Research Evaluation in Humanities and Social Sciences

This paper reports on the Symposium for Research Evaluation in Humanities and Social Sciences which was held in Tokyo (Japan) on February 15th, 2019. Although citation-based research metrics might meet the needs in certain academic fields, when this methodology is applied to evaluate fields such as the Humanities and Social Sciences, it may fail to capture a proper picture of research in these fields. This symposium, therefore, brought together research institutes that are evaluated, public agencies which evaluate such institutes, as well as publishers who provide data for evaluation with the objective of discussing how they perceive research evaluation, how it should be, and what they expect from research metrics. 要旨本稿は、筑波大学URA研究戦略推進室の主催により2019年2月15日に虎ノ門ヒルズフォーラム（東京都）で開催された筑波大学研究大学強化促進事業シンポジウム「人文社会系分野における研究評価～シーズからニーズへ～」の報告である。サイテーションベースの研究評価は、ある分野においてはニーズに合っているが、この手法をシーズとして人文社会系に当てはめても、研究の全体像をとらえられるとは言い難い。そこで、本シンポジウムでは、人文社会系分野のニーズに合った研究評価指標について、評価される側はどこを見てほしいか、評価をする側はどこをみたいのかを含めて、データを提供する出版社も交えた形で議論を行った

<Readers\u27 Forum>Research Metrics for the Rest of Us

This paper proposes a new way of quantifying an aspect of the quality of an academic journal which we call ‘Diversity Factor’ (DF). DF is applicable to any field of study, including the humanities and social sciences, as well as to academic journals of any language for DF can be calculated by a very simple formula.要旨本稿は、学術雑誌の質の一側面を定量化する新たな指標として「ダイバーシティ・ファクター」（DF）を提案する。DFは非常に簡単な式で算出できるため、人文社会科学を含むあらゆる分野およびあらゆる言語の学術雑誌に適用可能である

Research Metrics for the Rest of Us

This paper proposes a new way of quantifying an aspect of the quality of an academic journal which we call ‘Diversity Factor’ (DF). DF is applicable to any field of study, including the humanities and social sciences, as well as to academic journals of any language for DF can be calculated by a very simple formula.要旨 本稿は、学術雑誌の質の一側面を定量化する新たな指標として「ダイバーシティ・ファクター」（DF）を提案する。DFは非常に簡単な式で算出できるため、人文社会科学を含むあらゆる分野およびあらゆる言語の学術雑誌に適用可能である

Research Evaluation in Humanities and Social Sciences Tokyo, February 15th, 2019

This paper reports on the Symposium for Research Evaluation in Humanities and Social Sciences which was held in Tokyo (Japan) on February 15th, 2019. Although citation-based research metrics might meet the needs in certain academic fields, when this methodology is applied to evaluate fields such as the Humanities and Social Sciences, it may fail to capture a proper picture of research in these fields. This symposium, therefore, brought together research institutes that are evaluated, public agencies which evaluate such institutes, as well as publishers who provide data for evaluation with the objective of discussing how they perceive research evaluation, how it should be, and what they expect from research metrics. 本稿は、筑波大学URA研究戦略推進室の主催により2019年2月15日に虎ノ門ヒルズフォーラム（東京都）で開催された筑波大学研究大学強化促進事業シンポジウム「人文社会系分野における研究評価～シーズからニーズへ～」の報告である。サイテーションベースの研究評価は、ある分野においてはニーズに合っているが、この手法をシーズとして人文社会系に当てはめても、研究の全体像をとらえられるとは言い難い。そこで、本シンポジウムでは、人文社会系分野のニーズに合った研究評価指標について、評価される側はどこを見てほしいか、評価をする側はどこをみたいのかを含めて、データを提供する出版社も交えた形で議論を行った

Polypharmacy and Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is a common problem among patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) who often have multiple comorbidities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to define the number of medications at hospital discharge and whether it is associated with clinical outcomes at 1 year. METHODS: We evaluated the number of medications in 2578 patients with ADHF who were ambulatory at hospital discharge in the Kyoto Congestive Heart Failure Registry and compared 1-year outcomes in 4 groups categorized by quartiles of the number of medications (quartile 1, ≤ 5; quartile 2, 6-8; quartile 3, 9-11; and quartile 4, ≥ 12). RESULTS: At hospital discharge, the median number of medications was 8 (interquartile range, 6-11) with 81.5% and 27.8% taking more than 5 and more than 10 medications, respectively. The cumulative 1-year incidence of a composite of death or rehospitalization (primary outcome measure) increased incrementally with an increasing number of medications (quartile 1, 30.8%; quartile 2, 31.6%; quartile 3, 39.7%; quartile 4, 50.3%; P < .0001). After adjusting for confounders, the excess risks of quartile 4 relative to those of quartile 1 remained significant (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: In the contemporary cohort of patients with ADHF in Japan, polypharmacy at hospital discharge was common, and excessive polypharmacy was associated with a higher risk of mortality and rehospitalizations within a 1-year period. Collaborative disease management programs that include a careful review of medication lists and an appropriate deprescribing protocol should be implemented for these patients

Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on the effect of renin-angiotensin system blockers after an episode of acute heart failure: From the KCHF Registry

Objective: This observational study aimed to examine the prognostic association of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in different left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) categories. Methods: In 3717 patients enrolled in the KCHF Registry, a multicentre registry including consecutive patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF), we assessed patient characteristics and association between ACE-I/ARB and clinical outcomes according to LVEF. In the three LVEF categories (reduced LVEF [HFrEF], mid-range LVEF [HFmrEF] and preserved LVEF [HFpEF]), we compared the patients with ACE-I/ARB as discharge medication and those without, and assessed their 1-year clinical outcomes. We defined the primary outcome measure as a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization. Results: The 1-year cumulative incidences of the primary outcome measure were 36.3% in HFrEF, 30.1% in HFmrEF and 33.8% in HFpEF (log-rank P = 0.07). The adjusted risks of the ACE-I/ARB group relative to the no ACE-I/ARB group for the primary outcome measure were significantly lower in HFrEF and HFmrEF (HR 0.66 [95%CI 0.54–0.79], P<0.001, and HR 0.61 [0.45–0.82], P = 0.001, respectively), but not in HFpEF (HR 0.95 [0.80–1.14], P = 0.61). There was a significant interaction between the LVEF category and the ACE-I/ARB use on the primary outcome measure (Pinteraction = 0.01). Conclusions: ACE-I/ARB for patients who were hospitalized for acute HF was associated with significantly lower risk for a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization in HFrEF and HFmrEF, but not in HFpEF. ACE-I/ARB might be a potential treatment option in HFmrEF as in HFrEF

Admission systolic blood pressure as a prognostic predictor of acute decompensated heart failure: A report from the KCHF registry

[Background] Admission systolic blood pressure has emerged as a predictor of postdischarge outcomes of patients with acute decompensated heart failure; however, its validity in varied clinical conditions of this patient subset is unclear. The aim of this study was to further explore the prognostic value of admission systolic blood pressure in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. [Methods] The Kyoto Congestive Heart Failure (KCHF) registry is a prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study enrolling consecutive patients with acute decompensated heart failure from 19 participating hospitals in Japan. Clinical characteristics at baseline and prognosis were examined by the following value range of admission systolic blood pressure: <100, 100–139, and ≥140 mmHg. The primary outcome measure was defined as all-cause death after discharge. Subgroup analyses were done for prior hospitalization for heart failure, hypertension, left ventricular ejection fraction, and medications at discharge. We excluded patients with acute coronary syndrome or insufficient data. [Results] We analyzed 3564 patients discharged alive out of 3804 patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure. In the entire cohort, lower admission systolic blood pressure was associated with poor outcomes (1-year cumulative incidence of all-cause death: <100 mmHg, 26.8%; 100–139 mmHg, 20.2%; and ≥140 mmHg, 15.1%, p<0.001). The magnitude of the effect of lower admission systolic blood pressure for postdischarge all-cause death was greater in patients with prior hospitalization for heart failure, heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and β-blocker use at discharge than in those without. [Conclusions] Admission systolic blood pressure is useful for postdischarge risk stratification in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. Its magnitude of the effect as a prognostic predictor may differ across clinical conditions of patients

Assessment of Lower-limb Vascular Endothelial Function Based on Enclosed Zone Flow-mediated Dilation

This paper proposes a novel non-invasive method for assessing the vascular endothelial function of lower-limb arteries based on the dilation rate of air-cuff plethysmograms measured using the oscillometric approach. The principle of evaluating vascular endothelial function involves flow-mediated dilation. In the study conducted, blood flow in the dorsal pedis artery was first monitored while lower-limb cuff pressure was applied using the proposed system. The results showed blood flow was interrupted when the level of pressure was at least 50 mmHg higher than the subject’s lower-limb systolic arterial pressure and that blood flow velocity increased after cuff release. Next, values of the proposed index, %ezFMDL, for assessing the vascular endothelial function of lower-limb arteries were determined from 327 adult subjects: 87 healthy subjects, 150 subjects at high risk of arteriosclerosis and 90 patients with cardiovascular disease (CAD). The mean values and standard deviations calculated using %ezFMDL were 30.5 ± 12.0% for the healthy subjects, 23.6 ± 12.7% for subjects at high risk of arteriosclerosis and 14.5 ± 15.4% for patients with CAD. The %ezFMDL values for the subjects at high risk of arteriosclerosis and the patients with CAD were significantly lower than those for the healthy subjects (p < 0.01). The proposed method may have potential for clinical application.This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16K21076

Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation in Acute Myocardial Infarction

[Background] It remains controversial whether long‐term clinical impact of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) in the acute phase of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is different from that of prior AF diagnosed before the onset of AMI. [Methods and Results] The current study population from the CREDO‐Kyoto AMI (Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto Acute Myocardial Infarction) Registry Wave‐2 consisted of 6228 patients with AMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. The baseline characteristics and long‐term clinical outcomes were compared according to AF status (newly diagnosed AF: N=489 [7.9%], prior AF: N=589 [9.5%], and no AF: N=5150 [82.7%]). Median follow‐up duration was 5.5 years. Patients with newly diagnosed AF and prior AF had similar baseline characteristics with higher risk profile than those with no AF including older age and more comorbidities. The cumulative 5‐year incidence of all‐cause death was higher in newly diagnosed AF and prior AF than no AF (38.8%, 40.7%, and 18.7%, P<0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality of newly diagnosed AF and prior AF relative to no AF remained significant with similar magnitude (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12–1.54; P<0.001, and HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14–1.52; P<0.001, respectively). The cumulative 5‐year incidence of stroke decreased in the order of newly diagnosed AF, prior AF and no AF (15.5%, 12.9%, and 6.3%, respectively, P<0.001). The higher adjusted HRs of both newly diagnosed AF and prior AF relative to no AF were significant for stroke, with a greater risk of newly diagnosed AF than that of prior AF (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.56–2.69; P<0.001, and HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.00–1.78; P=0.048, respectively). The higher stroke risk of newly diagnosed AF compared with prior AF was largely driven by the greater risk within 30 days. The higher adjusted HRs of newly diagnosed AF and prior AF relative to no AF were significant for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.35–2.22; P<0.001, and HR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.82–2.74; P<0.001, respectively) and major bleeding (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.23–1.73; P<0.001, and HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.15–1.60; P<0.001, respectively). [Conclusions] Newly diagnosed AF in AMI had risks for mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and major bleeding higher than no AF, and comparable to prior AF. The risk of newly diagnosed AF for stroke might be higher than that of prior AF

Weight loss during follow-up in patients with acute heart failure: From the KCHF registry

[Backgrounds] The prognostic implication of weight loss after discharge from acute heart failure (AHF) remains unclear. We sought to investigate the association of weight loss between discharge and 6-month visit with subsequent clinical outcomes in patients with AHF. [Methods] We analyzed 686 patients with AHF in the prospective longitudinal follow-up study derived from the Kyoto Congestive Heart Failure registry, and divided them into 2 groups based on the weight loss at 6-month index visit. We defined the weight loss as ≥ 5% decrease in body weight from discharge to 6-month index visit. [Results] There were 90 patients (13.1%) with a weight loss at 6-month visit. Patients in the weight loss group compared with those in the no weight loss group had higher body weight at discharge and lower body weight at 6-mont visit. Patients in the weight loss group had a lower systolic blood pressure, higher brain-type natriuretic peptide, lower serum albumin, lower hemoglobin, higher prevalence of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at 6-month visit, and a lower prescription rate of inhibitors of renin-angiotensin system than those in the no weight loss group. The cumulative 6-month incidence of all-cause death was significantly higher in the weight loss group than in the no weight loss group (14.2% and 4.3%, log-rank P<0.001). The excess adjusted risk of the weight loss group relative to the no weight loss group remained significant for all-cause death (HR 2.39, 95%CI 1.01–5.65, P = 0.048). [Conclusion] Body weight loss of ≥5% at 6-month visit after discharge was associated with subsequent all-cause death in patients with AHF