Jad Abumrad

So it has been 17 years since this broadcast first ran. And I wondered, you know, circling back to the mental health stuff, the brain imaging stuff that we started the episode with, where are we now?

So it has been 17 years since this broadcast first ran. And I wondered, you know, circling back to the mental health stuff, the brain imaging stuff that we started the episode with, where are we now?

So it has been 17 years since this broadcast first ran. And I wondered, you know, circling back to the mental health stuff, the brain imaging stuff that we started the episode with, where are we now?

Over the last nearly 20 years, as there have been more and more MRI studies and brains scanned over and over, our machine learning is letting us predict with way more accuracy differences in brains with bipolar, schizophrenia, and depression. But we do not have MRI-based tests for these things in clinical practice.

Over the last nearly 20 years, as there have been more and more MRI studies and brains scanned over and over, our machine learning is letting us predict with way more accuracy differences in brains with bipolar, schizophrenia, and depression. But we do not have MRI-based tests for these things in clinical practice.

Over the last nearly 20 years, as there have been more and more MRI studies and brains scanned over and over, our machine learning is letting us predict with way more accuracy differences in brains with bipolar, schizophrenia, and depression. But we do not have MRI-based tests for these things in clinical practice.

There just isn't any biomarker that we found that's reliable enough for everyday clinical use. So we're definitely not living in the world that Eric Kandel predicted we might be, you know, where you can just scan your brain and tell you what's wrong with you and how you need to solve it. But we're not quite living in Jad's world either. We're sort of in this in-between still.

There just isn't any biomarker that we found that's reliable enough for everyday clinical use. So we're definitely not living in the world that Eric Kandel predicted we might be, you know, where you can just scan your brain and tell you what's wrong with you and how you need to solve it. But we're not quite living in Jad's world either. We're sort of in this in-between still.

There just isn't any biomarker that we found that's reliable enough for everyday clinical use. So we're definitely not living in the world that Eric Kandel predicted we might be, you know, where you can just scan your brain and tell you what's wrong with you and how you need to solve it. But we're not quite living in Jad's world either. We're sort of in this in-between still.

But it's one I have to say I kind of like, where on one hand, the... Science is getting better at telling us what's going on with our brains, and yet it's not good enough that doctors can quite use it. It's still forcing doctors to treat us as full individuals, as not just brains, to reckon with our full personhood. And so we walk forward at the in-between to the slow but steady beat of science.

But it's one I have to say I kind of like, where on one hand, the... Science is getting better at telling us what's going on with our brains, and yet it's not good enough that doctors can quite use it. It's still forcing doctors to treat us as full individuals, as not just brains, to reckon with our full personhood. And so we walk forward at the in-between to the slow but steady beat of science.

But it's one I have to say I kind of like, where on one hand, the... Science is getting better at telling us what's going on with our brains, and yet it's not good enough that doctors can quite use it. It's still forcing doctors to treat us as full individuals, as not just brains, to reckon with our full personhood. And so we walk forward at the in-between to the slow but steady beat of science.