In your bullets, I'm not quite sure I can discern the difference between "usefulness" and "quality" but will keep thinking about it. Maybe I'm conflating what you later refer to as 'clinical applicability' and those subpoints with "quality." To your broader point (and your terrific last article too) I 100% agree there is a huge opportunity to smooth out language, terminology, and jargon in neurotech. You're doing important work with all of this thinking.
I think the HMI Spectrum is a great framework to build on. To your closing question: I think there's a strong opportunity to use this framework to educate clinical research organizations and clinical trial sponsors on neurotechnology's potential.
My opinion of CROs is that they have grown too big to fail as an incumbent part of the multi-billion dollar CNS research landscape. They generally embrace their own tech, and have internalized use of paper-based measures that are frictionless to the status quo (easy to report, easy to get clinical consensus) but which lock clinical human/brain health research into a completely outmoded paradigm (subjective, inconsistent, unreliable). I've b*tched about this in various articles before so I'll spare you the soapbox rant...but tldr let's gooo with novel neurotech adoption! :)
This is all changing of course - Alto, Cognito, Beacon, Cumulus, Kernel, Ceretype, many others, but I think the HMI spectrum could evolve to double as a "biomarker platform map" to help life sciences leaders reimagine outcomes measures planning and make smart investments in the next generation of research tools. The big opportunity for this is to bring an objective, vendor-agnostic lens to understand the technology via bird's eye view.
There's a nifty paper about the bigger strategy into which I think your HMI spectrum would layer in perfectly. I can connect you with one of the authors if that's ever helpful. Including that and a quick riff I posted on Linkedin, below.
Thanks for your writing and analysis - Really enjoying your articles. Keep up the great work!
Interesting read, thank you. As a lateral thinker this brought up the notions of neuro rights, ethical considerations, e-waste considering hardware and associated sustainability, perhaps the interplay between quality and adoptability can also incorporate local and cultural nuances/preference, the adaptability of new solutions or maybe "currently fringe solutions" who have the potential to be viable later(basically future proofing), spectrum's integration into hardware and software stack.
P.s
A visual "cheat sheet" always go a long way for broader outreach.
Great analysis Abby!
In your bullets, I'm not quite sure I can discern the difference between "usefulness" and "quality" but will keep thinking about it. Maybe I'm conflating what you later refer to as 'clinical applicability' and those subpoints with "quality." To your broader point (and your terrific last article too) I 100% agree there is a huge opportunity to smooth out language, terminology, and jargon in neurotech. You're doing important work with all of this thinking.
I think the HMI Spectrum is a great framework to build on. To your closing question: I think there's a strong opportunity to use this framework to educate clinical research organizations and clinical trial sponsors on neurotechnology's potential.
My opinion of CROs is that they have grown too big to fail as an incumbent part of the multi-billion dollar CNS research landscape. They generally embrace their own tech, and have internalized use of paper-based measures that are frictionless to the status quo (easy to report, easy to get clinical consensus) but which lock clinical human/brain health research into a completely outmoded paradigm (subjective, inconsistent, unreliable). I've b*tched about this in various articles before so I'll spare you the soapbox rant...but tldr let's gooo with novel neurotech adoption! :)
This is all changing of course - Alto, Cognito, Beacon, Cumulus, Kernel, Ceretype, many others, but I think the HMI spectrum could evolve to double as a "biomarker platform map" to help life sciences leaders reimagine outcomes measures planning and make smart investments in the next generation of research tools. The big opportunity for this is to bring an objective, vendor-agnostic lens to understand the technology via bird's eye view.
There's a nifty paper about the bigger strategy into which I think your HMI spectrum would layer in perfectly. I can connect you with one of the authors if that's ever helpful. Including that and a quick riff I posted on Linkedin, below.
Thanks for your writing and analysis - Really enjoying your articles. Keep up the great work!
Paper: Methods for Neuroscience Drug Development: Guidance on Standardization of the Process for Defining Clinical Outcome Strategies in Clinical Trials: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X24000440?via%3Dihub
Rough Riff for some more context: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ndrao_neuroscience-neurotech-neuroimaging-activity-7193676872008802304-Mbua?
Interesting read, thank you. As a lateral thinker this brought up the notions of neuro rights, ethical considerations, e-waste considering hardware and associated sustainability, perhaps the interplay between quality and adoptability can also incorporate local and cultural nuances/preference, the adaptability of new solutions or maybe "currently fringe solutions" who have the potential to be viable later(basically future proofing), spectrum's integration into hardware and software stack.
P.s
A visual "cheat sheet" always go a long way for broader outreach.
Have a great rest of the week