Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about probiotics as preventive interventions?

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Probiotics have been used for a range of clinical situations and their use is strongly encouraged by the media worldwide. This study identified and summarized all Cochrane systematic reviews about the preventive effects of probiotics in clinical practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of systematic reviews, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). METHODS: We included all Cochrane reviews on any probiotics when they were used as preventive interventions and compared with no intervention, placebo or any other pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention. RESULTS: 17 Cochrane systematic reviews fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were summarized in this report. None of the reviews included in the present study provided high-quality evidence for any outcome. The benefits from use of probiotics included decreased incidence of antibiotic-associated diarrhea and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea; decreased incidence of upper respiratory tract infections and duration of episodes; decreased need for antibiotics and absences from school due to colds; and decreased incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Probiotics seem to decrease the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus, birthweight, risk of vaginal infection and incidence of eczema. CONCLUSION: Despite the marketing and the benefits associated with probiotics, there is little scientific evidence supporting the use of probiotics. None of the reviews provided any high-quality evidence for prevention of illnesses through use of probiotics. More trials are needed to gain better knowledge of probiotics and to confirm when their use is beneficial and cost-effective

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about new practices on integrative medicine?

<div><p>ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: This study identified and summarized all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) on the effects of ten integrative practices that were recently added to the Brazilian public healthcare system (SUS). DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of systematic reviews, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). METHODS: Review of Cochrane SRs on the following interventions were identified, summarized and critically assessed: apitherapy, aromatherapy, bioenergetics, family constellation, flower therapy, chromotherapy, geotherapy, hypnotherapy, hand imposition or ozone therapy. RESULTS: We included a total of 16 SRs: 4 on apitherapy, 4 on aromatherapy, 6 on hypnotherapy and 2 on ozone therapy. No Cochrane SR was found regarding bioenergetics, family constellation, chromotherapy, clay therapy, flower therapy or hand imposition. The only high-quality evidence was in relation to the potential benefit of apitherapy, specifically regarding some benefits from honey dressings for partial healing of burn wounds, for reduction of coughing among children with acute coughs and for preventing allergic reactions to insect stings. CONCLUSION: Except for some specific uses of apitherapy (honey for burn wounds and for acute coughs and bee venom for allergic reactions to insect stings), the use of ten integrative practices that have recently been incorporated into SUS does not seem to be supported by evidence from Cochrane SRs.</p></div

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about new practices on integrative medicine?

<div><p>ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: This study identified and summarized all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) on the effects of ten integrative practices that were recently added to the Brazilian public healthcare system (SUS). DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of systematic reviews, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). METHODS: Review of Cochrane SRs on the following interventions were identified, summarized and critically assessed: apitherapy, aromatherapy, bioenergetics, family constellation, flower therapy, chromotherapy, geotherapy, hypnotherapy, hand imposition or ozone therapy. RESULTS: We included a total of 16 SRs: 4 on apitherapy, 4 on aromatherapy, 6 on hypnotherapy and 2 on ozone therapy. No Cochrane SR was found regarding bioenergetics, family constellation, chromotherapy, clay therapy, flower therapy or hand imposition. The only high-quality evidence was in relation to the potential benefit of apitherapy, specifically regarding some benefits from honey dressings for partial healing of burn wounds, for reduction of coughing among children with acute coughs and for preventing allergic reactions to insect stings. CONCLUSION: Except for some specific uses of apitherapy (honey for burn wounds and for acute coughs and bee venom for allergic reactions to insect stings), the use of ten integrative practices that have recently been incorporated into SUS does not seem to be supported by evidence from Cochrane SRs.</p></div