Reexamining the Relationship Between Shift Work and Health Behavior: Do Fluid Intelligence, Socio-economic Status, and Self-control Moderate the Relation?

In contemporary research, the link between shift work and health has received empirical support. Contrary to the well-established association between shift work and adverse health outcomes, literature on the link between shift work and various negative health-related behavior patterns is limited to a rather small number of studies revealing inconsistent results. This is problematic since it is assumed that shift work affects health outcomes via the effect of health behavior. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between shift work and select indicators of health behavior (namely, smoking, alcohol consumption, and preventive health care) as well as subjective health in a large representative German sample. In the light of inconsistent previous findings in the field, we further examined potential moderators (namely, fluid intelligence, socio-economic status, and self-control). Results are based on data from 2,590 participants. We conducted multiple regression analyses as well as mean-differences analyses. Our results suggest that shift work had no direct mean effect on health-related behavior patterns. Moreover, fluid intelligence, socio-economic status, and self-control did not moderate any effects. In accordance with the findings regarding objective health indicators, shift and day workers did not differ in the subjective perception of their health. These findings inform future research and potential interventions that should aim at fostering a healthier lifestyle not only among shift workers

Selective or random panel dropout? An investigation of personality and relationship parameters

Klatzka C, Baum MA, Hahn E. Selective or random panel dropout? An investigation of personality and relationship parameters. TwinLife Working Paper Series. Vol 03. Bielefeld: Project TwinLife "Genetic and social causes of life chances" (Universität Bielefeld / Universität des Saarlandes); 2019.In social sciences, longitudinal studies represent a common form of study design. However, this form of data collection may face the special problem of panel attrition over subsequent waves – a circumstance that can lead to a biased sample. As a consequence, longitudinal analyses may become flawed if the bias is unknown or not corrected. Previous research on panel attrition revealed that dropout can be related to several specific characteristics, such as sex, personality, or relationship status of the participants. As twins are a core feature of twin-studies – twin similarity a key tool in behavioral genetics – relational characteristics of this special siblinghood may play a crucial role in re-participating, too. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate panel attrition with respect to certain personality traits (Big Five) and relational characteristics (sibling relationship and satisfaction with sibling relationship) to estimate potential biases as a basis for corrections in future studies. Analyses were not only performed on an individual level but also regarding twin pair resemblance as this is the main source of information in behavior genetic twin studies. The sample consisted of 4,097 twin pairs and 8,281 of their family members from wave one of the German TwinLife study. 60.9 % of the initial sample re-participated in wave 2. Results indicate that there are no consistent patterns in personality or relational characteristics across family members, age cohorts of the twins, and sexes regarding panel attrition. There also seem to be no consistent patterns regarding differences in twin similarity across re- and non-re-participators. Subsequently, selective panel dropout with respect to personal characteristics seems to be of minor importance in the TwinLife study and corrections may only be necessary in selective cases

The first author takes it all? Solutions for crediting authors more visibly, transparently, and free of bias

With the seventh edition of the publication manual of the American Psychological Association (APA), the APA style now prescribes bias-free language and encourages accessibility even to non-academic audiences. However, even with the newest guidelines, the way we credit authors in psychology remains anachronistic, intransparent, and prone to conflict. It still relies on a sequence-determines-credit approach in the byline, which concurrently is contradicted by the option to consider the last author as the position of the principal investigator depending on the field or journal. Scholars from various disciplines have argued that relying on such norms introduces a considerable amount of error when stakeholders rely on articles for career-relevant decisions. Given the existing recommendations towards a credit-based system, ignoring those issues will further promote bias that could be avoided with rather minor changes to the way we perceive authorship. In this article, we introduce a set of easy-to-implement changes to the manuscript layout that value contribution rather than position. Aimed at fostering transparency, accountability, and equality between authors, establishing those changes would likely benefit all stakeholders in contemporary psychological science

Automated detection and staging of malaria parasites from cytological smears using convolutional neural networks

Microscopic examination of blood smears remains the gold standard for laboratory inspection and diagnosis of malaria. Smear inspection is, however, time-consuming and dependent on trained microscopists with results varying in accuracy. We sought to develop an automated image analysis method to improve accuracy and standardization of smear inspection that retains capacity for expert confirmation and image archiving. Here, we present a machine learning method that achieves red blood cell (RBC) detection, differentiation between infected/uninfected cells, and parasite life stage categorization from unprocessed, heterogeneous smear images. Based on a pretrained Faster Region-Based Convolutional Neural Networks (R-CNN) model for RBC detection, our model performs accurately, with an average precision of 0.99 at an intersection-over-union threshold of 0.5. Application of a residual neural network-50 model to infected cells also performs accurately, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.98. Finally, combining our method with a regression model successfully recapitulates intraerythrocytic developmental cycle with accurate lifecycle stage categorization. Combined with a mobile-friendly web-based interface, called PlasmoCount, our method permits rapid navigation through and review of results for quality assurance. By standardizing assessment of Giemsa smears, our method markedly improves inspection reproducibility and presents a realistic route to both routine lab and future field-based automated malaria diagnosis

Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship

Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: A critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (i) students' scientific literacies (i.e. students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science and the development of transferable skills); (ii) student engagement (i.e. motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration and engagement in open research) and (iii) students' attitudes towards science (i.e. trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship

Teaching open and reproducible scholarship: a critical review of the evidence base for current pedagogical methods and their outcomes

In recent years, the scientific community has called for improvements in the credibility, robustness, and reproducibility of research, characterized by increased interest and promotion of open and transparent research practices. While progress has been positive, there is a lack of consideration about how this approach can be embedded into undergraduate and postgraduate research training. Specifically, a critical overview of the literature which investigates how integrating open and reproducible science may influence student outcomes is needed. In this paper, we provide the first critical review of literature surrounding the integration of open and reproducible scholarship into teaching and learning and its associated outcomes in students. Our review highlighted how embedding open and reproducible scholarship appears to be associated with (1) students’ scientific literacies (i.e., students’ understanding of open research, consumption of science, and the development of transferable skills); (2) student engagement (i.e., motivation and engagement with learning, collaboration, and engagement in open research), and (3) students’ attitudes towards science (i.e., trust in science and confidence in research findings). However, our review also identified a need for more robust and rigorous methods within pedagogical research, including more interventional and experimental evaluations of teaching practice. We discuss implications for teaching and learning scholarship

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication