Scientists suspect that the plastics can be linked to a host of medical conditions, but clear evidence is elusive without appropriate biomarkers for clinical laboratory testing
Recent research indicates that microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) are accumulating in human organs at an increasing rate. The health impact is not entirely clear, but the research suggests that clinical laboratories could someday find themselves testing for levels of MNPs in patients.
In one study, scientists at the University of New Mexico and Oklahoma State University analyzed autopsy samples of liver, kidney, and frontal cortex brain tissue collected in 2016 and 2024. “Brains exhibited higher concentrations of MNPs than liver or kidney samples,” they wrote. However, “all organs exhibited significant increases from 2016 to 2024.”
“The concentrations we saw in the brain tissue of normal individuals, who had an average age of around 45 or 50 years old, were 4,800 micrograms per gram, or 0.5% by weight,” lead author Matthew Campen, PhD, Regents’ Professor, Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of New Mexico, and Director of the New Mexico Center for Metals in Biology and Medicine (CMBM), told CNN. “Compared to autopsy brain samples from 2016, that’s about 50% higher.”
Researchers have not yet uncovered clear evidence of specific health risks, but “what scientists worry about is several trends in disease prevalence that have been unexplained—Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, colorectal cancer in people under 50, inflammatory bowel disease, and global reductions in sperm count,” Campen told Everyday Health.
In another recent study, a different team of researchers at the University of New Mexico found high levels of microplastics in human and canine testicular tissue.
“At the beginning, I doubted whether microplastics could penetrate the reproductive system,” said lead author Xiaozhong Yu, MD, PhD, Professor, University of New Mexico College of Nursing in a university news story. “When I first received the results for dogs I was surprised. I was even more surprised when I received the results for humans.”
“The rate of increase in microplastics in the environment is exponential and we have every reason to believe that the concentrations in our bodies will continue to increase in the coming years and decades,” Matthew Campen, PhD (above), of the University of New Mexico told Everyday Health. As studies continue to produce evidence that nanoplastics affect human health, testing companies may develop biomarkers for clinical laboratory tests that measure the amount of microplastics in different organ locations. (Photo copyright: University of New Mexico.)
Landrigan told CNN that most people are exposed to MNPs through their diet, “but inhalation is also an important route.”
However, he added, “it’s important not to scare the hell out of people, because the science in this space is still evolving, and nobody in the year 2024 is going to live without plastic.”
CNN noted that experts consider nanoplastics to be the biggest concern [as opposed to microplastics] because they can infiltrate human cells.
“Somehow these nanoplastics hijack their way through the body and get to the brain, crossing the blood-brain barrier,” Campen told CNN. “Plastics love fats, or lipids, so one theory is that plastics are hijacking their way with the fats we eat which are then delivered to the organs that really like lipids—the brain is top among those.”
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that microplastics typically measure less than 5mm, whereas nanoplastics are less than a micron (micrometer). However, the agency notes that “there are currently no standard definitions for the size of microplastics or nanoplastics.”
What Are the Health Risks?
Scientists suspect that MNPs could be associated with cancer, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and infertility, The Washington Post reported, but that they “still don’t have a clear sense of what these materials are doing to the human body.”
“In a 2021 study, researchers in Switzerland identified more than 10,000 chemicals used in the manufacture of plastic—of which over 2,400 were potentially ‘of concern’ for human health,” The Post noted.
“To be able to say we have a health impact, we need to have a direct correlation between a product and a health outcome,” Phoebe Stapleton, PhD, Associate Professor at the Rutgers University Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy (EMSOP), told The Post. “It’s very narrow, that straight line. And there’s so many different health outcomes there could be, and we’re finding these particles in so many different tissues.”
One study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) suggested that MNPs in arteries could be risk factors for heart attacks or strokes. But even here, the authors wrote, “direct evidence that this risk extends to humans is lacking.”
Yu suspects that MNPs could be a factor in a global decline in sperm count, along with other environmental contaminants such as heavy metals and pesticides. His study found that polyethylene was the most prevalent plastic in dogs, followed by polyvinyl chloride (PVC). Higher levels of PVC correlated with lower sperm count, but there was no correlation with polyethylene.
“PVC can release a lot of chemicals that interfere with spermatogenesis, and it contains chemicals that cause endocrine disruption,” he said in the UNM news story.
Clinical laboratory managers should recognize that interest in identifying micro- and nanoplastics in every organ of the human body will increase. At some point, physicians may want labs to test their patients for microplastic levels in certain organ sites. This will likely be when enough published studies show a correlation between high levels of microplastics in certain locations of the body and specific disease states.
Accurate blood-based clinical laboratory testing for cancer promises to encourage more people to undergo early screening for deadly diseases
One holy grail in diagnostics is to develop less-invasive specimen types when screening or testing for different cancers. This is the motivation behind the creation of a new assay for colorectal (colon) cancer that uses a blood sample and that could be offered by clinical laboratories. The data on this assay and its performance was featured in a recent issue of the New England Journal of Medicine(NEJM).
The company developing this new test recognized that more than 50,000 people will die in 2024 from colon cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. That’s primarily because people do not like colonoscopies even though the procedure can detect cancer in its early stages. Similarly, patients tend to find collecting their own fecal samples for colon cancer screening tests to be unpleasant.
But the clinical laboratory blood test for cancer screening developed by Guardant Health may make diagnosing the deadly disease less invasive and save lives. The test “detects 83% of people with colorectal cancer with specificity of 90%,” a company press release noted.
“Early detection could prevent more than 90% of colorectal cancer-related deaths, yet more than one third of the screening-eligible population is not up to date with screening despite multiple available tests. A blood-based test has the potential to improve screening adherence, detect colorectal cancer earlier, and reduce colorectal cancer-related mortality,” the study authors wrote in the NEJM.
As noted above, this is the latest example of test developers working to develop clinical laboratory tests that are less invasive for patients, while equaling or exceeding the sensitivity and specificity of existing diagnostic assays for certain health conditions.
“I do think having a blood draw versus undergoing an invasive test will reach more people, My hope is that with more tools we can reach more people,” Barbara H. Jung, MD (above), President of the American Gastroenterological Association, told NPR. Clinical laboratory blood tests for cancer may encourage people who do not like colonoscopies to get regular screening. (Photo copyright: American Gastroenterology Association.)
Developing the Shield Blood Test
Colorectal cancer is the “third most common cancer among men and women in the US,” according to the American Gastrological Association (AGA). And yet, millions of people do not get regular screening for the disease.
To prove their Shield blood test, Guardant Health, a precision oncology company based in Redwood City, Calif., enrolled more than 20,000 patients between the ages of 45-84 from across the US in a prospective, multi-site registrational study called ECLIPSE (Evaluation of ctDNA LUNAR Assay In an Average Patient Screening Episode).
“We assessed the performance characteristics of a cell-free DNA (cfDNA) blood-based test in a population eligible for colorectal cancer screening. The coprimary outcomes were sensitivity for colorectal cancer and specificity for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions) relative to screening colonoscopy. The secondary outcome was sensitivity to detect advanced precancerous lesions,” the study authors wrote in the NEJM.
In March, Guardant completed clinical trials of its Shield blood test for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) in men and women. According to the company press release, the test demonstrated:
83% sensitivity in detecting individuals with CRC.
88% sensitivity in detecting pathology-confirmed Stages I-III.
Additionally, the Shield test showed sensitivity by stage of:
65% for pathology-confirmed Stage I,
55% for clinical Stage I,
100% for Stage II, and
100% for Stage III.
“The results of the study are a promising step toward developing more convenient tools to detect colorectal cancer early while it is more easily treated,” said molecular biologist and gastroenterologist William M. Grady, MD, Medical Director, Gastrointestinal Cancer Prevention Program at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and corresponding author of the ECLIPSE study in the press release. “The test, which has an accuracy rate for colon cancer detection similar to stool tests used for early detection of cancer, could offer an alternative for patients who may otherwise decline current screening options.”
Are Colonoscopies Still Needed?
“More than three out of four Americans who die from colorectal cancer are not up to date with their recommended screening, highlighting the need for a more convenient and less invasive screening method that can overcome barriers associated with traditional options,” Daniel Chung, MD, gastroenterologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, said in the Guardant press release.
Barbara H. Jung, MD, President of the American Gastroenterological Association, says that even if Guardant’s Shield test makes it to the public the “dreaded colonoscopy” will still be needed because the procedure is used to locate and test polyps. “And when you find those you can also remove them, which in turn prevents the cancer from forming,” she told NPR.
There is hope that less invasive clinical laboratory testing will encourage more individuals to get screened for cancer earlier and regularly, and that the shift will result in a reduction in cancer rates.
“Colorectal cancer is highly treatable if caught in the early stages,” said Chris Evans, President of the Colon Cancer Coalition, in the Guardant press release.
Guardant Health’s ECLIPSE study is a prime example of the push clinical laboratory test developers are making to create user-friendly test options that make it easier for patients to follow through with regular screening for early detection of diseases. It echoes a larger effort in the medical community to think outside the box and come up with creative solutions to reach wider audiences in the name of prevention.
This is good news for clinical laboratories that already perform medical testing for telehealth providers and an opportunity for medical labs that do not, it is an opportunity to do so
Telemedicine visits have become commonplace since the arrival of COVID-19. Before the pandemic, telehealth was primarily used to give remote patients access to quality healthcare providers. But three years later both patients and physicians are becoming increasingly comfortable with virtual office visits, especially among Millennial and Gen Z patients and doctors.
Now, a recent study by the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn Medicine) suggests that there could be a significant financial advantage for hospitals that conduct telemedicine. This would be a boon to clinical laboratories that perform medical testing for telemedicine providers.
According to Digital Health News, in July 2017 Penn Medicine launched a 24/7/365 copayment-free telemedicine program for its employees called Penn Medicine OnDemand. To engage with a telemedicine provider, patients must have a smartphone or tablet with a front-facing camera and updated operating system.
Telemedicine Visits Cost Less than In-Office Doctor Appointments
An analysis of the OnDemand program’s data collected from its inception through the end of 2019 found that the telemedicine appointment per-visit cost averaged around $380, whereas the cost of an in-person visit at an emergency department, primary care office, or urgent care clinic averaged around $493.
Typically, Penn Medicine’s employees used the telemedicine program for common, low risk health complaints. Healthcare conditions that many patients might otherwise not seek treatment for if an in-office visit was inconvenient.
“The data we analyzed pre-date the pandemic. It was a time when people were just putting a toe in the water and wondering, ‘Let me see if telemedicine could treat my needs,’” Krisda Chaiyachati MD, an internal medicine physician and Adjunct Assistant Professor at Penn Medicine, told Digital Health News. Chaiyachati lead the research team that conducted the telemedicine study.
“These days, people seem willing to jump in for an appropriate set of conditions,” he added. “The good news is that we made care easier while saving money, and we think the savings could be higher in the future.”
Chaiyachati and his colleagues found that telemedicine can save employers healthcare costs without sacrificing quality of care.
“The conditions most often handled by OnDemand are low acuity—non-urgent or semi-urgent issues like respiratory infections, sinus infections, and allergies—but incredibly common, so any kind of cost reduction can make a huge difference for controlling employee benefit costs,” Krisda Chaiyachati MD (above), a Penn Medicine physician and the study’s lead researcher, told Digital Health News. Clinical laboratories that already perform testing for telemedicine providers may see an increase in test orders once hospitals learn of the costs savings highlighted in the Penn Medicine study. (Photo copyright: Penn Medicine.)
Telemedicine on the Rise
The idea is not new. In late 2018, Planned Parenthood launched the Planned Parenthood Direct mobile app in New York State. The app provides New York patients with access to birth control, emergency contraception, and UTI treatment with no in-person visit required.
The program has since expanded across the country. Users of the app can connect with a physician to go over symptoms/needs, and the be sent a prescription within a business day to the pharmacy of their choice.
The concept is similar to Penn Medicine OnDemand, which gives patients 24/7 year around access to treatment for common and low-acuity medical issues in a convenient, virtual process.
Telemedicine was on the rise in other parts of the healthcare industry before the pandemic. According to “The State of Telehealth Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic” published by Julia Shaver, MD, Kaiser Permanente, in the journal Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice, 76% of US hospital systems had utilized some form of telemedicine by 2018. This rate grew exponentially while the healthcare system had to navigate a world with COVID-19 on the rise.
And, apparently, quality of care does not suffer when moved from in-person to virtual settings. Two studies conducted by The University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) found telemedicine to be effective and that “common concerns about telemedicine don’t hold up to scrutiny,” according a news release.
In her New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) paper on the studies, Kathleen Fear, PhD, URMC’s Director of Data Analytics, Health Lab, and her co-authors, wrote: “Three beliefs—that telemedicine will reduce access for the most vulnerable patients; that reimbursement parity will encourage overuse of telemedicine; and that telemedicine is an ineffective way to care for patients—have for years formed the backbone of opposition to the widespread adoption of telemedicine.”
However, URMC’s study found the opposite to be true. The NEJM authors wrote, “there is no support for these three common notions about telemedicine. At URMC, the most vulnerable patients had the highest uptake of telemedicine; not only did they complete a disproportionate share of telemedicine visits, but they also did so with lower no-show and cancellation rates. It is clear that … telemedicine makes medical care more accessible to patients who previously have experienced substantial barriers to care.
“Importantly, this access does not come at the expense of effectiveness. Providers do not order excessive amounts of additional testing to make up for the limitations of virtual visits. Patients do not end up in the ER or the hospital because their needs are not met during a telemedicine visit, and they also do not end up requiring additional in-person follow-up visits to supplement their telemedicine visit,” the NEJM authors concluded.
“Not only did our most vulnerable patients not get left behind—they were among those engaging the most with, and benefiting the most from, telemedicine services. We did not see worse outcomes or increased costs, or patients needing an increased amount of in-person follow up. Nor did we find evidence of overuse. This is good care, and it is equitable care for vulnerable populations,” Fear said in the news release.
“For patients, the message is clear and reassuring: Telemedicine is an effective and efficient way of receiving many kinds of healthcare,” she added.
Opportunities for Clinical Laboratories
Dark Daily has covered the fast growing world of telemedicine in many ebriefs over the years.
As telemedicine broadens its reach across the healthcare world, clinical laboratories and pathology groups would be wise to seek collaboration with health plans and providers of telemedicine to figure out where sample collection and testing fits into this new virtual healthcare space.
Research in the UK and US into how rapid WGS can prevent deaths and improve outcomes for kids with rare genetic diseases may lead to more genetic testing based in local clinical laboratories
Genetic scientists with the National Health Service (NHS) in England have embarked on an ambitious plan to offer rapid whole genome sequencing (rWGS) for children and babies with serious illnesses, as part of a larger initiative to embrace genomic medicine in the United Kingdom (UK).
The NHS estimates that the plan will benefit more than 1,000 children and babies each year, including newborns with rare diseases such as cancer, as well as kids placed in intensive care after being admitted to hospitals. Instead of waiting weeks for results from conventional tests, clinicians will be able to administer a simple blood test and get results within days, the NHS said in a press release.
The press release notes that about 75% of rare genetic diseases appear during childhood “and are responsible for almost a third of neonatal intensive care deaths.”
Here in the United States, pathologists and clinical laboratory managers should see this development as a progressive step toward expanding access to genetic tests and whole genome sequencing services. The UK is looking at this service as a nationwide service. By contrast, given the size of the population and geography of the United States, as this line of medical laboratory testing expands in the US, it will probably be centered in select regional centers of excellence.
“This strategy sets out how more people will be empowered to take preventative action following risk-based predictions, receive life-changing diagnoses, and get the support needed to live with genomically-informed diagnoses alongside improved access to cutting-edge precision [medicine] treatments. It also outlines how the NHS will accelerate future high-quality genomic innovation that can be adopted and spread across the country, leading to positive impacts for current and future generations,” the NHS wrote.
“This global first is an incredible moment for the NHS and will be revolutionary in helping us to rapidly diagnose the illnesses of thousands of seriously ill children and babies—saving countless lives in the years to come,” said NHS chief executive Amanda Pritchard (above) in a press release announcing the program. (Photo copyright: Hospital Times.)
New Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing Service
The NHS announced the plan following a series of trials last year. In one trial, a five-day old infant was admitted to a hospital in Cheltenham, Gloucester, with potentially deadly levels of ammonia in his blood. Whole genome sequencing revealed that changes in the CPS1 gene were preventing his body from breaking down nitrogen, which led to the spike in ammonia. He was given life-saving medication in advance of a liver transplant that doctors believed would cure the condition. Without the rapid genetic test, doctors likely would have performed an invasive liver biopsy.
Using a simple blood test, the new newborn genetic screening service in England is expected to benefit more than 1,000 critically ill infants each year, potentially saving their lives. “The rapid whole genome testing service will transform how rare genetic conditions are diagnosed,” explained Emma Baple, PhD, Professor of Genomic Medicine at University of Exeter Medical School and leader of the National Rapid Whole Genome Sequencing Service in the press release. “We know that with prompt and accurate diagnosis, conditions could be cured or better managed with the right clinical care, which would be life-altering—and potentially life-saving—for so many seriously unwell babies and children,” Precision Medicine Institute reported.
According to The Guardian, test results will be available in two to seven days.
Along with the new rWGS testing service, the NHS announced a five-year plan to implement genomic medicine more broadly. The provisions include establishment of an ethics advisory board, more training for NHS personnel, and an expansion of genomic testing within the existing NHS diagnostic infrastructure. The latter could include using NHS Community Diagnostics centers to collect blood samples from family members to test for inherited diseases.
UK’s Longtime Interest in Whole Genome Sequencing
The UK government has long been interested in the potential role of WGS for delivering better outcomes for patients with genetic diseases, The Guardian reported.
In 2013, the government launched the 100,000 Genomes Project to examine the usefulness of the technology. In November 2021, investigators with the project reported the results of a large pilot study in which they analyzed the genomes of 4,660 individuals with rare diseases. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) titled, “100,000 Genomes Pilot on Rare-Disease Diagnosis in Health Care—Preliminary Report,” found “a substantial increase in yield of genomic diagnoses made in patients with the use of genome sequencing across a broad spectrum of rare disease.”
The study’s findings suggest that use of WGS “could save the NHS millions of pounds,” The Guardian reported.
Whole Genome Sequencing System for Newborns in the US
“This NBS-rWGS [newborn screening by rapid whole genome sequencing] system is designed to complement the existing newborn screening process and has the potential to eliminate the diagnostic and therapeutic odyssey that many children and parents face,” Kingsmore said in a press release. “Currently, only 35 core genetic disorders are recommended for newborn screening in the United States, but there are more than 7,200 known genetic diseases. Outcomes remain poor for newborns with a genetic disease because of the limited number of recommended screenings. With NBS-rWGS, we can more quickly expand that number and therefore potentially improve outcomes through precision medicine.”
A more recent 2023 study which examined 112 infant deaths at Rady Children’s Hospital found that 40% of the babies had genetic diseases. In seven infants, genetic diseases were identified post-mortem, and in five of them “death might have been avoided had rapid, diagnostic WGS been performed at time of symptom onset or regional intensive care unit admission,” the authors wrote.
“Prior etiologic studies of infant mortality are generally retrospective, based on electronic health record and death certificate review, and without genome information, leading to underdiagnosis of genetic diseases,” said Christina Chambers, PhD, co-author of the study, in a press release. “In fact, prior studies show at least 30% of death certificates have inaccuracies. By implementing broad use of genome sequencing in newborns we might substantially reduce infant mortality.”
Pioneering work with whole genome sequencing for newborns, such as that being conducted by the clinical laboratory and genetic teams at Rady Children’s Hospital and the UK’s NHS, could allow doctors to make timely interventions for our most vulnerable patients.
Unlike most other CRISPR/Cas-9 therapies that are ex vivo treatments in which cells are modified outside the body, this study was successful with an in vivo treatment
Use of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology for therapeutic purposes can be a boon for clinical laboratories. Not only is this application a step forward in the march toward precision medicine, but it can give clinical labs the essential role of sequencing a patient’s DNA to help the referring physician identify how CRISPR-Cas9 can be used to edit the patient’s DNA to treat specific health conditions.
Most pathologists and medical lab managers know that CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology has been touted as one of the most significant advances in the development of therapies for inherited genetic diseases and other conditions. Now, a pair of biotech companies have announced a milestone for CRISPR-Cas9 with early clinical data involving a treatment delivered intravenously (in vivo).
As with other therapies, determining which patients are suitable candidates for specific treatments is key to the therapy’s success. Therefore, clinical laboratories will play a critical role in identifying those patients who would most likely benefit from a CRISPR-delivered therapy.
Such is the goal of precision medicine. As methods are refined that can correct unwelcome genetic mutations in a patient, the need to do genetic testing to identify and diagnose whether a patient has a specific gene mutation associated with a specific disease will increase.
Cleveland Clinic describes ATTR amyloidosis as a “protein misfolding disorder” involving transthyretin (TTR), a protein made in the liver. The disease leads to deposits of the protein in the heart, nerves, or other organs.
According to Intellia and Regeneron, NTLA-2001 is designed to inactivate the gene that produces the protein.
The interim clinical trial data indicated that one 0.3 mg per kilogram dose of the therapy reduced serum TTR by an average of 87% at day 28. A smaller dose of 0.1 mg per kilogram reduced TTR by an average of 52%. The researchers reported “few adverse events” in the six study patients, “and those that did occur were mild in grade.”
Current treatments, the companies stated, must be administered regularly and typically reduce TTR by about 80%.
“These are the first ever clinical data suggesting that we can precisely edit target cells within the body to treat genetic disease with a single intravenous infusion of CRISPR,” said Intellia President and CEO John Leonard, MD, in a press release. “The interim results support our belief that NTLA-2001 has the potential to halt and reverse the devastating complications of ATTR amyloidosis with a single dose.”
He added that “solving the challenge of targeted delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 to the liver, as we have with NTLA-2001, also unlocks the door to treating a wide array of other genetic diseases with our modular platform, and we intend to move quickly to advance and expand our pipeline.”
“It’s an important moment for the field,” MIT biomedical engineer Daniel Anderson, PhD (above), told Nature. Anderson is Professor, Chemical Engineering and Institute for Medical Engineering and Science at the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT. “It’s a whole new era of medicine,” he added. Advances in the use of CRISPR-Cas9 for therapeutic purposes will create the need for clinical laboratories to sequence patients’ DNA to help physicians determine the best uses for a CRISPR-Cas9 treatment protocol. (Photo copyright: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.)
In Part 2 of the Phase 1 trial, Intellia plans to evaluate the new therapy at higher doses. After the trial is complete, “the company plans to move to pivotal studies for both polyneuropathy and cardiomyopathy manifestations of ATTR amyloidosis,” the press release states.
Previous clinical trials reported results for ex vivo treatments in which cells were removed from the body, modified with CRISPR-Cas9 techniques, and then reinfused. “But to be able to edit genes directly in the body would open the door to treating a wider range of diseases,” Nature reported.
How CRISPR-Cas9 Works
On its website, CRISPR Therapeutics, a company co-founded by Emmanuelle Charpentier, PhD, a director at the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin, and inventor of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, explained that the technology “edits genes by precisely cutting DNA and then letting natural DNA repair processes take over.” It can remove fragments of DNA responsible for causing diseases, as well as repairing damaged genes or inserting new ones.
The therapies have two components: Cas9, an enzyme that cuts the DNA, and Guide RNA (gRNA), which specifies where the DNA should be cut.
Charpentier and biochemist Jennifer Doudna, PhD, Nobel Laureate, Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, and Li Ka Shing Chancellor’s Professor in Biomedical and Health at the University of California Berkeley, received the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work on CRISPR-Cas9, STAT reported.
It is important to pathologists and medical laboratory managers to understand that multiple technologies are being advanced and improved at a remarkable pace. That includes the technologies of next-generation sequencing, use of gene-editing tools like CRISPR-Cas9, and advances in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and neural networks.
At some future point, it can be expected that these technologies will be combined and integrated in a way that allows clinical laboratories to make very early and accurate diagnoses of many health conditions.
