Scientific Societies Fostering Inclusive Scientific Environments through Travel Awards: Current Practices and Recommendations

Diversity-focused committees continue to play essential roles in the efforts of professional scientific societies to foster inclusion and facilitate the professional development of underrepresented minority (URM) young scientists in their respective scientific disciplines. Until recently, the efforts of these committees have remained independent and disconnected from one another. Funding from the National Science Foundation has allowed several of these committees to come together and form the Alliance to Catalyze Change for Equity in STEM Success, herein referred to as ACCESS. The overall goal of this meta-organization is to create a community in which diversity-focused committees can interact, synergize, share their collective experiences, and have a unified voice on behalf of URM trainees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines. In this Essay, we compare and contrast the broad approaches that scientific societies in ACCESS use to implement and assess their travel award programs for URM trainees. We also report a set of recommendations, including both short- and long-term outcomes assessment in populations of interest and specialized programmatic activities coupled to travel award programs

Scientific societies fostering inclusivity in the life sciences through engagement of undergraduate scientists

Scientific societies serve as communities of practice in which scientists develop many of the skills and connections required for the progression of their careers. For example, scientific societies offer a range of opportunities to attend career development programs, gain experience in communicating science, and receive recognition for achievements within their discipline. Programming for undergraduate student members has recently been increasing, both in prevalence and in its range of offerings. The Alliance to Catalyze Change for Equity in STEM Success, ACCESS, a meta-organization seeking equity and inclusivity in life sciences fields, has examined programs and opportunities focused on undergraduates across its member scientific societies to identify common themes, promising practices and challenges. In this article, we share and discuss our findings

Predictors of embolism and death in left-sided infective endocarditis: the European Society of Cardiology EURObservational Research Programme European Infective Endocarditis registry

International audienceBackground and Aims Even though vegetation size in infective endocarditis (IE) has been associated with embolic events (EEs) and mortality risk, it is unclear whether vegetation size associated with these potential outcomes is different in left-sided IE (LSIE). This study aimed to seek assessing the vegetation cut-off size as predictor of EE or 30-day mortality for LSIE and to determine risk predictors of these outcomes. Methods The European Society of Cardiology EURObservational Research Programme European Infective Endocarditis is a prospective, multicentre registry including patients with definite or possible IE throughout 2016–18. Cox multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess variables associated with EE or 30-day mortality. Results There were 2171 patients with LSIE (women 31.5%). Among these affected patients, 459 (21.1%) had a new EE or died in 30 days. The cut-off value of vegetation size for predicting EEs or 30-day mortality was >10 mm [hazard ratio (HR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13–1.69, P = .0015]. Other adjusted predictors of risk of EE or death were as follows: EE on admission (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.54–2.33, P < .0001), history of heart failure (HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.21–1.93, P = .0004), creatinine >2 mg/dL (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.25–2.03, P = .0002), Staphylococcus aureus (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.08–1.70, P = .008), congestive heart failure (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12–1.75, P = .003), presence of haemorrhagic stroke (HR 4.57, 95% CI 3.08–6.79, P < .0001), alcohol abuse (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.04–2.03, P = .03), presence of cardiogenic shock (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.29–3.34, P = .003), and not performing left surgery (HR 1.30 95% CI 1.05–1.61, P = .016) (C-statistic = .68). Conclusions Prognosis after LSIE is determined by multiple factors, including vegetation size