Largest Neuroimaging Study of Bulimia Nervosa Finds Structural Brain Differences Linked to Diagnosis and Binge-Eating Severity

An illustration shows how cortical surface area and subcortical volume lower in individuals with bulimia nervosa compared with controls.

Cortical surface area and subcortical volume lower in individuals with bulimia nervosa compared with controls.

Researchers at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai found that people with bulimia nervosa have structural differences in brain regions involved in reward and motivation, as well as social and sensory processing, and that more frequent binge eating is associated with more widespread differences in brain structure. Their findings were recently published in JAMA Psychiatry.

Bulimia nervosa is the second most common eating disorder in the world, characterized by recurrent binge eating and compensatory behaviors. Compared to other psychiatric illnesses, little is known about its neurobiology, and previous neuroimaging studies have generally included small numbers of participants and produced inconsistent findings.

“This study gives us the clearest evidence to date that bulimia nervosa is associated with reproducible differences in brain structure. We were surprised that the differences we identified in the brain’s outer layer involved a structural feature that is largely established early in development,” says Laura A. Berner, PhD, Director of the Center for Computational Psychiatry at Mount Sinai.

A portrait of Laura A. Berner, PhD

Laura A. Berner, PhD

Dr. Berner and colleagues from the global ENIGMA (Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis) consortium analyzed MRI brain scans from 369 females with bulimia nervosa and 417 females without an eating disorder across 17 international cohorts.

In comparison to people without an eating disorder, those with bulimia nervosa had lower volume of the nucleus accumbens – a brain region involved in processing reward and motivation. They also had lower surface area in regions of the temporal cortex – a brain area involved in sensory and social processing.

More frequent binge eating was associated with lower surface area in additional regions involved in cognitive control, reward value estimation, awareness of bodily signals, and processing and regulating emotions. In contrast, the frequency of compensatory behaviors—the measure currently used to define bulimia nervosa severity—was not associated with brain structure.

The findings suggest that specific symptoms, like binge eating, may have distinct neurobiological correlates. Because the study examined participants at a single point in time, longitudinal research is needed to determine whether these differences precede or follow illness onset.

“Our findings raise important questions about whether some of these brain differences could be markers of vulnerability to developing the illness. At the same time, the findings should not be interpreted to mean that the brain is fixed, or that a person’s outcome is predetermined,” says Dr. Berner. “We are excited about the next steps: understanding what these findings mean for the function of the affected brain circuits, and how these insights can ultimately help us identify better targets for prevention and treatment.”

Can GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Help Preserve Brain Volume?

A photo of Ilana Katz Sand, MD

“We feel very fortunate to have the opportunity to be part of this exciting research and look forward to working with all of our participant volunteers,” says Ilana Katz Sand, MD

For those living with multiple sclerosis (MS), GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) might represent a new mechanism for combating disease progression. Though initially developed for diabetes treatment, GLP-1 agents have become famous for inducing weight loss. However, the investigators behind the TAG-MS clinical trial, now recruiting patients at The Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis, are hopeful that GLP-1 RAs will demonstrate therapeutic benefits beyond their metabolic impact.

The study drug, NLY01, is a modified version of an existing GLP1-RA that has already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The modified drug exhibits a key difference: NLY01 maintains a significantly higher sustained concentration in the body and has other characteristics that enable it to more readily cross the blood-brain barrier. Given the widespread presence of GLP-1 receptors in the brain, this property led investigators to hypothesize that NLY01 may be able to directly target the central nervous system inflammation implicated in neurodegeneration.

This theory has a solid scientific foundation: In a mouse model of brain inflammation commonly used to study MS, investigators found that NLY01 administration had anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective properties. They proposed that by reducing peripheral and central inflammation, the neurodegeneration that is a hallmark of progressive MS can be slowed.

Researchers have also expanded beyond mouse models. In a previous study of patients with Parkinson’s disease, the study drug showed improved clinical outcomes compared to a placebo control. Additionally, in a recent trial in Alzheimer’s disease, a GLP-1 agent resulted in a slower reduction in brain volume.

At first glance, research in Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease may seem far removed from MS. However, Ilana Katz Sand, MD, Associate Director of the MS Center and Associate Professor of Neurology, emphasizes that while Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s are distinct diseases from MS, they do share common pathways with regard to neuroinflammation and neurodegeneration. “Recent research in these conditions strengthens our rationale for studying them in MS,” she says.

Building on this scientific rationale, Ellen Mowry, MD, of Johns Hopkins University designed a new phase 2 study, funded by the International Progressive MS Alliance, to investigate these mechanisms. At Mount Sinai, Dr. Katz Sand is the principal investigator behind the study.

The overall aim of the TAG-MS study is to investigate whether NLY01 can protect against neurodegeneration in people living with MS. The study is a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Approximately 40 participants enrolled at Mount Sinai will self-administer weekly injections of either the study drug or a placebo over the course of two years.

“In a randomized controlled trial, a computer program assigns whether each participant receives the active drug or the placebo,” says Dr. Katz Sand.  “The study team cannot choose the treatment assignment, and no one involved with the study will even know the assignment until the study concludes… to avoid introducing bias into the results. However, regardless of whether participants receive the study drug or the placebo, all participants will remain on their current MS disease-modifying therapy and also receive lifestyle behavioral therapy by trained nurses, as well as a free Fitbit.”

The primary goal of the study is to measure how much brain volume is retained over time. A “decrease in brain volume is part of normal aging, but we know that people who live with MS can have a slightly greater rate of decrease than those who don’t,” says Dr. Katz Sand. “This is somewhat correlated with worsening of MS-related disability over time. Disease-modifying therapies can help partially protect the brain, and we hope to find that NLY01 provides additional protection from brain volume loss.”

In addition to monitoring brain volume with three MRIs over the two-year study period, additional data will be collected through OCT scans, blood samples, clinical assessments and questionnaires, and Fitbit devices. While the primary goal of TAG-MS is to evaluate whether NLY01 can slow brain volume loss, these additional health measures may provide valuable insight into how the treatment affects disease progression more broadly.

With enrollment now underway at Mount Sinai, Dr. Katz Sand is enthusiastic about beginning this new study.

“Interventions that protect against neurodegeneration are critically needed to delay, prevent, and slow progression in MS,” she says. “TAG-MS approaches this important issue from a totally new angle. We feel very fortunate to have the opportunity to be part of this exciting research and look forward to working with all of our participant volunteers.”

If you’re wondering if you’re eligible, take a look at the table below to determine if you fit the study criteria. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to coordinators Diya Pandey (diya.pandey@mssm.edu) and Chelsea Seidel (chelsea.seidel@mssm.edu) if you have any questions.

By Chelsea Seidel and Diya Pandey, research coordinators at The Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson MS Center

 

Sam Horng, MD, PhD: Expanding the MS Center Purview

A photo of Sam Horng, MD, PhD

Sam Horng, MD, PhD

Sam Horng, MD, PhD, came to The Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis in 2015 on a three-year combined clinical and research fellowship after completing his neurology residency at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. His work exemplifies the Center’s expanding expertise and reach beyond the borders of multiple sclerosis into other related autoimmune disorders that similarly affect neurological function and quality of life.

“People with autoimmune diseases tend to have a higher risk of developing another autoimmune syndrome,” says Dr. Horng, whose training in MS management led him to also explore other autoimmune conditions affecting the brain and spinal cord. “With multiple sclerosis we see higher proportions of individuals with other autoimmune conditions. Even our treatments can sometimes induce autoimmune attack on the joints or the gastrointestinal tract.”

He adds, “Autoimmunity generally is not well understood. We still do not fully understand what the precipitating event for many autoimmune diseases is.”

After joining the faculty in 2018, Dr. Horng explored these questions while leading a basic science lab for six years. His laboratory studied how structures of the blood-brain barrier control inflammation.

Expanding the purview of the Center to encompass not only multiple sclerosis but also other autoimmune brain conditions and overlap syndromes with rheumatology has been a rewarding aspect of his work and has enabled the Center’s scope to grow.

Dr. Horng also continues to serve as a co-investigator in clinical trials at the Center, which says has been involved in essentially all clinical trials of newly approved MS medications over the past 15 years.

“The Center is an engine for testing new therapies. It’s a place where people are moving the field forward,” he says.

“We discovered that interactions between resident blood brain barrier cells called astrocytes and immune cells infiltrating the brain could change the pattern of autoimmune disease,” he says.

What mechanisms trigger relapsing MS, and what drives disease progression, are questions that continue to challenge the field.

“Different cell systems are contributing to the immune system to fight infection, but in autoimmune diseases there are various ways in which these defensive cells are not functioning as well as they normally would,” he says.

In multiple sclerosis, certain cells mistakenly cross the blood-brain barrier and launch an inflammatory attack on the central nervous system.

“I explain to patients that it’s like the military. You have different regiments, divisions of the immune system that do varied things to fight off infection,” he says. But instead of an army, navy, and air force, T-cells, B-cells, and macrophages are collaborating to battle the disease.

In recent years, our understanding of how these different cell types contribute to MS has been refined, according to Dr. Horng. For many years MS was thought to be driven by T-cells. Over the last two decades, the focus has shifted to B-cells as a central player because B-cell depletion therapy was discovered to have powerful suppressive benefits against the frequency of MS attacks and the slope of MS progression.

“We don’t really understand why, but one clue is that the Epstein-Barr virus is highly associated with MS, and B-cells are the reservoirs in which Epstein-Barr stays latent in our bodies,” he says. Lupus is another autoimmune disease that has a strong connection with the Epstein-Barr virus.

Other advancements in understanding MS progression include single cell sequencing and genetics screening that have identified a correlation between MS progression and dysfunction of microglia, a specialized immune surveillance cell type in the brain that may also be more broadly implicated in other central nervous system disorders, including neurodegenerative disease.

Another area that interests Dr. Horng is the interplay between rheumatologic diseases, which are systemic autoimmune conditions involving other body organs, and the overlap of these syndromes with those that affect the brain and spinal cord.

“This is the frontier of our field,” he says. “Autoimmune neurologists have a lot to learn from rheumatologists because there are likely to be common mechanisms driving diseases across our specialties.”

In 2024, Dr. Horng shifted his focus from research at the bench to full-time clinical care at the bedside and now sees a wide range of autoimmune brain conditions in addition to MS.

“I’m taking a lot of the ‘mystery cases’ and seeing MS Center patients with complex syndromes,” he says. “It’s exciting to see these mysteries unfold as we’re learning more about MS and other related diseases.”

A lot of these patients have ailments that may mimic MS, including neuromyelitis optica, myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-associated demyelinating disease, neurosarcoidosis, and other autoantibody-driven inflammatory diseases of the brain and spinal cord.

“Everyone who goes into neurology is fascinated by the black box that is the brain. It is the material substrate for where our identity, our perceptions, our experiences lie,” Dr. Horng says.

By Kenneth Bandler, a multiple sclerosis patient, advocate, and member of The Corinne Goldsmith Dickinson Center for Multiple Sclerosis Advisory Board.

Riding the New Wave of AI in Health Care

The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the New York Academy of Sciences jointly hosted a conference, “The New Wave of AI in Health Care,” on May 12 and May 13, 2026.

The health care industry has overwhelmingly embraced artificial intelligence (AI) technology in all aspects—clinical, academic, administrative, and more—and with the breakneck speed of progress in this area, it’s little wonder the field is seeing an outpouring of innovation.

But innovation works best when all players collectively work together to create a wave that uplifts everyone.

“There is a real risk of creating silos. Competition, proprietary data, and intellectual property all pull institutions inward,” says Girish N. Nadkarni, MD, MPH, CPH, Chair of the Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health (AIHH) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

“But AI in health care punishes silos: a model trained on one hospital’s patients tends to fail at the next. Building something safe and generalizable forces you to collaborate,” says Dr. Nadkarni.

The speed at which AI developments occur makes it all the more important for everyone involved to convene. On Tuesday, May 12, and Wednesday, May 13, the Icahn School of Medicine and the New York Academy of Sciences jointly hosted a conference, “The New Wave of AI in Health Care.”

Girish N. Nadkarni, MD, MPH, CPH, Chair of the Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, speaking at the The New Wave of AI in Health Care conference.

Over the two days, attendees gleaned the latest ways AI is being used to rethink health care delivery, clinical workflows, drug discovery, and patient experience and outcomes. More importantly, the event served as an opportunity for networking, creating the foundations for future collaboration. The event attracted clinicians, academics, industry professionals, and news media from around the world, with renowned institutions participating, including Mayo Clinic, Epic, AstraZeneca, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, Vice Chair of the Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, delivered the closing address during the conference.

“Oftentimes you go to conferences and the real experience is what happens between the talks—the one-on-one conversations you have with everyone,” said Alexander Charney, MD, PhD, Vice Chair of AIHH, during his closing remarks at the event.

The gathering of so many great minds together in one space to collectively ask questions about AI and solve problems in health care is inspiring, said Dr. Charney in his speech.

“At times, I was thinking about how people in the future would look at us today, and how people in the past would look at us today—in this room, dealing with this challenge of our time of how artificial intelligence is going to be used in health care and taking care of people,” he said. “And where I land on how we move forward, is that we should try and make both of those groups of people proud.”

What is this new wave of AI in the health care industry? Dr. Nadkarni, who hosted a keynote session, shares his perspective on the development of the field and his thoughts on the conference. A video recording of his session can also be viewed below.


Session VII: Keynote and Learning Health System. Session includes a fireside chat with former New York City Health Commissioner Dave Chokshi, MD, and a presentation from a member of NIH.

What is this “new wave of AI” we are seeing in health care? What makes it different from other technological waves we’ve seen before?

It’s not the first such wave—AI in medicine goes back to the expert systems of the 1970s and the machine learning wave of the last 15 years. What’s new is large, general-purpose, multimodal models at unprecedented scale. Earlier tools were narrow and brittle; this wave is general and fluent. The same model can read a note, interpret a scan, and reason across both. And it has crossed out of the lab into the clinic, touching the actual practice of medicine. That’s why it feels less like a better tool and more like a genuine shift.

How often do events such as this occur to bring innovators together? What would you say are some of the biggest values of such conferences?

They’re getting more frequent, but the ones that matter are still rare, because the hard part isn’t gathering people, it’s gathering the right mix. The value is putting clinicians, computer scientists, ethicists, regulators, and patients in one room. It separates signal from hype, builds the relationships that later become multisite studies, and forces the hard questions about equity and implementation onto the main stage. Honestly, the hallway conversations matter as much as the talks.

What does equity in health care AI look like, and how can we deliver the power of those tools to communities who need those solutions the most?

Equity doesn’t happen by default. Models built on well-resourced data tend to work worst for those already underserved. Conferences can help by refusing to treat that as an afterthought, by putting equity on the main stage, connecting innovators with safety-net and global-health partners—our work with the Guyana Ministry of Health is one example—and sharing tools openly so smaller institutions aren’t locked out.

AI’s real promise is scale. A validated model can reach a rural clinic as easily as an academic center, but only if we design for that from the start.

Over the two days of the The New Wave of AI in Health Care conference, speakers and panelists presented research and discussed the latest applications of AI in health care. Tanzeem Choudhury, PhD, from Cornell Tech, spoke in Session X: AI-Human Interactions and gave a presentation titled “The Future of Mental Health and AI – Perspective from Research, Entrepreneurship, and Implementation”.

The conference attracted leaders at the forefront of AI research in biomedical research and health care from around the world. John Halamka, MD, MS, from Mayo Clinic, delivered the opening keynote presentation in Session I: Welcome & State of the Art AI Models in Healthcare titled “Transforming Care Delivery Today—and What Comes Next”.

Representatives from Mount Sinai, including Robert Freeman, DNP, RN, Chief Digital Transformation Officer at the Mount Sinai Health System, spoke about AI innovations at the Health System. He hosted Session V: AI at the Bedside and Session VI: AI at the Bedside (Continued).

Benjamin Glicksberg, PhD, Director of the Center for AI in Children’s Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (second from right) seen in discussion during one of the various networking sessions held in between talks and presentations. These networking opportunities lay the foundation for collaboration between institutions.

Jeremy Hallett, MS, from University of Wisconsin-Madison, presenting during the poster session held at the end of the first day of the conference. The poster session featured research from 20 presenters.
The New Wave of AI in Health Care conference was made possible thanks to the joint efforts of the Icahn School of Medicine and the New York Academy of Sciences. Members of the organizing committee in this photo include, from left to right and back to front, Benjamin Glicksberg, PhD; Girish Nadkarni, MD, MPH; Alexander Charney, MD, PhD; Kelly Morgan, MHA; Ipek Ensari, PhD; Cassie Chartier, PhD; and Melanie Brickman Borchard, PhD, MSc.

What sort of pace should academic health systems like Mount Sinai be adopting for this wave of AI? Should systems like ours be at the forefront and setting directions?

Fast enough to lead, deliberate enough to be safe. Academic systems have the data, the patients, the rigor, and the mandate to generate evidence rather than just byproducts—so yes, we should be at the forefront. Our job is to set the standard and give the field a trustworthy template to follow. Leading here means leading on rigor and equity, not simply being first.

Lastly, in reflecting on Dr. Charney’s closing remarks, what are your thoughts on how the world of the past and the world of the future would think about what we’re doing with AI in health care today?

Clinicians a generation ago would be astonished that a machine can draft a note or read a scan—and probably wary about what it means for the human relationship at the center of medicine.

The future, I think, will judge us not on how clever our models were, but on whether we used them wisely, safely, and fairly, and kept the patient and clinician at the center. Echoing Dr. Charney, my hope is they’ll see this as the moment we chose to augment human care rather than replace it. We’re not just building tools—we’re setting precedents.

Video recordings of all sessions are available and can be viewed at these links

Day 1: Session I Day 1: Session II and III Day 1: Session IV and V Day 1: Session VI and Closing
Day 2: Welcome and Session VII Day 2: Session VIII Day 2: Session IX Day 2: Session X and Closing

Public Health Research Day 2026 Showcases Student Innovation, Collaboration, and Career Inspiration at Mount Sinai

A photo of winners Saarim Qureshi, MPH, Annum Jaffer, MPH, Tina Chen, MPH, and Program Director Dania Valvi, MPH, PhD, MPH

From left: Winners Saarim Qureshi, MPH, Annum Jaffer, MPH, Tina Chen, MPH, and Program Director Dania Valvi, MPH, PhD, MPH

Public Health Research Day, hosted by the Graduate Program in Public Health, recently celebrated student research from the master’s programs in the Department of Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

The event, held Thursday, May 21, began with two keynote speakers who are both alumni of Mount Sinai. The first was Hannah Thompson, MD, MPH, an Assistant Professor of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and physician at the Selikoff Centers for Occupational Health. Dr. Thompson specializes in occupational medicine and care for patients in the World Trade Center Health Program. She earned her Master of Public Health through Mount Sinai’s MD/MPH training pathway.

The second keynote speaker was Kshitij Sachdev, MS, a graduate of the Master of Science in Epidemiology program at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and is currently pursuing a PhD in Epidemiology at the University of Iowa. His academic and research interests focus on epidemiology, environmental health, and population-based public health research, with experience contributing to interdisciplinary studies on environmental exposures and disease risk.

In his address, Dr. Thompson told the students that her MPH training gave her insight into public health, policy, and environmental medicine, which are all areas not included in her medical education. She also mentioned that working in public health provides a strong sense of purpose that is inspiring.

Mr. Sachdev explained how his training in the Master of Science in Epidemiology program prepared him to advance to a PhD program. He also emphasized the importance of networking in this industry and reminded the students that Mount Sinai is a great place to make connections. Students were able to ask both speakers questions about their experiences.

An image of Tina Chen, MPH, discussing her presentation

Tina Chen, MPH, discusses her presentation

The students then moved on to their lightning round presentations. Each student had two minutes to present a high-level overview of their research to our faculty, their peers, and prospective students. Faculty members scored the students based on criteria about the presentations.

The next stage of the event featured students presenting their research on posters in the Annenberg lobby. Other students, prospective students, and members of the Mount Sinai community gathered to see what our students created. There were lively discussions as participating students proudly explained their work.

“My professor, Mayaan Yitshak-Sade, taught me how pollution negatively impacts health outcomes over time if not addressed. This encouraged me to learn more about this and to help others understand the long-term health effects of pollution,” said Bahra Aldolapour, a Master of Science in Epidemiology student.

A photo of Justice-Keith Little, MHA

Justice-Keith Little, MHA, stands beside his presentation

Trang Dao, a Master of Public Health student, recommends taking advantage of connection opportunities at Mount Sinai.

“Get out there and speak to faculty while you’re a student. Your interests matter, and you never know who you could end up working with on research,” she said. “For example, I was able to utilize data from Mount Sinai for my research about cultural barriers to cervical care screening among East and Southeast Asian women in the U.S. There are so many opportunities for cross collaboration at Mount Sinai.”

“I’m sad that the program is nearly over. Working with my cohort and the faculty at Mount Sinai has been incredible. My time here has inspired me to continue expanding access to care for ALS patients, and I look forward to staying involved in this community,” said Justice-Keith Little, a Master of Health Administration student.

The day ended with faculty giving out awards to students based on their presentation scores. The winners included:

  • Best Abstract: Tina Chen, MPH
  • Best Online Oral Presentation: Annum Jaffer, MPH
  • Best In-Person Poster Presentation: Saarim Qureshi, MPH

Mount Sinai Nurse Scientists: At the Forefront

Event speakers and members of the Clinically Based Nurse Scientist Summit Planning Committee (from left to right): Reynaldo Rivera, DNP, RN, NEA-BC, FAAN, FAONL, Director, Nursing Research and Innovation, NewYork-Presbyterian; Deborah Stamps, EdD, MBA, MS, RN, GNP, NE-BC, CDE, FADLN, FAAN, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Deborah Stamps Consulting, LLC; Allison Andreno Norful, PhD, MPhil, MSN, BSN, ANP-BC, FAAN, Assistant Professor, Columbia University School of Nursing; Bernice Coleman, PhD, ACNP-BC, FAHA, FAAN, Director, Nursing Research, Cedars Sinai; Rose Sherman, EdD, RN, NEA-BC, FAAN, Emeritus Professor, Florida Atlantic University College of Nursing; Esther Chipps, PhD, RN, NEA-BC, FAONL, Clinical Nurse Scientist, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center; Perry Gee, PhD, RN, NEA-BC, FAAN, Director of Nursing Research and Evidence-Based Practice, Intermountain Healthcare; Kimberly Souffront, PhD, RN, FNP-BC, FAAN, Associate Director, Center for Nursing Research and Innovation; and Bevin Cohen, PhD, MPH, MS, RN, FAAN, Director, Center for Nursing Research and Innovation.

The landscape of research conducted by nurses is evolving, and Mount Sinai’s Center for Nursing Research and Innovation (CNRI) is leading the charge. In June 2025, the Health System hosted the nation’s first conference on the role of the clinically based nurse scientist—a growing workforce of researchers who investigate nursing practice questions with direct impact on health care systems and patient care.

Clinically based nurse scientists are nurses with PhDs and advanced research training who work inside health care delivery settings. Their roles span designing and leading large-scale clinical trials and health services research, securing funding for research and training from organizations such as the National Institutes of Health, and partnering with the clinical nursing workforce to translate research into practice and investigate timely research questions that arise from patient care.

“Schools of nursing have long been the center of robust programs of research,” says Bevin Cohen, PhD, MPH, MS, RN, FAAN, Director of the CNRI. “But today, more health systems are exploring the benefits of having nurse scientists on staff to better connect research with practice.”

There is also growing interest in clinically based roles among nurse scientists themselves, many of whom wish to remain close to patients and conduct research with immediate impact.

Mount Sinai Health System has been at the forefront of this important movement, as evidenced by the CNRI itself.

The Center is a hub at the intersection of academia and clinical practice that supports and advances nursing research throughout the Health System. Through a comprehensive offering of programs and resources, the Center serves two primary communities: nurse scientists with advanced training who lead their own panels of research, and clinical nurses who are embarking on research, quality improvement, and evidence-based practice projects.

“The clinical setting is not a space where many nurse scientists have traditionally worked,” Dr. Cohen says. “We have an unprecedented opportunity to conduct research that improves clinical nursing practice at scale, but we also need to build the infrastructure and collaborative networks to facilitate this important work.”

Across the United States, many clinically based nurse scientists have sought collaboration with colleagues in similar roles to share strategies, successes, and challenges on developing research programs within their own hospital systems.

“Until recently, we have had little opportunity to formally connect and collaborate across institutions,” says Dr. Cohen. “Over the past few years, local research interest groups have formed, along with a wonderful virtual collaborative network. Simultaneously, we began dreaming of a national summit where we could all meet in person.”

With input from fellow nurse scientists at Mount Sinai and an expert committee with representatives from across the country, Dr. Cohen wrote a grant proposal to do just that.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) awarded funding to support the three-day Clinically Based Nurse Scientist Summit hosted by Mount Sinai in June 2025, which was attended by more than 100 nurse scientists and leaders from around the country. The event brought together expert presenters and panelists, featured discussions and breakout sessions, and created opportunities for networking and collaborative forums.

“From the outset, our goal was to accelerate the scale, scope, speed, and rigor of research conducted by clinically based nurse scientists,” says Dr. Cohen. “To do this, we needed to understand both the challenges and successes of the role and focus on ways to maximize its potential.”

A major outcome of the summit will be the development of a five-year strategic framework for how the role can contribute to the AHRQ mission of enhancing the quality, safety, accessibility, affordability, and equity of health care in the United States.

Another significant outcome to emerge from the summit is an energized and engaged national community of clinically based nurse scientists who are sharing resources in partnership with similarly aligned groups.

In addition, eleven active workgroups formed by summit participants are conducting research and developing foundational manuscripts about the role of clinically based nurse scientists.

“By coming together as a nationwide community, clinically based nurse scientists are growing networks and infrastructure to support faster, larger, and more impactful research to advance nursing practice and improve patient outcomes,” says Dr. Cohen. Mount Sinai is proud to play a lead role in shaping this important work.