The Kinematic Algebra From the Self-Dual Sector

We identify a diffeomorphism Lie algebra in the self-dual sector of Yang-Mills theory, and show that it determines the kinematic numerators of tree-level MHV amplitudes in the full theory. These amplitudes can be computed off-shell from Feynman diagrams with only cubic vertices, which are dressed with the structure constants of both the Yang-Mills colour algebra and the diffeomorphism algebra. Therefore, the latter algebra is the dual of the colour algebra, in the sense suggested by the work of Bern, Carrasco and Johansson. We further study perturbative gravity, both in the self-dual and in the MHV sectors, finding that the kinematic numerators of the theory are the BCJ squares of the Yang-Mills numerators.Comment: 29 pages, 5 figures. v2: references added, published versio

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 16: Using research evidence in balancing the pros and cons of policies

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

Critical thinking in healthcare and education

Imagine you are a primary care doctor. A patient comes into your office with acute, atypical chest pain. Immediately you consider the patient’s sex and age, and you begin to think about what questions to ask and what diagnoses and diagnostic tests to consider. You will also need to think about what treatments to consider and how to communicate with the patient and potentially with the patient’s family and other healthcare providers. Some of what you do will be done reflexively, with little explicit thought, but caring for most patients also requires you to think critically about what you are going to do. Critical thinking, the ability to think clearly and rationally about what to do or what to believe, is essential for the practice of medicine. Few doctors are likely to argue with this. Yet, until recently, the UK regulator the General Medical Council and similar bodies in North America did not mention “critical thinking” anywhere in their standards for licensing and accreditation,1 and critical thinking is not explicitly taught or assessed in most education programmes for health professionals. Moreover, although more than 2800 articles indexed by PubMed have “critical thinking” in the title or abstract, most are about nursing. We argue that it is important for clinicians and patients to learn to think critically and that the teaching and learning of these skills should be considered explicitly. Given the shared interest in critical thinking with broader education, we also highlight why healthcare and education professionals and researchers need to work together to enable people to think critically about the health choices they make throughout life.</p

What are the main inefficiencies in trial conduct : a survey of UKCRC registered clinical trials units in the UK

BACKGROUND: The UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) Network aims to support high-quality, efficient and sustainable clinical trials research in the UK. To better understand the challenges in efficient trial conduct, and to help prioritise tackling these challenges, we surveyed CTU staff. The aim was to identify important inefficiencies during two key stages of the trial conduct life cycle: (i) from grant award to first participant, (ii) from first participant to reporting of final results. METHODS: Respondents were asked to list their top three inefficiencies from grant award to recruitment of the first participant, and from recruitment of the first participant to publication of results. Free text space allowed respondents to explain why they thought these were important. The survey was constructed using SurveyMonkey and circulated to the 45 registered CTUs in May 2013. Respondents were asked to name their unit and job title, but were otherwise anonymous. Free-text responses were coded into broad categories. RESULTS: There were 43 respondents from 25 CTUs. The top inefficiency between grant award and recruitment of first participant was reported as obtaining research and development (R&D) approvals by 23 respondents (53%), contracts by 22 (51%), and other approvals by 13 (30%). The top inefficiency from recruitment of first participant to publication of results was failure to meet recruitment targets, reported by 19 (44%) respondents. A common comment was that this reflected overoptimistic or inaccurate estimates of recruitment at site. Data management, including case report form design and delays in resolving data queries with sites, was reported as an important inefficiency by 11 (26%) respondents, and preparation and submission for publication by 9 (21%). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for improving the efficiency of trial conduct within the CTUs network include: further reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in approvals and contracting; improving training for site staff; realistic recruitment targets and appropriate feasibility; developing training across the network; improving the working relationships between chief investigators and units; encouraging funders to release sufficient funding to allow prompt recruitment of trial staff; and encouraging more research into how to improve the efficiency and quality of trial conduct

Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts

BACKGROUND: The evaluation of abstracts for scientific meetings has been shown to suffer from poor inter observer reliability. A measure was developed to assess the formal quality of abstract submissions in a standardized way. METHODS: Item selection was based on scoring systems for full reports, taking into account published guidelines for structured abstracts. Interrater agreement was examined using a random sample of submissions to the American Gastroenterological Association, stratified for research type (n = 100, 1992–1995). For construct validity, the association of formal quality with acceptance for presentation was examined. A questionnaire to expert reviewers evaluated sensibility items, such as ease of use and comprehensiveness. RESULTS: The index comprised 19 items. The summary quality scores showed good interrater agreement (intra class coefficient 0.60 – 0.81). Good abstract quality was associated with abstract acceptance for presentation at the meeting. The instrument was found to be acceptable by expert reviewers. CONCLUSION: A quality index was developed for the evaluation of scientific meeting abstracts which was shown to be reliable, valid and useful

What kind of evidence is it that Evidence-Based Medicine advocates want health care providers and consumers to pay attention to?

BACKGROUND: In 1992, Evidence-Based Medicine advocates proclaimed a "new paradigm", in which evidence from health care research is the best basis for decisions for individual patients and health systems. Hailed in New York Times Magazine in 2001 as one of the most influential ideas of the year, this approach was initially and provocatively pitted against the traditional teaching of medicine, in which the key elements of knowing for clinical purposes are understanding of basic pathophysiologic mechanisms of disease coupled with clinical experience. This paper reviews the origins, aspirations, philosophical limitations, and practical challenges of evidence-based medicine. DISCUSSION: EBM has long since evolved beyond its initial (mis)conception, that EBM might replace traditional medicine. EBM is now attempting to augment rather than replace individual clinical experience and understanding of basic disease mechanisms. EBM must continue to evolve, however, to address a number of issues including scientific underpinnings, moral stance and consequences, and practical matters of dissemination and application. For example, accelerating the transfer of research findings into clinical practice is often based on incomplete evidence from selected groups of people, who experience a marginal benefit from an expensive technology, raising issues of the generalizability of the findings, and increasing problems with how many and who can afford the new innovations in care. SUMMARY: Advocates of evidence-based medicine want clinicians and consumers to pay attention to the best findings from health care research that are both valid and ready for clinical application. Much remains to be done to reach this goal

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 17: Dealing with insufficient research evidence

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers

Publication bias in gastroenterological research – a retrospective cohort study based on abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the determinants of publication and whether publication bias occurred in gastroenterological research. METHODS: A random sample of abstracts submitted to DDW, the major GI meeting (1992–1995) was evaluated. The publication status was determined by database searches, complemented by a mailed survey to abstract authors. Determinants of publication were examined by Cox proportional hazards model and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The sample included abstracts on 326 controlled clinical trials (CCT), 336 other clinical research reports (OCR), and 174 basic science studies (BSS). 392 abstracts (47%) were published as full papers. Acceptance for presentation at the meeting was a strong predictor of subsequent publication for all research types (overall, 54% vs. 34%, OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.1). In the multivariate analysis, multi-center status was found to predict publication (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.6–4.9). There was no significant association between direction of study results and subsequent publication. Studies were less likely to be published in high impact journals if the results were not statistically significant (OR 0.5, 95 CI 95% 0.3–0.6). The author survey identified lack of time or interest as the main reason for failure to publish. CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts which were selected for presentation at the DDW are more likely to be followed by full publications. The statistical significance of the study results was not found to be a predictor of publication but influences the chances for high impact publication