Spotlight On: Dishaa Sinha

We are back with our 'Spotlight On' interview series, shedding light on inspiring women working in the field of neuroscience, and reflecting on their distinct backgrounds and career journeys. The questions posed to these individuals explore the themes of job perks and challenges, developing new skills, inspirations in the neuroscience field, and goals for the future. Stay tuned to see new interviews every few weeks from women in a range of neuroscience-related professions!

This month, we interviewed Dishaa Sinha, DPhil student, Research Assistant, Honorary Assistant Psychologist at the University of Oxford, and recipient of the WiNUK Research Support Award. Dishaa helps manage several large scale studies, including the FAST Brain Health study and Great Minds, which aim to improve early diagnosis of dementia. Dishaa discusses navigating academia in the UK, her love for working in a clinical setting, and her main motivations.

Can you tell us about your background in science, your current position, and what interested you about neuroscience initially?

I trained in health and biomedical sciences, and during that time I became increasingly interested in how neurological changes translate into cognitive decline and functional impairment. I was particularly drawn to dementia research because of its wide impact on individuals and families, and the urgent need for earlier and more accurate detection methods.

I am currently completing my DPhil at the University of Oxford, where my doctoral research focuses on blood based biomarkers for early detection and risk stratification in dementia. Alongside my PhD, I contribute to several large scale studies within the department, including the FAST Brain Health study and Great Minds, and I also support clinical trials such as ISAP and other ongoing research programmes. My work spans biomarker implementation, multi-site coordination, and translational research delivery.

In addition to my core doctoral project, I am leading related studies under my supervisors’ guidance, exploring speech and olfactory markers as complementary tools for early detection. I am particularly interested in how multimodal approaches - combining biological, behavioural, and digital signals - can improve sensitivity, while remaining scalable and feasible in real world settings.

What initially drew me to neuroscience was the challenge of linking biological mechanisms to clinical outcomes. What has kept me in the field is the translational potential. Conditions such as Alzheimer's disease are often identified at relatively late stages, and I am motivated by research that aims to shift detection earlier, in a way that is scientifically robust, but also practical and implementable.

You’ve been described as having navigated aspects of your academic journey with additional structural challenges. How has this shaped your ambitions, resilience, and the way you approach opportunities in academia? Would you consider your background to be underprivileged in this context?

I wouldn’t necessarily describe my background as underprivileged in the “conventional” sense. I grew up in a stable family environment, where education was prioritised, and I was given autonomy from a very young age to make my own decisions. That early independence shaped my confidence, sense of responsibility, and willingness to take ownership of my path. 

At the same time, pursuing an academic career internationally does come with distinct structural challenges. Moving from India to the UK meant navigating differences in funding systems, currency value, visa processes, and professional networks. I chose to finance my education through an educational loan, because I wanted to pursue this journey on my own terms and without placing financial responsibility on my family. That decision required long-term planning and accountability, and it has influenced how deliberately I approach opportunities.

Resilience for me has therefore been shaped, less by hardship, and more by responsibility and adaptability - learning to operate within unfamiliar systems, building networks from scratch, and steadily creating opportunities through sustained effort.

I have also been fortunate to receive strong mentorship along the way. Prof Ivan Koychev has been consistently supportive and has done his utmost to ensure that complex research and clinical environments remain structured and navigable. That kind of mentorship can significantly ease the transition into demanding academic spaces and has played an important role in my professional development.

Overall, my ambitions are driven by intellectual curiosity and impact, rather than circumstance. But navigating international academia has certainly strengthened my independence, strategic thinking, and awareness of how structural factors influence access to opportunity. Those experiences have made me particularly intentional about contributing to research environments that are rigorous, supportive, and accessible to others.

Your PhD integrates speech, olfactory, blood, and free-speech biomarkers to develop novel tools for dementia detection. Can you explain this in a bit more detail please? What do you see as the biggest potential impact of speech-based biomarkers in dementia research?

My doctoral research primarily focuses on blood based biomarkers for early detection and risk stratification in dementia. Blood biomarkers are particularly promising because they are minimally invasive, increasingly reliable, and have real potential to be integrated into routine clinical workflows. They allow us to detect biological changes associated with conditions such as Alzheimer's disease before significant clinical symptoms become apparent.

Alongside this, under my supervisors’ guidance, I am leading complementary projects exploring speech and olfactory markers as additional early indicators. Dementia develops gradually over many years and affects multiple biological and functional systems, meaning different signals may become detectable at different stages of the disease process, and relying on one modality risks missing subtle or atypical presentations. Integrating biological, behavioural, and sensory data therefore has the potential to improve sensitivity and create a more robust and clinically useful stratification pathway.

One of the key motivations behind this work is accessibility. Many individuals, particularly those in remote areas or in middle and low income countries, may not have timely access to specialist investigations. Others may not seek medical attention until symptoms are more advanced due to lack of awareness or healthcare infrastructure. Tools such as speech and olfactory monitoring offer the possibility of low cost, repeatable, and remote assessment.

I am particularly interested in developing stratification pathways where individuals can be monitored longitudinally based on their medical history and individual risk profile. Subtle changes in speech patterns or olfactory function could act as early signals, prompting more targeted biological testing when necessary. This layered model could help prioritise resources efficiently while expanding reach beyond traditional clinical settings.

The greatest potential impact of speech based biomarkers, in my view, lies in scalability. Natural speech can be collected remotely, repeatedly, and at very low cost. If validated robustly, it could become part of digital monitoring frameworks that allow earlier identification of at risk individuals across diverse healthcare systems. Ultimately, I am interested in building systems that are scientifically rigorous but also feasible, equitable, and globally applicable.

You led the set-up of UK research sites for the FAST Brain Health study - an enormous logistical and scientific undertaking. Can you tell us a bit more about this study? What were the biggest challenges, and what did you learn about leadership through that process?

The FAST Brain Health study is a large multi-site observational programme which aims to better understand dementia risk and progression. We combine the evaluation of blood-based biomarkers alongside digital and cognitive assessments. The study runs under the framework of Dementias Platform UK (DPUK), which provides national infrastructure and coordination to support large scale dementia research across the UK.

A significant part of my role involved leading the national site set-up and ongoing coordination. At present, 29 sites are actively recruiting, 8 have completed recruitment, and 6 additional sites are in the pipeline. Establishing and sustaining this network required navigating regulatory approvals, conducting feasibility assessments, training site teams, standardising biomarker collection procedures, and continuously monitoring performance to ensure consistency and data quality.

One of the main challenges was maintaining uniformity across diverse clinical environments. Each site operates within its own constraints, including staffing capacity and local infrastructure. Ensuring that scientific standards were upheld consistently across all locations required detailed procedural frameworks, clear communication, and sustained support. Balancing recruitment momentum with methodological rigour was also critical, particularly in a study operating at national scale.

Importantly, this has very much been a team effort. I have worked closely with dedicated colleagues such as Nishat Tahira and Shivani Suresh, alongside the wider FAST network of site investigators, research nurses, coordinators, and the supportive DPUK team. Large scale research delivery depends on collective effort, and the collaborative culture within FAST has been central to its progress.

Through this experience, I learned that leadership in research delivery is less about authority and more about coordination, foresight, and trust. It involves anticipating bottlenecks, supporting teams proactively, and maintaining consistency across diverse environments. The process deepened my understanding of how infrastructure and coordination directly shape scientific validity and long term impact. It also reinforced how large scale studies require constant calibration between pace, precision, and participant experience, and how scientific ambition must be matched by robust systems and collaborative culture in order to succeed at scale.

You also manage the Great Minds trial-ready cohort. What does this involve and how will it  aid early-phase dementia research?

The Great Minds register is a trial ready research cohort designed to connect individuals interested in brain health with dementia studies across the UK. It currently includes more than 13,000 volunteers who have chosen to contribute to advancing research in cognitive ageing and dementia.

Participants complete structured online cognitive assessments and health questionnaires longitudinally, allowing us to monitor changes in brain health over time. In addition, we collect saliva samples for genotyping and actigraphy data, creating a well characterised participant profile that supports targeted recruitment into downstream studies and clinical trials.

A key strength of Great Minds is matched recontact. Based on an individual’s medical history and risk factors, participants can be invited to take part in studies that are appropriate for them, which helps accelerate early phase research and reduce recruitment bottlenecks.

By building a more comprehensive and continuously evolving profile of participants, the register supports future studies, particularly those with specific recruitment criteria that can otherwise be difficult to meet. The register is open to anyone aged 18 or over, enabling individuals to engage proactively with brain health research at different stages of life (if you are interested, join here).

As part of your work with the Great Minds register, you contribute to public engagement events for participants. What motivates this connection with the public, and what impact have you seen from these events?

As part of the Great Minds register, we want to keep participants informed about emerging developments in brain health and dementia research. The aim is to ensure that research remains a two way conversation rather than a one sided process.

These events recognise that our studies are only possible because of the generosity of volunteers. Participants are not simply data contributors, they are partners in research. Providing a space where they can hear about scientific progress, ask questions, and understand how their involvement contributes to wider advances helps build trust and transparency.

The response has been very encouraging. Attendance has grown steadily, discussions are thoughtful, and participants consistently express appreciation for being kept informed. It reinforces the idea that inclusive research is not only about who we recruit, but about how we engage and communicate throughout the research journey.

How do you manage your Research Assistant role alongside being an Honorary Assistant Psychologist and a DPhil student? How do you split your time week by week?

An Honorary Research Assistant position involves contributing to specific research projects in an unpaid capacity, as part of my broader role within the department. Alongside this, I also work as a Research Assistant in a paid capacity.

Before starting my DPhil, I worked as a full time Research Assistant within the same department. When I began my doctorate, I transitioned into a part-time paid role so that I could continue contributing to the projects and teams I had been closely involved with, while also maintaining some honorary involvement where relevant.

I was more actively engaged in the honorary aspects of my role prior to starting the DPhil. Since beginning my doctoral research, my priorities have naturally shifted, but I continue to support ongoing work where possible.

Week to week, my DPhil research forms the intellectual core of my work, particularly my focus on blood-based biomarkers in dementia. My paid Research Assistant role involves study coordination, cross site communication, and data oversight. The honorary contributions are more flexible and project specific, fitting around key milestones and quieter periods.

Managing these responsibilities has required careful prioritisation, transparent communication, and a strong sense of accountability to the teams and participants involved. Over time, I have become more deliberate about aligning my commitments with areas where I can contribute most effectively while maintaining depth and quality in my doctoral work.

What would you say your most enjoyable aspects of your current job are, and what are the most challenging aspects?

I genuinely enjoy the parts of the job that feel closest to the science itself: clinical interactions, lab work, and the more strategic elements of study coordination. There is something very grounding about being in a clinic room with a participant, and equally satisfying about working through samples in the lab. I also enjoy thinking about how systems can run more smoothly, how sites can be supported, and how complex projects can be organised more efficiently. When multiple moving parts begin to align, it is deeply satisfying.

I am also very goal driven. I tend to set weekly, monthly, and even yearly targets for myself. Planning my week carefully and then completing tasks ahead of the timelines I have set is something I genuinely enjoy. It feels a bit like constructive competition with myself - constantly asking how I can improve processes, be more efficient, or deliver slightly better than expected. That structure keeps me focused and motivated.

If I am being completely honest, the least enjoyable aspect is administrative paperwork. Governance documents and compliance forms are essential, but they rarely spark the same enthusiasm as analysing data or engaging with participants. That said, I recognise that rigorous administration underpins credible science, so I approach it as part of maintaining high standards, even if spreadsheets are not quite as exciting as biomarkers.

Your nominator highlights your determination and the way you leverage your experiences to build more inclusive research environments. What does inclusive research look like to you in practice?

To me, inclusive research is not just about representation in recruitment numbers, it is about accessibility, transparency, and design.

In practice, that means thinking carefully about who can realistically take part in research and who might be unintentionally excluded. Are study visits geographically accessible? Are assessments culturally and linguistically appropriate? Are we designing tools that only work in highly resourced clinical settings, or can they be used in remote areas and lower resource contexts as well?

Much of my interest in digital biomarkers, speech analysis, and remote monitoring stems from this. If we can develop tools that allow people to be stratified and monitored from their homes, based on medical history and risk profiles, we reduce barriers related to geography, mobility, awareness, and even stigma. That is particularly important not only in the UK, but in middle and lower income settings where specialist memory clinics may not be easily accessible.

Inclusion also means partnership. Through initiatives like the Great Minds register and participant engagement events, we aim to ensure that volunteers understand how their data are being used and feel valued in the process. Trust is fundamental to sustainable research.

Ultimately, inclusive research is about designing systems that work for a broader spectrum of people from the outset, rather than trying to retrofit inclusion later.

Which female-identifying people in your life inspire you, both in neuroscience and beyond?

I have been fortunate to be surrounded by strong and thoughtful women, both personally and professionally.

In neuroscience and academic medicine, I am inspired by the women I work and collaborate with who demonstrate intellectual rigour, decisiveness, and strategic clarity in their leadership. Many of the most influential scientific contributions in history have been made by women whose work was not always fully recognised at the time. Acknowledging history is important, as it reinforces that excellence in science has never been limited by gender, even if recognition has sometimes been uneven.

On a personal level, my mother has been one of my greatest influences. Observing her approach each day with discipline, resilience, and clarity of purpose shaped my understanding of responsibility and self direction. Her steady support gave me the confidence to take risks and pursue ambitious goals. Knowing she would always be there provided the security that allowed me to make mistakes and grow from them. That foundation has influenced the way I approach both life and research.

A particularly meaningful moment for me was receiving the WiNUK award with her present in the audience. Having her there felt like a full circle experience - a reminder that visible achievements are often supported by years of unseen encouragement.

More broadly, I am inspired by women across the world who continue to pursue excellence, contribute meaningfully to their fields, and shape their communities, often navigating complex social and professional landscapes in the process. Their ability to move forward with determination and composure, regardless of context, is something I deeply respect.

What goals do you have for your career? Where do you see yourself in the next few years professionally?

In the next few years, my primary goal is to complete my DPhil with strong methodological depth and clear translational relevance. I want to continue strengthening my expertise in biologically grounded research, particularly in areas that improve early detection and mechanistic understanding of disease.

Longer term, I hope to build an academic career that allows me to pursue rigorous, question-driven research within collaborative scientific environments. I am especially interested in approaching complex diseases from an integrated biological perspective, recognising that meaningful progress often comes from examining interacting systems rather than isolated markers. As I progress, I would value the opportunity to take on increasing academic responsibility, combining independent research with collaboration and teaching.

I also genuinely enjoy teaching and mentoring. Supporting students and early career researchers, and helping translate complex biological concepts into clear understanding, is something I find deeply rewarding. Ideally, I would like to combine active research with academic teaching, contributing both to scientific discovery and to training the next generation of researchers.

Ultimately, I hope to work within research environments that are rigorous, biologically driven, and collaborative, where innovation and mentorship develop alongside one another.

And finally, congratulations on your win at the WiNUK awards event. How did you feel to receive the research support award and how do you think the award will shape your work moving forward?

Thank you, it was both surprising and deeply affirming. I am deeply grateful for this recognition and for the support and guidance that have brought me here. Receiving the award felt like acknowledgment not only of outcomes, but of the sustained effort behind the scenes. Moving forward, it strengthens my sense of responsibility, motivating me to continue building research systems that are efficient, inclusive, and impactful. It also encourages me to mentor and support others entering research roles, particularly those navigating complex pathways into academia.

Connect with Dishaa Sinha:

• LinkedIn: Dishaa Sinha

• X: @SinhaDishaa

---

This interview was conducted by Rebecca Pope and edited by Clarise Castleman, with graphics produced by Georgie Savastano and Rebecca Pope. If you enjoyed this article, be the first to be notified about new posts by signing up to become a WiNUK member (top right of this page)! Interested in writing for WiNUK yourself? Contact us through the blog page and the editors will be in touch.