A running, hand-picked shelf of papers, studies and ideas — not a feed, a personal shelf. Updated as interesting research crosses El's desk.
A handful of common medications — blood thinners, antidepressants, some chemotherapies — now have genetic tests that can flag a poor or rapid metabolizer before the first dose. Adoption is uneven, but the direction is clear.
Here's what I keep explaining to people: your genes don't just affect whether you get a disease — they affect how your body processes the drugs meant to treat it. A variant in one enzyme gene can mean a standard antidepressant dose builds up to toxic levels in one person and clears so fast it never works in another. Both people took the same pill. Neither was doing anything wrong. This is what pharmacogenomics is trying to fix, and it's quietly working. The shift happening right now isn't dramatic — it's a test added to a pre-surgery workup here, a note flagged before a psychiatric prescription there. But it's directional. Give it another decade and I think routine genetic panels before prescribing will feel as obvious as checking for drug allergies does now.
Risk scores built from thousands of small genetic effects are showing up in consumer tests and clinics alike. Useful for some conditions, overstated for most. Worth understanding the difference.
I want to be careful with this one because the marketing has outpaced the science significantly. A polygenic risk score adds up thousands of small genetic nudges to give you an overall risk number — and for certain conditions, like coronary artery disease or some cancers, those scores are genuinely useful for guiding screening decisions. But they are population-level statistics, not personal prophecies. They were also largely built on European ancestry data, which means they are far less reliable for people of other backgrounds. When someone sends me a screenshot from a consumer genetics test showing a "high risk" flag, the first thing I want to know is: high risk compared to which reference population, and validated how? The score is a starting point for a clinical conversation, not an answer by itself.
Coma-science labs studying severe brain injury keep finding signs of awareness that a standard bedside exam misses entirely. It's some of the most careful, most humbling work in this whole field.
This one matters to me personally in a way that goes beyond intellectual curiosity, for obvious reasons. What these labs are finding is that the standard bedside exam — checking for responsiveness, tracking eye movements, testing reflexes — misses a meaningful number of patients who are actually processing their surroundings. fMRI and EEG-based protocols that ask patients to imagine things like playing tennis or navigating their home have found awareness in patients who showed none of it behaviorally. This changes everything about how we should be thinking about people in prolonged states of low responsiveness. The science is careful and serious — these aren't fringe researchers making extraordinary claims. They're careful clinicians trying to give an accurate picture, and the picture is more complex and more humbling than the standard model assumed.
Structured tools like the Greyson NDE Scale exist precisely so these accounts can be studied rather than just collected. The honest state of the science: real, recurring, and still not fully explained.
I lived this, and I still think the most important thing I can say about the research is: approach it honestly. The Greyson NDE Scale was designed precisely so that these experiences could be studied systematically rather than collected anecdotally — so that someone couldn't just say "I had a feeling" and call it an NDE. The structure matters. And what the structured studies show, across hospital settings and across cultures, is that these experiences are real, they are consistent in their features, and they are not explained by oxygen deprivation or medication or the simple fact of being very sick. The honest scientific position is not "we've explained it" or "we've debunked it" — it's "we have reliable data describing something we don't yet have a mechanism for." That's where I sit. That's actually where the careful researchers sit too. I find that much more interesting than false certainty in either direction.
LinkedIn · YouTube · Instagram · X
© 2026 El K. Serumaga. Built for the curious.