Harnessing the NEON data revolution to advance open environmental science with a diverse and data-capable community

It is a critical time to reflect on the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) science to date as well as envision what research can be done right now with NEON (and other) data and what training is needed to enable a diverse user community. NEON became fully operational in May 2019 and has pivoted from planning and construction to operation and maintenance. In this overview, the history of and foundational thinking around NEON are discussed. A framework of open science is described with a discussion of how NEON can be situated as part of a larger data constellation—across existing networks and different suites of ecological measurements and sensors. Next, a synthesis of early NEON science, based on >100 existing publications, funded proposal efforts, and emergent science at the very first NEON Science Summit (hosted by Earth Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder in October 2019) is provided. Key questions that the ecology community will address with NEON data in the next 10 yr are outlined, from understanding drivers of biodiversity across spatial and temporal scales to defining complex feedback mechanisms in human–environmental systems. Last, the essential elements needed to engage and support a diverse and inclusive NEON user community are highlighted: training resources and tools that are openly available, funding for broad community engagement initiatives, and a mechanism to share and advertise those opportunities. NEON users require both the skills to work with NEON data and the ecological or environmental science domain knowledge to understand and interpret them. This paper synthesizes early directions in the community’s use of NEON data, and opportunities for the next 10 yr of NEON operations in emergent science themes, open science best practices, education and training, and community building

Does treatment delay for blunt cerebrovascular injury affect stroke rate?: An EAST multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze injury characteristics and stroke rates between blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) with delayed vs non-delayed medical therapy. We hypothesized there would be increased stroke formation with delayed medical therapy. METHODS: This is a sub-analysis of a 16 center, prospective, observational trial on BCVI. Delayed medial therapy was defined as initiation \u3e24 hours after admission. BCVI which did not receive medical therapy were excluded. Subgroups for injury presence were created using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score \u3e0 for AIS categories. RESULTS: 636 BCVI were included. Median time to first medical therapy was 62 hours in the delayed group and 11 hours in the non-delayed group (p \u3c 0.001). The injury severity score (ISS) was greater in the delayed group (24.0 vs the non-delayed group 22.0, p \u3c 0.001) as was the median AIS head score (2.0 vs 1.0, p \u3c 0.001). The overall stroke rate was not different between the delayed vs non-delayed groups respectively (9.7% vs 9.5%, p = 1.00). Further evaluation of carotid vs vertebral artery injury showed no difference in stroke rate, 13.6% and 13.2%, p = 1.00 vs 7.3% and 6.5%, p = 0.84. Additionally, within all AIS categories there was no difference in stroke rate between delayed and non-delayed medical therapy (all N.S.), with AIS head \u3e0 13.8% vs 9.2%, p = 0.20 and AIS spine \u3e0 11.0% vs 9.3%, p = 0.63 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Modern BCVI therapy is administered early. BCVI with delayed therapy were more severely injured. However, a higher stroke rate was not seen with delayed therapy, even for BCVI with head or spine injuries. This data suggests with competing injuries or other clinical concerns there is not an increased stroke rate with necessary delays of medical treatment for BCVI

Does treatment delay for blunt cerebrovascular injury affect stroke rate?: An EAST multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze injury characteristics and stroke rates between blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) with delayed vs non-delayed medical therapy. We hypothesized there would be increased stroke formation with delayed medical therapy. METHODS: This is a sub-analysis of a 16 center, prospective, observational trial on BCVI. Delayed medial therapy was defined as initiation \u3e24 hours after admission. BCVI which did not receive medical therapy were excluded. Subgroups for injury presence were created using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score \u3e0 for AIS categories. RESULTS: 636 BCVI were included. Median time to first medical therapy was 62 hours in the delayed group and 11 hours in the non-delayed group (p \u3c 0.001). The injury severity score (ISS) was greater in the delayed group (24.0 vs the non-delayed group 22.0, p \u3c 0.001) as was the median AIS head score (2.0 vs 1.0, p \u3c 0.001). The overall stroke rate was not different between the delayed vs non-delayed groups respectively (9.7% vs 9.5%, p = 1.00). Further evaluation of carotid vs vertebral artery injury showed no difference in stroke rate, 13.6% and 13.2%, p = 1.00 vs 7.3% and 6.5%, p = 0.84. Additionally, within all AIS categories there was no difference in stroke rate between delayed and non-delayed medical therapy (all N.S.), with AIS head \u3e0 13.8% vs 9.2%, p = 0.20 and AIS spine \u3e0 11.0% vs 9.3%, p = 0.63 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Modern BCVI therapy is administered early. BCVI with delayed therapy were more severely injured. However, a higher stroke rate was not seen with delayed therapy, even for BCVI with head or spine injuries. This data suggests with competing injuries or other clinical concerns there is not an increased stroke rate with necessary delays of medical treatment for BCVI

Does treatment delay for blunt cerebrovascular injury affect stroke rate?: An EAST multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to analyze injury characteristics and stroke rates between blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) with delayed vs non-delayed medical therapy. We hypothesized there would be increased stroke formation with delayed medical therapy. METHODS: This is a sub-analysis of a 16 center, prospective, observational trial on BCVI. Delayed medial therapy was defined as initiation \u3e24 hours after admission. BCVI which did not receive medical therapy were excluded. Subgroups for injury presence were created using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score \u3e0 for AIS categories. RESULTS: 636 BCVI were included. Median time to first medical therapy was 62 hours in the delayed group and 11 hours in the non-delayed group (p \u3c 0.001). The injury severity score (ISS) was greater in the delayed group (24.0 vs the non-delayed group 22.0, p \u3c 0.001) as was the median AIS head score (2.0 vs 1.0, p \u3c 0.001). The overall stroke rate was not different between the delayed vs non-delayed groups respectively (9.7% vs 9.5%, p = 1.00). Further evaluation of carotid vs vertebral artery injury showed no difference in stroke rate, 13.6% and 13.2%, p = 1.00 vs 7.3% and 6.5%, p = 0.84. Additionally, within all AIS categories there was no difference in stroke rate between delayed and non-delayed medical therapy (all N.S.), with AIS head \u3e0 13.8% vs 9.2%, p = 0.20 and AIS spine \u3e0 11.0% vs 9.3%, p = 0.63 respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Modern BCVI therapy is administered early. BCVI with delayed therapy were more severely injured. However, a higher stroke rate was not seen with delayed therapy, even for BCVI with head or spine injuries. This data suggests with competing injuries or other clinical concerns there is not an increased stroke rate with necessary delays of medical treatment for BCVI