For over two hundred years, the stethoscope has been an symbol of medical care, a humble but indispensable device permitting physicians to hear the internal beat of the human body. Since the invention in 1816, the model has not changed a great deal. Now, scientists at Imperial College London and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust have unveiled a high-tech upgrade: an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven stethoscope that can diagnose heart failure, heart valve disease, and irregular heart rhythms in only 15 seconds.

The AI stethoscope is a breakthrough in cardiac treatment. In contrast to conventional stethoscopes that are dependent on the skilled ear of a physician, this one picks up subtle changes in heartbeat and blood flow that cannot be detected by humans. Simultaneously, it performs a quick electrocardiogram (ECG) to capture the electrical activity of the heart. This simultaneous process enables detection of three significant cardiovascular diseases almost instantly, which could revolutionize the way heart disease is diagnosed in primary care.

These conditions must be identified early. Atrial fibrillation, valve dysfunction, and heart failure can go quietly, only being detected when the patients are seriously ill. Dr. Patrik Bächtiger, from Imperial College London's National Heart and Lung Institute, explains the implications: "The stethoscope design has not changed in 200 years—until now. A 15-second diagnosis can now provide actionable insight that was previously the result of multiple tests."

The technology was piloted in the Tricorder trial, a randomized controlled study of about 12,725 patients across 200 general practice surgeries throughout the UK. Patients had symptoms like breathlessness, tiredness, or swelling of the legs, all typical signs of heart failure. Researchers made comparisons between outcomes for patients seen with the AI stethoscope and those seen through usual care without the device.

The outcomes were impressive. Patients evaluated using the AI stethoscope were more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with heart failure in the next year. Atrial fibrillation, an irregular heartbeat that greatly ups stroke risk, was detected more than three times as often, and diagnosis of heart valve disease almost doubled. These findings suggest that AI-aided auscultation can significantly boost the early identification of potentially fatal cardiovascular diseases.

How the AI Stethoscope Works?

The gadget, made by California-based firm Eko Health, is about the size of a playing card. Once positioned against a patient's chest, its microphone picks up the sound of blood flow as a quick ECG captures electrical activity. It sends the information securely to cloud-based servers, where the AI algorithms trained on tens of thousands of recordings from patients process the signals. Results are reported to a clinician's phone within minutes, indicating if the patient is at risk of one of the three cardiovascular conditions.

"Having the capability to integrate sound analysis with ECG in real-time is unparalleled," states Dr. Mihir Kelshiker from Imperial College. "This method enables GPs to spot issues prior to patients coming into emergency care, which could save lives and help curb healthcare expenditures."

Advantages and Considerations

More than speed and accuracy, the AI stethoscope provides a scalable platform for community-based care. NIHR's scientific director of innovation, Prof. Mike Lewis, comments: "By getting diagnosis innovation into GP clinics, we give local clinicians the power to detect serious conditions earlier, tackling some of society's biggest health issues."

That said, there are some limitations to the technology. The researchers warn that the device needs to be applied in symptomatic patients instead of being used for screening healthy persons in routine. False positives have a risk of occurring in which the patient will be mistakenly identified as being at risk, the implication being that the clinical context is crucial in interpretation.

How Could AI Stethoscope Transform Cardiovascular Health?

For many years, cardiovascular disease has been a top cause of death globally, frequently complicated by delayed diagnosis. The AI stethoscope is a breakthrough, allowing earlier intervention by clinicians, more personalized treatments, and better long-term outcomes. Dr. Sonya Babu-Narayan, clinical director at the British Heart Foundation, highlights the potential benefit: "Earlier diagnosis means people can receive life-saving treatments earlier, enhancing quality of life and survival."

The equipment also vows to simplify care pathways. By quickly flagging up high-risk individuals in primary care, it can cut back on the necessity for repeated follow-up tests and specialist referrals, freeing up hospital capacity and enhancing patient satisfaction.

After the trial, the intention is to roll out the AI stethoscope to GP practices across Wales, South London, and Sussex. Broader uptake is expected to prove its efficacy with a wide range of patient populations and healthcare environments. Further development will add more sophisticated cardiac diagnostics to the device and continue to improve AI algorithms to make it more accurate.

As the technology advances, the stethoscope AI highlights a larger trend in medicine: the coming together of artificial intelligence and old clinical devices. It shows how ancient devices that date back centuries can be rediscovered for the 21st century, closing the distance between early detection and timely intervention.

From its modest beginnings in 1816 to the AI-assisted stethoscope today, the stethoscope remains at the heart of medicine, now poised to revolutionize cardiovascular diagnostics. By allowing for rapid, precise identification of heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and valve disease, the AI stethoscope might save thousands of lives, alleviate the load on healthcare systems, and redefine the way heart disease is treated worldwide. For clinicians and patients alike, it is a step forward in the quest for quicker, smarter, and more accurate cardiac care.

Alzheimer’s disease has long been one of medicine’s most difficult puzzles. By the time symptoms such as memory loss, confusion, and language difficulties become obvious enough for a clinical diagnosis, the brain has often been undergoing silent changes for decades. Researchers have been urgently searching for ways to close this gap between disease onset and diagnosis. Now, a portable brainwave test called Fastball EEG is raising hopes that Alzheimer’s can be detected years earlier potentially transforming both treatment and quality of life.

Fastball EEG is a deceptively simple tool. The test takes just three minutes and involves wearing small sensors on the scalp while watching a stream of images flash across a screen. Unlike traditional memory exams that rely on a patient recalling lists or following instructions, this test is entirely passive. It works by measuring the brain’s automatic electrical responses when it sees something familiar.

Dr George Stothart, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Bath who led the study, explained the significance: “We’re missing the first 10 to 20 years of Alzheimer’s with current diagnostic tools. Fastball offers a way to change that—detecting memory decline far earlier and more objectively, using a quick and passive test.”

This early detection matters. Alzheimer’s develops silently, with proteins such as amyloid and tau building up in the brain long before memory loss is apparent. The earlier these changes are picked up, the more effective new treatments can be.

Detecting Early Cognitive Decline

The University of Bath trial evaluated Fastball in 107 participants: 53 people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI)—a condition often considered a precursor to dementia—and 54 healthy older adults.

MCI doesn’t always progress to Alzheimer’s, but when memory loss is its primary symptom, the risk rises sharply. Researchers found that people with amnestic MCI, the form most closely linked to Alzheimer’s, showed significantly weaker brainwave responses during the test compared to healthy volunteers or those with non-amnestic MCI.

In other words, the Fastball test was able to pick up the subtle brain changes that predict future decline, even when symptoms were not yet disabling. When participants were retested a year later, the results proved reliable, particularly among healthy adults, suggesting the test could track changes over time.

Why Bringing Testing Out of Clinics and Into Homes is Essential?

One of the most striking findings is that Fastball can be done at home. Traditionally, brain scans or memory assessments require in-person visits to specialist clinics. For many patients, these appointments are intimidating, costly, or simply inaccessible. By contrast, Fastball is portable, low-cost, and anxiety-free.

“All of the tests were performed in people’s homes, which is important for making them accessible and reducing people’s anxiety,” Dr Stothart said.

The potential here is enormous: routine memory screening in GP surgeries, community clinics, or even at home could become a reality. That shift could reduce the number of people living with undiagnosed dementia—a figure that remains stubbornly high worldwide. In the UK alone, the Alzheimer’s Society estimates nearly one in three people with dementia never receives a formal diagnosis.

Why Early Diagnosis is Important for Alzheimer’s?

Until recently, early diagnosis was often criticized as offering little benefit. After all, without effective treatments, what could patients do with the information? That calculation has changed with the arrival of new Alzheimer’s drugs such as donanemab and lecanemab.

These antibody therapies target amyloid, the sticky protein that clumps in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s. Clinical trials have shown they can slow cognitive decline—but only when given in the disease’s earliest stages. The challenge, then, is finding patients early enough to qualify.

As Dr Julia Dudley of Alzheimer’s Research UK explained, “New Alzheimer’s treatments are proving to be more effective when given at earlier stages in the disease, therefore earlier diagnosis is key for people to benefit from this.”

Fastball could be the missing link that connects patients to treatment while it can still make a difference.

While the promise is clear, experts caution against viewing Fastball as a standalone diagnostic tool just yet. Professor Sir John Hardy of the UK Dementia Research Institute noted that the test cannot distinguish Alzheimer’s from other types of cognitive decline. Biomarker tests—such as spinal fluid analysis or advanced imaging—will still be needed to confirm a diagnosis.

Prof Vladimir Litvak of UCL’s Queen Square Institute of Neurology described the study as “an early step towards developing a clinically useful test,” highlighting the need for larger, longer-term trials to confirm predictive power.

There’s also the question of diversity. Much of the early research has been conducted in relatively small, homogenous groups. For the tool to be globally useful, it must be validated across varied populations, including people with different ethnic backgrounds, education levels, and coexisting health conditions.

Dr Dudley emphasized that memory impairment is not always caused by dementia—it can also be linked to thyroid disease, depression, or even side effects from medication. Future studies, she said, must explore how these factors influence Fastball’s results and how the test might complement, rather than replace, existing diagnostic tools.

The stakes could not be higher. Dementia currently affects an estimated 55 million people worldwide, a number projected to triple by 2050 as populations age. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common cause, accounting for up to 70 percent of cases.

In the UK, nearly one million people are living with dementia, with that figure expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. In the US, the Alzheimer’s Association estimates more than 6.7 million Americans aged 65 and older are currently living with the disease. The global cost of dementia already exceeds $1.3 trillion annually, straining families, health systems, and economies.

Against this backdrop, a quick, inexpensive screening tool that can be deployed widely could be game-changing—not just for individuals and families, but for public health systems grappling with rising demand.

Chris Williams, chief executive of the dementia research charity BRACE, which supported the project, sees Fastball as a milestone. “Fastball is an incredible tool that could offer anyone who, for whatever reason, cannot access a dementia diagnosis in a clinical setting,” he said.

For now, Fastball remains experimental, but the momentum is clear. With further validation, it could become part of standard memory screening within the decade. For patients, it could mean earlier access to life-changing drugs. For families, it could mean more time to plan and adapt. And for medicine, it represents a shift toward proactive, rather than reactive, dementia care.

Alzheimer’s may still be incurable, but with tools like Fastball, the way we detect and manage it may be about to change dramatically.

In the aftermath of the recent Minneapolis school shooting that left two children dead and 18 others injured, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested antidepressants may be partly to blame. Speaking on Fox & Friends, Kennedy linked selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) a common class of antidepressants to the shooter’s violence, even though authorities have not confirmed whether the assailant was taking any psychiatric medications.

Kennedy announced that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is launching new studies on psychiatric drugs and their potential connection to violent behavior. He emphasized so-called “black box warnings” that accompany certain medications, which note risks of suicidal thoughts, though not homicidal ideation.

His comments immediately sparked backlash among mental health experts, who argue that such claims are misleading, stigmatizing, and unsupported by evidence.

SSRIs—short for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—are among the most widely prescribed antidepressants in the world. They include familiar names such as fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft), and citalopram (Celexa). More than 1 in 10 Americans take them, most often for depression, anxiety, or related mood disorders.

The drugs work by increasing serotonin, a neurotransmitter that plays a role in mood regulation, emotional processing, and impulse control. By preventing serotonin from being reabsorbed too quickly, SSRIs maintain higher levels of the chemical in the brain, which can improve symptoms of depression and anxiety for many patients.

Like any medication, SSRIs come with side effects—such as nausea, sexual dysfunction, and insomnia—but they are generally considered safe and effective when prescribed appropriately.

Do SSRIs Increase the Risk of Violence?

The scientific debate around SSRIs and violence has persisted since Prozac first entered the U.S. market in 1988. Critics point to anecdotal reports of individuals committing violent acts while taking antidepressants. Advocates highlight the life-saving benefits for millions of people struggling with mental illness.

A 2015 study in PLOS Medicine added fuel to the controversy. Researchers from Karolinska Institutet and Oxford University analyzed data from 850,000 Swedes prescribed SSRIs between 2006 and 2009. They found that adolescents and young adults (ages 15–24) had a slightly higher risk of violent crime convictions while on SSRIs compared to when they were not taking the drugs. However, the same pattern was not seen in older adults.

Crucially, the authors emphasized that the findings did not prove causation. Other factors—such as the severity of underlying mental illness, substance use, or socioeconomic stress—could explain the association.

What is The Complex Relationship Between Serotonin and Aggression?

At the neurobiological level, serotonin is thought to regulate aggression, impulse control, and emotional expression. Preclinical studies in animals suggest serotonin dysfunction may increase aggression, while boosting serotonin activity can reduce violent behaviors.

Yet, human studies have painted a more complicated picture. Some evidence suggests SSRIs reduce aggression by stabilizing mood and improving impulse control. Others have linked the drugs to irritability or agitation in a small subset of patients, particularly young people in the early weeks of treatment.

Experts note that aggression, irritability, and “anger attacks” are not the same as premeditated violence or mass shootings. Most people taking SSRIs experience symptom relief not violent behavior.

The Risk of Oversimplification

Mental health professionals caution against attributing mass shootings to antidepressants without evidence. The vast majority of SSRI users do not become violent. In fact, untreated depression and other mood disorders are more strongly associated with suicide and, in rare cases, violence, than the medications designed to treat them.

“Blaming SSRIs risks pushing people away from effective treatment,” psychiatrists argue. “The bigger issue in the U.S. is access to mental health care, combined with easy access to firearms—not antidepressants.”

It’s also important to note that countries where SSRIs are prescribed widely, such as Sweden, Japan, and the United Kingdom, do not experience mass shootings on the scale seen in the United States.

Politics, Stigma, and the Public Narrative

Kennedy’s comments fall into a larger cultural debate over psychiatric drugs, medical freedom, and the root causes of mass violence. Linking SSRIs to school shootings can resonate with a public that is often skeptical of pharmaceutical companies and searching for simple explanations for horrific events.

But experts warn that such claims risk stigmatizing people with mental illness, many of whom rely on antidepressants to function in daily life. Stigma may discourage people from seeking help, leading to more untreated mental health conditions—the very scenario that can increase risks of self-harm or harm to others.

The Minneapolis Shooting

In the case of the Minneapolis assailant, identified as Robin Westman, there is no evidence yet that SSRIs played any role. Court documents show a history of depression and troubling behavior, including admiration for mass murderers. Westman turned the gun on himself after the attack.

Mental health struggles, social isolation, extremist ideologies, and access to firearms appear to be more relevant factors in this tragedy than unproven medication links.

While there is ongoing research into SSRIs and their rare side effects, the consensus in psychiatry is clear: SSRIs are not a driving factor in mass shootings. The risk of violence remains extremely low, and the benefits of treating depression and anxiety far outweigh potential harms for most patients.

Future studies may shed more light on vulnerable subgroups—such as adolescents beginning treatment—but these questions require careful, evidence-based investigation, not speculation in the wake of tragedy.

The Minneapolis shooting has reignited debates over antidepressants, violence, and public safety. While RFK Jr.’s claims highlight public concern, the science does not support blaming SSRIs for mass shootings.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not substitute professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. The connection between antidepressants and violent behavior remains a subject of ongoing research, and no definitive conclusions should be drawn from individual cases. Always consult a licensed healthcare professional before starting, changing, or discontinuing any medication.

If you are struggling with your mental health: Please reach out to a qualified professional. In the U.S., you can dial 988 for the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline to get immediate support. You are not alone.

The Texas House of Representatives has passed House Bill 25, permitting the over-the-counter sale of ivermectin, a medication that has been used for decades to treat parasitic illnesses. The bill passed Wednesday after almost three hours of discussion, on an 87-47 vote and one member who was present but not voting. If the bill passes the Senate, Texans would be able to buy ivermectin from pharmacists directly, as with other drugs such as Sudafed.

Ivermectin, which was first discovered in the 1970s by Japanese microbiologist Satoshi Ōmura, has been a reliable cure for parasitic diseases like river blindness, scabies, lice, and strongyloidiasis. Its impact on global health earned Ōmura and collaborator William Campbell the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. The medication targets parasites by paralyzing and destroying them and disrupting their nerve and muscle functions.

Despite its long-standing medical credibility, ivermectin became a contentious topic during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early laboratory studies suggested antiviral activity, prompting some to tout it as a COVID-19 treatment. Subsequent research, however, failed to show meaningful benefits for patients, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has repeatedly emphasized that ivermectin is not authorized or approved to treat COVID-19. The FDA warns that abuse, especially with the veterinary form, can result in serious side effects such as seizures and coma.

Rep. Joanne Shofner, a Nacogdoches Republican, wrote the bill, which has been identified as a priority for Governor Greg Abbott and House Speaker Dustin Burrows during the Legislature's second special session. Texas would join Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, and Tennessee as the fifth state to allow the sale of ivermectin without a prescription. Supporters point to "medical freedom" as a driving factor, saying patients deserve the ability to use treatments they think can help them, especially when vaccines or conventional therapy are rejected or considered inadequate.

The passage of the bill is part of a larger movement of alternative medicine activists, fueled by social media sites that have promoted ivermectin for a host of off-label applications, from COVID-19 to cancer care.

Why Is Ivermectin So Popular?

Though the FDA-approved applications of ivermectin still only include parasitic diseases, it persists in showing up in alternative medicine forums. It turned into an icon of skepticism surrounding traditional medicine in the time of the pandemic, spurring demand long after vaccines had been found. In the present day, ivermectin is being researched for use in cancer, though evidence is currently narrow and inconclusive.

During the 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting, preliminary trials testing ivermectin combined with immunotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer were inconclusive: six of eight patients had disease progression, one showed partial response, and one had stable disease. Oncologists warn that promising laboratory results do not yet constitute clinican evidence for ivermectin in fighting cancer.

What Are The Safety and Regulatory Concerns of Ivermectin Drug?

The FDA emphasizes that ivermectin is safe when taken as prescribed for parasitic diseases, but inappropriately or in error, it can be hazardous. Veterinary products, usually in greatly higher concentrations, are quite hazardous to humans. Opponents caution that the sale of ivermectin over the counter may lead to self-medication, with resulting adverse events.

Further, public health practitioners observe that although OTC access would be attractive to individuals who desire control of medical choices, it would complicate pharmacist counseling and regulatory control. Patients would not necessarily know proper dosing, interactions with other drugs, or the hazard of off-label use.

The Texas debate brings attention to persistent tensions between patient autonomy and medical authority. Supporters of OTC access posit that adults must be capable of making intelligent decisions, pointing to past safety in parasitic disease treatment. Opponents suggest wider availability would worsen misinformation about COVID-19 and cancer claims.

Social media has raised the level of interest in ivermectin, frequently citing cherry-picked studies or anecdotal experience as proof of efficacy. This pattern reflects a larger challenge for public health: the tension between patient autonomy and evidence-based recommendations.

House Bill 25 now heads to the Texas Senate, where it will be determined. If passed, Texans could soon have simpler access to a drug with a complicated past adulated for its Nobel Prize-winning use as an anti-parasitic but contested for its unproven uses in viral infections and cancer.

Experts note that although ivermectin does have valid medical applications, it is not a panacea. Those looking to use it for off-label purposes should see qualified healthcare professionals in an effort to reduce risk.

Texas' possible shift towards over-the-counter sales of ivermectin points to a wider cultural and medical discussion: the interplay of individual choice, scientific evidence, and public safety. As ivermectin is an important agent against parasitic disease, its greater availability sparks concerns about prudent use, public health education, and the place of evidence in shaping medical practice.

This battle is hardly over, but Texans and Americans generally are paying close attention as politicians work out the balance between independence, control, and science.