Discovery Investigative Group (DIG) Report, December 2016

This report is a response to the following charge from project sponsor DeeAnn Allison: Develop a working definition of the purpose and scope for a discovery tool that includes a description of what it should accomplish. How will it help scholars connect with information? The charge included a request to answer seven questions: 1. What content should be included and why? 2. What functions or search capabilities should be included? 3. What social media enhancements should be included? 4. How can it be structured to help both novice and advanced researchers? 5. Can you identify a “perfect” tool? If not, which ones are better and why? 6. Should we abandon Encore? Why or Why not? 7. What is the relation, or non-relation to Google products? Is a discovery tool just a variation of Google? Should it be? Over the course of the Fall 2016 semester, DIG committee members, comprised of seven Libraries faculty who voluntarily participated, met frequently to discuss the charge and determine how to best answer each question. Our answers were ultimately informed through a combination of reviewing the current literature, investigating peer institutions’ search tools, soliciting feedback from our library colleagues through a library-wide survey, and the committee members’ own insights. The responses to each of the following questions are a reflection of the consensus of the DIG committee members

Discovery Investigative Group (DIG) Report, December 2016

This report is a response to the following charge from project sponsor DeeAnn Allison: Develop a working definition of the purpose and scope for a discovery tool that includes a description of what it should accomplish. How will it help scholars connect with information? The charge included a request to answer seven questions: 1. What content should be included and why? 2. What functions or search capabilities should be included? 3. What social media enhancements should be included? 4. How can it be structured to help both novice and advanced researchers? 5. Can you identify a “perfect” tool? If not, which ones are better and why? 6. Should we abandon Encore? Why or Why not? 7. What is the relation, or non-relation to Google products? Is a discovery tool just a variation of Google? Should it be? Over the course of the Fall 2016 semester, DIG committee members, comprised of seven Libraries faculty who voluntarily participated, met frequently to discuss the charge and determine how to best answer each question. Our answers were ultimately informed through a combination of reviewing the current literature, investigating peer institutions’ search tools, soliciting feedback from our library colleagues through a library-wide survey, and the committee members’ own insights. The responses to each of the following questions are a reflection of the consensus of the DIG committee members

Barriers to exercise in people with Parkinson disease

BACKGROUND: Exercise is known to reduce disability and improve quality of life in people with Parkinson disease (PD). Although barriers to exercise have been studied in older adults, barriers in people with chronic progressive neurological diseases, such as PD, are not well defined. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify perceived barriers to exercise in people with PD. DESIGN: The study had a cross-sectional design. METHODS: People who had PD, dwelled in the community, and were at stage 2.4 on the Hoehn and Yahr scale participated in this cross-sectional study (N=260; mean age=67.7 years). Participants were divided into an exercise group (n=164) and a nonexercise group (n=96). Participants self-administered the barriers subscale of the Physical Fitness and Exercise Activity Levels of Older Adults Scale, endorsing or denying specific barriers to exercise participation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to examine the contribution of each barrier to exercise behavior, and odds ratios were reported. RESULTS: Three barriers were retained in the multivariate regression model. The nonexercise group had significantly greater odds of endorsing low outcome expectation (ie, the participants did not expect to derive benefit from exercise) (odds ratio [OR]=3.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.08–7.42), lack of time (OR=3.36, 95% CI=1.55–7.29), and fear of falling (OR=2.35, 95% CI=1.17–4.71) than the exercise group. LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional nature of this study limited the ability to make causal inferences. CONCLUSIONS: Low outcome expectation from exercise, lack of time to exercise, and fear of falling appear to be important perceived barriers to engaging in exercise in people who have PD, are ambulatory, and dwell in the community. These may be important issues for physical therapists to target in people who have PD and do not exercise regularly. The efficacy of intervention strategies to facilitate exercise adherence in people with PD requires further investigation

Baseline representativeness of patients in clinics enrolled in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial: comparison of trial and non-trial clinics in the same health systems

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic primary care trials aim to test interventions in real world health care settings, but clinics willing and able to participate in trials may not be representative of typical clinics. This analysis compared patients in participating and non-participating clinics from the same health systems at baseline in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial. METHODS: This observational analysis relied on secondary electronic health record and administrative claims data in 5 of 6 health systems in the PROUD trial. The sample included patients 16-90 years at an eligible primary care visit in the 3 years before randomization. Each system contributed 2 randomized PROUD trial clinics and 4 similarly sized non-trial clinics. We summarized patient characteristics in trial and non-trial clinics in the 2 years before randomization ( baseline ). Using mixed-effect regression models, we compared trial and non-trial clinics on a baseline measure of the primary trial outcome (clinic-level patient-years of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, scaled per 10,000 primary care patients seen) and a baseline measure of the secondary trial outcome (patient-level days of acute care utilization among patients with OUD). RESULTS: Patients were generally similar between the 10 trial clinics (n = 248,436) and 20 non-trial clinics (n = 341,130), although trial clinics\u27 patients were slightly younger, more likely to be Hispanic/Latinx, less likely to be white, more likely to have Medicaid/subsidized insurance, and lived in less wealthy neighborhoods. Baseline outcomes did not differ between trial and non-trial clinics: trial clinics had 1.0 more patient-year of OUD treatment per 10,000 patients (95% CI: - 2.9, 5.0) and a 4% higher rate of days of acute care utilization than non-trial clinics (rate ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: trial clinics and non-trial clinics were similar regarding most measured patient characteristics, and no differences were observed in baseline measures of trial primary and secondary outcomes. These findings suggest trial clinics were representative of comparably sized clinics within the same health systems. Although results do not reflect generalizability more broadly, this study illustrates an approach to assess representativeness of clinics in future pragmatic primary care trials

PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial protocol: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in primary care for opioid use disorder treatment

BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here. METHODS: PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be \u3e 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ( electronic health records, [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization. DISCUSSION: The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings

Creation of an NCI comparative brain tumor consortium: informing the translation of new knowledge from canine to human brain tumor patients

On September 14–15, 2015, a meeting of clinicians and investigators in the fields of veterinary and human neuro-oncology, clinical trials, neuropathology, and drug development was convened at the National Institutes of Health campus in Bethesda, Maryland. This meeting served as the inaugural event launching a new consortium focused on improving the knowledge, development of, and access to naturally occurring canine brain cancer, specifically glioma, as a model for human disease. Within the meeting, a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) assessment was undertaken to critically evaluate the role that naturally occurring canine brain tumors could have in advancing this aspect of comparative oncology aimed at improving outcomes for dogs and human beings. A summary of this meeting and subsequent discussion are provided to inform the scientific and clinical community of the potential for this initiative. Canine and human comparisons represent an unprecedented opportunity to complement conventional brain tumor research paradigms, addressing a devastating disease for which innovative diagnostic and treatment strategies are clearly needed

CD155/PVR plays a key role in cell motility during tumor cell invasion and migration

BACKGROUND: Invasion is an important early step of cancer metastasis that is not well understood. Developing therapeutics to limit metastasis requires the identification and validation of candidate proteins necessary for invasion and migration. METHODS: We developed a functional proteomic screen to identify mediators of tumor cell invasion. This screen couples Fluorophore Assisted Light Inactivation (FALI) to a scFv antibody library to systematically inactivate surface proteins expressed by human fibrosarcoma cells followed by a high-throughput assessment of transwell invasion. RESULTS: Using this screen, we have identified CD155 (the poliovirus receptor) as a mediator of tumor cell invasion through its role in migration. Knockdown of CD155 by FALI or by RNAi resulted in a significant decrease in transwell migration of HT1080 fibrosarcoma cells towards a serum chemoattractant. CD155 was found to be highly expressed in multiple cancer cell lines and primary tumors including glioblastoma (GBM). Knockdown of CD155 also decreased migration of U87MG GBM cells. CD155 is recruited to the leading edge of migrating cells where it colocalizes with actin and αv-integrin, known mediators of motility and adhesion. Knockdown of CD155 also altered cellular morphology, resulting in cells that were larger and more elongated than controls when plated on a Matrigel substrate. CONCLUSION: These results implicate a role for CD155 in mediating tumor cell invasion and migration and suggest that CD155 may contribute to tumorigenesis

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe