Harnessing collective intelligence for the future of learning – a co-constructed research and development agenda

Learning, defined as the process of constructing meaning and developing competencies to act on it, is instrumental in helping individuals, communities, and organizations tackle challenges. When these challenges increase in complexity and require domain knowledge from diverse areas of expertise, it becomes difficult for single individuals to address them. In this context, collective intelligence, a capacity of groups of people to act together and solve problems using their collective knowledge, becomes of great importance. Technologies are instrumental both to support and understand learning and collective intelligence, hence the need for innovations in the area of technologies that can support user needs to learn and tackle collective challenges. Use-inspired research is a fitting paradigm that spans applied solutions and scientific explanations of the processes of learning and collective intelligence, and that can improve the technologies that may support them. Although some conceptual and theoretical work explaining and linking learning with collective intelligence is emerging, technological infrastructures as well as methodologies that employ and evidence that support them are nascent. We convened a group of experts to create a middleground and engage with the priorities for use-inspired research. Here we detail directions and methods they put forward as most promising for advancing a scientific agenda around learning and collective intelligence

Edible bio-based nanostructures: delivery, absorption and potential toxicity

The development of bio-based nanostructures as nanocarriers of bioactive compounds to specific body sites has been presented as a hot topic in food, pharmaceutical and nanotechnology fields. Food and pharmaceutical industries seek to explore the huge potential of these nanostructures, once they can be entirely composed of biocompatible and non-toxic materials. At the same time, they allow the incorporation of lipophilic and hydrophilic bioactive compounds protecting them against degradation, maintaining its active and functional performance. Nevertheless, the physicochemical properties of such structures (e.g., size and charge) could change significantly their behavior in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The main challenges in the development of these nanostructures are the proper characterization and understanding of the processes occurring at their surface, when in contact with living systems. This is crucial to understand their delivery and absorption behavior as well as to recognize potential toxicological effects. This review will provide an insight into the recent innovations and challenges in the field of delivery via GI tract using bio-based nanostructures. Also, an overview of the approaches followed to ensure an effective deliver (e.g., avoiding physiological barriers) and to enhance stability and absorptive intestinal uptake of bioactive compounds will be provided. Information about nanostructures potential toxicity and a concise description of the in vitro and in vivo toxicity studies will also be given.Joana T. Martins, Oscar L. Ramos, Ana C. Pinheiro, Ana I. Bourbon, Helder D. Silva and Miguel A. Cerqueira (SFRH/BPD/89992/2012, SFRH/BPD/80766/2011, SFRH/BPD/101181/2014, SFRH/BD/73178/2010, SFRH/BD/81288/2011, and SFRH/BPD/72753/2010, respectively) are the recipients of a fellowship from the Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT, POPH-QREN and FSE, Portugal). The authors thank the FCT Strategic Project PEst-OE/EQB/LA0023/2013 and the project "BioInd-Biotechnology and Bioengineering for improved Industrial and Agro-Food processes," REF.NORTE-07-0124-FEDER-000028, co-funded by the Programa Operacional Regional do Norte (ON.2-O Novo Norte), QREN, FEDER. We also thank to the European Commission: BIOCAPS (316265, FP7/REGPOT-2012-2013.1) and Xunta de Galicia: Agrupamento INBIOMED (2012/273) and Grupo con potencial de crecimiento. The support of EU Cost Action FA1001 is gratefully acknowledged

The international environmental court international criminal court

[No Abstract Available

Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study

Objective To examine how poor reporting and inadequate methods for key methodological features in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have changed over the past three decades. Design Mapping of trials included in Cochrane reviews. Data sources Data from RCTs included in all Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014 reporting an evaluation of the Cochrane risk of bias items: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. Data extraction For each RCT, we extracted consensus on risk of bias made by the review authors and identified the primary reference to extract publication year and journal. We matched journal names with Journal Citation Reports to get 2014 impact factors. Main outcomes measures We considered the proportions of trials rated by review authors at unclear and high risk of bias as surrogates for poor reporting and inadequate methods, respectively. Results We analysed 20 920 RCTs (from 2001 reviews) published in 3136 journals. The proportion of trials with unclear risk of bias was 48.7% for sequence generation and 57.5% for allocation concealment; the proportion of those with high risk of bias was 4.0% and 7.2%, respectively. For blinding and incomplete outcome data, 30.6% and 24.7% of trials were at unclear risk and 33.1% and 17.1% were at high risk, respectively. Higher journal impact factor was associated with a lower proportion of trials at unclear or high risk of bias. The proportion of trials at unclear risk of bias decreased over time, especially for sequence generation, which fell from 69.1% in 1986-1990 to 31.2% in 2011-14 and for allocation concealment (70.1% to 44.6%). After excluding trials at unclear risk of bias, use of inadequate methods also decreased over time: from 14.8% to 4.6% for sequence generation and from 32.7% to 11.6% for allocation concealment. Conclusions Poor reporting and inadequate methods have decreased over time, especially for sequence generation and allocation concealment. But more could be done, especially in lower impact factor journals