Open Science:A Practical Guide for Early-Career Researchers

The Dutch consortium of University Libraries and the National Library of the Netherlands (UKB), together with the Universities of The Netherlands (UNL), the Dutch national centre of expertise and repository for research data (DANS) and the Dutch Research Council (NWO), has published a practical guide on open science. Open Science Reliable science is not the sole work of superhuman geniuses, but a collaborative process. Researchers rely and build upon each other’s work. Together, we build theories, collect evidence and assess the research of colleagues. However, we can only build upon others’ work if we know exactly what our predecessors have done: What were their methods, relevant materials, data and outputs? Therefore, sound science ideally equals Open Science, in which all phases of the research cycle are as transparent and accessible as possible. About this guide Beginning researchers are an important link in the transition to Open Science, so this guide is aimed at PhD candidates, Research Master Students, and early-career researchers from all disciplines at Dutch universities and research institutes. It is designed to accompany researchers in every step of their research, from the phase of preparing your research project and discovering relevant resources (chapter 2) to the phase of data collection and analysis (chapter 3), writing and publishing articles, data, and other research output (chapter 4), and outreach and assessment (chapter 5). Every chapter provides you with the best tools and practices to implement immediately. If the information in this guide feels overwhelming: Do not worry! Open Science is a journey, and you are not alone in this. There are always colleagues who are happy to help you out along the way. You can find fellow researchers or support staff at your local Open Science Community (see chapter 6) and at your University Library. We hope this guide will motivate you and help you to practise Open Science, by sharing all aspects of your research with as many people as possible. The Future is Open! This guide, as an example of open science, builds upon the work of others. It is a derivative of “A Passport for Open Science. A practical guide for PhD students” written by Johann Berti, Marin Dacos, Gabriel Gallezot, Madeleine Géroudet, Sabrina Granger, Joanna Janik, Claire Josserand, Jean-François Lutz, Christine Okret-Manville, Sébastien Perrin, Noël Thiboud (Paris, 2020). Available at www.ouvrirlascience.fr and licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 Licence. The original text has been cut, edited and mixed with original content focused on the Dutch research landscape. If you have any feedback on this guide, please leave your comment(s) on PubPeer

Communicating personalised statin therapy-effects as 10-year CVD-risk or CVD-free life-expectancy: Does it improve decisional conflict? Three-armed, blinded, randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine whether communicating personalised statin therapy-effects obtained by prognostic algorithm leads to lower decisional conflict associated with statin use in patients with stable cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with standard (non-personalised) therapy-effects. Design Hypothesis-blinded, three-armed randomised controlled trial Setting and participants 303 statin users with stable CVD enrolled in a cohort Intervention Participants were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to standard practice (control-group) or one of two intervention arms. Intervention arms received standard practice plus (1) a personalised health profile, (2) educational videos and (3) a structured telephone consultation. Intervention arms received personalised estimates of prognostic changes associated with both discontinuation of current statin and intensification to the most potent statin type and dose (ie, atorvastatin 80 mg). Intervention arms differed in how these changes were expressed: either change in individual 10-year absolute CVD risk (iAR-group) or CVD-free life-expectancy (iLE-group) calculated with the SMART-REACH model (http://U-Prevent.com). Outcome Primary outcome was patient decisional conflict score (DCS) after 1 month. The score varies from 0 (no conflict) to 100 (high conflict). Secondary outcomes were collected at 1 or 6 months: DCS, quality of life, illness perception, patient activation, patient perception of statin efficacy and shared decision-making, self-reported statin adherence, understanding of statin-therapy, post-randomisation low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and physician opinion of the intervention. Outcomes are reported as median (25th- 75th percentile). Results Decisional conflict differed between the intervention arms: median control 27 (20-43), iAR-group 22 (11-30; p-value vs control 0.001) and iLE-group 25 (10-31; p-value vs control 0.021). No differences in secondary outcomes were observed. Conclusion In patients with clinically manifest CVD, providing personalised estimations of treatment-effects resulted in a small but significant decrease in decisional conflict after 1 month. The results support the use of personalised predictions for supporting decision-making. Trial registration NTR6227/NL6080

Context v. algorithm: Evidence that a transdiagnostic framework of contextual clinical characterization is of more clinical value than categorical diagnosis

Background A transdiagnostic and contextual framework of 'clinical characterization', combining clinical, psychopathological, sociodemographic, etiological, and other personal contextual data, may add clinical value over and above categorical algorithm-based diagnosis. Methods Prediction of need for care and health care outcomes was examined prospectively as a function of the contextual clinical characterization diagnostic framework in a prospective general population cohort (n = 6646 at baseline), interviewed four times between 2007 and 2018 (NEMESIS-2). Measures of need, service use, and use of medication were predicted as a function of any of 13 DSM-IV diagnoses, both separately and in combination with clinical characterization across multiple domains: social circumstances/demographics, symptom dimensions, physical health, clinical/etiological factors, staging, and polygenic risk scores (PRS). Effect sizes were expressed as population attributable fractions. Results Any prediction of DSM-diagnosis in relation to need and outcome in separate models was entirely reducible to components of contextual clinical characterization in joint models, particularly the component of transdiagnostic symptom dimensions (a simple score of the number of anxiety, depression, mania, and psychosis symptoms) and staging (subthreshold, incidence, persistence), and to a lesser degree clinical factors (early adversity, family history, suicidality, slowness at interview, neuroticism, and extraversion), and sociodemographic factors. Clinical characterization components in combination predicted more than any component in isolation. PRS did not meaningfully contribute to any clinical characterization model. Conclusion A transdiagnostic framework of contextual clinical characterization is of more value to patients than a categorical system of algorithmic ordering of psychopathology

Epigenomeâ wide association of PTSD from heterogeneous cohorts with a common multiâ site analysis pipeline

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138305/1/ajmgb32568.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/138305/2/ajmgb32568_am.pd

Integrated care for frail elderly: A qualitative study of a promising approach in the netherlands

Introduction: Increasingly, frail elderly need to live at home for longer, relying on support from informal caregivers and community-based health-and social care professionals. To align care and avoid fragmentation, integrated care programmes are a

Age- and sex-specific associations between risk scores for schizophrenia and self-reported health in the general population

Purpose The health correlates of polygenic risk (PRS-SCZ) and exposome (ES-SCZ) scores for schizophrenia may vary depending on age and sex. We aimed to examine age- and sex-specific associations of PRS-SCZ and ES-SCZ with self-reported health in the general population. Methods Participants were from the population-based Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study–2 (NEMESIS-2). Mental and physical health were measured with the 36-item Short Form Survey 4 times between 2007 and 2018. The PRS-SCZ and ES-SCZ were respectively calculated from common genetic variants and exposures (cannabis use, winter birth, hearing impairment, and five childhood adversity categories). Moderation by age and sex was examined in linear mixed models. Results For PRS-SCZ and ES-SCZ analyses, we included 3099 and 6264 participants, respectively (age range 18–65 years; 55.7–56.1% female). Age and sex did not interact with PRS-SCZ. Age moderated the association between ES-SCZ and mental (interaction: p = 0.02) and physical health (p = 0.0007): at age 18, + 1.00 of ES-SCZ was associated with − 0.10 of mental health and − 0.08 of physical health, whereas at age 65, it was associated with − 0.21 and − 0.23, respectively (all units in standard deviations). Sex moderated the association between ES-SCZ and physical health (p < .0001): + 1.00 of ES-SCZ was associated with − 0.19 of physical health among female and − 0.11 among male individuals. Conclusion There were larger associations between higher ES-SCZ and poorer health among female and older individuals. Accounting for these interactions may increase ES-SCZ precision and help uncover populational determinants of environmental influences on health

Physician and Patient Predictors of Evidence-Based Prescribing in Heart Failure: A Multilevel Study

BACKGROUND: The management of patients with heart failure (HF) needs to account for changeable and complex individual clinical characteristics. The use of renin angiotensin system inhibitors (RAAS-I) to target doses is recommended by guidelines. But physicians seemingly do not sufficiently follow this recommendation, while little is known about the physician and patient predictors of adherence. METHODS: To examine the coherence of primary care (PC) physicians' knowledge and self-perceived competencies regarding RAAS-I with their respective prescribing behavior being related to patient-associated barriers. Cross-sectional follow-up study after a randomized medical educational intervention trial with a seven month observation period. PC physicians (n = 37) and patients with systolic HF (n = 168) from practices in Baden-Wuerttemberg. Measurements were knowledge (blueprint-based multiple choice test), self-perceived competencies (questionnaire on global confidence in the therapy and on frequency of use of RAAS-I), and patient variables (age, gender, NYHA functional status, blood pressure, potassium level, renal function). Prescribing was collected from the trials' documentation. The target variable consisted of ≥50% of recommended RAAS-I dosage being investigated by two-level logistic regression models. RESULTS: Patients (69% male, mean age 68.8 years) showed symptomatic and objectified left ventricular (NYHA II vs. III/IV: 51% vs. 49% and mean LVEF 33.3%) and renal (GFR<50%: 22%) impairment. Mean percentage of RAAS-I target dose was 47%, 59% of patients receiving ≥50%. Determinants of improved prescribing of RAAS-I were patient age (OR 0.95, CI 0.92-0.99, p = 0.01), physician's global self-confidence at follow-up (OR 1.09, CI 1.02-1.05, p = 0.01) and NYHA class (II vs. III/IV) (OR 0.63, CI 0.38-1.05, p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: A change in physician's confidence as a predictor of RAAS-I dose increase is a new finding that might reflect an intervention effect of improved physicians' intention and that might foster novel strategies to improve safe evidence-based prescribing. These should include targeting knowledge, attitudes and skills

EFAS/EAN survey on the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on European clinical autonomic education and research

© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.Purpose: To understand the influence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on clinical autonomic education and research in Europe. Methods: We invited 84 European autonomic centers to complete an online survey, recorded the pre-pandemic-to-pandemic percentage of junior participants in the annual congresses of the European Federation of Autonomic Societies (EFAS) and European Academy of Neurology (EAN) and the pre-pandemic-to-pandemic number of PubMed publications on neurological disorders. Results: Forty-six centers answered the survey (55%). Twenty-nine centers were involved in clinical autonomic education and experienced pandemic-related didactic interruptions for 9 (5; 9) months. Ninety percent (n = 26/29) of autonomic educational centers reported a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education quality, and 93% (n = 27/29) established e-learning models. Both the 2020 joint EAN-EFAS virtual congress and the 2021 (virtual) and 2022 (hybrid) EFAS and EAN congresses marked higher percentages of junior participants than in 2019. Forty-one respondents (89%) were autonomic researchers, and 29 of them reported pandemic-related trial interruptions for 5 (2; 9) months. Since the pandemic begin, almost half of the respondents had less time for scientific writing. Likewise, the number of PubMed publications on autonomic topics showed the smallest increase compared with other neurological fields in 2020-2021 and the highest drop in 2022. Autonomic research centers that amended their trial protocols for telemedicine (38%, n = 16/41) maintained higher clinical caseloads during the first pandemic year. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial negative impact on European clinical autonomic education and research. At the same time, it promoted digitalization, favoring more equitable access to autonomic education and improved trial design.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio