For everyone struggling with hair loss but concerned about side effects of Fin. Look into topical fin. It produces higher concentrations of the medication in the scalp and lower systemic concentration. Not perfect, but better.
if you think the state of the art in this area is something you'll hear about from a guy that looks like santa in an academic journal, your investments deserve what's about to happen to them.
> "The paper goes on to make recommendations for AI companies and investigators, and these are well worth reading. The common theme is that people need to think more about why they’re doing certain techniques or using certain technologies, rather than just using them because they’re newly available."
Please. Please let some people with power and influence understand this lesson sooner rather than later. I understand the reasons that's unlikely to occur, but usually the impact isn't quite so drastic and expensive as this is. Just because something is new and shiny doesn't mean that it'll produce the outcomes you need at the other end, and until it's shown that capability your approach to it should be MODERATE.
Drug discovery scientists think about what they're doing and why ALL THE TIME. AI stuff is just another tool.
It's also worth mentioning that drug development timelines typically exceed the interval in which these technologies have been available (or at least effective). Measuring impact will take a long time.
Need one for hair loss ASAP.
Indeed. My plans for a youthful Mohawk are being stymied by the lack of AI promised medical breakthroughs.
Wheres my follicles dammit?
Absci has a good asset coming out pretty soon that you could try to get on the trial.
Already exists (finasteride), only problem is that it castrates you chemicallym
For everyone struggling with hair loss but concerned about side effects of Fin. Look into topical fin. It produces higher concentrations of the medication in the scalp and lower systemic concentration. Not perfect, but better.
About 2% of finasteride users experience these side effects, and they are reversible after discontinuation.
Yep. Not everybody but enough to warrant vigilant monitoring and titration.
We're all about to come face to face with this reality. This dance can only last so long.
if you think the state of the art in this area is something you'll hear about from a guy that looks like santa in an academic journal, your investments deserve what's about to happen to them.
> "The paper goes on to make recommendations for AI companies and investigators, and these are well worth reading. The common theme is that people need to think more about why they’re doing certain techniques or using certain technologies, rather than just using them because they’re newly available."
Please. Please let some people with power and influence understand this lesson sooner rather than later. I understand the reasons that's unlikely to occur, but usually the impact isn't quite so drastic and expensive as this is. Just because something is new and shiny doesn't mean that it'll produce the outcomes you need at the other end, and until it's shown that capability your approach to it should be MODERATE.
Drug discovery scientists think about what they're doing and why ALL THE TIME. AI stuff is just another tool.
It's also worth mentioning that drug development timelines typically exceed the interval in which these technologies have been available (or at least effective). Measuring impact will take a long time.