@leftbundle stands by his words and is giving his talk without slides at #ScientificSessions26 even the computer is closed #implementation #innovation What will actually improve CV outcomes? What about the care delivery model? Innovation is 🔑View quoted post on X
Mintu Turakhia, MD MS
Verified account This account is verified. Learn more@leftbundle
CMO/CSO/EVP Adv Tech/Product @irhythmtech. Professor and founding director @stanfordcdh. Cardiac EP, scientist, trialist, AI builder. Views mine.
1.4K Following 6.5K Followers 6K Posts
Latest posts 5
Looking forward to this #AHA2026
View quoted post on X
It may take a few iterations, but it's coming to a cath or EP lab near you.
At #TCT2026 we showcased the use of a humanoid robot in the cath lab to increase procedural efficiency, with simultaneous publication in @EuroInterventioView quoted post on X
@aelsab
@MaryHedgesMD
@MayraGuerreroMD
@DFCapodanno
@rajivxgulati
@mirvatalasnag
@mmamas1973
eurointervention.pcronline.com/article/humano…
If this is correct, then publisher of Nature Scientific Reports made up to $340M in revenue in three years on “article processing charges” from one journal alone. Many journals are great, but the medical publishing industrial complex must be dismantled. Also, what a waste of research dollars.
From 2024 to the present, Scientific Reports has published 120,000 articles. Let’s see if they can keep it going… “Scientific Reports, published by Springer Nature, has around 50 full-time deputy, senior and associate editors, and more than 11,000 editorial board members. Its article processing charge is $2850.”View quoted post on X
I believe firmly that AI manuscript review will make science better. Often, low-quality papers slip through and get published, even in high impact journals, because they somehow escaped review by a high-quality human. It's the variance of review quality, not the median, that remains the largest problem with human manuscript review.
Lots of debate this week on whether journals should ban AI in peer review.View quoted post on X
We actually tested this in our new preprint, and the results were pretty clear to me.
For context, I've reviewed for most of the big journals and evaluated 1,000 human reviews as an editor. I love to read and evaluate science.
TLDR: From now on I won't do any peer review without AI. For clinical trials, I'd even call human-only review dangerous 🧵