Predictive validity of the UK clinical aptitude test in the final years of medical school:a prospective cohort study

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Expanding Efficiency: Women\u27s Communication in Engineering

As engineering fields strive to be more inclusive of women, focusing on perceptions of women\u27s work is vital to understanding how women can succeed and the limitations they may face. One area in need of more attention is the connection between communication and women\u27s experiences in engineering. This article examines the gendered nature of writing labor in engineering, focusing on case studies of three women who were able to use writing effectively, yet how communication emerged as a gendered form of labor subject to gendered perceptions. While these women\u27s communication skills led to professional success, their association with writing echoes a historical division, where writing is viewed as less valuable than technical knowledge. This division has the potential to disadvantage women who are asked to take on more writing-related tasks. In addition, their writing and communication are subject to gendered perceptions of being ‘chatty’ or blunt rather than effective or efficient. Articulating these perceptions and attitudes can lead to a breakdown of the binary between writing and technical labor as well as appropriately valuing the contributions women make in engineering through writing

The First Provenance Challenge

The first Provenance Challenge was set up in order to provide a forum for the community to help understand the capabilities of different provenance systems and the expressiveness of their provenance representations. To this end, a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging workflow was defined, which participants had to either simulate or run in order to produce some provenance representation, from which a set of identified queries had to be implemented and executed. Sixteen teams responded to the challenge, and submitted their inputs. In this paper, we present the challenge workflow and queries, and summarise the participants contributions

Business not as usual: how multisectoral collaboration can promote transformative change for health and sustainable development.

• We present a model of enabling fac-tors for effective multisectoral collabo-ration for improvements in health and sustainable development. • Drive change: assess whether desired change is better off achieved by mul-tisectoral collaboration; drive forward collaboration by mobilising a critical mass of policy and public attention. • Define: frame the problem strategi-cally and holistically so that all sec-tors and stakeholders can see the benefits of collaboration and contri-bution to the public good• Design: create solutions relevant to context, building on existing mecha-nisms, and leverage the strengths of diverse sectors for collective impact. • Relate: ensure resources for multi-sectoral collaboration mechanisms, including for open communication and deliberation on evidence, norms, and innovation across all components of collaboration. • Realise: learn by doing, and adapt with regular feedback. Remain open to redefining and redesigning the collaboration to ensure relevance, effectiveness, and responsiveness to change. • Capture success: agree on success markers, using qualitative and quan-titative methods to monitor results regularly and comprehensively, and learn from both failures and successes to inform action and sustain gains

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