China launches first-ever invasive brain-computer interface clinical trial — Tetraplegic patient could skillfully operate racing games after just three weeks

When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
China's first in-human clinical trials of an invasive brain-computer interface (BCI) have launched, according to state media reports. This makes China second in the BCI race after the U.S., with its Neuralink technology, to enter the clinical trial phase for invasive BCI technology.
Ahead of upcoming larger-scale trials, this new BCI from the Shanghai-based Center for Excellence in Brain Science and Intelligence Technology (CEBSIT) already seems to be a success. The country's Global Times states that a tetraplegic patient has already been using its BCI to control a computer, play racing games, play chess, and more.
"Now I can control the computer with my thoughts. It feels like I can move at will," said the unnamed tetraplegic to Global Times. Some background to the patient's condition is provided by the source. Apparently, the patient lost both arms and both legs in a high-voltage electrical accident 13 years ago.
The man received an implant on March 25. Recovery was speedy, and just two to three weeks later, he was 'able to control electronic devices with his mind, skillfully operating racing games, chess, and other programs,' says the source. It isn't that long ago, but the report assures that 'no infection or electrode failure reported to date.'
Progressing from computer interaction, the scientific team hopes to let its first patient get involved with robotic arm movement control trials. Added dexterity like this could enhance the patient's quality of life. Longer-term plans involve interactions and training with robots, and similar intelligent devices that span the computer–physical realms.
The Chinese state media reports aren't without their characteristic boasts. Comparing the new CEBSIT BCI with Neuralink, they say the former has 'a cross-sectional area only 1/5 to 1/7 that of Neuralink's electrodes and flexibility over 100 times greater.' It adds that the neural electrodes used are the smallest and most flexible in the world. Their size and flexibility are better for the patient, so they barely perceive the implant's presence. Moreover, such compact BCIs will minimize damage to surrounding brain tissue and provide better prognosis over the longer term. Overall, the CEBSIT implant is said to be 26mm in diameter and under 6mm thick.
With larger-scale clinical trials now greenlit, BCI systems such as this one from CEBSIT are expected to gain regulatory approval and enter the market in China by 2028. If these trials are a fair indicator of BCI benefits, they could 'significantly improve the quality of life for millions of patients with complete spinal cord injuries, bilateral upper limb amputations and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,' notes the Global Times.
We were a little surprised by the 'first' claims from CEBSIT today. Previously, we have reported another Chinese BCI project that seemed to be in its advanced stages. In April, we covered the news that a patient in China had been enjoying playing complex PC games such as Black Myth: Wukong and Honor of Kings using the Beinao-1 BCI implant. However, more recent reports suggest the Beinao-2 is being tested in monkeys and will be ready for human trials by the end of 2025, so they've been beaten to the large-scale human trials milestone by CEBSIT.
Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News to get our up-to-date news, analysis, and reviews in your feeds. Make sure to click the Follow button.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Android Authority

an hour ago

• Android Authority

How does a phone with a crazy external lens compare to the S23 Ultra's zoom camera?

Hadlee Simons / Android Authority The vivo X200 Ultra is a great camera phone in its own right (if you're willing to import it), in no small part due to its impressive 200MP 3.7x periscope camera. However, the company switches things up by offering an optional external lens for even better zoom. The X200 Ultra's 2.35x telephoto converter lens effectively turns the phone's 200MP periscope camera into an ~8.6x shooter. I thought it would be a good idea to compare this lens to the Galaxy S23 Ultra, which was the last of Samsung's flagships with a dedicated 10x camera (10MP). I wasn't expecting the S23 Ultra to hold up very well, but here's how it went. vivo X200 Ultra's external lens vs Galaxy S23 Ultra Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra 10x Vivo X200 Ultra lens 200mm Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra 30x Vivo X200 Ultra lens 800mm Is it any surprise that I think the vivo X200 Ultra and its external lens handily beat the two-year-old Galaxy S23 Ultra's 10x camera in the comparisons above? Absolutely not, I'm comparing a 2023 flagship to a brand-new flagship phone with a bulky lens. Samsung's 10x and 30x images are washed out and lack detail compared to the vivo pictures. You can see this disparity most clearly in the second set of images, as I can make out the '1919' on the mini-lighthouse in the vivo picture. I also quite like the sea in the second vivo picture, which looks like a painting in the Samsung image. Samsung's 10x picture also contains plenty of noise in the dark parts of the scene. vivo's images are a little overly contrasted for my tastes, though, so it's not a complete win here. You can take a closer look at the difference in definition via the comparison below. I can actually see the cable car inside the station with the vivo as opposed to a blob with the Galaxy. In saying so, the X200 Ultra's heavy-handed image processing at long range is apparent. The phone's AI-driven processing seems to struggle with complex scenery, resulting in these over-sharpened, almost striated textures on the mountain. I would like to see the company take a step back with this aggressive image processing in more situations. What about people, though? Well, the good news is that the X200 Ultra's lens offers a shallow depth-of-field effect without needing to switch to the portrait mode. This gives the scene a good level of depth owing to the blurred background, while the S23 Ultra's rendition appears flatter by comparison. This is also apparent when zooming in to 30x and 800mm. Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra 10x vivo X200 Ultra lens 200mm Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra 30x vivo X200 Ultra lens 800mm The X200 Ultra pictures also show significantly more detail, allowing me to crop in a little further and still end up with a decent image. By contrast, the S23 Ultra's images simply lack the same level of clarity and are significantly noisier. It's not a clean sweep for the vivo handset and lens. Neither phone truly captured accurate skin tones here, but the Galaxy S23 Ultra got closer to the actual scene at 10x. I also noticed mesh-like artifacts in the 800mm vivo image around the left ear. It's a very minor issue and not something you'll see unless you're really pixel-peeping, but it's worth pointing out anyway. When I compared the lens-free X200 Pro to the Galaxy S23 Ultra earlier this year, I thought that the vivo was really able to stretch its advantage over the Samsung in low light. So what happens when you add an external lens into the mix? Galaxy S23 Ultra 10x vivo X200 Ultra lens 200mm Galaxy S23 Ultra 10x vivo X200 Ultra lens 200mm The first set of images highlights one of vivo's traditional strengths, namely its ability to tame light sources in low light. Meanwhile, the signage in the S23 Ultra's image is blown out. Vivo's snap also gives us a much clearer look at the building's artwork. Neither phone manages to stay noise-free in this challenging scene, but you don't have to zoom in to see it on the Samsung image. The second set of pictures reveals a greater disparity, as noise dominates the Samsung picture while vivo's aggressive noise reduction pays off in this situation. I can also make out various bits of text in the X200 Ultra's image, which is a testament to the detail on offer here. You can view full-resolution images from each phone via our Google Drive folder. What do you think of this camera shootout? 0 votes The X200 Ultra's lens is the winner by far NaN % The lens was better, but didn't make a big difference NaN % I preferred the shots from the S23 Ultra NaN % Were there any doubts about the winner? Hadlee Simons / Android Authority It's really no surprise that the vivo X200 Ultra and its bulky telephoto converter lens came out on top in this comparison. In fact, I'd be more concerned if this were a closer fight. The combination of that 200MP 3.7x camera and the external lens results in significantly better image quality, particularly at long range and in low light. It wasn't a flawless victory for vivo, though, owing to the occasional image processing issue. If anything, this shootout makes me sad that we haven't seen a camera phone since the Galaxy S23 Ultra with a proper 10x zoom shooter. I don't think a modern 10x camera would actually beat the X200 Ultra and its giant lens, but updated hardware and more sensible image processing would certainly help it get much closer. So my fingers are crossed for more 10x cameras in 2026.

Yahoo

2 hours ago

• Yahoo

Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals Presented Multiple Results in Novel Diabetes Therapies at the American Diabetes Association's 85th Scientific Sessions

In a Phase 2a clinical trial, the GLP-1 RA bofanglutide injection demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile after 23 weeks of once weekly treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with significant HbA1c reductions alongside comprehensive benefits for body weight, blood pressure and blood lipid profiles. In a Phase 2b clinical trial, the bofanglutide injection showed superior HbA1c and body weight reduction than semaglutide (Ozempic®) after 24 weeks of bi-weekly treatment in patients with T2DM, along with an acceptable safety and tolerability profile. In a Phase 2 clinical trial, the once-weekly insulin GZR4 injection demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety profiles in patients with T2DM after 16 weeks of treatment. Notably, GZR4 injection achieved superior HbA1c reduction in patients with inadequate glycemic control on prior basal insulin therapy compared to once-daily insulin degludec (Tresiba®). BEIJING and BRIDGEWATER, N.J., June 21, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals (Gan & Lee, stock code: announced that the company presented multiple Phase 2 clinical study results of ultra-long-acting GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) bofanglutide (research code: GZR18) injection and once-weekly basal insulin analog GZR4 injection during a poster presentation at the American Diabetes Association (ADA)'s 85th Scientific Sessions. Statement: Bofanglutide injection and GZR4 injection are investigational drugs that have not yet been launched in any country. Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals does not recommend the use of any unapproved drugs/indications. Bofanglutide injection: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Phase 2a Clinical Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy of Bofanglutide (GZR18) Injection in Chinese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) In this Phase 2a clinical trial (NCT06256523), 36 adults with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control through diet and exercise and/or irregular use of antidiabetic medications, were randomized to receive either bofanglutide injection (N=27) or placebo (N=9) once weekly (QW) for 23 weeks, with a dose escalating from 1.5 mg to 13 mg. The key efficacy endpoint was HbA1c change from baseline to week 23. After 23 weeks of treatment, the mean HbA1c change from baseline in the bofanglutide groups was -1.81% compared to 0.12% in the placebo group, with an estimated treatment difference of -1.93% points*. The proportion of participants achieving an HbA1c target of <7.0% and ≤6.5% was 57.7% and 46.2%, respectively, compared to zero in the placebo group. In terms of weight management, participants treated with bofanglutide experienced a mean reduction in body weight of 6.92 kg from baseline, corresponding to a 9.3% decrease, compared to a minimal reduction of 1.2% in the placebo group. Furthermore, bofanglutide showed comprehensive improvements over placebo in multiple metabolic parameters, including fasting plasma glucose (FPG), glycated albumin (GA), waist circumference (WC), blood pressure, and lipid profiles. In terms of safety, bofanglutide was well tolerated in patients with T2DM. Consistent with known GLP-1 RAs, the most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related, primarily observed during the early dose-escalation period with mostly mild to moderate in severity. No hypoglycemic events or investigational product-related serious adverse events were reported during the study. Bofanglutide injection: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-label, Active comparator-controlled Phase 2 Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of bofanglutide Injection versus Semaglutide (Ozempic®) in Chinese Patients with T2DM In this Phase 2b clinical trial (NCT06256549), a total of 272 eligible Chinese patients with T2DM, who had inadequate glycemic control either after lifestyle intervention or despite stable use of oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for at least 3 months, were randomized to receive bi-weekly (Q2W) 12 mg (N=55), 18 mg (N=54), 24 mg (N=55) bofanglutide injections, or once-weekly (QW) 24 mg (N=54) bofanglutide injections, or 1 mg semaglutide (Ozempic®, N=54) for 24 weeks of treatment, including the dose-escalation period. The primary endpoint was HbA1c change from baseline to week 24. After 24 weeks of treatment, the mean reductions in HbA1c from baseline were 1.87%, 2.28%, and 1.94% in the bofanglutide groups at 12 mg, 18 mg, and 24 mg Q2W, respectively, and -2.32% in the 24 mg QW group. All these treatment regimens showed greater HbA1c reductions compared to the semaglutide group (-1.60%), with the 18 mg Q2W and 24 mg QW bofanglutide groups demonstrating statistically significant superiority (p<0.001)*. Among drug-naïve patients with inadequate glycemic control despite lifestyle interventions, the 18 mg Q2W bofanglutide group achieved a mean HbA1c reduction of 2.98%, which was significantly greater than that observed with semaglutide (-2.04%; p<0.001)*. The proportions of patients achieving HbA1c target of <7.0% were 63.0% to 73.6% in the Q2W bofanglutide group, 75.0% in the QW bofanglutide group, and 70.0% in the semaglutide group. For the HbA1c ≤6.5% target, the corresponding proportions were 58.2% to 67.9%, 69.2%, and 62.0%, respectively. Furthermore, the mean change in body weight for all bofanglutide groups from baseline to week 24 ranged from -4.26 to -6.54 kg, compared to -3.25 kg in the semaglutide group*. Bofanglutide also greatly improved FPG, blood pressure, lipid profiles, and other metabolic parameters. In this study, bofanglutide was generally well tolerated, with safety and tolerability consistent with other known GLP-1 RAs. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal-related, mostly mild to moderate in severity, and no severe hypoglycemic events were observed. GZR4 injection: A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-label, Active-controlled, Treat-to-target Phase 2 Clinical Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of GZR4 Injection Versus Insulin degludec (IDeg, Tresiba®) in Chinese patients with T2DM This Phase 2 clinical study (NCT06202079) enrolled a total of 83 Chinese patients with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control on OADs (Part A), and 96 patients with inadequate control on OADs combined with basal insulin therapy (Part B). Participants were randomized to receive QW GZR4 injection (Part A: N=42; Part B: N=41) or once-daily IDeg (Tresiba®) injection (Part A: N=48; Part B: N=48) for 16 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in HbA1c from baseline to week 16. After 16 weeks of treatment, in patients from Part A, the mean change in HbA1c was comparable between GZR4 groups and IDeg groups (−1.50% versus -1.48%, p = 0.90). The proportion of participants achieving HbA1c target of <7.0% was 59.5% in the GZR4 group and 70.7% in the IDeg group, while the proportion achieving HbA1c target of ≤6.5% was 38.1% and 29.3%, respectively. In patients from Part B, GZR4 demonstrated significantly greater HbA1c reduction compared to IDeg (-1.26% vs -0.87%; p<0.01), with a higher proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets of <7.0% and ≤6.5% (52.1% vs 29.2%; 25.0% vs 10.4%). In addition, improvements from baseline in FPG and time in range (TIR) were comparable between the GZR4 group and IDeg group. GZR4 achieved effective glycemic control without the need for a loading dose at the first administration, while the total weekly insulin dosage (mole) for GZR4 was approximately 40–50% of that for IDeg (p<0.001). In terms of safety, the incidence of adverse events was similar between the two groups. No severe hypoglycemic events or investigational product-related serious adverse events were reported during the study. * The clinical data were presented as mean (SE) value. The detailed results of the above Phase 2 clinical study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusion and Future Direction The latest clinical results presented at this year's ADA conference highlight Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals' leading position in the development of long-acting antidiabetic therapies. Building on these positive outcomes, the company will continue to advance the research and development of innovative treatments for diabetes. Currently, Gan & Lee has initiated and is accelerating large-scale Phase 3 clinical programs in China for bofanglutide injection and GZR4 injections for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, aiming to provide more effective treatment options for patients with diabetes. Forward-looking statements Forward-looking statements are based on our expectations and assumptions as of the date of the statements. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, and we can give no assurance that such results will be achieved in the future. We undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. About Gan & Lee Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals developed the first Chinese domestic insulin analog. Currently, Gan & Lee has six core insulin products, including five insulin analog varieties: long-acting glargine injection (Basalin®), fast-acting lispro injection (Prandilin™), fast-acting aspart injection (Rapilin®), mixed protamine zinc lispro injection (25R) (Prandilin™25), aspart 30 injection (Rapilin®30), and one human insulin injection - mixed protamine human insulin injection (30R) (Similin®30). The company has two approved medical devices in China, namely reusable insulin injection pen (GanleePen), and disposable pen needle (GanleeFine®). In China's 2024 National Insulin-Specific Centralized Procurement, Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals ranked first among all selected companies in terms of procurement demand for insulin analogs. The company is also making strides in international markets, with the disposable pen needle (GanleeFine®) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2020 and received GMP inspection approval from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2024. These achievements significantly boost Gan & Lee's competitiveness in both international and domestic markets. In the future, Gan & Lee will strive for comprehensive coverage in diabetes treatment. Moving forward with its mission to become a world-class pharmaceutical company, Gan & Lee will also actively develop new chemical entities and biological drugs, focusing on treatments for metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and other therapeutic areas. SOURCE Gan & Lee Pharmaceuticals

WIRED

2 hours ago

• WIRED

Methane Pollution Has Cheap, Effective Solutions That Aren't Being Used

Jun 21, 2025 7:00 AM The International Energy Agency estimates that 70 percent of the fossil fuel sector's methane emissions could be cut with existing technologies—many of which would save polluters money. Photograph: TheThis story originally appeared on Vox and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Odorless and colorless, methane is a gas that is easy to miss—but it's one of the most important contributors to global warming. It can trap up to 84 times as much heat as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, though it breaks down much faster. Measured over 100 years, its warming effect is about 30 times that of an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. That means that over the course of decades, it takes smaller amounts of methane than carbon dioxide to heat up the planet to the same level. Nearly a third of the increase in global average temperatures since the Industrial Revolution is due to methane, and about two-thirds of those methane emissions comes from human activity like energy production and cattle farming. It's one of the biggest and fastest ways that human beings are warming the Earth. But the flip side of that math is that cutting methane emissions is one of the most effective ways to limit climate change. In 2021, more than 100 countries including the United States committed to reducing their methane pollution by at least 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030. But some of the largest methane emitters like Russia and China still haven't signed on, and according to a new report from the International Energy Agency, global methane emissions from energy production are still rising. Yet the tracking of exactly how much methane is reaching the atmosphere isn't as precise as it is for carbon dioxide. 'Little or no measurement-based data is used to report methane emissions in most parts of the world,' according to the IEA. 'This is a major issue because measured emissions tend to be higher than reported emissions.' It's also hard to trace methane to specific sources—whether from natural sources like swamps, or from human activities like fossil fuel extraction, farming, or deforestation. Researchers are gaining a better understanding of where methane is coming from, surveilling potential sources from the ground, from the sky, and from space. It turns out a lot of methane is coming from underappreciated sources, including coal mines and small oil and gas production facilities. The report also notes that while there are plenty of low-cost tools available to halt much of this methane from reaching the atmosphere, they're largely going unused. The United States, the world's third largest methane-emitting country, has seen its methane emissions slowly decline over the past 30 years. However, the Trump administration is pushing for more fossil fuel development while rolling back some of the best bang-for-buck programs for mitigating climate change, which will likely lead to even more methane reaching the atmosphere if left unchecked. Where Is All This Methane Coming From? Methane is the dominant component of natural gas, which provides more than a third of US energy. It's also found in oil formations. During the drilling process, it can escape wells and pipelines, but it can also leak as it's transported and at the power plants and furnaces where it's consumed. The oil and gas industry says that methane is a salable product, so they have a built-in incentive to track it, capture it, and limit its leaks. But oil developers often flare methane, meaning burn it off, because it's not cost-effective to contain it. That burned methane forms carbon dioxide, so the overall climate impact is lower than just letting the methane go free. And because methane is invisible and odorless, it can be difficult and expensive to monitor it and prevent it from getting out. As a result, researchers and environmental activists say the industry is likely releasing far more than official government estimates show. Methane also seeps out from coal mines—more methane, actually, than is released during the production of natural gas, which after all is mostly methane. Ember, a clean-energy think tank, put together this great visual interactive showing how this happens. The short version is that methane is embedded in coal deposits, and as miners dig to expose coal seams, the gas escapes, and continues to do so long after a coal mine reaches the end of its operating life. Since coal miners are focused on extracting coal, they don't often keep track of how much methane they're letting out, nor do regulators pay much attention. According to Ember, methane emissions from coal mines could be 60 percent higher than official tallies. Abandoned coal mines are especially noxious, emitting more than abandoned oil and gas wells. Added up, methane emitted from coal mines around the world each year has the same warming effect on the climate as the total annual carbon dioxide emissions of India. Alarmed by the gaps in the data, some nonprofits have taken it upon themselves to try to get a better picture of methane emissions at a global scale using ground-based sensors, aerial monitors, and even satellites. In 2024, the Environmental Defense Fund launched MethaneSAT, which carries instruments that can measure methane output from small, discrete sources over a wide area. Ritesh Gautam, the lead scientist for MethaneSAT, explained that the project revealed some major overlooked methane emitters. Since launching, MethaneSAT has found that in the US, the bulk of methane emissions doesn't just come from a few big oil and gas drilling sites, but from many small wells that emit less than 100 kilograms per hour. 'Marginal wells only produce 6 to 7 percent of [oil and gas] in the US, but they disproportionately account for almost 50 percent of the US oil and gas production-related emissions,' Gautam said. 'These facilities only produce less than 15 barrels of oil equivalent per day, but then there are more than half a million of these just scattered around the US.' There Are Ways to Stop Methane Emissions, but We're Not Using Them The good news is that many of the tools for containing methane from the energy industry are already available. 'Around 70 percent of methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector could be avoided with existing technologies, often at a low cost,' according to the IEA methane report. For the oil and gas industry, that could mean something as simple as using better fittings in pipelines to limit leaks and installing methane capture systems. And since methane is a fuel, the sale of the saved methane can offset the cost of upgrading hardware. Letting it go into the atmosphere is a waste of money and a contributor to warming. Capturing or destroying methane from coal mines isn't so straightforward. Common techniques to separate methane from other gases require heating air, which is not exactly the safest thing to do around a coal mine—it can increase the risk of fire or explosion. But safer alternatives have been developed. 'There are catalytic and other approaches available today that don't require such high temperatures,' said Robert Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University, in an email. However, these methods to limit methane from fossil fuels are vastly underused. Only about 5 percent of active oil and gas production facilities around the world deploy systems to zero out their methane pollution. In the US, there are also millions of oil and gas wells and tens of thousands of abandoned coal mines whose operators have long since vanished, leaving no one accountable for their continued methane emissions. 'If there isn't a regulatory mandate to treat the methane, or put a price on it, many companies continue to do nothing,' Jackson said. And while recovering methane is ultimately profitable over time, the margins aren't often big enough to make the up-front investment of better pipes, monitoring equipment, or scrubbers worthwhile for them. 'They want to make 10 to 15 percent on their money (at least), not save a few percent,' he added. And rather than getting stronger, regulations on methane are poised to get weaker. The Trump administration has approved more than $119 million to help communities reclaim abandoned coal mines. However, the White House has also halted funding for plugging abandoned oil and gas wells and is limiting environmental reviews for new fossil fuel projects. Congressional Republicans are also working to undo a fee on methane emissions that was part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. With weaker incentives to track and limit methane, it's likely emissions will continue to rise in the United States. That will push the world further off course from climate goals and contribute to a hotter planet.