Josh Lee is a Professor at NYU Med and the principal author for the opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment map, which is the most comprehensive resource for information about the evidence behind treatments for opioid use disorder in the world.

Shrawan Patel has long been working at the forefront of digital medicine. In this conversation, we discuss his perspective on the challenges and opportunities for developing software-as-a-medical-device (SaMD) products.

Prism appoints James Matsumura, former Lead Architect at Dina, as new Chief Technology Officer

Discussing healthcare innovation and the entrepreneurial journey with serial entrepreneur and startup advisor, Jeff Kozloff

Prism announces Darren Angle, former AI / LLM Engineering Craft Leader at Shopify, as new Head of AI

A conversation about Google search and bias with Eni Mustafaraj, an associate professor of computer science and one of the co-founders of the data science program at Wellesley College

Metaphors can be powerful tools to guide our thinking. In this article, I put two metaphors of evidence-based decision-making together and explore what this synthesis can reveal about the wise use of data.

Stephen Rosenfeld joins me on Discussing Data Science to talk about IRBs and the need for data to evaluate the quality of ethical and regulatory decision making

There has never been more data available to answer important questions in biomedicine, and yet, once you step back to look at the overall epistemic landscape, it is clear how little we truly know. In this essay, I revisit a pair of studies from my academic career that shed light on the nature of the data void in biomedicine.

In this month's Discussing Data Science episode, I talk with my co-founder about his background in private equity investing and his transition to Prism.Bio

Episode 1 of Discussing Data Science: On the importance of digital health technologies and their role in clinical trials, Prism's work Janssen Innovation, and more

In this post, I defend the bold claim that our platform can deliver “10x the insights” at “50x the speed”. I offer a 300-word, just-the-punchline version; followed by a longer version where I unpack more of the details and assumptions.

A New Year's meditation on the power and possibilities suggested by generative A.I. and text-to-image technologies

A look back at some highlights from the past year

A video presentation on the power and importance of data visualization from the Bio-IT World Conference in October 2020

To date, Prism has been involved in four grant applications from four different funding agencies. I am very proud to share that all of them have been awarded funding!

How often should products fail in phase 3? What heuristics or principles should we use to answer these questions?

In part 2 of my interview with Chad Heilig, we discuss some of the implications of Chad's provocative "Declaration: a progressive culture for data in public health".

Part 1 of an interview with Chad Heilig, Associate Director for Data Science at the CDC. Chad and I discuss his perspective on the meta-heuristic visualization of research programs.

The right heuristics for the right situation is what gives science its power. In this post, I discuss how Bill Wimsatt’s theory of scientific heuristics forms part of the foundation for Prism’s philosophy and technology.

It is often difficult to trace the origins of ideas that end up shaping our lives. However, in the case of Prism, there is a clear line of inquiry going back from where we are today (building software solutions for epistemological problems in biomedicine) to a philosophy of probability graduate class.

Prism’s membership in Pistoia comes as a natural extension of the company’s work helping pharma-industry clients transform, visualize and maximize the value of data.

In this third and final post of a three-part Prism Academy series on systematic reviews, we explore a few efforts aimed at addressing some of the weaknesses of systematic reviews.

Welcome to post two of a three-part Prism Academy series on systematic reviews! In today’s post we are going to explore the strengths and weaknesses of systematic reviews and why bringing them up to speed with the pace of modern research is crucial to the everlasting pursuit of evidence-based practice.

Systematic reviews. You've probably heard of them, but can you define them? The methodology used to develop them? Why they are used? Their strengths and weaknesses? Over the course of three posts, I am going to answer all of these questions are more. By the time we are done, it is my hope that you will understand not only why systematic reviews are important, but why bringing them up to speed with the pace of modern research is crucial to the everlasting pursuit of evidence-based practice.

In what we might call the “old world of data visualization,” figures are static and often few in number. However, in Prism’s world, data visualizations are dynamic and essentially unlimited. This changes the rules of the game for data visualization—where the biases and limitations in one figure can be balanced by the virtues of another.

Prism Analytic Technologies, an intelligent evidence synthesis platform specializing in biomedical metadata, is proud to announce the acquisition of Rationally, a software platform for clinical trial evidence synthesis and automated research design. As part of this deal, Rationally founder and CEO Kristin Lindquist will be joining the Prism team as Chief Technology Officer.

Traditional approaches to evidence synthesis are lengthy, prone to duplication, and rarely updated; all realities that result in an unsettling amount of waste. At Prism, we draw on data to help our clients make important decisions such as which trial to plan next or decide which outcomes to measure. Tackling waste in research takes a community, developing new tools and learning from one another. Here we reflect on learning from fellow experts working to reduce waste and increase efficiency in research.

After every study, researchers should be asking themselves: Does the accumulating state of evidence justify another study? And if so, what type of study should that be? Unfortunately, there are no objective answers to these questions, since the optimal next step in a program of research will vary according to the values of different stakeholders. Yet, a lack of objectivity does not mean all answers must be arbitrary. And this is where Prism’s approach and technology comes into play.

For domains like biomedicine, where many assumptions are hotly contested and experts disagree about even the basic ontologies, static data assets just won’t do. Users need a way to modify the assumptions underlying the data and craft an analysis that is both grounded in data and suited to their specific use case. This is why we’re taking a different approach at Prism.

Clinical trial data is often siloed in disparate databases and hard to access. Even if you can get your hands on it, clinical trial datasets (or even just sets of metadata about clinical trials) are often incomplete or poorly structured so that it can still be a ton of work to make sense of the scientific landscape. In a STAT News article, we show how it doesn’t need to be this way.

In 2016, the Rhode Island Department of Health formed the Arts and Health Advisory Group, setting out to see if there was substantial evidence that arts-based treatments were effective in primary health care. Using Prism’s technology to create an interactive evidence map summarizing their findings, the team proved that art can be a powerful tool for health care.

When proven effective, precision medicines are truly amazing: Patients with a specific biomarker get a precise, effective treatment, while patients without are spared unnecessary toxicity and burden. However, clinical trials for precision medicines are inherently more complicated than traditional clinical trials, and if not planned carefully, their results can be uninformative.

Ethics committees are supposed to ensure that trials have scientific merit to balance out the risks and harms for research subjects. Unfortunately, committees currently lack the tools and resources to do this well, and as a result, many research participants get exposed to risks and harms for no good reason. We are working with a team at UC Davis to fix this problem.