Lessons from Yesterday:A Student's Reflection on Scottish Medical Education

AbstractThe previous century has witnessed radical changes to the way in which medical students in Scotland are taught. Given the rapidly advancing medical landscape this is understandable, yet agreement on course content, how it should be taught and by whom, all remain contentious. However throughout the years the medical profession has endured, and skills have been passed down to successive generations; so are there any lessons to be learnt from our past? This paper suggests that there are, and seeks to illustrate the many parallels between 18th and 19th century teaching and today, including the quintessence of an inspirational teacher. A wide variety of 18th-21st century primary and secondary sources have been perused in the preparation of this paper

The Safety and Efficacy of Phage Therapy for Infections in Cardiac and Peripheral Vascular Surgery:A Systematic Review

New approaches to managing infections in cardiac and peripheral vascular surgery are required to reduce costs to patients and healthcare providers. Bacteriophage (phage) therapy is a promising antimicrobial approach that has been recommended for consideration in antibiotic refractory cases. We systematically reviewed the clinical evidence for phage therapy in vascular surgery to support the unlicensed use of phage therapy and inform future research. Three electronic databases were searched for articles that reported primary data about human phage therapy for infections in cardiac or peripheral vascular surgery. Fourteen reports were eligible for inclusion, representing 40 patients, among which an estimated 70.3% of patients (n = 26/37) achieved clinical resolution. A further 10.8% (n = 4/37) of patients showed improvement and 18.9% (n = 7/37) showed no improvement. Six of the twelve reports that commented on the safety of phage therapy did not report adverse effects. No adverse effects documented in the remaining six reports were directly linked to phages but reflected the presence of manufacturing contaminants or release of bacterial debris following bacterial lysis. The reports identified by this review suggest that appropriately purified phages represent a safe and efficacious treatment option for infections in cardiac and peripheral vascular surgery.</p

The Safety and Efficacy of Phage Therapy for Infections in Cardiac and Peripheral Vascular Surgery:A Systematic Review

New approaches to managing infections in cardiac and peripheral vascular surgery are required to reduce costs to patients and healthcare providers. Bacteriophage (phage) therapy is a promising antimicrobial approach that has been recommended for consideration in antibiotic refractory cases. We systematically reviewed the clinical evidence for phage therapy in vascular surgery to support the unlicensed use of phage therapy and inform future research. Three electronic databases were searched for articles that reported primary data about human phage therapy for infections in cardiac or peripheral vascular surgery. Fourteen reports were eligible for inclusion, representing 40 patients, among which an estimated 70.3% of patients (n = 26/37) achieved clinical resolution. A further 10.8% (n = 4/37) of patients showed improvement and 18.9% (n = 7/37) showed no improvement. Six of the twelve reports that commented on the safety of phage therapy did not report adverse effects. No adverse effects documented in the remaining six reports were directly linked to phages but reflected the presence of manufacturing contaminants or release of bacterial debris following bacterial lysis. The reports identified by this review suggest that appropriately purified phages represent a safe and efficacious treatment option for infections in cardiac and peripheral vascular surgery.</p

Systematic, comprehensive, evidence-based approach to identify neuroprotective interventions for motor neuron disease: using systematic reviews to inform expert consensus

Objectives: Motor neuron disease (MND) is an incurable progressive neurodegenerative disease with limited treatment options. There is a pressing need for innovation in identifying therapies to take to clinical trial. Here, we detail a systematic and structured evidence-based approach to inform consensus decision making to select the first two drugs for evaluation in Motor Neuron Disease-Systematic Multi-arm Adaptive Randomised Trial (MND-SMART: NCT04302870), an adaptive platform trial. We aim to identify and prioritise candidate drugs which have the best available evidence for efficacy, acceptable safety profiles and are feasible for evaluation within the trial protocol. Methods: We conducted a two-stage systematic review to identify potential neuroprotective interventions. First, we reviewed clinical studies in MND, Alzheimer’s disease, Huntington’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis, identifying drugs described in at least one MND publication or publications in two or more other diseases. We scored and ranked drugs using a metric evaluating safety, efficacy, study size and study quality. In stage two, we reviewed efficacy of drugs in MND animal models, multicellular eukaryotic models and human induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) studies. An expert panel reviewed candidate drugs over two shortlisting rounds and a final selection round, considering the systematic review findings, late breaking evidence, mechanistic plausibility, safety, tolerability and feasibility of evaluation in MND-SMART. Results: From the clinical review, we identified 595 interventions. 66 drugs met our drug/disease logic. Of these, 22 drugs with supportive clinical and preclinical evidence were shortlisted at round 1. Seven drugs proceeded to round 2. The panel reached a consensus to evaluate memantine and trazodone as the first two arms of MND-SMART. Discussion: For future drug selection, we will incorporate automation tools, text-mining and machine learning techniques to the systematic reviews and consider data generated from other domains, including high-throughput phenotypic screening of human iPSCs

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

Multidimensional signals and analytic flexibility: Estimating degrees of freedom in human speech analyses

Recent empirical studies have highlighted the large degree of analytic flexibility in data analysis which can lead to substantially different conclusions based on the same data set. Thus, researchers have expressed their concerns that these researcher degrees of freedom might facilitate bias and can lead to claims that do not stand the test of time. Even greater flexibility is to be expected in fields in which the primary data lend themselves to a variety of possible operationalizations. The multidimensional, temporally extended nature of speech constitutes an ideal testing ground for assessing the variability in analytic approaches, which derives not only from aspects of statistical modeling, but also from decisions regarding the quantification of the measured behavior. In the present study, we gave the same speech production data set to 46 teams of researchers and asked them to answer the same research question, resulting insubstantial variability in reported effect sizes and their interpretation. Using Bayesian meta-analytic tools, we further find little to no evidence that the observed variability can be explained by analysts’ prior beliefs, expertise or the perceived quality of their analyses. In light of this idiosyncratic variability, we recommend that researchers more transparently share details of their analysis, strengthen the link between theoretical construct and quantitative system and calibrate their (un)certainty in their conclusions