the drawing activity was finished.
3. No reward. Children in this condition expected no reward, and didn’t receive one.

While reading this study, we have to ask ourselves: Is a “certificate with a gold seal” really a reward?  Is that what best motivates children?  Do the results of this study conclude that children don’t change their behaviors for rewards, or simply that the reward itself was lame?

Despite what the authors state, small rewards CAN be a powerful impetus for behavior change.  Reward is a staple of behavioral training, and in particular, rewards that release dopamine (e.g. food, sweet beverages, etc.) strongly influence brain plasticity during a training event.  To make a blanket statement on the contrary is dangerous.  Preventable disease is a huge drain on our health care system, and it’s been shown that simple behavior changes like diet and exercise can reduce the burden caused by obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.  Just because a child responds in a certain way to a reward of a certificate with a gold star, I don’t think we should abandon the proverbial “carrot” when trying to get people healthy.

Tweet This Post