Have you checked out any international Clinical Trials? You can search a lot of these here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ getting the filters right can be tricky though. I’d ask AI for some help looking for the right permutations of names for things.

I’d book a call with FCCT as well. They have a list of private vendors that can potentially help with genetic sequencing and a few other things. They also mentioned a service to me that helps you search for potential clinical trials.

- You should pressure test anything an AI says with your doctors, and anything a doctor says with AI.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50093568

Points: 1961

# Comments: 478

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47594638

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47050023

Points: 5

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46213345

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46048996

Points: 768

# Comments: 215

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43037866

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42974615

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

I have tried out V1 and while it's a bit barebones, the planned features like 'Autocontext' and 'Local-RAG' sound promising. Devil's in the implementation details though.

We recently launched a tool to compare ETFs that I wanted to share with the HN community. I've always found it difficult to quickly contrast important metrics between ETFs and dig into holdings. Existing tools are usually behind paywalls and provide limited functionality.

We let you see side-by-side data like AUM, Yield, and Expense Ratio, but it also provides full holding details and correlation and overlap details as well.

Correlation Data: The tool shows you which stocks and ETFs are most correlated, uncorrelated, and inversely correlated with each ETF. This can be helpful for understanding diversification and risk. We calculate this based off 1 year daily prices, using the pearson correlation method.

Holdings Overlap: You can see how much of one ETF's holdings are also in another ETF. This can help you identify ETFs that are essentially duplicates, or find ETFs that offer true diversification.

I'd love to get your feedback. There is no signup required and the tool is free to use.

https://double.finance/p/research/etf-comparison/

Examples: SPY vs QQQ is 94.5% correlated, and had 48% overlap in their holdings: https://double.finance/p/stock/QQQ/SPY VOO vs VUG is 94.7% correlated, and has 56% overlap in their holdings: https://double.finance/p/stock/VOO/VUG ARKK vs QQQ is 73.2% correlated, with only 10% overlap: https://double.finance/p/stock/ARKK/QQQ

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42805790

Points: 14

# Comments: 4

We believe that in most ETFs right now the transaction costs are largely factored into either the expense ratio or the ETF bid-ask spread, exactly due to the redemption mechanism you discussed. See section titled Spread of the Underlying Securities in an ETF Basket in the following PDF and the following quote:

"If a market maker has to obtain a portion of the ETF constituents on the secondary market to then deliver into the fund as part of the basket process, the cost of acquiring those names should be reflected in the ETFs bid/ask spread — as costs are traditionally passed through to the end customer."

https://www.ssga.com/library-content/pdfs/etf/au/spdr-au-etf...

Also we take estimated spread costs into account when running our portfolio optimization. A higher bid-ask spread as measured by past 1 month NBBO p50 spread generally gets penalized in our portfolio optimization all else being equal, although this depends slightly on what optimization setting you've chosen on Double.