What you can do with Coordinated Samples

Sample coordination, where similar instances have similar samples, was proposed by statisticians four decades ago as a way to maximize overlap in repeated surveys. Coordinated sampling had been since used for summarizing massive data sets. The usefulness of a sampling scheme hinges on the scope and accuracy within which queries posed over the original data can be answered from the sample. We aim here to gain a fundamental understanding of the limits and potential of coordination. Our main result is a precise characterization, in terms of simple properties of the estimated function, of queries for which estimators with desirable properties exist. We consider unbiasedness, nonnegativity, finite variance, and bounded estimates. Since generally a single estimator can not be optimal (minimize variance simultaneously) for all data, we propose {\em variance competitiveness}, which means that the expectation of the square on any data is not too far from the minimum one possible for the data. Surprisingly perhaps, we show how to construct, for any function for which an unbiased nonnegative estimator exists, a variance competitive estimator.Comment: 4 figures, 21 pages, Extended Abstract appeared in RANDOM 201

GENETIC COUNSELOR UTILIZATION AND INTERPRETATION OF SOMATIC TUMOR TESTING IN EVALUATION FOR LYNCH SYNDROME

Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome characterized by increased risk for colorectal and uterine cancers. Individuals with pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes (MLH1, MSH2/EPCAM, MSH6, PMS2) are diagnosed with LS and subsequently recommended to proceed with high risk screening protocols to increase prevention and early detection of LS-related cancers. Various tumor studies can help identify those at high risk for LS, but sometimes create uncertainty with discordant screening and germline results, leading to unexplained mismatch repair deficiency (UMMRD). Somatic testing of the MMR genes has created opportunities for resolving UMMRD, thus clarifying LS status and ensuring appropriate cancer surveillance. However, guidelines for such testing are currently limited. The purpose of this study was to examine current and hypothetical ordering practices of cancer genetic counselors for LS evaluation and to investigate participants’ interpretation of somatic MMR testing results. Two-hundred eligible participants were recruited through the National Society of Genetic Counselors listserv and answered questions regarding demographics, ordering practices, barriers to somatic MMR testing, theoretical patient scenarios, and need for further guidelines. Statistical analysis was done using Chi-square, Fisher exact, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests while themes were identified from free-text responses. Most respondents did not include somatic MMR testing in the work-up for LS and did not routinely order this testing, but indicated interest in ordering this in conjunction with germline testing. The gap between preferred testing strategies and current ordering practices for somatic MMR testing may be due to reported laboratory and insurance-related barriers, particularly cost and coordination of tissue specimens. Nearly all individuals endorsed the need for additional guidelines for somatic MMR testing, which could provide support to reduce barriers, encourage insurance coverage, and allow for appropriate screening recommendations for patients and family members of those with UMMRD

The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) : development and UK validation

Background There is increasing international interest in the concept of mental well-being and its contribution to all aspects of human life. Demand for instruments to monitor mental well-being at a population level and evaluate mental health promotion initiatives is growing. This article describes the development and validation of a new scale, comprised only of positively worded items relating to different aspects of positive mental health: the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS). Methods WEMWBS was developed by an expert panel drawing on current academic literature, qualitative research with focus groups, and psychometric testing of an existing scale. It was validated on a student and representative population sample. Content validity was assessed by reviewing the frequency of complete responses and the distribution of responses to each item. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the hypothesis that the scale measured a single construct. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Criterion validity was explored in terms of correlations between WEMWBS and other scales and by testing whether the scale discriminated between population groups in line with pre-specified hypotheses. Test-retest reliability was assessed at one week using intra-class correlation coefficients. Susceptibility to bias was measured using the Balanced Inventory of Desired Responding. Results WEMWBS showed good content validity. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the single factor hypothesis. A Cronbach's alpha score of 0.89 (student sample) and 0.91 (population sample) suggests some item redundancy in the scale. WEMWBS showed high correlations with other mental health and well-being scales and lower correlations with scales measuring overall health. Its distribution was near normal and the scale did not show ceiling effects in a population sample. It discriminated between population groups in a way that is largely consistent with the results of other population surveys. Test-retest reliability at one week was high (0.83). Social desirability bias was lower or similar to that of other comparable scales. Conclusion WEMWBS is a measure of mental well-being focusing entirely on positive aspects of mental health. As a short and psychometrically robust scale, with no ceiling effects in a population sample, it offers promise as a tool for monitoring mental well-being at a population level. Whilst WEMWBS should appeal to those evaluating mental health promotion initiatives, it is important that the scale's sensitivity to change is established before it is recommended in this context

'Workshop for Nagoya Protocol and Plant Treaty National Focal Points in Latin America and the Caribbean’

The capacity-building Workshop for National Focal Points in Latin America and the Caribbean on Mutually Supportive Implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, was held 25-28 September 2018 at the International Potato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru. The workshop was attended by over 60 participants, including National Focal Points for the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources (CBD) for Food and Agriculture (Plant Treaty), from 16 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. The workshop was also attended by representatives from the Secretariats of the Plant Treaty and CBD, the International Seed Federation, farmer and indigenous peoples organizations, national and international agricultural research organizations and experts from the region who have been working for decades on access and benefit-sharing policy issues. The objectives of the workshop were to: 1. Strengthen network ties between National Focal Points within each country and across the regions; 2. Analyse challenges and opportunities for implementing the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol in a mutually supportive manner, and in ways that advance complementary policy goals, such as climate change adaptation, and improving the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities; 3. Equip participants with tools to help address ‘real life’ scenarios where mutually supportive implementation is important, and 4. Identify the kinds of additional support that countries need to implement the Plant Treaty and Nagoya Protocol in mutually supportive ways

Perspectives on Deepening Teachers’ Mathematics Content Knowledge: The Case of the Oregon Mathematics Leadership Institute

The Oregon Mathematics Leadership Institute (OMLI) project served 180 Oregon teachers, and 90 administrators, across the K-12 grades from ten partner districts. OMLI offered a residential, three-week summer institute. Over the course of three consecutive summers, teachers were immersed in a total of six mathematics content classes– Algebra, Data & Chance, Discrete Mathematics, Geometry, Measurement & Change, and Number & Operations—along with an annual collegial leadership course. Each content class was designed and taught by a team of expert faculty from universities, community colleges, and K-12 districts. Each team chose a few “big ideas” on which to focus the course. For example, the Algebra team focused on algebraic structure and properties of the concept of a group, while the Data & Chance team centered their activities on the exploration of ideas of central tendency and variation using statistics and data analysis software packages. The content in all of the courses was addressed through deep investigation of the mathematics of tasks that had been selected and adapted from resources for K-12 mathematics classrooms. In addition to mathematics content, the courses were designed with specific attention to socio-mathematical norms, issues of status differences among learners, and the selection and implementation of group-worthy tasks for group work. The faculty attended sessions grounded in the work of Elizabeth Cohen on strategies for working with heterogeneous groups of learners (Cohen, 1994; Cohen et al, 1999) which was central to the OMLI design and implementation. Institute faculty modeled these strategies in the Institute classrooms and made their moves as transparent as possible, so that the teachers would be able to grapple with these strategies during the Institute and plan for implementation in their own classrooms. The Data & Chance course also modeled uses of technology in instruction using Tinkerplots. Generalization and justification were emphasized as mathematical ways of learning and knowing, and institute faculty conducted classroom discussions that intentionally modeled pushing for generalization and justification