Sometimes the impact factor outshines the H index

Journal impact factor (which reflects a particular journal's quality) and H index (which reflects the number and quality of an author's publications) are two measures of research quality. It has been argued that the H index outperforms the impact factor for evaluation purposes. Using articles first-authored or last-authored by board members of Retrovirology, we show here that the reverse is true when the future success of an article is to be predicted. The H index proved unsuitable for this specific task because, surprisingly, an article's odds of becoming a 'hit' appear independent of the pre-eminence of its author. We discuss implications for the peer-review process

The Endowment Effect in Groups with and without Strategic Incentives

The realization of market transactions often depends on decisions in groups in which members are anonymous and cannot communicate, but have interrelated outcomes. In a comprehensive study, we investigated the interaction of group effects, strategic effects and endowment effects in different group situations. We show that groups display an endowment effects for uncertain goods which is reduced by about 50% compared to the endowment effect in individuals in corresponding situations. In group situations with additional strategic incentives to overprice the endowment effect completely diminished. The strategic effects and group effects on pricing in group situations cannot be found for participants’ personal valuations of the good, whereas the endowment effect for personal valuations prevailed in both group conditions. This indicates that the endowment effect might be more fundamental than group effects and strategic effects. A paramorphic model for pricing in strategic group situations is suggested and practical implications are discussed.Decision Making, Endowment Effects, Groups, Strategic Incentives

Has The World Changed? My Neighbor Might Know Effects of Social Context on Routine Deviation

In two experiments we studied the effects of behavioral models on routine deviation decisions in observers. Participants repeatedly chose among four card-deck lotteries together with a human model (confederate, Exp. 1) or a non-human model (computer, Exp. 2) that made correct decisions in the majority of the trials. In a learning phase, participants acquired a choice routine (preferring one deck over others). In a subsequent test phase, participants had to adapt to changes in the payoff structure that required them to deviate from their routine. We found a strong tendency to maintain the routine despite negative feedback (routine effect). In a social situation (Exp.1), models decrease routine effects more intensely than in non social situations (Exp.2). The process of adaptation follows a belief updating process. Results indicate that the model effect is not due to an increase of the sample of relevant information nor to application of a simply copy heuristic. Rather, deviation models may provide a cue for change that fosters reevaluation of the situation in the observer.Experienced-based decision making, routine, habit, adaptation, social influence, Bayesian updating, novelty

Voters’ feelings of exclusion and behavioral intentions after political elections: Replicating and extending findings on vicarious exclusion

Previous research from the United States suggests that having voted for a losing-side candidate in presidential elections is associated with individual feelings of exclusion and social pain, reactions usually observed in interpersonal or small-group instances of exclusion. The current research replicates these findings for voters of losing-side parties in a field study on a real election in a European country (Austria; Study 1), demonstrating that findings hold within a different political system. Moreover, we add experimental support for the causal effect of electoral loss on feelings of exclusion and social pain reactions in a two-party (Study 2) and a multiparty context (Study 3). We further extend previous research by demonstrating that postelectoral need-threat likely translates into behavioral intentions on a societal level (Studies 1–3). The current findings add to an emerging line of research on the importance of individual feelings of exclusion in politics by integrating small-group research with macropolitical behavior

Which leukocyte subsets predict cardiovascular mortality? From the LUdwigshafen RIsk and Cardiovascular Health (LURIC) Study

AbstractObjectiveWhite blood cells are known to predict cardiovascular mortality, but form a highly heterogeneous population. It is therefore possible that specific subtypes disproportionally contribute to the prediction of cardiovascular outcomes. Therefore, we compared leukocyte subsets alone and in conjunction with an established inflammatory marker, C-reactive protein, for predicting death due to cardiovascular disease in a high-risk population.MethodsPatients, 3316, (mean [SD] age, 62 [10] years) scheduled for coronary angiography were prospectively followed up. Neutrophil, monocyte and lymphocyte counts were determined. Neutrophil and monocyte subsets were further analysed on the basis of surface expression of CD11b, CD18, CD31, CD40 and CD58. Lymphocytes were further subdivided into CD3, CD4, CD8, and CD19 subsets. The association between each marker and subsequent cardiovascular mortality was assessed using multivariable Cox regression models.ResultsDuring a median follow-up period of 7.8 years, 745 (22.5%) patients died, of which 484 were due to cardiovascular events. After entering conventional risk factors and removing patients with a current infection, neutrophil count (HR [95% CI]=1.90 [1.39, 2.60], P<0.001) and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (HR [95% CI]=1.68 [1.24, 2.27], P=0.003) emerged as independent predictors of cardiovascular mortality. After mutual adjustment, neutrophil count (HR [95% CI]=1.87 [1.35, 2.50], P<0.001) out-performed C-reactive protein (HR [95% CI] 1.32 [0.99, 1.78], P=0.06) as a predictor of cardiovascular mortality.ConclusionsDue to its predictive potential and inexpensive determination, assessment of high neutrophil counts may represent an important marker, possibly improving cardiovascular mortality risk prediction

US Scientific Leadership Addressing Energy, Ecosystems, Climate, and Sustainable Prosperity: Report in Brief from the BERAC Subcommittee on International Benchmarking

This document presents the subcommittee’s overarching and domain-specific findings and recommendations for the next decade, identified by consensus across the full BERAC subcommittee and experts interviewed for this assessment

New genetic loci link adipose and insulin biology to body fat distribution.

Body fat distribution is a heritable trait and a well-established predictor of adverse metabolic outcomes, independent of overall adiposity. To increase our understanding of the genetic basis of body fat distribution and its molecular links to cardiometabolic traits, here we conduct genome-wide association meta-analyses of traits related to waist and hip circumferences in up to 224,459 individuals. We identify 49 loci (33 new) associated with waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for body mass index (BMI), and an additional 19 loci newly associated with related waist and hip circumference measures (P < 5 × 10(-8)). In total, 20 of the 49 waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for BMI loci show significant sexual dimorphism, 19 of which display a stronger effect in women. The identified loci were enriched for genes expressed in adipose tissue and for putative regulatory elements in adipocytes. Pathway analyses implicated adipogenesis, angiogenesis, transcriptional regulation and insulin resistance as processes affecting fat distribution, providing insight into potential pathophysiological mechanisms

Potentially preventable trauma deaths: A retrospective review

Reviewing prehospital trauma deaths provides an opportunity to identify system improvements that may reduce trauma mortality. The objective of this study was to identify the number and rate of potentially preventable trauma deaths through expert panel reviews of prehospital and early in-hospital trauma deaths. We conducted a retrospective review of prehospital and early in-hospital (<24?h) trauma deaths following a traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest that were attended by Ambulance Victoria (AV) in the state of Victoria, Australia, between 2008 and 2014. Expert panels were used to review cases that had resuscitation attempted by paramedics and underwent a full autopsy. Patients with a mechanism of hanging, drowning or those with anatomical injuries deemed to be unsurvivable were excluded. Of the 1183 cases that underwent full autopsies, resuscitation was attempted by paramedics in 336 (28%) cases. Of these, 113 cases (34%) were deemed to have potentially survivable injuries and underwent expert panel review. There were 90 (80%) deaths that were not preventable, 19 (17%) potentially preventable deaths and 4 (3%) preventable deaths. Potentially preventable or preventable deaths represented 20% of those cases that underwent review and 7% of cases that had attempted resuscitation. The number of potentially preventable or preventable trauma deaths in the pre-hospital and early in-hospital resuscitation phase was low. Specific circumstances were identified in which the trauma system could be further improved

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials