Citation

Kostoff RN. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2012; 79(4): 789-800.

Affiliation

Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy, 13500 Tallyrand Way, Gainesville, VA 20155, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.techfore.2012.02.002

PMID

32287411

PMCID

PMC7131827

Abstract

Literature-Related Discovery and Innovation (LRDI - formerly LRD - literature-related discovery) integrates 1) discovery generation from disparate literatures with 2) the wealth of knowledge contained in prior art to 3) potentially reverse chronic and infectious diseases and/or 4) potentially solve technical problems that appear intractable. This article describes the evolution of LRDI by the author and the insights gained/lessons learned over the past decade. To illustrate the potential power of LRDI, the article emphasizes the relationship between the results of our 2008 LRDI multiple sclerosis (MS) study and a recent demonstration of MS reversal. Lessons learned from the six LRDI medical studies done so far include:⁎The main operational problem in the author's LRDI approach is selecting the most important concepts from extremely large volumes of potential discovery retrieval. This is contrary to most published LRDI research, where the discovery focus is searching for rare events.⁎It is important to have topical specialist(s) working closely with information technologist(s); the topical specialist(s) applies judgment in selecting the most important concepts.⁎A functional form of the information retrieval query with proximity searching capability provides highly selective filtering for discovery retrieval and core prevention/treatment retrieval; the functional form of the query with proximity searching capability allows the use of full-text for discovery and core prevention/treatment.⁎Bibliographic coupling (identifying papers that share common references) combined with text-based relationships strengthens selection for potential discovery further.⁎Having 'skin-in-the-game' (being affected personally) relative to the medical outcome is a strong incentive to do whatever is necessary to solve the research problem.⁎Hormesis is critical to healing; relatively modest doses of stimuli tend to be beneficial, whereas relatively large doses may be harmful. The synergy of hormetic treatment doses produces effects larger than combinations of individual doses and requires smaller doses when combined; the synergy of hormetic doses allows conversion of megadoses of nutrients typically reported in lab/clinical studies to physiological (food-level) doses and associated increased safety.⁎Co-promoters (combinations of toxic stimuli required to produce disease symptoms) are extremely important for explaining seemingly conflicting results; if true co-promotion is present, elimination of one of the co-promoters may be adequate for removing symptoms, even though the overall problem persists.⁎Prior art (potential treatments already published in the literature but not pursued by mainline medicine) may have much to contribute to potentially solve many serious medical problems; much of prior art is overlooked, especially low-tech prior art (e.g., foods, food extracts, herbs, etc.).⁎Systemic and focused treatments are both necessary components of healing, but neither will be fully, or many times even partially, effective until the cause(s) is identified and removed. Any medical approach that involves administering treatments for chronic and infectious diseases without addressing the cause(s) results in a broad range of outcomes mainly involving substitution of one set of symptoms for another.⁎Past results of LRDI medical studies showed much overlap among preventatives/systemic treatments for different diseases. Differences will arise mainly in focused treatments, especially those involving high technology.⁎The central parameters to healing in much medical research are never identified nor reported. Many treatments require a combination of skilled practitioners, cause removal, and immune/neural/endocrine/circulatory systems to be healthy for full effectiveness, yet practitioner skill, degree of cause removal, and immune system et al. health are never reported. A lack of this information does not allow efficacy of different treatments to be compared. Reviews and meta-analyses that compare and draw conclusions about the effectiveness of these different treatments without the above critical information being reported are of extremely limited value and credibility.⁎Finally, the most important deficiency for fully reversing chronic and infectious diseases, as well as rapidly accelerating healing of injuries and wounds, is the credibility and integrity of the medical literature itself, especially in areas that concern commercial and government/political sensitivities. In the evaluation of many concepts that deviated from the norm, it was difficult to ascertain whether the difference was based on solid high-quality research, poor research, or deliberately skewed research.

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Language: en

Keywords

Discovery; Disease prevention; Disease treatment; Innovation; Literature-Related Discovery and Innovation; Literature-related discovery; Multiple sclerosis; Text mining