Watch: Melania Trump leads White House AI task force meeting

First lady Melania Trump on Thursday will host the second meeting of the White House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence Education, less than two months after President Trump unveiled his AI framework.

The president in April signed an executive order that aims to incorporate AI into America’s classrooms.  

“I predict AI will represent the single largest growth category in our nation during the Trump Administration — and I won’t be surprised if AI becomes known as the greatest engine of progress in the history of the United States of America,” the first lady wrote in a press release. “But, as leaders and parents we must manage AI’s growth responsibly.”

She added later, “We are living in a moment of wonder, and it is our responsibility to prepare America’s children.”

The meeting comes after the first lady last month announced an AI competition for students across the U.S. to “unleash their imagination and showcase the spirit of American innovation.” The president, meanwhile, will host several tech CEOs in the Rose Garden later Thursday.

The task force event is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. EDT.

Watch the live video above.

https://thehill.com/video-clips/5486187-watch-live-melania-trump-white-house-artificial-intelligence/

'Energy Drinks May Triple Suicide Risk, Coffee Does the Opposite'

 Interviewee: Guillaume Davido, MD

Psychiatrist, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, Paris, France

Disclosure: Guillaume Davido, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A meta-analysis of more than 1.5 million participants has suggested that coffee and energy drinks have opposing effects on suicide risk. High coffee consumption — more than 60 cups per month — was linked to significantly reduced suicide attempts, probably because of its stimulating and mood-enhancing properties. In contrast, even a single can of an energy drink per month was observed to increase the risk for suicidal thoughts and attempts, with a dose-dependent effect that can triple the risk at higher consumption levels.

This difference may be explained by the presence of other psychoactive ingredients in energy drinks — such as taurine, guarana, and ginseng — along with their high sugar content, which can trigger anxiety and mood swings, particularly in young men, who are the primary consumers.

Medscape’s French edition spoke with Guillaume Davido, MD, a psychiatrist specializing in addiction studies at Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital in Paris, about the findings of this study.

Why do you think this study is of particular interest?

The results are quite striking: Suicide attempts were 30% lower among coffee drinkers compared with energy drink consumers.

This meta-analysis is also interesting because it encourages us to be more nuanced about the effects of caffeine and to clearly distinguish caffeinated energy drinks from coffee. It seems that coffee, despite being a stimulant, does not increase suicide risk. This is, to say the least, surprising. For me, it is almost a revelation.

Why does this protective effect of caffeine surprise you?

The idea that caffeine could improve suicide risk is quite counterintuitive. Not to mention that many publications discuss caffeine's effects in psychiatry, particularly its effect on sleep quality: The less we sleep, the more stressed and impulsive we are, and the more likely we are to develop depressive comorbidities. Depressive comorbidities imply suicidal risk. Psychiatric disorders would be more destabilized in patients who consume caffeine.

We thought it was mainly the “caffeine” aspect of energy drinks that could potentially increase these types of disorders, yet this study rather concludes a protective effect of caffeine.

However, it is not surprising that energy drinks are linked to higher suicide risk, given that their consumption is associated with more addictive and psychiatric comorbidities. Until now, there was no specific research on suicide, but this seems plausible.

Beyond caffeine, how do you explain the potential link between suicide risk and energy drink consumption?

The meta-analysis cites publications on psychiatric comorbidity risk factors and suicide risk that are aggravated by energy drink consumption. They specifically mention taurine, guarana, or ginseng, which may promote anxiety. Nevertheless, current literature remains very cautious about the real toxicity of these substances. It also seems important to keep in mind that energy drink consumption [sometimes] occurs within an overall risky lifestyle, which likely partly explains the observed associations.

What about effects on the microbiome and gut-brain axis?

It is true that coffee has antioxidant effects and benefits on the microbiome. Caffeine could positively affect mood. In contrast, other components of energy drinks, notably sugar, have a harmful effect on the microbiome. For example, one study showed that regular energy drink consumption decreased the expression of bacterial genes beneficial for mood and reduced microbial diversity in the gut.

Do you consider the coffee-vs-energy drink comparison in this study to be solid?

It is interesting but has its limits. In the meta-analysis, the amount of coffee — and by extension, caffeine — is well defined, with a threshold of 60 cups per month, whereas for energy drinks, quantities are less clear, described as one can. A cup of coffee is about 200 mL, and a can of an energy drink represents roughly two cups of coffee. We know that these drinks contain more caffeine than coffee or other conventional cola-based drinks, with content ranging from 75 to 300 mg per beverage. Moreover, energy drink enthusiasts consume large amounts, often unaware of how much caffeine they ingest.

This raises questions about the meta-analysis results: Are coffee drinkers protected by caffeine, or do they simply consume less than energy drink users? Publications highlighting psychiatric risks associated with coffee indicate that moderate consumption is generally safe. There may even be a neuroprotective effect. So having two cups of coffee per day does not seem problematic.

What about the population consuming energy drinks?

This is also a limitation noted by the meta-analysis authors. We know that people who regularly consume energy drinks do not have the same profile as “classic” coffee drinkers. They are mostly young men. Suicide risk is higher among young men, and energy drink consumers sometimes also use other substances; there is a well-established link in the literature between energy drinks and addictive substances. Patients with addictive issues also have increased suicide risk. Therefore, further exploration of this population is needed.

But for me, this is also one of the main interests of this study: It is important to understand this bidirectional link between energy drink consumers and suicidal patients. In consultations, use of energy drinks should be seen as a “red flag.” Whether in general medicine or psychiatry, if a patient consults for psychological concerns, it is relevant to assess energy drink consumption because it may indicate other issues: They may also be consuming other substances or have a risky lifestyle, which allows discussion of lifestyle habits. They may crave large amounts of sugar or have an eating disorder like binge eating. Sugar is known to be depressogenic and causes metabolic complications, which in turn lead to psychiatric complications. Identifying these behaviors helps detect other associated risks, such as metabolic syndrome or fatty liver disease from excessive sugar consumption.

Do you ask your patients about energy drink consumption?

Not enough! In sleep-focused consultations, this question should be systematically included to assess overall caffeine intake. In my practice at the hospital and psychiatric emergency unit, I do not routinely ask during the initial consultation, as we primarily manage acute crises. However, it becomes relevant during follow-up or at the end of care. The goal is not to demonize caffeine but to address it appropriately. In anxious patients, we recommend limiting stimulants and avoiding consumption after 4 PM, as it can worsen anxiety or disrupt sleep. More broadly, general practice screening for anxiety disorders should include detailed questions about caffeine and energy drink intake.

Are there potential interactions between energy drinks and psychiatric medications?

At the molecular level, interactions exist but are debatable. If you consume caffeine with an antidepressant or antipsychotic, you do not necessarily experience harmful effects, but some publications report interactions with clozapine, an antipsychotic used as a last-resort treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Caffeine may modestly increase clozapine levels.

Also, caffeine and most psychotropics share hepatic metabolism, with enzymes such as CYP1A2 involved in caffeine metabolism. But whether this results in mental effects from concomitant intake cannot be firmly stated.

Nevertheless, blood glucose and clozapine levels could be affected in heavy energy drink consumers, and monitoring may be warranted, though evidence of health impact remains unclear.

For antidepressants, no known interactions exist.

Finally, it is recommended not to consume energy drinks or coffee when taking sedatives, as it would be like pressing the accelerator and brake simultaneously. Identifying such consumption is important in patients prescribed hypnotics.

In conclusion, what do you take away from this study?

I think the authors of this meta-analysis did not necessarily intend to highlight a protective effect of coffee but rather to assess whether caffeine, in coffee or energy drinks, impacts suicide risk. They found, somewhat surprisingly, a significant difference between the two groups of consumers.

In practice, I take away that:

• Caffeine may offer a protective effect against suicide risk when consumed in moderation. In contrast, very high doses — such as those found in large quantities of energy drinks — may increase this risk. For example, someone consuming 15 cups of coffee per day is unlikely to experience the protective benefits, given the impact on sleep and other metabolic functions, including cardiovascular effects.
• Close attention should be paid to energy drink consumers, and patients should be questioned, as this type of consumption may be associated with multiple comorbidities, including addictive substances, metabolic syndrome, and suicidality.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/energy-drinks-may-triple-suicide-risk-coffee-does-opposite-2025a1000ne8

Sugar Substitutes Not So Sweet for Brain Health

 Consuming low- and no-calorie artificial sweeteners may harm cognitive function, results of a longitudinal study of middle-aged and older adults showed.

In adjusted analyses, people who consumed the highest total amounts of these sweeteners had a 62% faster decline in overall thinking and memory skills, equivalent to about 1.6 years of aging, than those consuming the lowest amount.

The link was found in people younger than 60 years but not in older adults and was stronger in people with diabetes.

“For neurologists, the key message is that dietary exposures in midlife may impact long-term brain health, and artificial sweeteners may not be the harmless alternatives to sugar that many assume,” study author Claudia Kimie Suemoto, MD, PhD, with University of São Paulo in São Paulo, Brazil, told Medscape Medical News.

“This is important to keep in mind when counseling patients, especially those at higher risk for dementia or those with diabetes who often rely heavily on these products,” Suemoto said.

The findings were published online on September 3 in Neurology.

Higher Consumption, Faster Decline

The research is the largest and longest prospective study to date investigating the association between artificial sweetener consumption and cognitive decline.

“While previous research had linked sweeteners to conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and depression, their long-term impact on cognition had not been systematically explored,” Suemoto said.

The study included 12,772 adults participating in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health Brazilian. As part of the study, they underwent standard cognitive tests every 4 years across three study waves (2008-2010, 2012-2014, and 2017-2019).

A food frequency questionnaire was used to calculate combined and individual consumption of seven low- and no-calorie sweeteners, including the artificial sweeteners aspartame, saccharin, and acesulfame-K; the sugar alcohols erythritol, sorbitol, and xylitol; and tagatose, a natural sweetener.

Participants were divided into three groups based on the total amount of sweeteners consumed. The lowest group consumed an average of 20 mg/d and the highest group consumed an average of 191 mg/d. For aspartame, this amount is equal to one can of diet soda. Sorbitol had the highest consumption, with an average of 64 mg/d.

In the overall sample, after a median follow-up of 8 years, participants in the two highest tertiles of combined low- and no-calorie sweetener consumption had a 35% and 62% higher rate of decline in global cognition, respectively, than peers in the lowest tertile. That corresponds to an excess 1.3 and 1.6 years of cognitive aging.

Verbal fluency also suffered, with participants in the two highest tertiles of combined low- and no-calorie sweetener consumption showing 110% and 173% higher rates of decline in verbal fluency decline, respectively.

Long-Term Consequences for Brain Health

In analyses stratified by age, consumption of low- and no-calorie sweeteners was associated with faster decline in global cognition and verbal fluency in those younger than 60 years but not in older individuals.

The association between higher intake of low- and no-calorie sweeteners was more pronounced in people with diabetes, particularly for memory decline, suggesting a heightened vulnerability in this group, the researchers said.

Similar positive associations with cognitive decline were found in analyses looking at consumption of all of the individual low- and no-calorie sweeteners — except for tagatose, the only natural sweetener.

“Our findings highlight the need to look more critically at what we are using to replace sugar in our diets, and they underscore that dietary choices in midlife can have consequences for brain health decades later,” Suemoto told Medscape Medical News.

“For people who love diet sodas and other sugar-free products (including myself), our findings do not mean that people should panic, but they do suggest it is wise to limit consumption as much as possible, ideally avoiding daily use. Whenever possible, choose natural options to add flavor, like fruit, honey, or spices, and try to shift toward a more balanced diet rich in whole foods,” Suemoto advised.

A limitation of the study was that not all artificial sweeteners were included (such as sucralose). And while a validated food frequency questionnaire was used, the possibility of misreporting bias cannot be ruled out. Also, diet was assessed only at baseline, which may reflect diet changes over time.

‘Compelling’ Data

Writing in a linked editorial, Thomas Monroe Holland, MD, with Rush Institute for Healthy Aging, Rush Medical College, Chicago, said the findings are “compelling” and add to “mounting evidence that common dietary exposures, particularly ultraprocessed food additives, once considered benign, may influence brain health in ways neurologists and other healthcare professionals are only beginning to understand.”

Although previous research has linked artificially sweetened beverages to cognitive risk, the use of rigorous and advanced statistical techniques in this study “makes the results more accurate and less biased and strengthen our confidence in the observed cognitive associations,” Holland pointed out.

The finding that associations between these sweeteners and cognitive decline were strongest in younger adults has “profound implications for neurologic counseling. This suggests that midlife dietary exposures, decades before cognitive symptoms emerge, may carry life-long consequences for brain health,” Holland wrote.

The findings may prompt neurologists to reconsider standard dietary recommendations, particularly for patients with diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or cerebrovascular risk factors, he said.

The widespread assumption that low- and no-calorie sweeteners represent a safe sugar substitute may be “misguided, especially given their ubiquity in products marketed as ‘healthier’ alternatives,” Holland added.

“For the medical community, this study poses a fundamental question: In our efforts to prevent stroke and preserve cognition through dietary modification, are we inadvertently recommending substances that may accelerate the very cognitive decline we seek to prevent?” Holland concluded.

This study was supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Health; the Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation; and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. Suemoto and Holland had no relevant disclosures.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/sugar-substitutes-not-so-sweet-brain-health-2025a1000nes

Elevance falls on softer margin estimate, reaffirmed 2025 guidance

 Elevance Health (NYSE:ELV) shares fell on Thursday after the company's executive said it does not expect improvements in its operational Medicaid margins for the second half of the year.

At the Wells Fargo Healthcare conference, an executive of the company reflected on the challenging environment in the market, and said that its operating margin performance is expected to be softer than the outlook that provided in July.

The company, through a filing, also said it expects to reaffirm earnings guidance for full year 2025 at about $24.10 per share, including $5.90 per share of net unfavorable items.

Elevance also expects to reaffirm 2025 benefit expense ratio guidance of about 90%.

The shares of the company are down about 4%. Peers Centene (CNC) and Molina Healthcare (MOH) are also down about 5% today.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/elevance-falls-on-softer-margin-estimate-reaffirmed-2025-guidance/ar-AA1LSY5c

HHS: Consumers to Gain Access to “Catastrophic” Health Insurance Plans in 2026 Plan Year

 Overview

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is working to expand access to catastrophic health coverage in the Federally-facilitated Exchange (FFE) through additional hardship exemption guidance, specifically designed to help consumers access coverage as a result of the premium increases anticipated for the 2026 plan year. This guidance describes circumstances that will support a hardship exemption for individuals who find themselves ineligible for advance payments of the premium tax credit (APTC) or cost-sharing reductions (CSRs) due to their projected annual household incomes, enabling access to more affordable, catastrophic coverage.

Key Facts

Premium Increases and Market Conditions

Health insurance premiums are projected to rise substantially for the 2026 plan year across the individual market, representing one of the most significant increases in recent years. The impact of significant rate increases may result in a hardship in obtaining coverage under a QHP, especially for consumers whose income disqualifies them to receive APTC or CSRs to lower their out-of-pocket costs. Therefore, a consumer may qualify for an exemption to purchase a catastrophic plan on or off an Exchange in accordance with 45 CFR §155.605(d)(1)(iii) if they are determined or expect to be ineligible for APTC or CSRs based on their projected annual household income. 

Catastrophic Plan Benefits

• Generally, consumers who are newly ineligible for APTC or CSRs due to their projected annual income (below 100 percent or above 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL)) will be eligible for a hardship exemption and can enroll in catastrophic coverage. CMS plans to begin streamlining this process for consumers ineligible for APTC due to income and expand to consumers who are over 250% of the FPL and are only ineligible for CSRs.
• This guidance applies to consumers in FFE States, and participating State-based Exchanges (SBEs) and will be made available to those seeking coverage off the Exchange.
• Catastrophic Plans: These plans provide all essential health benefits required under the Affordable Care Act while maintaining lower premiums designed for financial accessibility.
• Financial Protection: Comprehensive coverage is designed to provide financial protection against serious illness or injury that could result in devastating medical expenses.
• Preventive Care: Full access to preventive services without cost-sharing requirements. Catastrophic coverage may present an affordable coverage option for consumers who are ineligible for APTC or CSRs due to their projected annual household income, and may protect against worst-case scenarios, like getting seriously sick or injured.

Streamlined Application Options (Starting November 1, 2025) 

Option 1: Online Application Process (New)

• Apply for health coverage with financial assistance through HealthCare.gov or through certified enhanced direct enrollment partners. Hardship eligibility will be automatically evaluated based on projected annual household income data provided during the application process.[1]

Option 2: Paper Application Process (Existing)

• Complete the hardship exemption form by selecting "Hardship 14 – You experienced another hardship" from the available options in Section 2 of the form.

Provide a brief explanation of the specific circumstances giving rise to the hardship that prevent access to affordable coverage.

• Expedited Review Process: CMS has implemented procedures that may approve applicants for different hardship reasons than originally requested when circumstances warrant such flexibility. 

---

[1] CMS plans to begin streamlining this process for consumers ineligible for APTC due to income and expand to consumers who are over 250% of the federal poverty level (FPL) and are only ineligible for cost sharing reductions.

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/expanding-access-health-insurance-consumers-gain-access-catastrophic-health-insurance-plans-2026

Carlyle Group (CG) Raises $20B for Private Equity Secondaries Fund

 

• Carlyle Group's AlpInvest successfully raises $20 billion for its global private equity secondaries initiative.
• Analysts project an average one-year target price of $67.90 for Carlyle Group, indicating a potential upside.

Carlyle Group (CG, Financial) has made a significant stride with its division, Carlyle AlpInvest, successfully securing an impressive $20 billion for its global private equity secondaries initiative. The standout achievement is the AlpInvest Secondaries Fund VIII, which reached its hard cap with $15 billion. This includes $3.2 billion in co-investments and an additional $2 billion dedicated to private wealth investments, reflecting strong investor confidence and strategic growth initiatives.

Delving into the forecasted price targets from 16 analysts, The Carlyle Group Inc (CG, Financial) is expected to achieve an average target price of $67.90 over the next year. The high estimate stands at $83.00, while the low is $44.11. This average target presents a potential upside of 5.10% from the current stock price of $64.60, offering a glimpse of promising returns for investors. For more in-depth estimate data, visit the The Carlyle Group Inc (CG) Forecast page.

The consensus among 18 brokerage firms provides The Carlyle Group Inc (CG, Financial) with an average brokerage recommendation of 2.4, signifying an "Outperform" status. The recommendation scale ranges from 1 to 5, where 1 is Strong Buy and 5 is Sell, highlighting general optimism towards the stock's performance.

focus.com/news/3094655/carlyle-group-cg-raises-20b-for-private-equity-secondaries-fund

TransMedics initiated with a Hold at Stifel

 Stifel initiated coverage of TransMedics (TMDX) with a Hold rating and $115 price target The firm would characterize results of its survey of 19 U.S. transplant surgeons survey as “mixed,” reporting surgeon feedback suggests TransMedics’ OCS portable organ perfusion, optimization, and monitoring system may face market share pressure, driven by competition. When factoring in the mixed survey findings, the firm believe risk-reward is balanced at current levels against its “confidence in meaningful upside potential to estimates,” the analyst tells investors.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/transmedics-initiated-with-a-hold-at-stifel/ar-AA1LOYy3