The Latest

How trust, not technology, has become the limiting factor in healthcare AI adoption.The Confidence Gap In medicine, confidence is earned, not marketed. Every new tool, from a stethoscope to a genomic test, must prove that it improves care — safely, consistently, and measurably. AI is no exception. Yet after years of rapid deployment, confidence in healthcare AI is eroding. Clinicians question opaque recommendations; regulators demand reproducibility; investors hesitate to fund systems they can’t independently verify. The problem is no longer enthusiasm — it’s credibility. Healthcare leaders now face a paradox: they believe AI is the future, but they don’t trust the data it’s built on. When Models Don’t Transfer AI systems often perform brilliantly in development, then collapse in deployment.A readmission predictor trained in one health network fails in another. A diagnostic imaging model misclassifies minority populations it never saw during training. The culprit is not algorithmic weakness — it’s dataset drift. When the training data lacks diversity, depth, or verifiable lineage, the resulting model cannot generalize beyond its original context. Each failure compounds mistrust, reinforcing a cycle where clinicians disengage and institutions hesitate to adopt. The Clinical Credibility CrisisClinical users evaluate AI not as technology but as instrumentation. They expect repeatability, transparency, and documented calibration — the same standards applied to lab assays or imaging modalities. Most AI tools fail that test. Their results can’t be audited, their data can’t be traced, and their explanations are often inaccessible to non-technical users. This undermines confidence precisely where it matters most: at the point of care. A 2025 JAMA Network Open study found that over half of physicians exposed to AI diagnostic tools discontinued use within six months, citing inconsistency and workflow burden. The Business Cost of Distrust For health systems and investors, the confidence collapse translates directly into lost return on innovation. Projects stall in pilot phases. Procurement cycles lengthen as due diligence expands. Partnerships fail under compliance scrutiny. Unverifiable AI becomes uninsurable — a regulatory risk, a reputational hazard, and a stranded asset. Every instance of model opacity increases institutional exposure and slows market adoption. Confidence, once lost, is the most expensive commodity to regain. Rebuilding Trust Through Provenance The path forward isn’t more powerful AI — it’s more reliable provenance.Models must be trained, tested, and monitored on datasets whose origin, consent, and structure are independently verifiable. Circle’s federated architecture accomplishes this by embedding proof of data integrity into every record: Each data point carries its source lineage and consent metadata. Every model update can be traced to specific observational events. Validation is continuous, not episodic. This allows hospitals, regulators, and investors to confirm that an algorithm’s behavior aligns with its evidence — in real time. Strategic Outcome Healthcare’s confidence problem will not be solved by AI literacy workshops or regulatory frameworks alone. It requires an operational foundation where truth is self-evident — where every clinical insight and algorithmic output can be proven, not presumed. Circle’s approach rebuilds that foundation. It shifts the conversation from “Can we trust AI?” to “Can we verify it?” — the question that defines the next decade of healthcare innovation. In an industry where outcomes determine credibility, and credibility determines scale, confidence is the new currency of AI. Key TakeawaysStakeholder Practical Implication Clinicians Adopt AI only when results can be audited against verified source data. Executives Build procurement and risk frameworks around data provenance, not vendor claims. Investors Prioritize ventures that can demonstrate verifiable data lineage and continuous model validation. ‍

Over 11% of new pharmaceutical entities approved by the FDA between 2016 and 2024 were synthetic peptides. In 2023 alone, peptides accounted for 16.3% of novel therapeutics. Dear Colleagues, As the frontier of medicine continues to expand, peptides are emerging as a cornerstone of innovative therapies. At CPRS, we are dedicated to accelerating this progress by fostering collaboration among clinicians, researchers, and industry leaders. Dr.Pagdin Photo Why Are Peptides Changing the Landscape? Peptides offer targeted, personalized treatment options with a growing portfolio of application - from regenerative medicine and autoimmune disorders to skin rejuvenation and metabolic health. Our society champions rigorous research and responsible clinical adoption to ensure these therapies are safe and effective. MORE ABOUT OUR MISSION What Can You Expect as a CPRS Member? Access to cutting-edge research and white papers Opportunities to contribute to and shape clinical guidelines Networking with pioneers in peptide science and medicine Participation in exclusive workshops and webinars MORE ABOUT CPRS MEMBERSHIP Join Us at Upcoming Conference Meet members of CPRS, including Dr. Pagdin, to discuss how peptide therapies can revolutionize patient care: Age Management Medicine CME Conference Salt Lake City, Utah – November 12–16, 2025 Get Involved Today Whether you're a clinician, researcher, or industry professional, your expertise can help drive peptide science forward. Visit our website to learn more about membership benefits and how to become part of our vibrant community. VISIT CPRS WEBSITE Together, we can unlock the full potential of peptides for better health outcomes. Best regards, Dr. Grant Pagdin Canadian Peptide Research Society

The Incentive Reflex In medicine’s earliest centuries, the pursuit of knowledge was inseparable from personal curiosity and disciplined observation. Today, that ethic competes with a new organizing principle: optimization. Modern medical research has been reengineered to maximize measurable outputs — grants awarded, citations accumulated, and compliance satisfied — rather than verified insight or patient benefit. This transformation has not been malicious, but structural. Funding cycles now reward novelty within short timeframes; academic promotions hinge on impact factors; and even institutional survival depends on indirect cost recovery. Each metric began as a proxy for quality. Each, over time, became a substitute for it. Bureaucratic DarwinismIncentives determine evolution. The modern research ecosystem selects not for the most insightful scientists, but for the most adaptable bureaucrats. A principal investigator spends 30–50% of their working time writing and resubmitting grant proposals — often to sustain the very infrastructure required to write more proposals. The system’s implicit lesson is clear: survival depends less on discovery than on procedural fluency. Young researchers internalize this quickly, learning to frame safe, incremental projects that fit funding criteria rather than testing bold or uncomfortable hypotheses. The result is what might be called bureaucratic Darwinism — an adaptive landscape where conformity is rewarded and intellectual risk is selected against. Over time, this process yields a kind of cognitive monoculture: an ecosystem of competent survivors optimizing for predictability rather than truth. The Industrial MindsetIndustrialization brought efficiency to manufacturing, but when imported into scientific culture it introduced a subtle pathology. Science became a process pipeline, its workers evaluated by throughput and standardization rather than originality. The obsession with scalability — large consortia, mega-trials, vast data repositories — produced impressive infrastructure but diminished the space for small, disciplined inquiry. Each new administrative layer promises accountability, yet the cumulative effect is paralysis. What once was a craft practiced by curious minds has become a regulated enterprise optimized for audit rather than understanding. The irony is that medicine’s greatest leaps rarely emerged from scale. Galileo measured acceleration with a water clock and a ball. Semmelweis changed obstetrics with soap and persistence. Their modern counterparts would likely be told to file a pre-IRB concept note, obtain multi-site collaboration letters, and reapply next cycle. The Human Cost This optimization logic has human consequences. Scientists once defined themselves by curiosity and moral seriousness — the belief that truth, however inconvenient, was worth pursuit. Now, many experience research as a cycle of administrative exhaustion punctuated by brief intervals of inquiry. Young investigators face career paths where curiosity is a liability unless it aligns with funding trends. The brightest minds often leave for industry, where at least the metrics are explicit and the rewards tangible. The cultural toll is visible in the language scientists now use: 'deliverables,' 'stakeholders,' 'outputs.' These words belong to manufacturing, not discovery. When the lexicon of curiosity is replaced by the lexicon of production, the soul of science erodes. Toward RealignmentThe path back begins with metrics — because metrics, once chosen, quietly define morality. If funders and journals reward validated outcomes rather than speculative promises, behavior will follow. Outcome-indexed funding, replication-linked prestige, and transparent data audits would realign incentives with the original purpose of research: to generate reliable understanding that improves human health. Universities could measure success not by publication velocity but by reproducibility and downstream clinical impact. Regulators could tie approvals to ongoing evidence development rather than static dossiers. None of this requires dismantling existing institutions; it requires recalibration. The same systems that enforce compliance could track replication. The same digital infrastructure used for billing could support real-time learning. When the incentives change, culture will follow. ConclusionWhat we optimize becomes who we are. A system built to reward procedural success will produce proceduralists. A system built to reward validated discovery will produce discoverers. Reclaiming medicine’s moral and intellectual compass begins with asking, again, the oldest scientific question: not 'What will fund?' but 'What is true?' Selected References RegenMed (2025). Genuine Medical Research Has Lost Its Way. White Paper, November 2025. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. University of Chicago Press. NIH (2023). Improving Research Reproducibility and Transparency. Policy Brief.

The Crisis of Clinical Knowledge Medicine is entering an age of paradox. Data volume has exploded, yet decision confidence is eroding. Clinicians are overwhelmed by digital noise — billions of disconnected points in electronic health records, research databases, and claims repositories that rarely align. Every algorithm promises insight, but few can guarantee truth. The result is what the New England Journal of Medicine (2024) termed a “crisis of verifiable knowledge”: massive informational abundance, minimal evidential reliability. The underlying problem is not technology but epistemology — how we know what we think we know. 2. What Real-World Evidence Was Supposed to Solve The real-world evidence (RWE) movement emerged to complement randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with insights drawn from routine clinical practice. Regulators, payers, and clinicians hoped RWE would fill the gap between efficacy and effectiveness, providing broader, faster, and more inclusive understanding of how therapies perform in reality. But first-generation RWE largely failed to deliver. Most datasets are opportunistic EHR extractions — incomplete, inconsistently coded, and unverified. They describe events but cannot establish causality; they record encounters but cannot trace outcomes. In short, they are big data without deep truth. As Nature Medicine summarized in 2023: “Real-world evidence can accelerate discovery only if it becomes real-world science.” 3. The Core Problem: Low Signal, High Noise Uncurated EHRs and billing records were never designed for inference. They reflect administrative workflows, not scientific ones. Measurements vary by device, terminology, and context; diagnoses are inferred from billing codes; outcomes are rarely standardized. AI trained on such inputs amplifies inconsistency at scale. Signal-to-noise ratios in unstructured clinical data are so poor that even advanced models produce statistically impressive but clinically unreliable results. Without validated context, a million data points can mislead as easily as they inform. 4. The Next Step: Protocol-Driven Evidence Generation RegenMed’s answer is the Circle Dataset — a new class of structured, longitudinal, high-quality RWE built through the Circles Platform, implemented via the inCytes™ (clinician-facing) and Benchmarc™ (patient-facing) systems. Unlike EHR dumps, Circle Datasets are:  Structured — defined by observational protocols, not opportunistic charting.  Validated — each data element carries provenance and audit trails.  Longitudinal — following patients, conditions, and interventions over time.  Interoperable — mapped to FHIR-compatible standards (ICD, CPT, LOINC, SNOMED). Every data point exists within context, verified by the clinician who generated it and confirmed by the system’s validation layer. This transforms documentation into research — care into evidence. 5. Why Structure Matters Structure is the difference between observation and understanding. When data follow a defined protocol, they become comparable across patients, time, and institutions. That comparability enables real statistics, reproducibility, and learning. As the FDA’s Real-World Evidence Framework (2023) emphasized: “Fitness for regulatory purpose depends on demonstrable provenance, completeness, and traceability.” Circle Datasets institutionalize those qualities, ensuring that every metric is clinically meaningful and computationally verifiable. 6. Validation as a Continuous Process Traditional datasets treat validation as an event — a one-time audit or publication checkpoint. In Circles, validation is continuous. Each new record triggers automated quality checks, coding reconciliation, and peer-level review. Anomalies are flagged in real time; provenance is immutable. This “always-on” validation loop not only guarantees data quality but produces an evolving evidence stream — a living database that learns as care unfolds. 7. The Longitudinal Advantage Healthcare is temporal. Disease evolves, treatment responses fluctuate, and patient behavior changes. Only longitudinal data can capture those trajectories. Circles follow patients across visits, interventions, and outcomes, enabling precise time-series analyses and real-world cohort tracking. Longitudinality turns snapshots into stories — and stories into scientific signal. 8. Interoperability and FHIR Compatibility Circles will adhere to the Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard, ensuring data compatibility across systems and geographies. Every data element maps to international vocabularies — ICD for diagnoses, CPT for procedures, LOINC for labs, SNOMED CT for concepts. This standardization makes Circle Datasets exportable, verifiable, and integrable into AI training pipelines without loss of meaning 9. The High-Signal Alternative By combining structure, validation, longitudinal tracking, and interoperability, Circles achieve an unprecedented signal-to-noise ratio. This precision enables machine learning models to generalize safely, clinicians to compare outcomes reliably, and regulators to trust conclusions confidently. It is the difference between having data and having evidence. 10. Conclusion — The New Ground Truth Real-world evidence was meant to democratize discovery. To fulfill that promise, it must mature from opportunistic collection to deliberate observation. Circle Datasets represent that maturation: a rigorous, transparent, and continuously validated foundation for medical intelligence. They are, in effect, the ground truth of modern medicine -- a living infrastructure of verified care, built to power both AI and human judgment. Selected Sources • New England Journal of Medicine. The Crisis of Verifiable Knowledge (2024). • Nature Medicine. Real-World Evidence as Real-World Science (2023). • U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Real-World Evidence Framework (2023). • RegenMed Foundation. Circle Datasets and Observational Protocols White Paper (Draft 2025).

Dear Colleagues,We’re thrilled to share exciting updates from the Canadian Peptide Research Society (CPRS) and its founder, Dr. Grant Pagdin, a pioneer in regenerative medicine and peptide therapy. Dr. Pagdin has long championed the responsible clinical use of peptides, and his leadership continues to shape the future of integrative medicine in Canada and North America.Why Did Dr. Pagdin Start CPRS?The Canadian Peptide Research Society was founded to legitimize the science and clinical use of peptides across North America and Canada. With a growing body of evidence supporting peptide therapies, CPRS will serve as a central hub for clinicians, researchers, and educators to collaborate, share data, and advance safe, effective treatment protocols.Meet Our Board of DirectorsCPRS is guided by a distinguished Board of Directors, composed of leaders in peptide research, clinical practice, and biotechnology - each bringing unique expertise to the society:‍Dr. Grant Pagdin, MD, CCFP, FCFP, ABAARM: Principal of CPRS, with a focus on regenerative research and clinical innovation.‍Chris Kemppainen, B.Sc., B.Sc.(Pharm), RPh: Founder of Kiwi Pharmacy and Wellness, specializing in functional and natural medicines.‍Dr. Trevor Hoffman, ND: A pioneer in regenerative medicine, with expertise in orthopedic and cosmetic applications.Why Join CPRS?Joining CPRS means becoming part of a dynamic community dedicated to advancing peptide therapies responsibly and effectively. Our society stands for:Data Collection & Research: We’re pioneering efforts to gather real-world evidence on peptide treatments, crucial for establishing safety, efficacy, and clinical hypotheses.Safety & Efficacy: Our commitment to evidence-based practice ensures that peptide therapies are safe and effective for patients.Clinical Innovation: We support hypothesis-driven research into peptide applications for MSK conditions, gut health, skin rejuvenation, and more.Educational Opportunities: Attend conferences, participate in exclusive white papers, and stay abreast of the latest scientific developments.Partnerships & Data Initiatives: In collaboration with RegenMed, CPRS is launching data collection efforts through Physician-Owned Circles, focusing on innovative treatment areas.Upcoming ConferenceJoin Dr. Pagdin and CPRS representatives at the upcoming Age Management Medicine CME Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah, from November 12–16, 2025. This is a great chance to expand your knowledge of peptide therapies, connect with leading experts, and discuss potential collaborations.We look forward to connecting with you and advancing peptide science together.Warm regards,Dr. Grant Pagdin and the CPRS Team