To Boldly Go Beyond Downloads: How are Journal Articles Shared and Used?

With more scholarly journals being distributed electronically rather than in print form, we know that researchers download many articles. What is less well known is how journal articles are used after they are initially downloaded. To what extent are they saved, uploaded, tweeted, or otherwise shared? How does this reuse increase their total use and value to research and how does it influence library usage figures? University of Tennessee Chancellor’s Professor Carol Tenopir, Professor Suzie Allard, and Adjunct Professor David Nicholas are leading a team of international researchers on a the project, “Beyond Downloads,” funded by a grant from Elsevier. The project will look at how and why scholarly electronic articles are downloaded, saved, and shared by researchers. Sharing in today’s digital environment may include links posted on social media, like Twitter, and in blogs or via e‐mail. Having a realistic estimate of this secondary use will help provide a more accurate picture of the total use of scholarly articles. The speakers will present the objectives of the study, share the approach and avenues of exploration, and report on some preliminary findings. Furthermore, the speakers will discuss how the potential learnings could yield benefits to the library community

The Secret Life of Articles: From Download Metrics to Downstream Impact

Traditional citation and download metrics have long been the standard by which we measure the use and value of scholarly articles. However, these methods neglect the usage and real‐world impact of newer technologies to access, store, and share downloaded scholarly articles. This session’s speakers will share the results of interviews, focus groups, and an international survey with 1,000 scholars to investigate the ways in which they now access, store, share, and use downloaded scholarly articles. By identifying and measuring what traditional metrics fail to examine, the Beyond Downloads project attempts to capture a more complete picture of the use and value of scholarly articles, which is critical for librarians, publishers, and vendors to understand in developing scholarly tools and services. Complete usage can no longer be measured by traditional means alone. The speakers will discuss the findings of their research and the implications for metrics that take into account scholars’ changing access, reading, and sharing behaviors

Early career researchers in the pandemic-fashioned ‘new scholarly normality’: a first look into the big changes and long-lasting impacts (international analysis)

After two-years of repeat interviewing around 170 early career science/social science researchers from China, France, Malaysia, Poland, Russia, Spain, UK and US about their work life and scholarly communications in pandemic-times, the Harbingers project is now in possession of a mountain of data on what constitutes a very important academic topic. The purpose of the paper is to share the early highlights of the data, with a focus on the main and lasting impacts of the pandemic. The data presented comes from the national interviewers, who had conducted 3 rounds of interviews with their 20 or so early career researchers (ECRs) over two years and, thus, knew them well. They were asked to provide an ‘aerial view’ by identifying the most important impacts they had detected while things were still fresh in their minds. The main findings are that: 1) ECRs, the research workhorses, have generally proved to be resilient and perseverant and some have prospered; 2) the pandemic has fast-tracked researchers to a virtual and remote scholarly world, with all the advantages and disadvantages that comes with it. The data, however, is nuanced, with significant differences occurring between countries, especially China and France. The paper also updates a literature review on the topic previously published in this journal

Visualising harms in publications of randomised controlled trials: consensus and recommendations

OBJECTIVE: To improve communication of harm in publications of randomised controlled trials via the development of recommendations for visually presenting harm outcomes. DESIGN: Consensus study. SETTING: 15 clinical trials units registered with the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, an academic population health department, Roche Products, and The BMJ. PARTICIPANTS: Experts in clinical trials: 20 academic statisticians, one industry statistician, one academic health economist, one data graphics designer, and two clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME: measures A methodological review of statistical methods identified visualisations along with those recommended by consensus group members. Consensus on visual recommendations was achieved (at least 60% of the available votes) over a series of three meetings with participants. The participants reviewed and critically appraised candidate visualisations against an agreed framework and voted on whether to endorse each visualisation. Scores marginally below this threshold (50-60%) were revisited for further discussions and votes retaken until consensus was reached. RESULTS: 28 visualisations were considered, of which 10 are recommended for researchers to consider in publications of main research findings. The choice of visualisations to present will depend on outcome type (eg, binary, count, time-to-event, or continuous), and the scenario (eg, summarising multiple emerging events or one event of interest). A decision tree is presented to assist trialists in deciding which visualisations to use. Examples are provided of each endorsed visualisation, along with an example interpretation, potential limitations, and signposting to code for implementation across a range of standard statistical software. Clinician feedback was incorporated into the explanatory information provided in the recommendations to aid understanding and interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Visualisations provide a powerful tool to communicate harms in clinical trials, offering an alternative perspective to the traditional frequency tables. Increasing the use of visualisations for harm outcomes in clinical trial manuscripts and reports will provide clearer presentation of information and enable more informative interpretations. The limitations of each visualisation are discussed and examples of where their use would be inappropriate are given. Although the decision tree aids the choice of visualisation, the statistician and clinical trial team must ultimately decide the most appropriate visualisations for their data and objectives. Trialists should continue to examine crude numbers alongside visualisations to fully understand harm profiles

Impaired mismatch negativity to frequency deviants in individuals at ultra-high risk for psychosis, and preliminary evidence for further impairment with transition to psychosis

© 2018 Elsevier BV. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Background There is evidence to suggest that people with established psychotic disorders show impairments in the mismatch negativity induced by a frequency-deviant sound (fMMN), and that these impairments worsen with the deterioration of psychotic symptoms. This study aimed to test whether individuals at ultra-high risk (UHR) for psychosis show pre-morbid impairments in fMMN, and if so, whether fMMN continues to deteriorate with transition to psychosis. Method fMMN was recorded in a cohort of UHR individuals (n = 42) and compared to healthy controls (n = 29). Of the 27 UHR participants who returned for a second EEG session, six participants had transitioned to psychosis by 12-month follow-up (UHR-T) and were compared to the 21 participants who did not transition (UHR-NT). Results fMMN amplitude was significantly reduced, relative to healthy controls, in the UHR cohort. Furthermore, UHR-T individuals showed a significant decrease in fMMN amplitude over the period from baseline to post-transition; this reduction was not observed in UHR-NT. Conclusions These results suggest that fMMN is abnormal in UHR individuals, as has repeatedly been found previously in people with established psychotic disorders. The finding that fMMN impairment worsens with transition to psychosis is consistent with the staging model of psychosis; however, caution must be taken in interpreting these findings, given the extremely small sample size of the UHR-T group

The Suspected CANcer (SCAN) pathway::protocol for evaluating a new standard of care for patients with non-specific symptoms of cancer

Introduction Cancer survival in England lags behind most European countries, due partly to lower rates of early stage diagnosis. We report the protocol for the evaluation of a multidisciplinary diagnostic centre-based pathway for the investigation of ‘low-risk but not no-risk’ cancer symptoms called the Suspected CANcer (SCAN) pathway. SCAN is a new standard of care being implemented in Oxfordshire; one of a number of pathways implemented during the second wave of the Accelerate, Coordinate, Evaluate (ACE) programme, an initiative which aims to improve England’s cancer survival rates through establishing effective routes to early diagnosis. Methods and analysis To evaluate SCAN, we are collating a prospective database of patients referred onto the pathway by their general practitioner (GP). Patients aged over 40 years, with non-specific symptoms such as weight loss or fatigue, who do not meet urgent cancer referral criteria or for whom symptom causation remains unclear after investigation via other existing pathways, can be referred to SCAN. SCAN provides rapid CT scanning, laboratory testing and clinic review within 2 weeks. We will follow all patients in the primary and secondary care record for at least 2 years. The data will be used to understand the diagnostic yield of the SCAN pathway in the short term (28 days) and the long term (2 years). Routinely collected primary and secondary care data from patients not referred to SCAN but with similar symptoms will also be used to evaluate SCAN. We will map the routes to diagnosis for patients referred to SCAN to assess cost-effectiveness. Acceptability will be evaluated using patient and GP surveys. Ethics and dissemination The Oxford Joint Research Office Study Classification Group has judged this to be a service evaluation and so outside of research governance. The results of this project will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publication and presentation at conferences

Combination of Sleeping Beauty transposition and chemically induced dimerization selection for robust production of engineered cells

The main methods for producing genetically engineered cells use viral vectors for which safety issues and manufacturing costs remain a concern. In addition, selection of desired cells typically relies on the use of cytotoxic drugs with long culture times. Here, we introduce an efficient non-viral approach combining the Sleeping Beauty (SB) Transposon System with selective proliferation of engineered cells by chemically induced dimerization (CID) of growth factor receptors. Minicircles carrying a SB transposon cassette containing a reporter transgene and a gene for the F36VFGFR1 fusion protein were delivered to the hematopoietic cell line Ba/F3. Stably-transduced Ba/F3 cell populations with >98% purity were obtained within 1 week using this positive selection strategy. Copy number analysis by quantitative PCR (qPCR) revealed that CID-selected cells contain on average higher copy numbers of transgenes than flow cytometry-selected cells, demonstrating selective advantage for cells with multiple transposon insertions. A diverse population of cells is present both before and after culture in CID media, although site-specific qPCR of transposon junctions show that population diversity is significantly reduced after selection due to preferential expansion of clones with multiple integration events. This non-viral, positive selection approach is an attractive alternative for producing engineered cells

Clinical Performance Status and Technical Factors Affecting Outcomes from Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Interventions; A Multicentre, Prospective, Observational Cohort Study.

Funder: British Society of Interventional RadiologyPURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of a 'Modified Karnofsky Scoring System' on outcomes and provide real-world data regarding the UK practice of biliary interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective multi-centred cohort study was performed. The pre-procedure modified Karnofsky score, the incidence of sepsis, complications, biochemical improvement and mortality were recorded out to 30 days post procedure. RESULTS: A total of 292 patients (248 with malignant lesions) were suitable for inclusion in the study. The overall 7 and 30 day mortality was 3.1% and 16.1%, respectively. The 30 day sepsis rate was 10.3%. In the modified Karnofsky 'high risk' group the 7 day mortality was 9.7% versus 0% for the 'low risk' group (p = 0.002), whereas the 30 day mortality was 28.8% versus 13.3% (p = 0.003). The incidence of sepsis at 30 days was 19% in the high risk group versus 3.3% at the low risk group (p = 0.001) CONCLUSION: Percutaneous biliary interventions in the UK are safe and effective. Scoring systems such as the Karnofsky or the modified Karnofsky score hold promise in allowing us to identify high risk groups that will need more careful consideration and enhanced patient informed consent but further research with larger studies is warranted in order to identify their true impact on patient selection and outcomes post biliary interventions

Visualising harms in Randomised Controlled Trial publications: a consensus and recommendations

Objective: To improve communication of harm in RCT publications we identified researchers’ recommendations for visualising harm outcomes. Design: Consensus study evaluating visualisation methods. Setting: 15 UKCRC registered CTUs, an academic population health department, Roche Product Ltd and the BMJ. Participants: Experts in clinical trials: 20 academic statisticians, one industry statistician, one academic health economist, a data graphics designer and two clinicians. Data sources: Visualisations were primarily identified via a methodological review of statistical methods developed specifically to analyse harm outcomes, these were considered alongside visualisations recommended by consensus group members. Interventions: None Main outcomes measured: Consensus for visualisations to recommend achieved over a series of three meetings with participants. Participants reviewed and critically appraised candidate visualisations against an agreed framework. Appraisals were summarised and presented back to participants to inform discussions. After discussions participants voted on whether to endorse each visualisation. Eligibility criteria: Visualisation receiving at least 60% of the available votes were endorsed. Scores marginally below this threshold (50-60%) were revisited for further discussions and votes retaken until a consensus was reached. Results: Twenty-eight visualisations were considered, of which ten are recommended to researchers to consider in publications of main research findings. The choice of visualisations to present will depend on outcome type e.g., binary, count, time-to-event or continuous and the scenario e.g., summarising multiple emerging events or one event of interest. A decision tree to assist trialists decide which visualisations to use is presented. Examples of each endorsed visualisation, along with example interpretation, potential limitations and signposting to code for implementation across a range of standard statistical software are provided. Clinician feedback was incorporated into the explanatory information provided in the recommendations to aid understanding and interpretation. Conclusions: Visualisations provide a powerful tool to communicate harms in clinical trials, offering an alternative perspective to the traditional frequency tables. Increasing the use of visualisations for harm outcomes in clinical trial manuscripts and reports will provide clearer presentation of harm information and thus enable informative interpretation, especially valuable for assessing the profile of harm. Whilst we endorse each of the visualisations presented, we also note their limitations and provide examples of where their use would be inappropriate. Though the decision tree aids the choice of visualisation the statistician and clinical trial team must ultimately decide the most appropriate visualisations for their data and objectives. We recommend trialists continue to examine crude numbers alongside visualisations to fully understand harm profiles