A quantitative optimization framework for market-driven academic program portfolios

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a decision support model for optimizing the composition of portfolios of market-driven academic programs, primarily in schools offering market-driven academic programs. This model seeks to maximize financial performance during a desired planning time period while also achieving targets for other non-financial dimensions of the portfolio (e.g. mission alignment, student demographics and faculty characteristics) by deciding the types of programs to be added, redesigned and/or removed for each year of the planning period. Design/methodology/approach This paper introduces an integer linear program (i.e. mathematical optimization) to describe the portfolio optimization problem. Integer linear programs are widely used for optimizing portfolios of financial and non-financial products and services in non-educational settings. Additionally, in order to use an integer linear program for the model, qualitative data must be incorporated into the quantitative model. To do so, this paper first discusses two methods of quantifying qualitative information related to market-driven program dimensions in the following section. Findings The paper provides empirical insights related to the impact of this model through an illustrative case from a school offering market-driven academic programs at a prestigious private university in the USA. The results of the case highlight the potential positive impact of utilizing a similar model for planning purposes. Financially, the model results in almost double financial surplus than without the model while also achieving higher scores for all non-financial dimensions measured for the portfolio analyzed. Originality/value This paper provides a unique and impactful model for decision support in strategic planning for market-driven academic programs, an area of intense discussion and focus in higher education today

A quantitative optimization framework for market-driven academic program portfolios

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a decision support model for optimizing the composition of portfolios of market-driven academic programs, primarily in schools offering market-driven academic programs. This model seeks to maximize financial performance during a desired planning time period while also achieving targets for other non-financial dimensions of the portfolio (e.g. mission alignment, student demographics and faculty characteristics) by deciding the types of programs to be added, redesigned and/or removed for each year of the planning period. Design/methodology/approach This paper introduces an integer linear program (i.e. mathematical optimization) to describe the portfolio optimization problem. Integer linear programs are widely used for optimizing portfolios of financial and non-financial products and services in non-educational settings. Additionally, in order to use an integer linear program for the model, qualitative data must be incorporated into the quantitative model. To do so, this paper first discusses two methods of quantifying qualitative information related to market-driven program dimensions in the following section. Findings The paper provides empirical insights related to the impact of this model through an illustrative case from a school offering market-driven academic programs at a prestigious private university in the USA. The results of the case highlight the potential positive impact of utilizing a similar model for planning purposes. Financially, the model results in almost double financial surplus than without the model while also achieving higher scores for all non-financial dimensions measured for the portfolio analyzed. Originality/value This paper provides a unique and impactful model for decision support in strategic planning for market-driven academic programs, an area of intense discussion and focus in higher education today

A Quantitative Optimization Framework for Market-Driven Academic Program Portfolios

We introduce a quantitative model that can be used for decision support for planning and optimizing the composition of portfolios of market-driven academic programs within the context of higher education. This model is intended to enable leaders in colleges and universities to maximize financial performance of the selection of market-driven academic programs while also achieving qualitative targets for dimensions of the portfolio (e.g., mission alignment, student demographics, and faculty characteristics). This model is then applied to a case from a school of continuing education at a prestigious private university in the US. The results of the case highlight the potential positive impact of utilizing a model such as this for planning purposes

Cross-oncopanel study reveals high sensitivity and accuracy with overall analytical performance depending on genomic regions.

Targeted sequencing using oncopanels requires comprehensive assessments of accuracy and detection sensitivity to ensure analytical validity. By employing reference materials characterized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-led SEquence Quality Control project phase2 (SEQC2) effort, we perform a cross-platform multi-lab evaluation of eight Pan-Cancer panels to assess best practices for oncopanel sequencing. All panels demonstrate high sensitivity across targeted high-confidence coding regions and variant types for the variants previously verified to have variant allele frequency (VAF) in the 5-20% range. Sensitivity is reduced by utilizing VAF thresholds due to inherent variability in VAF measurements. Enforcing a VAF threshold for reporting has a positive impact on reducing false positive calls. Importantly, the false positive rate is found to be significantly higher outside the high-confidence coding regions, resulting in lower reproducibility. Thus, region restriction and VAF thresholds lead to low relative technical variability in estimating promising biomarkers and tumor mutational burden. This comprehensive study provides actionable guidelines for oncopanel sequencing and clear evidence that supports a simplified approach to assess the analytical performance of oncopanels. It will facilitate the rapid implementation, validation, and quality control of oncopanels in clinical use.All SEQC2 participants freely donated their time, reagents, and computing resources for the completion and analysis of this project. Part of this work was carried out with the support of the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (to Mehdi Pirooznia), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (to Pierre Bushel), and National Library of Medicine (to Danielle Thierry-Mieg, Jean Thierry-Mieg, and Chunlin Xiao). Leming Shi and Yuanting Zheng were supported by the National Key R&D Project of China (2018YFE0201600), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31720103909), and Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project (2017SHZDZX01). Donald J. Johann, Jr. acknowledges the support by FDA BAA grant HHSF223201510172C. Timothy Mercer and Ira Deveson were supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia grants APP1108254, APP1114016, and APP1173594 and Cancer Institute NSW Early Career Fellowship 2018/ECF013. This research has also been, in part, financially supported by the MEYS of the CR under the project CEITEC 2020 (LQ1601), by MH CR, grant No. (NV19-03-00091). Part of this work was carried out with the support of research infrastructure EATRIS-CZ, ID number LM2015064, funded by MEYS CR. Boris Tichy and Nikola Tom were supported by research infrastructure EATRIS-CZ, ID number LM2018133 funded by MEYS CR and MEYS CR project CEITEC 2020 (LQ1601).S

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health