Patrick Joyce (@joycesticks) header
Patrick Joyce (@joycesticks) profile picture

A tube within a tube. Co-founder & COO @ResearchHub

Washington, DC
Joined April 2017
Photo by Patrick Joyce (@joycesticks)Photo by Patrick Joyce (@joycesticks)Photo by Patrick Joyce (@joycesticks)Photo by Patrick Joyce (@joycesticks)Photo by Patrick Joyce (@joycesticks)Photo by Patrick Joyce (@joycesticks)Photo by Patrick Joyce (@joycesticks)Photo by Patrick Joyce (@joycesticks)Photo by Patrick Joyce (@joycesticks)Photo by Patrick Joyce (@joycesticks)
New thing we're trying on X 🧪 If you see a post with a dubious scientific claim, reply "@ResearchHub test this" We will automatically generate a preregistered experimental design you can fund to test the claim in question nitter.cf/jwmares/status/2115873…
3
6
2
23
1,929
215K people read that article. Someone tagged us under it, and shortly after there was a $97K trial on ResearchHub posted to test it 48 adults, 7 nights with a nasal dilator and 7 without, full home sleep studies Be the first to fund it nitter.cf/ResearchHub/status/211…
Replying to @jeffyfish9 @jwmares
🫡 Testing: Can a nasal dilator reduce breathing-related sleep disruption? Design: 48 adults with nasal obstruction and mild sleep-disordered breathing, each completing 7 nights with an internal nasal dilator and 7 nights without. Compare respiratory disturbances using full home sleep studies, plus sleep fragmentation and morning alertness. researchhub.com/proposal/331…
1
5
123
Same AI proposal tool is live on ResearchHub if you want to write your own Try it on the next health claim you don't buy 👇 researchhub.com/proposal/331…
1
93
Patrick Joyce retweeted
Inspired by @VitalikButerin's post on airborne disease resilience, @ResearchHubF opened a $10K RFP. The community has already added $2K+ to the funding pool! The RFP is accepting: 💰 Funding pool contributions 🔬 Research proposal submissions researchhub.com/rfp/33131
For anyone getting into biology, please consider taking airborne disease resistance more seriously. It's a super important area of medicine that is a huge cause of death and sickness but easily gets forgotten. We're likely to get many more airborne plagues in the future due to the combination of not just extremely dense and interconnected society (including city and farm animals), but also accidents from bio research and offensive biotech (both from random people and from secret government programs that can easily get themselves exempted from safety restrictions), all enhanced by powerful AI. Right now, this area is getting way less love than longevity research (which continues to be super important!), but it's an area where there are lots of unclaimed wins that we know exactly how to do (but are not yet doing) with present-day tech: * early detection * passive universal testing * filtration/ventilation/UVC * better vaccines (including making them open source and open science) * cryptography to make all of the above privacy-preserving We can have China-level pandemic resistance with Sweden-level limited intrusion into people's lives, and then go even further. We just have to actually do the work for it.
1
8
25
1,147
Someone replied "@ResearchHub test this" under a viral post about pink noise during sleep, and a few minutes later there was a full study design and a live proposal to fund it Went from a tweet to a real experiment people can fund in the same day. I was the first to fund it!
1
8
264
Platform fees collected by ResearchHub Foundation are burned weekly. 🔥 More platform activity = More RSC burned Every burn is permanent and verifiable on @base. Track $RSC burns ↓ researchhub.foundation/burns
3
11
38
1,006
A new preprint tested 15 AI models against human peer reviewers on clinical trial reports. Humans caught 27% of the planted major errors. The best AI caught up to 96% on the same reports. Here's what that means and what to be careful about.
1
4
124
Science organizations are either embracing AI or keeping it out of their workflows. @ResearchHub is leaning into AI for writing and reviewing funding proposals, as a complement to human experts, not a replacement.
Lots of debate this week on whether journals should ban AI in peer review. We actually tested this in our new preprint, and the results were pretty clear to me. For context, I've reviewed for most of the big journals and evaluated 1,000 human reviews as an editor. I love to read and evaluate science. TLDR: From now on I won't do any peer review without AI. For clinical trials, I'd even call human-only review dangerous 🧵
8
34
929
Patrick Joyce retweeted
Large language models detect methodological errors that human peer review misses in clinical trials Happy to be a part of this exciting study led by @rust_ruslan 🤠 I am far from a true expert on LLMs, but I have to admit that LLMs are way more adept at reviewing the methodological details😎 medRxiv 2026 medrxiv.org/content/10.64898…
1
6
23
1,081
this might be my last normal tweet before biotech goes vertical i'm not a whistleblower. I don't work at Lilly, Novo or any of the big labs but there is a massive shift happening in human biology right now. it's sitting in press releases and almost nobody reads them the last 6 months alone: - a once-daily pill roughly doubled median survival in metastatic pancreatic cancer (13.2 vs 6.6 months) - a one-time gene editing infusion cut hereditary angioedema attacks 87%, and 62% of patients stayed attack-free and off all other prevention for 6 months - a one-time gene edit for cholesterol dropped LDL up to 62%, and it held for over a year - a personalized mrna vaccine beat keytruda alone in a 1,137 patient melanoma phase 3 - retatrutide hit ~28% weight loss in a phase 3 - an ai-designed drug entered phase 3 - a pill that regrows hair passed its second phase 3 - an immunotherapy that could let some rectal cancer patients skip surgery, chemo and radiation just got fda approved - a man lived 271 days off dialysis on a pig kidney - human cells were caught passing chromosome-sized chunks of DNA to their neighbors, and it changes how the neighbors behave we are on the verge of an era where the human body is a software problem and the update cycle gets shorter everyday stick around, it's going to get weird bio/acc
1,195
3,809
556
33,760
5,714,800
Patrick Joyce retweeted
Lots of debate this week on whether journals should ban AI in peer review. We actually tested this in our new preprint, and the results were pretty clear to me. For context, I've reviewed for most of the big journals and evaluated 1,000 human reviews as an editor. I love to read and evaluate science. TLDR: From now on I won't do any peer review without AI. For clinical trials, I'd even call human-only review dangerous 🧵
133
516
170
2,108
271,545
Patrick Joyce retweeted
Why I call human-only review dangerous. The errors humans miss most are the ones that change how a trial reads. Text and table disagree: humans caught it 7% of the time. Reversed comparison: 10%. Abstract contradicts the results: 25%. Patient numbers don't add up: 32%. The four leading models caught all four in every single review of the 2026 trials. Analysis restricted to patients who completed treatment: humans 22%, models 95-100%. Conclusions not supported by the results: humans 41%, every model 100%.
3
15
3
84
7,143
Agree. Coding is getting solved fast, discovery is the hard part 🔬 That's why I like what @ResearchHub is doing, funding real research questions like the airborne disease RFP that's open right now
If I’m investing in frontier AI I would underwrite it mostly on new discovery and its applications like medicine because coding and most of knowledge work is quickly being saturated by sub-frontier models.
3
14
382
Patrick Joyce retweeted
Today @biosphereio is announcing a $21m contract with @DeptofWar to advance our industrial biomanufacturing systems for production of critical chemicals domestically, at scale and at dramatically lower cost. Expanding the US' ability to make chemicals for energy, food, medicine, and defense is crucial to our survival. We're solving this with the most potent and capable manufacturing technology known to man: biology. biosphere.io/article/biosphe…
🤖 Made with AI
30
18
7
186
10,024
Patrick Joyce retweeted
Stop 👏 using 👏 AI 👏 detectors If something is good, it’s good. If it’s bad, it’s bad. Whether AI helped write it doesn’t change that. Nobody asks today if you used a calculator when you got the right result. Judge the quality. Plus, AI detectors don’t even work (or the Declaration Of Independence was written by AI)
Replying to @wiisdomseeker
What’s wrong with AI detectors
13
15
5
72
8,721
Editorial decisions for the @RHubJournal are made by the market, not an editorial board If patrons of science believe a preregistration on @ResearchHub is worth funding, then it is automatically accepted for publication as a registered report!
12 people put up $1,400 for four synthetic genes. Two of them encode DNA polymerases reconstructed from bacterial ancestors ~133 million years back from anything alive today. That proposal is now a published Stage 1 Registered Report. No editor approved it. Funding did.
1
3
21
699
Patrick Joyce retweeted
SciCon shooter is a fun game to play and this is a great way to help accelerate science
To kick off the upcoming SciCon, we're running a massive event in SciCon Shooter 🏆 Top high score by Nov 29 wins 25,000 $RSC in funding credits for the @ResearchHub proposal or RFP they pick 🔬 Plus a new NIH ship 👀 Upgrade your ship in Campaign first, then go for it
2
9
332
Patrick Joyce retweeted
Introducing Funding Pools on ResearchHub Want to fund research but don't want to choose just one proposal? You can now contribute to an entire RFP and help build a larger budget for its strongest research proposals. Add to a pool: researchhub.com/fund
1
10
1
34
1,756
Replying to @VitalikButerin
We’re funding research on this through an open-science RFP. • If you work on airborne disease defense, apply with an open proposal. • If you want to back it, add to the funding pool. researchhub.com/rfp/33131/re…
1
12
1
43
1,035