Thank you ⁦@HarvardRadOnc⁩ for dinner the surprise birthday cake last night! Looking forward to spending the day with you today as a visiting professor. #radonc #meded

Real-World Data: Applications and Relevance to Cancer Clinical Trials https://t.co/xssotfs0da We compare randomized trials to retrospective data from US national cancer databases (eg, SEER, NCDB). @C_PisanoDO @GUTomics @DrSpratticus @HenryParkMD @yilun_sun @mwang_cwru

It was fun to synthesize some of the latest ideas and innovations in trial design. I think there is still a lot to learn, particularly using data-driven methods in a way that actually identifies the most important levers we can pull. I think we can innovate trial designs further!

Really excited to see our Q&A on Clinical Trial Disparities with me and @smoertelt published in @NatureComms. https://t.co/wjXgaPcz5y Many thanks to @andyjobbins for assembling this team and for putting it all together.

Even word count, maybe should coalesce around a few buckets of sizes for "types" of manuscript first submissions (e.g. Research letter vs manuscript vs meta analysis, etc)

🆕Check out this interview with @HarvardRadOnc resident @BrandonTurnerMD, senior author of a new study "Race and Ethnicity Reporting and Representation in Pediatric Clinical Trials," published in @AmerAcadPeds 🔗 https://t.co/NhdWsEofYd #HROP

Especially as the research community becomes larger and larger (most of my review requests come from journals I didn't even know existed) and competition for jobs and grants becomes fiercer.

It takes away from the limited time for my own work as well, and eventually this will not be sustainable for the system. We can't make the academic review process dependent on researchers' willingness to sacrifice for an abstract good--we need more compelling direct incentives.

Peer review takes a fair amount of time if done well. It often feels thankless, I frequently don't hear back from editors after I have reviewed a paper, or the whole thing can feel "automated" and lacks a personal touch.

Interested in Oncology? Final year of Med School? Come check out our first open house of the season on 9/28! Final one will be 10/11. @HarvardRadOnc @ASarafMD2 @kevinxliu

This was one of those articles that restores your sense that you are sane amidst the political theater of academic Twitter

Overall, I think this is a great study and mostly asserts the dominance of the Calories In, Calories Out model for weight management. Hopefully people interpret the findings with some nuance, and hopefully it leads to more well-designed and rigorous trials. /end

An innovative study would be to conduct psychologic assessments of participants and assign dieting regimens based on behavioral/physical characteristics that match with the people who successfully utilize specific trials.

4) It's likely that different strategies work best for different personalities. Essentially dieting can be seen as a matching problem: How do you pair a given dieter with a strategy they are most likely to stick to? We need more research to answer this comprehensively.

But it's worth considering whether the findings in this study would be different if a more extensive fast was evaluated instead. In my opinion, if Camp A claims about aging/cancer benefits are real, they are probably only realized with these longer fasts and not 16h.

In general, a lot of these studies deal with fasting for 24, 36, 48, even 72 hours of fasting. It's not clear if this would be healthy for the average dieter, and it certainly isn't the form of IF that's used by the vast majority of dieters.

But for a lot of the data on IF, 16 hours is simply not that much. Insulin regulation is one of the greatest touted benefits of IF, but studies on insulin levels suggest the changes become most pronounced at 24h of fasting and beyond... (Klein et al, PMID: 8238506)

3) A 16-hour fasting window is the most popular IF regimen, but a lot of the science supports much longer fasting windows. I think the 16-hour window became popular because it's easy (basically skip breakfast and don't snack at night after dinner).

In a way, this study may simply show that the most powerful variable was the one they didn't test: the efficacy of an intensive follow-up regimen to encourage dietary adherence.

One would need a similar length trial that provided only the typical free resources used by most dieters. After all, most of us don't have a team of MDs/PhDs checking on our every morsel with a clipboard at the ready.