The Latest

The Old Asymmetry For generations, medicine has depended on the generosity of its subjects and the ambition of its scientists. Patients provide their stories and samples; researchers extract discoveries. Yet when value emerges — in patents, data sales, or institutional prestige — the contributors of truth are absent from the ledger.This asymmetry is not accidental; it is architectural. Systems that cannot trace consent cannot distribute benefit.Circle’s model rewrites this architecture. It restores value to its rightful origin — to the individuals whose verifiable experiences sustain the science itself.The Economics of AcknowledgmentOwnership begins with recognition. Without acknowledgment, participation becomes exploitation disguised as progress.In the Circle ecosystem, every patient’s verified contribution is recorded, preserved, and auditable. Each act of consent, each update of data, generates a measurable stake in the moral economy of truth. This is not symbolic gratitude; it is computable recognition.The data contributor becomes a partner, not a product.Value as ReciprocityIn moral philosophy, reciprocity sustains justice: one good act should invite another. Circle turns this into mechanism. Each verified dataset generates a return proportional to its integrity, depth, and longevity. The more completely and ethically one participates, the greater the reward.This is not charity but reciprocal economics — a system where moral equity yields material equity.From Subjects to StakeholdersTraditional research treats patients as data sources, dissolving their agency at the moment of contribution. Circle’s token model ensures that agency persists. Participants remain visible in every subsequent use of their data through immutable provenance. Their involvement continues not as memory, but as stake.This transforms medicine from extractive industry to collaborative commons. The patient is no longer observed but represented.The Moral DividendIn financial markets, dividends measure productive participation. In moral markets, they measure remembered integrity. Circle introduces a new kind of yield — the dividend of dignity — distributed to all who contribute verified truth to the collective record.It closes the loop between ethics and economy: dignity itself becomes a source of liquidity.The Moral Outcome Value, in the Circle model, is not created by possession or production, but by participation. It is the birthright of those who lend their lived experience to the growth of honest knowledge.Each patient, clinician, and researcher who contributes verifiable truth owns a fraction of its continuing worth. Not by favor, but by design.In this architecture, justice is no longer retrospective — it is programmed into the system.The birth of moral value is the birth of shared ownership in the future of truth.

Dear colleagues,Peptide‑based therapies are rapidly expanding in clinical practice, yet many physicians report difficulty finding reliable, unbiased, and peer‑reviewed information amid growing commercial noise.The Canadian Peptide Research Society (CPRS) is reaching out to share new clinician-oriented resources designed to support safe, compliant, and evidence-based peptide use in patient care.Why This Matters for Your PracticeWith patient interest rising and regulations evolving, physicians are seeking::Clear, clinically validated guidanceUp‑to‑date safety and regulatory insightsPractical education that supports responsible clinical decision‑makingA trusted, non-commercial source of evidenceOur programs are designed to meet exactly these needs.What CPRS OffersOur clinical resources are designed to support safe implementation and informed decision‑making:‍Expert-led clinical webinars and workshops‍Peer‑reviewed white papers, therapeutic guidelines, and safety reviewsRegulatory and compliance updates for practitioners from Canada and USA‍Opportunities for clinical collaboration, case sharing, and research participationAbout CPRS MembershipMembership provides access to our full clinical library and physician‑only opportunities, including:Full access to our growing education libraryInvitations to member-only workshops and research initiativesA network of experts driving progress in peptide sciencePriority updates on new guidelines, regulatory changes, and clinical developmentsIf you’re exploring peptide-based therapies—or simply want unbiased, scientifically rigorous guidance—we’d be glad to support you.Best regards,Dr. Grant PagdinCanadian Peptide Research Society‍

The Promise and the ProblemArtificial intelligence was meant to transform medicine from intuition to inference — replacing the bias of experience with the precision of pattern recognition. Instead, it has delivered a paradox: astonishing predictive power and diminishing evidentiary value.Regulators hesitate, clinicians distrust, and researchers debate endlessly not whether models “work,” but whether their results can be trusted. The problem is not computation; it is verification. Prediction is mathematics; proof is governance.The Unverifiable MachineTraditional clinical research earns its authority through reproducibility. Trials are documented, data locked, protocols registered. AI models, by contrast, are dynamic — retrained continuously, tuned privately, and often developed on data that cannot legally or technically be shared.The result is epistemic opacity: outputs that cannot be audited, methods that cannot be replicated, and performance claims that evaporate under scrutiny. This is prediction without proof — intelligence unanchored from accountability.Without verifiable provenance, even a correct result is epistemically worthless.What Proof RequiresFor AI to generate clinical evidence, it must satisfy the same principles that govern experimental science:Traceability. Every data point must have a known origin and chain of custody.Reproducibility. Methods must be executable by an independent party.Auditability. Every decision — human or algorithmic — must leave a record.Integrity. The system must ensure that no one can alter inputs or outputs post hoc.Federated Circle Datasets meet these criteria by embedding governance into the data layer itself. The model is not trusted; its process is.Federation as the Proof EngineFederation transforms AI from an act of blind aggregation into a continuous audit. Each institution retains its own data, applies standardized Observational Protocols (OPs), and contributes derivative insights rather than raw information.Because each node’s contribution is independently validated, the resulting global model carries a verifiable lineage. Every prediction becomes not just an output, but an accountable statement backed by a transparent epistemic trail.Circle Datasets thus replace “black box” predictions with chain-of-custody analytics — data and model co-validating one another.The Reproducibility DividendThis design yields what centralized systems never achieved: reproducibility without centralization. An investigator in Boston can re-run a federated analysis using identical protocols applied to distinct patient populations in Berlin or Tokyo — without any data ever leaving its jurisdiction.Results that converge become credible; results that diverge reveal context, not contradiction. The proof lies not in uniformity, but in traceable variation.Medicine regains what it lost in the era of digital opacity: falsifiability.From “Working” to “Valid”An AI model that works is one that predicts correctly. An AI model that is valid is one that predicts correctly for the right reasons, under reproducible conditions, and in a manner that can be independently confirmed. Proof is what separates functionality from reliability. Federated provenance makes that distinction measurable — transforming claims of performance into evidence of integrity. Regulatory ConvergenceGlobal regulators increasingly align around this philosophy. The FDA’s Good Machine Learning Practice framework, the EU AI Act, and the OECD’s AI governance guidelines all converge on one principle: trustworthy AI must be explainable, traceable, and verifiable throughout its lifecycle. Circle Datasets operationalize that principle by making proof a byproduct of process — not an afterthought. The system itself generates the audit trail regulators require.The burden of proof moves from paperwork to architecture. The Moral of VerificationVerification is not bureaucracy; it is ethics made executable. To prove something is to take responsibility for it — to make truth a shared obligation rather than a personal claim. Prediction without proof is speculation; proof without transparency is dogma. Medicine deserves neither. The future of AI will belong to systems that transform computation into conscience — where every prediction carries the weight of evidence, and every insight can stand as testimony.

The Seduction of the Score AI in healthcare has learned to sell itself through numbers:“AUC of 0.92.”“F1-score of 0.95.”“Outperformed radiologists on test set X.” These benchmarks, while valuable for early validation, have become a substitute for proof. They convey the illusion of certainty without demonstrating reproducibility. And in medicine, a system that performs well once but not again isn’t intelligent — it’s unreliable. When Validation Fails Translation Most healthcare AI models are tested under tightly controlled conditions: curated datasets, limited variability, and well-defined endpoints. In deployment, those conditions collapse. Noise reappears, coding differs, documentation gaps widen — and benchmark success evaporates.A 2024 BMJ meta-analysis found that less than 8% of published clinical AI models maintained equivalent accuracy when re-evaluated in independent health systems.The problem isn’t statistical — it’s environmental. Benchmarks measure what’s convenient, not what’s representative.The False Proxy of Performance Benchmark-driven AI rewards optimization, not understanding. Models learn to exploit quirks in the dataset rather than underlying clinical truth — a phenomenon known as shortcut learning.A skin-cancer classifier learns lighting patterns instead of lesions. A sepsis predictor learns timestamp habits instead of physiology.These systems pass validation but fail verification. They excel at the exam, not the practice. Ground Truth Over Ground Metrics True evaluation requires ground truth — data with traceable origin, context, and longitudinal follow-up. Only then can AI performance be tied to verified patient outcomes rather than static test sets.Circle datasets provide that foundation. Because every observation in the Circle network is captured through standardized protocols and linked to verified outcomes, models can be tested against real-world, reproducible evidence.This enables continuous validation, not one-time scoring. Benchmarks evolve as care evolves, ensuring alignment between algorithmic performance and clinical reality. Economic and Regulatory Implications Benchmark blindness isn’t just a scientific flaw — it’s a financial risk. AI vendors built on inflated performance metrics face sharp valuation corrections when independent audits reveal instability.Regulators are already adapting: the FDA’s proposed framework for Adaptive AI/ML Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) emphasizes ongoing data monitoring over static validation. In the coming regulatory landscape, the benchmark will be replaced by continuous proof of performance.‍For investors, that means long-term value will accrue to platforms whose claims are verifiable in production, not just impressive in publication.Strategic Outcome Healthcare AI does not need higher scores — it needs better evidence. The next generation of evaluation will measure how well a system sustains accuracy, not how high it peaks. Circle’s architecture makes this possible by embedding reproducibility into the data itself. Benchmarks will still matter — but they will describe performance on living, verifiable data rather than static experiments. The industry must move beyond the comfort of closed validation to the discipline of continuous verification. In that shift lies the end of benchmark blindness — and the beginning of measurable trust.

We invite you to this first Circle Hour for the MOTIV™ TKA Observational Protocol. Leading the discussion will be co-investigators Doctors Andrew Wickline and John Mercuri, as well as OREF leadership. As of today, orthopedic surgeons representing approximately 1600 TKAs per year, have already joined this Circle, or indicated their intention to do so. By February 12, we expect many more will have joined. More information about this initiative can be found here.The summary agenda is:An overview of the major regulatory, reimbursement and commercial trends driving the value of real-world data inherent in the everyday practice of orthopedic medicine. (3 minutes.)OREF’s objectives in the context of the MOTIV™ initiative. (3 minutes)The clinical hypotheses underlying the Observational Protocol. (5 minutes)Sample aggregated data reports available to Circle Members. (3 minutes)Live demonstration of physician and patient user experiences. (5 minutes)Q & A. (30 minutes)‍This live-streamed event is open only to orthopedic surgeons who have pre-registered. Registration information is here:We believe that all orthopedic surgeons will find this to be a stimulating discussion, and the first step of an ongoing valuable collaboration with peers around the world.