In its first meeting in about nine months, the FDA’s advisory committee of oncology experts voted 6-3 Thursday that a late-stage trial for AstraZeneca’s oral SERD camizestrant didn’t show a “clinically meaningful” benefit.

AstraZeneca touted …

A federal judge has dismissed part of Eli Lilly’s lawsuit alleging Empower Pharmacy misled customers about its compounded versions of the obesity drug tirzepatide.

But the court said some of Lilly’s claims involving whether Empower …​ ​Read More

Getting a paper published in Science is a highlight of many researchers’ careers. But for internist and clinical AI researcher Adam Rodman, it’s also been a source of some agita. 

On Thursday, Rodman and his colleagues published a compilation of experiments, including one using real-world data from a Boston emergency department, that show a large language model from OpenAI can outperform physicians in case-based diagnostic and clinical reasoning evaluations. To Rodman, the paper’s co-senior author, it’s a response to a gauntlet thrown down in Science in 1959. That paper “described how you would know that a clinical decision support system was capable of doing diagnosis better than humans,” he said. “And they can do it.”

But as generative AI tools like chatbots are heavily marketed — both to patients and clinicians — it makes him worried that the science experiments, all based on simulated and historical cases, will be misconstrued as proof of AI’s safety and efficacy when used to treat real patients. 

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

​Read More