Federal Practitioner

Veterans experiencing unstable housing, financial strain, and with poor access to health care have a higher risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, according to findings in a new study, leading researchers to call for additional screening to identify those in jeopardy. 

Each incremental increase in social disadvantage was tied to increases in the likelihood of recent suicidal thoughts (odds ratio [OR], 2.14), future suicidal intent (OR, 2.21), and lifetime suicide attempt (OR, 1.78) in a weighted analysis. The self-reported data was published as a cross-sectional study by Pietrzak et al in the December 2025 issue of JAMA Psychiatry.

Veterans whose social plights ranked in the worst 5% were > 20 times more likely to report suicidal thoughts and behaviors than those in the top 5%. Especially striking were the magnitudes of the associations and their persistence after adjustment for psychiatric conditions and other suicide risk factors, lead author Robert H. Pietrzak, PhD, MPH said in an interview with Federal Practitioner.

“This finding highlights how extreme cumulative disadvantage can be overwhelming,” Pietrzak said. “It suggests that suicide risk among veterans increases dramatically when multiple social stressors cluster together. Rather than any single hardship driving risk, it is the cumulative impact of social disadvantage that appears most strongly linked to elevated suicide risk.”

As Pietrzak explained, veterans account for < 7% of total US adults but about 14% of suicide deaths. “Several factors may contribute to this difference, including higher exposure to trauma, elevated rates of psychiatric conditions, challenges with reintegration into civilian life, and structural barriers to care,” Pietrzak said. “Increasingly, social and economic stressors are also recognized by experts and researchers as critical contributors to suicide risk.”

Social determinants of health (SDOH) such as unemployment and lack of access to health care have also been linked to suicide risk, he said.

“Less well understood is how multiple adverse social conditions interact and accumulate to compound suicide risk,” Pietrzak said.

The new study sought to determine the impact of SDOH as a whole, not just in isolation. The study analyzed SDOH in 5 areas—education access and quality, economic conditions, health care access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context—via the National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study, which surveyed 4069 veterans. The participants had weighted demographics of mean age 62.2 years; 90.2% were male; and 78.1% White, 11.2% Black, 6.6% Hispanic, 4.2% other.

Past-year suicidal ideation was most highly linked to psychosocial difficulties (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.43-1.75). Future suicidal intent was most highly linked to residing in a mobile home, recreational vehicle, or van (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.24-2.07) in addition to psychosocial difficulties (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.80). Lifetime suicidal attempt was most highly linked to history of homelessness (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.22-1.55; all P < .001).

“The results of our study underscore the importance of routine, standardized screening for cumulative social disadvantage within VA and community care settings that serve veterans,” Pietrzak said.

He added that findings make it clear that “suicide prevention extends beyond mental health care. Improving the social conditions in which veterans live, work, and age is not only good public policy. It may save lives.”

Mark S. Kaplan, DrPH, a research professor of Social Welfare at the University of California at Los Angeles Luskin School of Public Affairs is familiar with the study findings and said they highlight the need to “approach the question of suicide in much wider terms as opposed to reducing it to psychiatric traits.”

J. John Mann, MD, a professor of translational neuroscience in psychiatry and radiology who studies suicide at Columbia University, New York City, said the study’s findings illustrate that clinicians must do more to understand the lives of patients outside the examination room. He predicted that more screening for social determinants of health will “enrich the amount of information that the clinician will have and lead to a more comprehensive clinical care plan.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs supported the study. Pietrzak has no disclosures. Other study authors report various disclosures.

Veterans experiencing unstable housing, financial strain, and with poor access to health care have a higher risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, according to findings in a new study, leading researchers to call for additional screening to identify those in jeopardy. 

Each incremental increase in social disadvantage was tied to increases in the likelihood of recent suicidal thoughts (odds ratio [OR], 2.14), future suicidal intent (OR, 2.21), and lifetime suicide attempt (OR, 1.78) in a weighted analysis. The self-reported data was published as a cross-sectional study by Pietrzak et al in the December 2025 issue of JAMA Psychiatry.

Veterans whose social plights ranked in the worst 5% were > 20 times more likely to report suicidal thoughts and behaviors than those in the top 5%. Especially striking were the magnitudes of the associations and their persistence after adjustment for psychiatric conditions and other suicide risk factors, lead author Robert H. Pietrzak, PhD, MPH said in an interview with Federal Practitioner.

“This finding highlights how extreme cumulative disadvantage can be overwhelming,” Pietrzak said. “It suggests that suicide risk among veterans increases dramatically when multiple social stressors cluster together. Rather than any single hardship driving risk, it is the cumulative impact of social disadvantage that appears most strongly linked to elevated suicide risk.”

As Pietrzak explained, veterans account for < 7% of total US adults but about 14% of suicide deaths. “Several factors may contribute to this difference, including higher exposure to trauma, elevated rates of psychiatric conditions, challenges with reintegration into civilian life, and structural barriers to care,” Pietrzak said. “Increasingly, social and economic stressors are also recognized by experts and researchers as critical contributors to suicide risk.”

Social determinants of health (SDOH) such as unemployment and lack of access to health care have also been linked to suicide risk, he said.

“Less well understood is how multiple adverse social conditions interact and accumulate to compound suicide risk,” Pietrzak said.

The new study sought to determine the impact of SDOH as a whole, not just in isolation. The study analyzed SDOH in 5 areas—education access and quality, economic conditions, health care access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context—via the National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study, which surveyed 4069 veterans. The participants had weighted demographics of mean age 62.2 years; 90.2% were male; and 78.1% White, 11.2% Black, 6.6% Hispanic, 4.2% other.

Past-year suicidal ideation was most highly linked to psychosocial difficulties (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.43-1.75). Future suicidal intent was most highly linked to residing in a mobile home, recreational vehicle, or van (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.24-2.07) in addition to psychosocial difficulties (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.80). Lifetime suicidal attempt was most highly linked to history of homelessness (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.22-1.55; all P < .001).

“The results of our study underscore the importance of routine, standardized screening for cumulative social disadvantage within VA and community care settings that serve veterans,” Pietrzak said.

He added that findings make it clear that “suicide prevention extends beyond mental health care. Improving the social conditions in which veterans live, work, and age is not only good public policy. It may save lives.”

Mark S. Kaplan, DrPH, a research professor of Social Welfare at the University of California at Los Angeles Luskin School of Public Affairs is familiar with the study findings and said they highlight the need to “approach the question of suicide in much wider terms as opposed to reducing it to psychiatric traits.”

J. John Mann, MD, a professor of translational neuroscience in psychiatry and radiology who studies suicide at Columbia University, New York City, said the study’s findings illustrate that clinicians must do more to understand the lives of patients outside the examination room. He predicted that more screening for social determinants of health will “enrich the amount of information that the clinician will have and lead to a more comprehensive clinical care plan.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs supported the study. Pietrzak has no disclosures. Other study authors report various disclosures.

Veterans experiencing unstable housing, financial strain, and with poor access to health care have a higher risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, according to findings in a new study, leading researchers to call for additional screening to identify those in jeopardy. 

Each incremental increase in social disadvantage was tied to increases in the likelihood of recent suicidal thoughts (odds ratio [OR], 2.14), future suicidal intent (OR, 2.21), and lifetime suicide attempt (OR, 1.78) in a weighted analysis. The self-reported data was published as a cross-sectional study by Pietrzak et al in the December 2025 issue of JAMA Psychiatry.

Veterans whose social plights ranked in the worst 5% were > 20 times more likely to report suicidal thoughts and behaviors than those in the top 5%. Especially striking were the magnitudes of the associations and their persistence after adjustment for psychiatric conditions and other suicide risk factors, lead author Robert H. Pietrzak, PhD, MPH said in an interview with Federal Practitioner.

“This finding highlights how extreme cumulative disadvantage can be overwhelming,” Pietrzak said. “It suggests that suicide risk among veterans increases dramatically when multiple social stressors cluster together. Rather than any single hardship driving risk, it is the cumulative impact of social disadvantage that appears most strongly linked to elevated suicide risk.”

As Pietrzak explained, veterans account for < 7% of total US adults but about 14% of suicide deaths. “Several factors may contribute to this difference, including higher exposure to trauma, elevated rates of psychiatric conditions, challenges with reintegration into civilian life, and structural barriers to care,” Pietrzak said. “Increasingly, social and economic stressors are also recognized by experts and researchers as critical contributors to suicide risk.”

Social determinants of health (SDOH) such as unemployment and lack of access to health care have also been linked to suicide risk, he said.

“Less well understood is how multiple adverse social conditions interact and accumulate to compound suicide risk,” Pietrzak said.

The new study sought to determine the impact of SDOH as a whole, not just in isolation. The study analyzed SDOH in 5 areas—education access and quality, economic conditions, health care access and quality, neighborhood and built environment, and social and community context—via the National Health and Resilience in Veterans Study, which surveyed 4069 veterans. The participants had weighted demographics of mean age 62.2 years; 90.2% were male; and 78.1% White, 11.2% Black, 6.6% Hispanic, 4.2% other.

Past-year suicidal ideation was most highly linked to psychosocial difficulties (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.43-1.75). Future suicidal intent was most highly linked to residing in a mobile home, recreational vehicle, or van (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.24-2.07) in addition to psychosocial difficulties (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.18-1.80). Lifetime suicidal attempt was most highly linked to history of homelessness (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.22-1.55; all P < .001).

“The results of our study underscore the importance of routine, standardized screening for cumulative social disadvantage within VA and community care settings that serve veterans,” Pietrzak said.

He added that findings make it clear that “suicide prevention extends beyond mental health care. Improving the social conditions in which veterans live, work, and age is not only good public policy. It may save lives.”

Mark S. Kaplan, DrPH, a research professor of Social Welfare at the University of California at Los Angeles Luskin School of Public Affairs is familiar with the study findings and said they highlight the need to “approach the question of suicide in much wider terms as opposed to reducing it to psychiatric traits.”

J. John Mann, MD, a professor of translational neuroscience in psychiatry and radiology who studies suicide at Columbia University, New York City, said the study’s findings illustrate that clinicians must do more to understand the lives of patients outside the examination room. He predicted that more screening for social determinants of health will “enrich the amount of information that the clinician will have and lead to a more comprehensive clinical care plan.”

The US Department of Veterans Affairs supported the study. Pietrzak has no disclosures. Other study authors report various disclosures.

The US Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) workforce shrunk 11% through the first 6 months of 2025, a result of executive orders, hiring freezes, a voluntary deferred resignation program (DRP), and terminations of probationary employees, according to a recently US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. Though these reductions are complete, GAO said it has not yet analyzed projected cost savings or operational impacts from these staff reductions, and the department has shown signs of growth so far in 2026.

The reduction in force (RIF) from 7470 to 6624 employees aligns with the February 2025 executive order aimed at “restoring accountability, eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity” and reforming the federal workforce to maximize efficiency and productivity. The directives also instructed agencies to develop plans for large-scale RIFs and reorganizations. GAO auditors reviewed workforce data from January 25, 2025, through July 31, 2025, interviewed BIA officials, and reviewed comments from Native American tribal representatives to compose the report. 

All BIA regions experienced a reduction in staff: 10% in the Western and Rocky Mountain regions, 29% in the Pacific region, and > 20% each in the Alaska, Midwest, and Southern Plains regions. Positions within law enforcement and social work agencies were excluded from the May program due to job functions and responsibilities.

A small portion of separations included resignations and retirements outside of the DRPs; of the staff separating from BIA after January 25, 2025, while 24% left for other reasons. Although the downsizing was not unexpected and some staff were already planning to retire, repercussions were felt immediately.

“Some remaining staff took on additional responsibilities to mitigate the effects of reductions,” the GAO report said. “Some Indian Affairs staff said the reductions would exacerbate preexisting staffing limitations in their offices and make it more difficult to carry out their responsibilities serving Tribes.”

Tribal leaders voiced concerns, claiming BIA already was understaffed to effectively carry out its responsibilities and that service delivery was impaired. Some BIA staff reported that departures forced them to take on duties beyond their main area of responsibility, compromising their primary work. Regional BIA staff also described confusion about which employees were leaving, which limited their ability to effectively plan for impending departures, and reported receiving limited guidance from superiors about how to cover the responsibilities of those departing, particularly those in leadership positions. As of June 2, 2025, 6 of 12 BIA regional directors were serving in an acting capacity, and 12 of the 24 deputy regional director positions were either vacant or acting.

BIA officials have said there are no plans to reorganize or enact additional RIFs, but existing functions “might need to be restructured or realigned to achieve administration priorities.”

As of 2024, the Indiana Health Service (IHS) had a near 30% vacancy rate. In 2025, it awarded > 1800 scholarships and loan repayments under programs aimed at educating and training health professionals for careers at IHS facilities. And in January 2026, IHS announced it was launching the “largest hiring effort in agency history.”

“[O]ur top priority is filling vacancies for positions essential to keeping our health care facilities operating smoothly, especially in some of the more rural and remote locations,” said IHS Chief of Staff Clayton Fulton. 

The US Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) workforce shrunk 11% through the first 6 months of 2025, a result of executive orders, hiring freezes, a voluntary deferred resignation program (DRP), and terminations of probationary employees, according to a recently US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. Though these reductions are complete, GAO said it has not yet analyzed projected cost savings or operational impacts from these staff reductions, and the department has shown signs of growth so far in 2026.

The reduction in force (RIF) from 7470 to 6624 employees aligns with the February 2025 executive order aimed at “restoring accountability, eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity” and reforming the federal workforce to maximize efficiency and productivity. The directives also instructed agencies to develop plans for large-scale RIFs and reorganizations. GAO auditors reviewed workforce data from January 25, 2025, through July 31, 2025, interviewed BIA officials, and reviewed comments from Native American tribal representatives to compose the report. 

All BIA regions experienced a reduction in staff: 10% in the Western and Rocky Mountain regions, 29% in the Pacific region, and > 20% each in the Alaska, Midwest, and Southern Plains regions. Positions within law enforcement and social work agencies were excluded from the May program due to job functions and responsibilities.

A small portion of separations included resignations and retirements outside of the DRPs; of the staff separating from BIA after January 25, 2025, while 24% left for other reasons. Although the downsizing was not unexpected and some staff were already planning to retire, repercussions were felt immediately.

“Some remaining staff took on additional responsibilities to mitigate the effects of reductions,” the GAO report said. “Some Indian Affairs staff said the reductions would exacerbate preexisting staffing limitations in their offices and make it more difficult to carry out their responsibilities serving Tribes.”

Tribal leaders voiced concerns, claiming BIA already was understaffed to effectively carry out its responsibilities and that service delivery was impaired. Some BIA staff reported that departures forced them to take on duties beyond their main area of responsibility, compromising their primary work. Regional BIA staff also described confusion about which employees were leaving, which limited their ability to effectively plan for impending departures, and reported receiving limited guidance from superiors about how to cover the responsibilities of those departing, particularly those in leadership positions. As of June 2, 2025, 6 of 12 BIA regional directors were serving in an acting capacity, and 12 of the 24 deputy regional director positions were either vacant or acting.

BIA officials have said there are no plans to reorganize or enact additional RIFs, but existing functions “might need to be restructured or realigned to achieve administration priorities.”

As of 2024, the Indiana Health Service (IHS) had a near 30% vacancy rate. In 2025, it awarded > 1800 scholarships and loan repayments under programs aimed at educating and training health professionals for careers at IHS facilities. And in January 2026, IHS announced it was launching the “largest hiring effort in agency history.”

“[O]ur top priority is filling vacancies for positions essential to keeping our health care facilities operating smoothly, especially in some of the more rural and remote locations,” said IHS Chief of Staff Clayton Fulton. 

The US Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) workforce shrunk 11% through the first 6 months of 2025, a result of executive orders, hiring freezes, a voluntary deferred resignation program (DRP), and terminations of probationary employees, according to a recently US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. Though these reductions are complete, GAO said it has not yet analyzed projected cost savings or operational impacts from these staff reductions, and the department has shown signs of growth so far in 2026.

The reduction in force (RIF) from 7470 to 6624 employees aligns with the February 2025 executive order aimed at “restoring accountability, eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity” and reforming the federal workforce to maximize efficiency and productivity. The directives also instructed agencies to develop plans for large-scale RIFs and reorganizations. GAO auditors reviewed workforce data from January 25, 2025, through July 31, 2025, interviewed BIA officials, and reviewed comments from Native American tribal representatives to compose the report. 

All BIA regions experienced a reduction in staff: 10% in the Western and Rocky Mountain regions, 29% in the Pacific region, and > 20% each in the Alaska, Midwest, and Southern Plains regions. Positions within law enforcement and social work agencies were excluded from the May program due to job functions and responsibilities.

A small portion of separations included resignations and retirements outside of the DRPs; of the staff separating from BIA after January 25, 2025, while 24% left for other reasons. Although the downsizing was not unexpected and some staff were already planning to retire, repercussions were felt immediately.

“Some remaining staff took on additional responsibilities to mitigate the effects of reductions,” the GAO report said. “Some Indian Affairs staff said the reductions would exacerbate preexisting staffing limitations in their offices and make it more difficult to carry out their responsibilities serving Tribes.”

Tribal leaders voiced concerns, claiming BIA already was understaffed to effectively carry out its responsibilities and that service delivery was impaired. Some BIA staff reported that departures forced them to take on duties beyond their main area of responsibility, compromising their primary work. Regional BIA staff also described confusion about which employees were leaving, which limited their ability to effectively plan for impending departures, and reported receiving limited guidance from superiors about how to cover the responsibilities of those departing, particularly those in leadership positions. As of June 2, 2025, 6 of 12 BIA regional directors were serving in an acting capacity, and 12 of the 24 deputy regional director positions were either vacant or acting.

BIA officials have said there are no plans to reorganize or enact additional RIFs, but existing functions “might need to be restructured or realigned to achieve administration priorities.”

As of 2024, the Indiana Health Service (IHS) had a near 30% vacancy rate. In 2025, it awarded > 1800 scholarships and loan repayments under programs aimed at educating and training health professionals for careers at IHS facilities. And in January 2026, IHS announced it was launching the “largest hiring effort in agency history.”

“[O]ur top priority is filling vacancies for positions essential to keeping our health care facilities operating smoothly, especially in some of the more rural and remote locations,” said IHS Chief of Staff Clayton Fulton. 

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the federal research agency charged with leading the war against the nation’s second-largest killer, is studying ivermectin as a potential cancer treatment, according to its top official.

“There are enough reports of it, enough interest in it, that we actually did — ivermectin, in particular — did engage in sort of a better preclinical study of its properties and its ability to kill cancer cells,” said Anthony Letai, a physician the Trump administration appointed as NCI director in September.

Letai did not cite new evidence that might have prompted the institute to research the effectiveness of the antiparasitic drug against cancer. The drug, largely used to treat people or animals for infections caused by parasites, is a popular dewormer for horses.

“We’ll probably have those results in a few months,” Letai said. “So we are taking it seriously.”

He spoke about ivermectin at a January 30 event, “Reclaiming Science: The People’s NIH,” with National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya and other senior agency officials at Washington, DC’s Willard Hotel. The MAHA Institute hosted the discussion, framed by the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda of Health and Human Services (HSS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The National Cancer Institute is the largest of the NIH’s 27 branches.

During the COVID pandemic, ivermectin’s popularity surged as fringe medical groups promoted it as an effective treatment. Clinical trials have found it isn’t effective against COVID.

Ivermectin has become a symbol of resistance against the medical establishment among MAHA adherents and conservatives. Like-minded commentators and wellness and other online influencers have hyped — without evidence — ivermectin as a miracle cure for a host of diseases, including cancer. Trump officials have pointed to research on ivermectin as an example of the administration’s receptiveness to ideas the scientific establishment has rejected.

“If lots of people believe it and it’s moving public health, we as NIH have an obligation, again, to treat it seriously,” Bhattacharya said at the event. According to The Chronicle at Duke University, Bhattacharya recently said he wants the NIH to be “the research arm of MAHA.”

The decision by the world’s premier cancer research institute to study ivermectin as a cancer treatment has alarmed career scientists at the agency.

“I am shocked and appalled,” one NCI scientist said. “We are moving funds away from so much promising research in order to do a preclinical study based on nonscientific ideas. It’s absurd.”

KFF Health News granted the scientist and other NCI workers anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press and fear retaliation.

HHS and the National Cancer Institute did not answer KFF Health News’ questions on the amount of money the cancer institute is spending on the study, who is carrying it out, and whether there was new evidence that prompted NCI to look into ivermectin as an anticancer therapy. Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, said NIH is dedicated to “rigorous, gold-standard research,” something the administration has repeatedly professed.

A preclinical study is an early phase of research conducted in a lab to test whether a drug or treatment may be useful and to assess potential harms. These studies take place before human clinical trials.

The scientist questioned whether there is enough initial evidence to warrant NCI’s spending of taxpayer funds to investigate the drug’s potential as a cancer treatment.

The FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals. Tablets are used to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms, and the FDA has approved ivermectin lotions to treat lice and rosacea. Two scientists involved in its discovery won the Nobel Prize in 2015, tied to the drug’s success in treating certain parasitic diseases.

The FDA has warned that large doses of ivermectin can be dangerous. Overdoses can cause seizures, comas, or death.

Kennedy, supporters of the MAHA movement, and some conservative commentators have promoted the idea that the government and pharmaceutical companies quashed ivermectin and other inexpensive, off-patent drugs because they’re not profitable for the drug industry.

“FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy wrote in an October 2024 X post that has since gone viral. “This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”

Previous laboratory research has shown that ivermectin could have anticancer effects because it promotes cell death and inhibits the growth of tumor cells. “It actually has been studied both with NIH funds and outside of NIH funds,” Letai said.

However, there is no evidence that ivermectin is safe and effective in treating cancer in humans. Preliminary data from a small clinical trial that gave ivermectin to patients with one type of metastatic breast cancer, in combination with immunotherapy, found no significant benefit from the addition of ivermectin.

Some physicians are concerned that patients will delay or forgo effective cancer treatments, or be harmed in other ways, if they believe unfounded claims that ivermectin can treat their disease.

“Many, many, many things work in a test tube. Quite a few things work in a mouse or a monkey. It still doesn’t mean it’s going to work in people,” said Jeffery Edenfield, executive medical director of oncology for the South Carolina-based Prisma Health Cancer Institute.

Edenfield said cancer patients ask him about ivermectin “regularly,” mostly because of what they see on social media. He said he persuaded a patient to stop using it, and a colleague recently had a patient who decided “to forgo highly effective standard therapy in favor of ivermectin.”

“People come to the discussion having largely already made up their mind,” Edenfield said. “We’re in this delicate time when there’s sort of a fundamental mistrust of medicine,” he added. “Some people are just not going to believe me. I just have to keep trying.”

A June letter by clinicians at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio detailed how an adolescent patient with metastatic bone cancer started taking ivermectin “after encountering social media posts touting its benefits.” The patient — who hadn’t been given a prescription by a clinician — experienced ivermectin-related neurotoxicity and had to seek emergency care because of nausea, fatigue, and other symptoms.

“We urge the pediatric oncology community to advocate for sensible health policy that prioritizes the well-being of our patients,” the clinicians wrote. The lack of evidence about ivermectin and cancer hasn’t stopped celebrities and online influencers from promoting the notion that the drug is a cure-all. On a January 2025 episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast, actor Mel Gibson claimed that a combination of drugs that included ivermectin cured 3friends with stage IV cancer. The episode has been viewed > 12 million times.

Lawmakers in a handful of states have made the drug available over the counter. And Florida — which, under Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, has become a hotbed for anti-vaccine policies and the spread of public health misinformation — announced last fall that the state plans to fund research to study the drug as a potential cancer treatment.

The Florida Department of Health did not respond to questions about that effort.

Letai, previously a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute oncologist, started at the National Cancer Institute after months of upheaval caused by Trump administration policies.

“What you’re hearing at the NIH now is an openness to ideas — even ideas that scientists would say, ‘Oh, there’s no way it could work’ — but nevertheless applying rigorous scientific methods to those ideas,” Bhattacharya said at the January 30 event.

A second NCI scientist, who was granted anonymity due to fear of retaliation, said the notion that NIH was not open to investigating the value of off-label drugs in cancer is “ridiculous.”

“This is not a new idea they came up with,” the scientist said.

Letai didn’t elaborate on whether NCI scientists are conducting the research or if it has directed funding to an outside institution. Three-fourths of the cancer institute’s research dollars go to outside scientists.

He also aimed to temper expectations.

“At least on a population level,” Letai said, “it’s not going to be a cure-all for cancer.”

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the federal research agency charged with leading the war against the nation’s second-largest killer, is studying ivermectin as a potential cancer treatment, according to its top official.

“There are enough reports of it, enough interest in it, that we actually did — ivermectin, in particular — did engage in sort of a better preclinical study of its properties and its ability to kill cancer cells,” said Anthony Letai, a physician the Trump administration appointed as NCI director in September.

Letai did not cite new evidence that might have prompted the institute to research the effectiveness of the antiparasitic drug against cancer. The drug, largely used to treat people or animals for infections caused by parasites, is a popular dewormer for horses.

“We’ll probably have those results in a few months,” Letai said. “So we are taking it seriously.”

He spoke about ivermectin at a January 30 event, “Reclaiming Science: The People’s NIH,” with National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya and other senior agency officials at Washington, DC’s Willard Hotel. The MAHA Institute hosted the discussion, framed by the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda of Health and Human Services (HSS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The National Cancer Institute is the largest of the NIH’s 27 branches.

During the COVID pandemic, ivermectin’s popularity surged as fringe medical groups promoted it as an effective treatment. Clinical trials have found it isn’t effective against COVID.

Ivermectin has become a symbol of resistance against the medical establishment among MAHA adherents and conservatives. Like-minded commentators and wellness and other online influencers have hyped — without evidence — ivermectin as a miracle cure for a host of diseases, including cancer. Trump officials have pointed to research on ivermectin as an example of the administration’s receptiveness to ideas the scientific establishment has rejected.

“If lots of people believe it and it’s moving public health, we as NIH have an obligation, again, to treat it seriously,” Bhattacharya said at the event. According to The Chronicle at Duke University, Bhattacharya recently said he wants the NIH to be “the research arm of MAHA.”

The decision by the world’s premier cancer research institute to study ivermectin as a cancer treatment has alarmed career scientists at the agency.

“I am shocked and appalled,” one NCI scientist said. “We are moving funds away from so much promising research in order to do a preclinical study based on nonscientific ideas. It’s absurd.”

KFF Health News granted the scientist and other NCI workers anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press and fear retaliation.

HHS and the National Cancer Institute did not answer KFF Health News’ questions on the amount of money the cancer institute is spending on the study, who is carrying it out, and whether there was new evidence that prompted NCI to look into ivermectin as an anticancer therapy. Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, said NIH is dedicated to “rigorous, gold-standard research,” something the administration has repeatedly professed.

A preclinical study is an early phase of research conducted in a lab to test whether a drug or treatment may be useful and to assess potential harms. These studies take place before human clinical trials.

The scientist questioned whether there is enough initial evidence to warrant NCI’s spending of taxpayer funds to investigate the drug’s potential as a cancer treatment.

The FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals. Tablets are used to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms, and the FDA has approved ivermectin lotions to treat lice and rosacea. Two scientists involved in its discovery won the Nobel Prize in 2015, tied to the drug’s success in treating certain parasitic diseases.

The FDA has warned that large doses of ivermectin can be dangerous. Overdoses can cause seizures, comas, or death.

Kennedy, supporters of the MAHA movement, and some conservative commentators have promoted the idea that the government and pharmaceutical companies quashed ivermectin and other inexpensive, off-patent drugs because they’re not profitable for the drug industry.

“FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy wrote in an October 2024 X post that has since gone viral. “This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”

Previous laboratory research has shown that ivermectin could have anticancer effects because it promotes cell death and inhibits the growth of tumor cells. “It actually has been studied both with NIH funds and outside of NIH funds,” Letai said.

However, there is no evidence that ivermectin is safe and effective in treating cancer in humans. Preliminary data from a small clinical trial that gave ivermectin to patients with one type of metastatic breast cancer, in combination with immunotherapy, found no significant benefit from the addition of ivermectin.

Some physicians are concerned that patients will delay or forgo effective cancer treatments, or be harmed in other ways, if they believe unfounded claims that ivermectin can treat their disease.

“Many, many, many things work in a test tube. Quite a few things work in a mouse or a monkey. It still doesn’t mean it’s going to work in people,” said Jeffery Edenfield, executive medical director of oncology for the South Carolina-based Prisma Health Cancer Institute.

Edenfield said cancer patients ask him about ivermectin “regularly,” mostly because of what they see on social media. He said he persuaded a patient to stop using it, and a colleague recently had a patient who decided “to forgo highly effective standard therapy in favor of ivermectin.”

“People come to the discussion having largely already made up their mind,” Edenfield said. “We’re in this delicate time when there’s sort of a fundamental mistrust of medicine,” he added. “Some people are just not going to believe me. I just have to keep trying.”

A June letter by clinicians at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio detailed how an adolescent patient with metastatic bone cancer started taking ivermectin “after encountering social media posts touting its benefits.” The patient — who hadn’t been given a prescription by a clinician — experienced ivermectin-related neurotoxicity and had to seek emergency care because of nausea, fatigue, and other symptoms.

“We urge the pediatric oncology community to advocate for sensible health policy that prioritizes the well-being of our patients,” the clinicians wrote. The lack of evidence about ivermectin and cancer hasn’t stopped celebrities and online influencers from promoting the notion that the drug is a cure-all. On a January 2025 episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast, actor Mel Gibson claimed that a combination of drugs that included ivermectin cured 3friends with stage IV cancer. The episode has been viewed > 12 million times.

Lawmakers in a handful of states have made the drug available over the counter. And Florida — which, under Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, has become a hotbed for anti-vaccine policies and the spread of public health misinformation — announced last fall that the state plans to fund research to study the drug as a potential cancer treatment.

The Florida Department of Health did not respond to questions about that effort.

Letai, previously a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute oncologist, started at the National Cancer Institute after months of upheaval caused by Trump administration policies.

“What you’re hearing at the NIH now is an openness to ideas — even ideas that scientists would say, ‘Oh, there’s no way it could work’ — but nevertheless applying rigorous scientific methods to those ideas,” Bhattacharya said at the January 30 event.

A second NCI scientist, who was granted anonymity due to fear of retaliation, said the notion that NIH was not open to investigating the value of off-label drugs in cancer is “ridiculous.”

“This is not a new idea they came up with,” the scientist said.

Letai didn’t elaborate on whether NCI scientists are conducting the research or if it has directed funding to an outside institution. Three-fourths of the cancer institute’s research dollars go to outside scientists.

He also aimed to temper expectations.

“At least on a population level,” Letai said, “it’s not going to be a cure-all for cancer.”

The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the federal research agency charged with leading the war against the nation’s second-largest killer, is studying ivermectin as a potential cancer treatment, according to its top official.

“There are enough reports of it, enough interest in it, that we actually did — ivermectin, in particular — did engage in sort of a better preclinical study of its properties and its ability to kill cancer cells,” said Anthony Letai, a physician the Trump administration appointed as NCI director in September.

Letai did not cite new evidence that might have prompted the institute to research the effectiveness of the antiparasitic drug against cancer. The drug, largely used to treat people or animals for infections caused by parasites, is a popular dewormer for horses.

“We’ll probably have those results in a few months,” Letai said. “So we are taking it seriously.”

He spoke about ivermectin at a January 30 event, “Reclaiming Science: The People’s NIH,” with National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya and other senior agency officials at Washington, DC’s Willard Hotel. The MAHA Institute hosted the discussion, framed by the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda of Health and Human Services (HSS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The National Cancer Institute is the largest of the NIH’s 27 branches.

During the COVID pandemic, ivermectin’s popularity surged as fringe medical groups promoted it as an effective treatment. Clinical trials have found it isn’t effective against COVID.

Ivermectin has become a symbol of resistance against the medical establishment among MAHA adherents and conservatives. Like-minded commentators and wellness and other online influencers have hyped — without evidence — ivermectin as a miracle cure for a host of diseases, including cancer. Trump officials have pointed to research on ivermectin as an example of the administration’s receptiveness to ideas the scientific establishment has rejected.

“If lots of people believe it and it’s moving public health, we as NIH have an obligation, again, to treat it seriously,” Bhattacharya said at the event. According to The Chronicle at Duke University, Bhattacharya recently said he wants the NIH to be “the research arm of MAHA.”

The decision by the world’s premier cancer research institute to study ivermectin as a cancer treatment has alarmed career scientists at the agency.

“I am shocked and appalled,” one NCI scientist said. “We are moving funds away from so much promising research in order to do a preclinical study based on nonscientific ideas. It’s absurd.”

KFF Health News granted the scientist and other NCI workers anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press and fear retaliation.

HHS and the National Cancer Institute did not answer KFF Health News’ questions on the amount of money the cancer institute is spending on the study, who is carrying it out, and whether there was new evidence that prompted NCI to look into ivermectin as an anticancer therapy. Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, said NIH is dedicated to “rigorous, gold-standard research,” something the administration has repeatedly professed.

A preclinical study is an early phase of research conducted in a lab to test whether a drug or treatment may be useful and to assess potential harms. These studies take place before human clinical trials.

The scientist questioned whether there is enough initial evidence to warrant NCI’s spending of taxpayer funds to investigate the drug’s potential as a cancer treatment.

The FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals. Tablets are used to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms, and the FDA has approved ivermectin lotions to treat lice and rosacea. Two scientists involved in its discovery won the Nobel Prize in 2015, tied to the drug’s success in treating certain parasitic diseases.

The FDA has warned that large doses of ivermectin can be dangerous. Overdoses can cause seizures, comas, or death.

Kennedy, supporters of the MAHA movement, and some conservative commentators have promoted the idea that the government and pharmaceutical companies quashed ivermectin and other inexpensive, off-patent drugs because they’re not profitable for the drug industry.

“FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy wrote in an October 2024 X post that has since gone viral. “This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”

Previous laboratory research has shown that ivermectin could have anticancer effects because it promotes cell death and inhibits the growth of tumor cells. “It actually has been studied both with NIH funds and outside of NIH funds,” Letai said.

However, there is no evidence that ivermectin is safe and effective in treating cancer in humans. Preliminary data from a small clinical trial that gave ivermectin to patients with one type of metastatic breast cancer, in combination with immunotherapy, found no significant benefit from the addition of ivermectin.

Some physicians are concerned that patients will delay or forgo effective cancer treatments, or be harmed in other ways, if they believe unfounded claims that ivermectin can treat their disease.

“Many, many, many things work in a test tube. Quite a few things work in a mouse or a monkey. It still doesn’t mean it’s going to work in people,” said Jeffery Edenfield, executive medical director of oncology for the South Carolina-based Prisma Health Cancer Institute.

Edenfield said cancer patients ask him about ivermectin “regularly,” mostly because of what they see on social media. He said he persuaded a patient to stop using it, and a colleague recently had a patient who decided “to forgo highly effective standard therapy in favor of ivermectin.”

“People come to the discussion having largely already made up their mind,” Edenfield said. “We’re in this delicate time when there’s sort of a fundamental mistrust of medicine,” he added. “Some people are just not going to believe me. I just have to keep trying.”

A June letter by clinicians at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio detailed how an adolescent patient with metastatic bone cancer started taking ivermectin “after encountering social media posts touting its benefits.” The patient — who hadn’t been given a prescription by a clinician — experienced ivermectin-related neurotoxicity and had to seek emergency care because of nausea, fatigue, and other symptoms.

“We urge the pediatric oncology community to advocate for sensible health policy that prioritizes the well-being of our patients,” the clinicians wrote. The lack of evidence about ivermectin and cancer hasn’t stopped celebrities and online influencers from promoting the notion that the drug is a cure-all. On a January 2025 episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast, actor Mel Gibson claimed that a combination of drugs that included ivermectin cured 3friends with stage IV cancer. The episode has been viewed > 12 million times.

Lawmakers in a handful of states have made the drug available over the counter. And Florida — which, under Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, has become a hotbed for anti-vaccine policies and the spread of public health misinformation — announced last fall that the state plans to fund research to study the drug as a potential cancer treatment.

The Florida Department of Health did not respond to questions about that effort.

Letai, previously a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute oncologist, started at the National Cancer Institute after months of upheaval caused by Trump administration policies.

“What you’re hearing at the NIH now is an openness to ideas — even ideas that scientists would say, ‘Oh, there’s no way it could work’ — but nevertheless applying rigorous scientific methods to those ideas,” Bhattacharya said at the January 30 event.

A second NCI scientist, who was granted anonymity due to fear of retaliation, said the notion that NIH was not open to investigating the value of off-label drugs in cancer is “ridiculous.”

“This is not a new idea they came up with,” the scientist said.

Letai didn’t elaborate on whether NCI scientists are conducting the research or if it has directed funding to an outside institution. Three-fourths of the cancer institute’s research dollars go to outside scientists.

He also aimed to temper expectations.

“At least on a population level,” Letai said, “it’s not going to be a cure-all for cancer.”

TOPLINE: 

A recalibrated environmental risk score for colorectal cancer (CRC) shows improved predictive performance in a study of 227,504 male veterans. The veteran-tailored score could help personalize screening better than previous models.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Demographic, lifestyle, and CRC data from 2011 to 2022 were abstracted from survey responses and health records of 227,504 male Million Veteran Program (MVP) participants, with complete data needed to construct the environmental risk score (e-Score).
• Researchers randomly split the male sample into 2 halves to produce training and validation samples (each n = 113,752; CRC cases n = 590) using simple random sampling with strata based on the CRC variable.
• Weighting for each environmental factor's effect size was recalculated using US Department of Veterans Affairs training data to create a recalibrated e-Score, which was compared with the original weighted e-Score in the validation sample.
• Analysis included nested multiple logistic regression models testing associations between quintiles for recalibrated and original e-Scores, with likelihood ratio tests used to compare model performance.
• Factors used to construct the e-Score included BMI, height, diabetes diagnosis, aspirin use, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, educational attainment, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol use, and dietary intake of fiber, calcium, folate, processed meats, red meat, fruits, vegetables, and total energy.

TAKEAWAY:

• The recalibrated e-Score showed a significant association with CRC, with higher quintiles indicating increased risk.
• In the validation sample, the recalibrated e-Score model significantly improved the base model performance (P < .001), while the original GECCO e-Score model did not show significant improvement (P = .07).
• The recalibrated e-Score model quintile 5 was associated with significantly higher odds for CRC compared with quintile 1 (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.33; P for trend < .001).
• Black participants had higher odds for CRC compared with the White reference group across all models (base model OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.92; GECCO e-Score model OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; and recalibrated e-Score model OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.82).

IN PRACTICE:

"Despite the robust methods used in the work by the GECCO study upon which our study was based, an e-Score using their study’s weighting was not significantly associated with colorectal cancer among the male veteran sample. However, data from nearly a quarter million (n = 227,504) male US veteran participants of the MVP were used to recalibrate the e-Score to be veteran specific, and the recalibrated e-Score validation showed that it was significantly associated with colorectal cancer," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by April R. Williams, US Department of Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program Coordinating Center in Boston. It was published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The study's limitations include potential recall and self-selection bias due to the use of self-reported data from the MVP. The generalizability of the findings may be limited to the veteran population, and the sample of Black veterans may have been insufficient for conclusive analysis. Additionally, the study did not include female participants due to insufficient data for a veteran-specific e-Score.

DISCLOSURES:

B.A. Sullivan disclosed receiving grants from the American Gastroenterological Association. D. Lieberman reported support from Geneoscopy, UDX, and ColoWrap. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: 

A recalibrated environmental risk score for colorectal cancer (CRC) shows improved predictive performance in a study of 227,504 male veterans. The veteran-tailored score could help personalize screening better than previous models.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Demographic, lifestyle, and CRC data from 2011 to 2022 were abstracted from survey responses and health records of 227,504 male Million Veteran Program (MVP) participants, with complete data needed to construct the environmental risk score (e-Score).
• Researchers randomly split the male sample into 2 halves to produce training and validation samples (each n = 113,752; CRC cases n = 590) using simple random sampling with strata based on the CRC variable.
• Weighting for each environmental factor's effect size was recalculated using US Department of Veterans Affairs training data to create a recalibrated e-Score, which was compared with the original weighted e-Score in the validation sample.
• Analysis included nested multiple logistic regression models testing associations between quintiles for recalibrated and original e-Scores, with likelihood ratio tests used to compare model performance.
• Factors used to construct the e-Score included BMI, height, diabetes diagnosis, aspirin use, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, educational attainment, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol use, and dietary intake of fiber, calcium, folate, processed meats, red meat, fruits, vegetables, and total energy.

TAKEAWAY:

• The recalibrated e-Score showed a significant association with CRC, with higher quintiles indicating increased risk.
• In the validation sample, the recalibrated e-Score model significantly improved the base model performance (P < .001), while the original GECCO e-Score model did not show significant improvement (P = .07).
• The recalibrated e-Score model quintile 5 was associated with significantly higher odds for CRC compared with quintile 1 (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.33; P for trend < .001).
• Black participants had higher odds for CRC compared with the White reference group across all models (base model OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.92; GECCO e-Score model OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; and recalibrated e-Score model OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.82).

IN PRACTICE:

"Despite the robust methods used in the work by the GECCO study upon which our study was based, an e-Score using their study’s weighting was not significantly associated with colorectal cancer among the male veteran sample. However, data from nearly a quarter million (n = 227,504) male US veteran participants of the MVP were used to recalibrate the e-Score to be veteran specific, and the recalibrated e-Score validation showed that it was significantly associated with colorectal cancer," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by April R. Williams, US Department of Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program Coordinating Center in Boston. It was published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The study's limitations include potential recall and self-selection bias due to the use of self-reported data from the MVP. The generalizability of the findings may be limited to the veteran population, and the sample of Black veterans may have been insufficient for conclusive analysis. Additionally, the study did not include female participants due to insufficient data for a veteran-specific e-Score.

DISCLOSURES:

B.A. Sullivan disclosed receiving grants from the American Gastroenterological Association. D. Lieberman reported support from Geneoscopy, UDX, and ColoWrap. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

TOPLINE: 

A recalibrated environmental risk score for colorectal cancer (CRC) shows improved predictive performance in a study of 227,504 male veterans. The veteran-tailored score could help personalize screening better than previous models.

METHODOLOGY: 

• Demographic, lifestyle, and CRC data from 2011 to 2022 were abstracted from survey responses and health records of 227,504 male Million Veteran Program (MVP) participants, with complete data needed to construct the environmental risk score (e-Score).
• Researchers randomly split the male sample into 2 halves to produce training and validation samples (each n = 113,752; CRC cases n = 590) using simple random sampling with strata based on the CRC variable.
• Weighting for each environmental factor's effect size was recalculated using US Department of Veterans Affairs training data to create a recalibrated e-Score, which was compared with the original weighted e-Score in the validation sample.
• Analysis included nested multiple logistic regression models testing associations between quintiles for recalibrated and original e-Scores, with likelihood ratio tests used to compare model performance.
• Factors used to construct the e-Score included BMI, height, diabetes diagnosis, aspirin use, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, educational attainment, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol use, and dietary intake of fiber, calcium, folate, processed meats, red meat, fruits, vegetables, and total energy.

TAKEAWAY:

• The recalibrated e-Score showed a significant association with CRC, with higher quintiles indicating increased risk.
• In the validation sample, the recalibrated e-Score model significantly improved the base model performance (P < .001), while the original GECCO e-Score model did not show significant improvement (P = .07).
• The recalibrated e-Score model quintile 5 was associated with significantly higher odds for CRC compared with quintile 1 (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.33; P for trend < .001).
• Black participants had higher odds for CRC compared with the White reference group across all models (base model OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.92; GECCO e-Score model OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; and recalibrated e-Score model OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.05-1.82).

IN PRACTICE:

"Despite the robust methods used in the work by the GECCO study upon which our study was based, an e-Score using their study’s weighting was not significantly associated with colorectal cancer among the male veteran sample. However, data from nearly a quarter million (n = 227,504) male US veteran participants of the MVP were used to recalibrate the e-Score to be veteran specific, and the recalibrated e-Score validation showed that it was significantly associated with colorectal cancer," wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by April R. Williams, US Department of Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program Coordinating Center in Boston. It was published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

LIMITATIONS:

The study's limitations include potential recall and self-selection bias due to the use of self-reported data from the MVP. The generalizability of the findings may be limited to the veteran population, and the sample of Black veterans may have been insufficient for conclusive analysis. Additionally, the study did not include female participants due to insufficient data for a veteran-specific e-Score.

DISCLOSURES:

B.A. Sullivan disclosed receiving grants from the American Gastroenterological Association. D. Lieberman reported support from Geneoscopy, UDX, and ColoWrap. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.