Collecting and Acquiring in Earnest (The 14th Annual Health Sciences Lively Lunch)

In this year\u27s sponsored but no holds barred lunch, host Wendy Bahnsen (substituting for colleague Nicole Gallo) offered a brief greeting, and Ramune Kubilius provided the traditional “year in review” synopsis of developments since the last Charleston Conference. Panelists then shared insights and led discussion on earnest attempts to meet users’ information needs and satisfy administrations’ budget and other expectations. No matter how information has become repackaged, two formats remain important in health sciences communication: books and journals (articles). Speakers focused on library experiments with these formats. Is PDA a solution? Bahnsen contributed highlights and findings from a survey by Rittenhouse on health sciences customers’ experience with the R2 PDA program. Yumin Jiang shared some impressions on the experience of her institution with a few e‐book PDA/DDA (patron‐driven or demand‐driven acquisition) packages. Suggestions were made about best practices in e‐book collection building with PDA programs. What conclusions can be reached from experimentation with and implementation of on‐demand article acquisitions? Emma O\u27Hagan shared insights and experience with journal article “on demand” and “pay per view” services at two institutions. Andrea Twiss‐Brooks fielded questions and moderated discussion with session participants about the services and programs described by panelists, ranging from discussion about specific programs and models to broader collection and service implications

Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty

This study explores how researchers’ analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers’ expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team’s workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers’ results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings

Aggressiveness of 'true' interval invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast in postmenopausal women

There is debate whether interval carcinomas differ from screen-detected tumours biologically. In this study, clinico-pathological parameters and the expression of well-validated biological markers were compared between 'true' interval carcinomas and screen-detected/missed carcinomas hypothesising that 'true' interval carcinomas show a more aggressive biological behaviour. The study group consisted of 92 consecutive postmenopausal women attending the breast screening programme and presenting with an invasive ductal carcinoma. All screening mammograms were re-reviewed. Sixteen patients had a 'true' interval carcinoma. Seven carcinomas were missed at screening, but detected on re-reviewing of the screening mammogram. Radiological characteristics were assessed from diagnostic mammograms. Data on patient-and tumour characteristics and follow-up data were recorded from hospital records. Median follow-up was 61 months. Immunohistochemistry for ER, PR, Her2/neu and p53 was performed on TMA sections. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. In univariate analysis, 'true' interval carcinomas were significantly larger (odd ratios (OR) 7.2, 95% CI 1.8-28.1) and less frequently ER (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.9) and PR (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-1.0) positive. In multivariate analysis, 'true' interval carcinoma was independently associated with larger tumours (OR 7.0, 95% CI 1.4-36.2). A trend toward ER negativity was found (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-1.1). 'True' interval carcinomas showed a trend toward a decreased relapse-free survival (HR 1.7 95% CI 0.9-3.1). Although 'true' interval carcinomas were significantly larger than screen-detected/missed interval carcinomas, it remains challenging to observe parameters that determine this difference between 'true' interval carcinomas and screen-detected lesions. Modern Pathology (2010) 23, 629-636; doi:10.1038/modpathol.2009.188; published online 15 January 2010