After doing some ai work. My brain gets heavily over loaded with trying to even understand it. And when i try to put it into narrative form and explain a little I don't even know where to start.
I would like to have that knack but i think its not one of my skills, and my one finger types too slow
It was a slight diss though
But I think the non threaded version of this particular format precludes much discussion. At least that's my analysis. I should have left that out but sometimes I just go with whatever I'm thinking. But it's also an observation on the lack of discussion.
But also these things are difficult to discuss among laymen.
And I'm not a trained linear thinker etc etc
I agree ai is not everyone's cup of tea and I myself have trouble following someone else's generated ai content.
I dont mind you calling me out though
Now, The reason I think mayo consolidates both studies.
It may not be very convincing . Or understandable
If you look at the trial registry history here.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05868226?...tent-panel
And go down to MD anderson. They have removed all the contacts from their site and changed recruitment status. And Mayo Minnesota had updated their site contacts and recruitment status etc.
I thought when I looked a couple weeks back that due to those changes that maybe Mayo Minnesota does tnbc. Since MD anderson looked inactive, or not recruiting
Lalezari said Tracy Poelman w MD Anderson was doing pre ispy.
But Tracy Poelman is in charge of the whole pre spy thing, but it doesn't mean it's AT MD Anderson.
It could be at any trial site under her charge
Since Lalezari said pancreatic mayo.( And there might be added efficiencies doing both tnbc and pancreatic at one site), and then the total reformat of pre spy. Plus pre spy seems somewhat delayed. I thought maybe the delay could be due to the changes in pre spy program and coordinating these two efforts
I've actually even leaped to now speculate that since pre spy is solid tumor type Agnostic. Why not just do a basket study under one project ?
That's my weird reasoning but it makes sense to me
Now you know why I stick to ai. lol.
I'm more of a "make stand alone statements without the explanatory filler that helps create a narrative" type writer.
Or just copy paste an ai summary.
Ps. Here's an example of an ai output when I asked it to analyze the nci champ trial grant/funding page breakdown here
The page is interesting even if the ai isn't. Check it out.
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/iHDZbQ7pnEuSI...A/projects
How is it made interesting? I usually just skip posting or do the old copy paste. Which is what I did with this line of research. Skip posting.
I have probably 5 more in this line of questions related to possible reasons its delayed till may to why so much effort for a phase one exploratory study. The chat got way long
Anyway. Here ai analysis:
"The NIH reporter data you just laid down confirms the exact institutional layout of how an elite NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center support grant (P30CA033572) works at the Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope.
This dataset outlines a massive $4,235,199 master grant led by the Cancer Center Director, Dr. John D. Carpten, which is structurally partitioned to fund the core technological networks running throughout the campus.
When you look at the specific core allocations and the Principal Investigators leading them, you see the exact sub-contract infrastructure that is tracking and executing this science:
## 1. The Core Infrastructure Mechanics (The $222K Splits)
The master grant funds highly specialized core labs, each receiving targeted sub-allocations (consistently formatted at the $222,902 to $222,909 level for the 2026 fiscal year) to run high-resolution data capture on active clinical trials like CHAMP:
* Analytical Cytometry (Dr. Marwan G. Fakih): This is a critical connection point. Dr. Fakih is an internationally renowned GI oncology expert at City of Hope who specializes in colorectal liver metastases. His core lab is funded to execute precise cellular isolation and sorting—directly analyzing how the local immune environment shifts under combination therapy.
* Research Pathology (Dr. Stanley R. Hamilton): This core provides the foundational, expert processing and histology validation for incoming patient tissue biopsies, ensuring absolute accuracy when staining and measuring structural transformations within the liver parenchyma.
* Analytical Pharmacology (Dr. Timothy W. Synold) & Integrative Genomics (Dr. Xiwei Wu): These twin engines handle the deep molecular tracking. Dr. Synold’s lab is built to calculate exact pharmacokinetic curves and drug tissue concentrations, while Dr. Wu’s genomics hub processes the raw RNA sequencing data to measure changes in embryonic gene scripts.
## 2. The Multi-Omic Imaging and Math Network
To back up the data-rich nature of an NCI-funded program, the grant feeds into the precise spatial mapping tools needed to verify a microenvironmental change:
* Light Microscopy Digital Imaging (Dr. Brian Armstrong): This core is funded to deliver high-resolution, spatial visual evidence—physically capturing how infiltrating T-cells cross a decompressed stroma to target a tumor core.
* Biostatistics & Mathematical Oncology (Dr. Joycelynne M. Palmer): This team builds the mathematical models and statistical parameters required to validate complex endpoints, ensuring the trial data meets the strict thresholds demanded by regulators".
Thanks!
I would like to have that knack but i think its not one of my skills, and my one finger types too slow
It was a slight diss though
But I think the non threaded version of this particular format precludes much discussion. At least that's my analysis. I should have left that out but sometimes I just go with whatever I'm thinking. But it's also an observation on the lack of discussion.
But also these things are difficult to discuss among laymen.
And I'm not a trained linear thinker etc etc
I agree ai is not everyone's cup of tea and I myself have trouble following someone else's generated ai content.
I dont mind you calling me out though
Now, The reason I think mayo consolidates both studies.
It may not be very convincing . Or understandable
If you look at the trial registry history here.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05868226?...tent-panel
And go down to MD anderson. They have removed all the contacts from their site and changed recruitment status. And Mayo Minnesota had updated their site contacts and recruitment status etc.
I thought when I looked a couple weeks back that due to those changes that maybe Mayo Minnesota does tnbc. Since MD anderson looked inactive, or not recruiting
Lalezari said Tracy Poelman w MD Anderson was doing pre ispy.
But Tracy Poelman is in charge of the whole pre spy thing, but it doesn't mean it's AT MD Anderson.
It could be at any trial site under her charge
Since Lalezari said pancreatic mayo.( And there might be added efficiencies doing both tnbc and pancreatic at one site), and then the total reformat of pre spy. Plus pre spy seems somewhat delayed. I thought maybe the delay could be due to the changes in pre spy program and coordinating these two efforts
I've actually even leaped to now speculate that since pre spy is solid tumor type Agnostic. Why not just do a basket study under one project ?
That's my weird reasoning but it makes sense to me
Now you know why I stick to ai. lol.
I'm more of a "make stand alone statements without the explanatory filler that helps create a narrative" type writer.
Or just copy paste an ai summary.
Ps. Here's an example of an ai output when I asked it to analyze the nci champ trial grant/funding page breakdown here
The page is interesting even if the ai isn't. Check it out.
https://reporter.nih.gov/search/iHDZbQ7pnEuSI...A/projects
How is it made interesting? I usually just skip posting or do the old copy paste. Which is what I did with this line of research. Skip posting.
I have probably 5 more in this line of questions related to possible reasons its delayed till may to why so much effort for a phase one exploratory study. The chat got way long
Anyway. Here ai analysis:
"The NIH reporter data you just laid down confirms the exact institutional layout of how an elite NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center support grant (P30CA033572) works at the Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope.
This dataset outlines a massive $4,235,199 master grant led by the Cancer Center Director, Dr. John D. Carpten, which is structurally partitioned to fund the core technological networks running throughout the campus.
When you look at the specific core allocations and the Principal Investigators leading them, you see the exact sub-contract infrastructure that is tracking and executing this science:
## 1. The Core Infrastructure Mechanics (The $222K Splits)
The master grant funds highly specialized core labs, each receiving targeted sub-allocations (consistently formatted at the $222,902 to $222,909 level for the 2026 fiscal year) to run high-resolution data capture on active clinical trials like CHAMP:
* Analytical Cytometry (Dr. Marwan G. Fakih): This is a critical connection point. Dr. Fakih is an internationally renowned GI oncology expert at City of Hope who specializes in colorectal liver metastases. His core lab is funded to execute precise cellular isolation and sorting—directly analyzing how the local immune environment shifts under combination therapy.
* Research Pathology (Dr. Stanley R. Hamilton): This core provides the foundational, expert processing and histology validation for incoming patient tissue biopsies, ensuring absolute accuracy when staining and measuring structural transformations within the liver parenchyma.
* Analytical Pharmacology (Dr. Timothy W. Synold) & Integrative Genomics (Dr. Xiwei Wu): These twin engines handle the deep molecular tracking. Dr. Synold’s lab is built to calculate exact pharmacokinetic curves and drug tissue concentrations, while Dr. Wu’s genomics hub processes the raw RNA sequencing data to measure changes in embryonic gene scripts.
## 2. The Multi-Omic Imaging and Math Network
To back up the data-rich nature of an NCI-funded program, the grant feeds into the precise spatial mapping tools needed to verify a microenvironmental change:
* Light Microscopy Digital Imaging (Dr. Brian Armstrong): This core is funded to deliver high-resolution, spatial visual evidence—physically capturing how infiltrating T-cells cross a decompressed stroma to target a tumor core.
* Biostatistics & Mathematical Oncology (Dr. Joycelynne M. Palmer): This team builds the mathematical models and statistical parameters required to validate complex endpoints, ensuring the trial data meets the strict thresholds demanded by regulators".
Thanks!
1
