Curated scientific intelligence
Developments across the published libraries, ranked by evidence, connection, and — if you follow topics — relevance to you. Each card is a movement in the literature: what changed, how the evidence is labeled, and why it matters.
Each development carries an evidence label. What the labels mean
Latest is ordered by when PaperFren added the explanation, not by the study's original publication date.
Long COVID · Patient-reported outcomes
What changed
The symptom inventory is far wider than the clinical literature had described, and post-exertional malaise moved to the centre of the picture. Prevalence, though, remains an open question this design cannot close.
Sepsis · Patient stratification
What changed
A transcriptomic stratification replicates across cohorts and predicts mortality. It does not show that assigning patients to a signature and treating them differently improves survival — that requires a trial nobody has run here.
Oncology · Tumour heterogeneity
What changed
Multi-site sampling shows substantial spatial heterogeneity and a pre-existing resistant clone in this cohort. With 14 patients and significance only on a median split, this is a signal worth pursuing, not a clinical test.
Measurement · Physical activity
What changed
Its two domains have very different validity, and only the activity domain tracks change. A 95-person Northern Ireland sample cannot establish performance in every country, and the change analysis with n = 41 was underpowered.
Circadian · Diabetes
What changed
Two independent prospective cohorts show a graded association with years worked. The design cannot establish causation, and the mediating role of weight gain is unresolved.
Diabetes · Mechanism
What changed
A gene can be central to the physiology and absent from the heritability. This is mechanistic human physiology, not a trial: nothing here shows that lowering TXNIP improves glycaemic outcomes.