Limitations of Gene Duplication Models: Evolution of Modules in Protein Interaction Networks

It has been generally acknowledged that the module structure of protein interaction networks plays a crucial role with respect to the functional understanding of these networks. In this paper, we study evolutionary aspects of the module structure of protein interaction networks, which forms a mesoscopic level of description with respect to the architectural principles of networks. The purpose of this paper is to investigate limitations of well known gene duplication models by showing that these models are lacking crucial structural features present in protein interaction networks on a mesoscopic scale. This observation reveals our incomplete understanding of the structural evolution of protein networks on the module level

Toward an Open-Access Global Database for Mapping, Control, and Surveillance of Neglected Tropical Diseases

There is growing interest in the scientific community, health ministries, and other organizations to control and eventually eliminate neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Control efforts require reliable maps of NTD distribution estimated from appropriate models and survey data on the number of infected people among those examined at a given location. This kind of data is often available in the literature as part of epidemiological studies. However, an open-access database compiling location-specific survey data does not yet exist. We address this problem through a systematic literature review, along with contacting ministries of health, and research institutions to obtain disease data, including details on diagnostic techniques, demographic characteristics of the surveyed individuals, and geographical coordinates. All data were entered into a database which is freely accessible via the Internet (http://www.gntd.org). In contrast to similar efforts of the Global Atlas of Helminth Infections (GAHI) project, the survey data are not only displayed in form of maps but all information can be browsed, based on different search criteria, and downloaded as Excel files for further analyses. At the beginning of 2011, the database included over 12,000 survey locations for schistosomiasis across Africa, and it is continuously updated to cover other NTDs globally

Eight Questions About Physician-Rating Websites: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Physician-rating websites are currently gaining in popularity because they increase transparency in the health care system. However, research on the characteristics and content of these portals remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To identify and synthesize published evidence in peer-reviewed journals regarding frequently discussed issues about physician-rating websites. METHODS: Peer-reviewed English and German language literature was searched in seven databases (Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library, Business Source Complete, ABI/Inform Complete, PsycInfo, Scopus, and ISI web of knowledge) without any time constraints. Additionally, reference lists of included studies were screened to assure completeness. The following eight previously defined questions were addressed: 1) What percentage of physicians has been rated? 2) What is the average number of ratings on physician-rating websites? 3) Are there any differences among rated physicians related to socioeconomic status? 4) Are ratings more likely to be positive or negative? 5) What significance do patient narratives have? 6) How should physicians deal with physician-rating websites? 7) What major shortcomings do physician-rating websites have? 8) What recommendations can be made for further improvement of physician-rating websites? RESULTS: Twenty-four articles published in peer-reviewed journals met our inclusion criteria. Most studies were published by US (n=13) and German (n=8) researchers; however, the focus differed considerably. The current usage of physician-rating websites is still low but is increasing. International data show that 1 out of 6 physicians has been rated, and approximately 90% of all ratings on physician-rating websites were positive. Although often a concern, we could not find any evidence of "doctor-bashing". Physicians should not ignore these websites, but rather, monitor the information available and use it for internal and ex-ternal purpose. Several shortcomings limit the significance of the results published on physician-rating websites; some recommendations to address these limitations are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of publications is still low, physician-rating websites are gaining more attention in research. But the current condition of physician-rating websites is lacking. This is the case both in the United States and in Germany. Further research is necessary to increase the quality of the websites, especially from the patients’ perspective