‘Exosomes’: The Hype, the Chasm, and Beyond

Gartner's Hype Cycle (GHC) is a cornerstone framework for tracking the progression of emerging technologies through five distinct stages (Figure 1 ).The term 'cycle,' derived from 'circle,' suggests a process that conceptually returns to its starting point, evoking repetition, or renewal.This makes GHC a misnomer: it rather models a strictly linear progression of technological maturation that will end in a binary outcome (flourish or perish).Since its inception in 1995, Gartner has published over 130 such analyses annually, offering a structured lens to evaluate, and, to a certain extent predict, technology maturation and adoption.It complements other frameworks, such as Gartner's Impact Radar, Geoffrey Moore's Technology Adoption Life Cycle, and NASA's Technology Readiness Levels, each providing different perspective on innovation dynamics (Moore 1999 , Sadin et al. 1989, Gartner Inc).These tools are primarily meant to guide timely and informed decisions of business strategists on when and if to place their bets on promising and 'hot' technologies, to ensure adequate return on investment.However, they have also been extensively used by scientists and science administrators, particularly in grant applications like the European Innovation Council (EIC) schemes, where demonstrating feasibility and impact is critical.Although science-driven innovation plays an important role in building up the hype and driving technologies through the cycle, the application of the GHC by scientists is not always fully appropriate, often overlooking many 'moving parts' that are essential for the successful transformation of innovation into a marketable product.Analysts themselves are not free of biases.The heavy reliance on GHC and similar frameworks without consideration of other con-textual cues, akin to the overuse of journal impact factors, risks oversimplifying complex technological and scientific progress, prioritizing visibility and hype over substantive evidence and long-term impact.This can lead to skewed priorities, where technologies and authors are judged more on perceived prestige than down-to-earth outcomes.As The Economist critiques, GHC lacks deep historical anchoring or granular analysis of drivers and obstacles, requiring cautious interpretation (The Economist 2024 ).The same article notes that many, if not most, blockbuster technologies didn't travel through a GHC.Although imperfect and somewhat speculative, GHC can be useful for benchmarking of emerging scientific and technology novelties.With such premises, we cared to make a reflection on the applications and applicability of GHC on Extracellular Vesicles (EV) technologies tackled in the Commentary by Salehi et al., ' Extracellular Vesicles and The Gartner Hype Cycle ' (Salehi et al. 2025 ).Why EV Remain Off Gartner's Radars?Salehi et al., propose a long historical EV timeline, dating it back to early 1940s.EVs, as membrane-bound particles released by cells were first characterized in the 1980s (with earlier observations of platelet-derived particles in the 1960s) (Johnstone et al. 1987 , Pan andJohnstone 1983 ).They have certainly come a long way to get acknowledged by vast scientific community to hold transformative potential across healthcare (Zarovni et al. 2021 ).Yet, EV have not appeared on the official GHC or Gartner's Impact Radar, both prioritizing the technologies with 0-10-year market timelines.Several factors may explain this absence.Foremost, EV are often viewed as a field of fundamental research, too niche-confined and still grappling with methodological challenges and fundamental biology, for Natasa Zarovni and Konstantin Glebov are equally contributing corresponding author