Credits: Canva
Anxiety is seen as an obstacle to success. It is a thought that always lingers in your mind before you start to do something. If you are doing something new or trying to do something that you have already done it in your life and have bad memories with. This thought creeps in. This thought that sometimes sends chills down your spine, makes you shiver, or that makes you feel like you cannot breathe, as if someone has put a huge rock on your heart is what defines anxiety. However, emerging research suggests that it can in fact, serve as a valuable tool for focus, motivation and problem solving. Studies on performance and stress, including the widely known Yerkes-Dodson curve, indicate that moderate levels of anxiety can enhance productivity, while both excessive and insufficient anxiety can hinder it.
The Yerkes-Dodson curve demonstrates that when anxiety is too high, it can become paralyzing, preventing individuals from taking action. On the other hand, very low anxiety can lead to complacency, reducing motivation and attention to detail. The ideal state falls somewhere in the middle, where anxiety signals importance, sharpens focus, and encourages preparation.
This perspective challenges the common belief that anxiety should always be suppressed. Instead, researchers argue that learning to harness anxiety can be beneficial. Studies have shown that people experiencing moderate anxiety often generate more creative solutions to problems compared to those who remain entirely calm.
Anxiety can serve as a sort of increased awareness, motivating people to take action in critical situations. Medical decision-making research show that concerned people are more likely to follow up on health issues, stick to treatment plans, and aggressively seek medical help. For example, studies on heart transplant patients show that people with moderate levels of anxiety are more likely to seek adequate care, which leads to improved survival rates.
The same strategy is used to address everyday difficulties. Anxiety tells the brain that something is important and requires effort. Anxiety can encourage you to be prepared and attentive, whether you're preparing for a presentation, making a critical life decision, or dealing with an uncertain situation.
Despite its potential benefits, anxiety can become debilitating when it causes what researchers term “functional impairment.” This occurs when excessive worry prevents individuals from fulfilling their daily responsibilities, whether in work, relationships, or personal well-being.
One method for distinguishing between helpful and harmful anxiety is cognitive reframing—shifting the perspective on stressors. Studies suggest that those who reframe anxiety as a performance-enhancing tool rather than a hindrance experience less distress and greater effectiveness in high-pressure situations. By viewing anxiety as a source of energy rather than a threat, individuals can improve their ability to navigate challenges.
Research on stress resilience indicates that experiencing a moderate amount of adversity in life can lead to stronger coping skills. Longitudinal studies on both humans and animals suggest that those who have faced and overcome moderate difficulties—such as personal loss or professional setbacks—tend to develop greater mental fortitude.
One study found that individuals who had endured a small number of adverse events exhibited better overall mental health than those who had either faced extreme hardship or had led relatively stress-free lives. This pattern aligns with the concept of "stress inoculation," where manageable levels of stress act as a form of psychological training, making individuals more resilient to future challenges.
Rather than attempting to eliminate anxiety, researchers suggest acknowledging it as a natural response that can be channeled productively. Psychological studies indicate that when people view their physiological responses—such as increased heart rate and adrenaline surges—as performance enhancers, their actual outcomes improve.
For instance, in high-stakes situations like public speaking or athletic competitions, individuals who interpret nervousness as a sign of readiness rather than fear tend to perform better. Physiologically, the body's response to excitement and fear is similar; the key difference lies in perception.
Research suggests that those who embrace a mindset of "anxiety as fuel" experience improved cognitive and physical performance. This approach aligns with studies showing that moderate stress prompts the release of hormones that enhance alertness and problem-solving ability, whereas overwhelming stress triggers a flood of cortisol, which can impair decision-making.
Credit: AI
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is often characterised by digestive symptoms like abdominal pain, bloating, constipation and diarrhoea. However, the condition involves more than the digestive system.
A new review published in The Lancet explains how interactions between the gut and brain, changes in the gut microbiome, immune activity and the body's response to pain can contribute to the development of symptoms.
The review, titled Irritable bowel syndrome and related disorders of gut-brain interaction, brings focuses on biological and psychological evidence behind IBS. Researchers describe it as a disorder of gut-brain interaction, in which signals between the digestive system and the central nervous system affect gut function.
The authors also discuss chronic constipation and functional diarrhoea, which belong to the bigger group of disorders related to gut-brain interaction. These conditions may affect an estimated 20% of the global population.
Also read: Olympian Ciara Mageean Dies At 34 After Bowel Cancer Battle: Warning Signs In Young Adults
The gut and brain communicate continuously through a complex network that involves the central nervous system, autonomic nervous system, enteric nervous system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis.
The brain can influence intestinal movement, secretion and sensitivity, while signals from the gut can affect how the brain processes pain and other sensations.
In people with IBS, this communication may become disrupted. The result can be changes in bowel movements, more sensitivity to normal digestive processes and abdominal discomfort.
The authors said, “These central and peripheral mechanisms can act in an integrated way to cause IBS symptoms, via the gut-brain axis.”
For instance, a person with IBS may experience pain or bloating even when the amount of gas or intestinal movement would not cause discomfort in someone without the condition. This is due to a condition called visceral hypersensitivity, in which the nerves supplying the digestive organs become unusually sensitive to internal sensations.
The review explains that changes in both peripheral mechanisms within the gut and central mechanisms involving the brain can contribute to symptoms.
Also read: Can Coffee Trigger Irritable Bowel Syndrome?
The gut microbiome, which consists of microorganisms living in the digestive tract, is another important part of the gut-brain connection.
Changes in the composition and activity of gut bacteria may impact intestinal function, immune responses and communication with the nervous system. The review identifies the following:
Psychological health is another component of the gut-brain axis. Stress, anxiety and other psychological difficulties can influence how the brain processes pain and communicates with the digestive system.
The HPA axis, which helps regulate the body's response to stress, plays a role in this process . Changes in stress levels can affect gut movement, secretion and sensitivity.
Currently, there is no single biomarker that can diagnose IBS. Doctors assess symptoms, medical history and clinical findings, while using tests to rule out other conditions.
The review highlights that some underlying mechanisms can already be measured through approved tests and questionnaires. These include abnormal bile acid metabolism, accelerated movement of contents through the colon and psychological conditions.
Credit: iStock
Does a patient’s chances of serious outcomes differ if they are treated by a female doctor? A recent study looks into this hypothesis to ascertain the difference between chances of a patient dying under a male and a female doctor.
According to the study, hospitalised patients treated by female doctors have a lower risk of dying within 30 days. They are also less likely to be re-hospitalised than those treated by male doctors. The study is published in JAMA Network Open.
"Past research has largely focused on surgical patients and the admitting physician only. Our findings add to the growing body of research examining the relationship between physician sex and patient outcomes, broadening the evidence beyond surgical care to a wider range of medical conditions and other physicians," says Dr. Angela Jerath, an ICES scientist, and Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesiology & Pain Medicine at the University of Toronto's Temerty Faculty of Medicine.
After analysing the health records of 958,150 adults admitted to hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between 2008 and 2022, researchers found that the 30-day mortality rate was 12.3% among patients treated by female physicians, compared to 13.7% among those treated by male physicians.
The findings also show a small difference in hospital readmissions. The 30-day readmission rate was 18.6% for patients treated by female doctors and 18.9% for those treated by male doctors.
The researchers examined outcomes across seven common medical conditions, including heart attacks, pneumonia and other acute illnesses.
They also considered the number of hospital days during which patients received care from female doctors, recognising that several doctors may be involved in a patient's treatment during an admission.
Also read: Manosphere Is A Public Health Concern: Lancet Report Says Online Misogyny Harms Men's Mental Health
After accounting for patient, physician and hospital characteristics, treatment by a female physician was linked with 12% lower adjusted odds of death within 30 days compared to treatment by a male physician.
The researchers also found that for every 10% increase in the proportion of hospital days managed by female physicians, the adjusted odds of 30-day mortality decreased by 7%. This was observed for most medical conditions that were studied. Atrial fibrillation was the only exception.
The difference in mortality was also seen at longer follow-up periods. Patients treated by female physicians had lower mortality at 90 days and one year.
The findings were observed among both male and female patients. Female patients treated by female physicians had the lowest adjusted 30-day mortality rate in the analysis.
The study did not establish why patients treated by female physicians experienced better outcomes. However, the researchers discussed possible differences in clinical practice and communication.
Female physicians may be more likely to engage in patient-focused communication, spend more time with patients, follow clinical guidelines and involve colleagues in decision-making.
These practices could influence how symptoms are studied, treatment decisions are made and coordinated during hospitalisation.
"The goal is not to favour one group of physicians over another but to identify practices and behaviours that may help improve care across the health system," says Jerath.
"An important strength of this study is that, unlike surgical care, patients admitted to hospital for medical conditions are generally assigned physicians based on rotating schedules rather than patient or referring physician preferences, helping to minimize referral bias."
Credit: AI
Eli Lilly's experimental weight-loss drug retatrutide, being referred to as ‘Godzilla’, continues to outperform its rivals like Ozempic.
According to a recent head-to-head Phase 3 clinical trial involving adults with type 2 diabetes, it delivered more than twice the average weight loss achieved with Ozempic.
Participants who took the highest dose of retatrutide lost an average of 20.9% of their body weight over 80 weeks, compared to 9.4% among those receiving Ozempic's highest approved dose for type 2 diabetes.
The trial, called TRANSCEND-T2D-2, involved more than 1,000 adults with type 2 diabetes. It compared once-weekly injections of retatrutide at doses of 9 mg and 12 mg with semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic, at 2 mg.
At the end of 80 weeks, participants taking retatrutide 9 mg lost an average of 44.3 pounds (20.1 kg), while those receiving the 12 mg dose lost 47.4 pounds (21.5 kg). The Ozempic group lost an average of 20.9 pounds (9.5 kg).
The findings mark the first Phase 3 head-to-head comparison of retatrutide with another medicine in this class.
Also read: ‘Godzilla’ Drug Retatrutide Reverses Sleep Apnea In 1 In 4 Diabetes Patients
The trial found that retatrutide also resulted in produced greater reductions in HbA1c, a measure of average blood glucose over approximately three months.
At 80 weeks, participants taking either dose of retatrutide recorded an average HbA1c reduction of 2.2%, compared to 1.8 % among those receiving Ozempic.
The experimental drug also resulted in greater improvements in cardiovascular risk factors like non-HDL cholesterol, triglycerides and systolic blood pressure.
The most commonly reported side effects of retatrutide were gastrointestinal symptoms like diarrhoea, nausea, constipation, vomiting and indigestion.
Diarrhoea was reported in 28.3% of participants receiving the 9 mg dose and 32.7% receiving 12 mg, compared to 26.4% in the Ozempic group. Nausea occurred in 21.2%, 23.8% and 21.3% of participants, respectively.
Researchers also reported a higher incidence of dysesthesia, an abnormal sensation that can include tingling, burning or skin sensitivity, among participants taking retatrutide.
Treatment discontinuation because of side effects occurred in 4.8% of the 9 mg group and 7.9% of the 12 mg group, compared to 2.7% of the Ozempic group.
Retatrutide is a once-weekly injectable drug that targets three hormone receptors involved in regulating appetite, blood sugar and metabolism. They are GLP-1, GIP and glucagon.
GLP-1 helps regulate appetite and blood sugar while slowing the process of stomach emptying. GIP also plays a role in glucose regulation and insulin release. Glucagon is involved in controlling blood glucose and energy metabolism.
Ozempic, manufactured by Novo Nordisk, acts on the GLP-1 receptor. Eli Lilly's Mounjaro and Zepbound, which contain tirzepatide, target both GLP-1 and GIP receptors.
Retatrutide remains an investigational drug and has not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or other regulatory authorities.
Eli Lilly plans to submit the drug for FDA approval in early 2027. The company said detailed results from the trial would be presented at a future medical meeting and published in a peer-reviewed journal.
© $2026 Times Horizon Private Limited