Science 2.0 & open science in higher education

[no abstract available

Survey: Open Science in Higher Education

Based on a checklist that was developed during a workshop at OER Camp 2016 and presented as a Science 2.0 conference 2016 poster [1], we conducted an online survey among university teachers representing a sufficient variety of subjects. The survey was online from Feb 6th to March 3rd 2017. We got 360 responses, whereof 210 were completes, see raw data [2]. The poster is presented at Open Science Conference, 21.-22.3.2017, Berlin

Open science practices in higher education. Discussion of survey results from research and teaching staff in Germany. [Preprint]

Aspects of open science and scholarly practices are often discussed with a focus on research and research dissemination processes. There is currently less discussion on open science and its influence on learning and teaching in higher education, and reversely. This paper discusses open science in relation to educational practices and resources and reports on a study to investigate current educational practices from the perspective of open science. We argue that offering students opportunities via open educational practices raises their awareness of future open science goals and teaches them the skills needed to reach those goals. We present online survey results from 210 participants with teaching responsibility at higher education institutions in Germany. While some of them try to establish more open learning and teaching settings, the majority applies rather traditional ways of learning and teaching. 60 % do not use open educational resources - many have not even heard of them - nor do they make their courses open for an online audience. Participants\u27 priority lies in resource accuracy and quality and we still see a gap between the benefit of open practices and their practicability and applicability. The paper contributes to the general discussion of open practices in higher education by looking at open science practices and their adaptation into the learning and teaching environment. It formulates recommendations for improvements of open practice support and infrastructure

The effect of surgery on fat mass, lipid and glucose metabolism in mild primary hyperparathyroidism

Context: Mild primary hyperparathyroidism has been associated with increased body fat mass and unfavorable cardiovascular risk factors. Objective: To assess the effect of parathyroidectomy on fat mass, glucose and lipid metabolism. Design, patients, interventions, main outcome measures: 119 patients previously randomized to observation (OBS; n = 58) or parathyroidectomy (PTX; n = 61) within the Scandinavian Investigation of Primary Hyperparathyroidism (SIPH) trial, an open randomized multicenter study, were included. Main outcome measures for this study were the differences in fat mass, markers for lipid and glucose metabolism between OBS and PTX 5 years after randomization. Results: In the OBS group, total cholesterol (Total-C) decreased from mean 5.9 (±1.1) to 5.6 (±1.0) mmol/L (P = 0.037) and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) decreased from 3.7 (±1.0) to 3.3 (±0.9) mmol/L (P = 0.010). In the PTX group, the Total-C and LDL-C remained unchanged resulting in a significant between-group difference over time (P = 0.013 and P = 0.026, respectively). This difference was driven by patients who started with lipid-lowering medication during the study period (OBS: 5; PTX: 1). There was an increase in trunk fat mass in the OBS group, but no between-group differences over time. Mean 25(OH) vitamin D increased in the PTX group (P < 0.001), but did not change in the OBS group. No difference in parameters of glucose metabolism was detected. Conclusion: In mild PHPT, the measured metabolic and cardiovascular risk factors were not modified by PTX. Observation seems safe and cardiovascular risk reduction should not be regarded as a separate indication for parathyroidectomy based on the results from this study

Science 2.0 & Open Science in Higher Education

CHECKLIST – HOW CAN A LECTURER CONTRIBUTE TO OPEN LEARNING? Results from the OER Workshop, Feb. 2016, Berlin Link to open etherpad: 1st draft of checklist to bring open science into education [Checkliste für den Einsatz von Science 2.0 in der Lehre]: https://pad.okfn.org/p/science20_in_der_lehre_checklis

Survey: Open Science in Higher Education

Open Science in (Higher) Education – data of the February 2017 survey This data set contains: Full raw (anonymised) data set (completed responses) of Open Science in (Higher) Education February 2017 survey. Data are in xlsx and sav format. Survey questionnaires with variables and settings (German original and English translation) in pdf. The English questionnaire was not used in the February 2017 survey, but only serves as translation. Readme file (txt) Survey structure The survey includes 24 questions and its structure can be separated in five major themes: material used in courses (5), OER awareness, usage and development (6), collaborative tools used in courses (2), assessment and participation options (5), demographics (4). The last two questions include an open text questions about general issues on the topics and singular open education experiences, and a request on forwarding the respondent’s e-mail address for further questionings. The online survey was created with Limesurvey[1]. Several questions include filters, i.e. these questions were only shown if a participants did choose a specific answer beforehand ([n/a] in Excel file, [.] In SPSS). Demographic questions Demographic questions asked about the current position, the discipline, birth year and gender. The classification of research disciplines was adapted to general disciplines at German higher education institutions. As we wanted to have a broad classification, we summarised several disciplines and came up with the following list, including the option “other” for respondents who do not feel confident with the proposed classification: Natural Sciences Arts and Humanities or Social Sciences Economics Law Medicine Computer Sciences, Engineering, Technics Other The current job position classification was also chosen according to common positions in Germany, including positions with a teaching responsibility at higher education institutions. Here, we also included the option “other” for respondents who do not feel confident with the proposed classification: Professor Special education teacher Academic/scientific assistant or research fellow (research and teaching) Academic staff (teaching) Student assistant Other We chose to have a free text (numerical) for asking about a respondent’s year of birth because we did not want to pre-classify respondents’ age intervals. It leaves us options to have different analysis on answers and possible correlations to the respondents’ age. Asking about the country was left out as the survey was designed for academics in Germany. Remark on OER question Data from earlier surveys revealed that academics suffer confusion about the proper definition of OER[2]. Some seem to understand OER as free resources, or only refer to open source software (Allen & Seaman, 2016, p. 11). Allen and Seaman (2016) decided to give a broad explanation of OER, avoiding details to not tempt the participant to claim “aware”. Thus, there is a danger of having a bias when giving an explanation. We decided not to give an explanation, but keep this question simple. We assume that either someone knows about OER or not. If they had not heard of the term before, they do not probably use OER (at least not consciously) or create them. Data collection The target group of the survey was academics at German institutions of higher education, mainly universities and universities of applied sciences. To reach them we sent the survey to diverse institutional-intern and extern mailing lists and via personal contacts. Included lists were discipline-based lists, lists deriving from higher education and higher education didactic communities as well as lists from open science and OER communities. Additionally, personal e-mails were sent to presidents and contact persons from those communities, and Twitter was used to spread the survey. The survey was online from Feb 6th to March 3rd 2017, e-mails were mainly sent at the beginning and around mid-term. Data clearance We got 360 responses, whereof Limesurvey counted 208 completes and 152 incompletes. Two responses were marked as incomplete, but after checking them turned out to be complete, and we added them to the complete responses dataset. Thus, this data set includes 210 complete responses. From those 150 incomplete responses, 58 respondents did not answer 1st question, 40 respondents discontinued after 1st question. Data shows a constant decline in response answers, we did not detect any striking survey question with a high dropout rate. We deleted incomplete responses and they are not in this data set. Due to data privacy reasons, we deleted seven variables automatically assigned by Limesurvey: submitdate, lastpage, startlanguage, startdate, datestamp, ipaddr, refurl. We also deleted answers to question No 24 (email address). References Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Opening the Textbook: Educational Resources in U.S. Higher Education, 2015-16. First results of the survey are presented in the poster: Heck, Tamara, Blümel, Ina, Heller, Lambert, Mazarakis, Athanasios, Peters, Isabella, Scherp, Ansgar, & Weisel, Luzian. (2017). Survey: Open Science in Higher Education. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.400561 Contact: Open Science in (Higher) Education working group, see http://www.leibniz-science20.de/forschung/projekte/laufende-projekte/open-science-in-higher-education/. [1] https://www.limesurvey.org [2] The survey question about the awareness of OER gave a broad explanation, avoiding details to not tempt the participant to claim “aware”

The Influence of Dxa Hardware, Software, Reference Population and Software Analysis Settings on the Bone Mineral Density and T-Score Relationship

Different dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) hardware can affect bone mineral density (BMD) measurements and different reference populations can affect t-scores. Long-term analyses describing differences in the relationship between BMD and t-scores are lacking. BMD-values were plotted against t-scores for 241 Lunar DXA scans on females obtained over 18 years from several centers in Sweden and Norway. The result of the plot was compared to hardware/software versions, reference populations and different software analysis settings (Basic vs Enhanced analysis for total body and Single Photon Absorptiometry (SPA) vs Lunar calibration for forearm). For the forearm compartments, we found different BMD-t-score relationships depending on the use of SPA or Lunar calibration (p<0.001). With Lunar calibration, BMD-values were 24% higher, but there was no effect on t-scores. Total body measurements with iDXA scanners and Enhanced analysis for Prodigy scanners (software version 14.10) resulted in a different BMD-t-score relationship compared to the other hardware/software versions (p<0.001), with the largest discrepancy for lower BMD-values. Switching from Basic to Enhanced analysis generally decreased BMD-values and often changed t-scores (both increased and decreased). For the femoral neck, there were two different BMD-t-score relationships caused by different reference populations (p<0.001). In contrast to total body, the difference for femoral neck was more pronounced for higher values, with little impact in the clinical decision-making area. Hardware, software, reference populations and software analysis settings can affect the BMD-t-score relationship, but do so differently for different compartments. The BMD-t-score-plot is a simple and effective tool to discover systematic differences. Longitudinal analyses of DXA scans should be performed based on raw data analyzed in “one run” with the same software version and settings, in order to avoid systematic differences

Endocortical Trabecularization in Acromegaly: The Cause for the Paradoxically Increased Vertebral Fracture Risk?

ABSTRACT Growth hormone (GH) is nonphysiologically increased in acromegaly, stimulating target tissues directly and indirectly via insulin‐like growth factor type 1 (IGF‐1). Despite GH having anabolic effects on bone growth and renewal, the risk of vertebral fractures is paradoxically increased in acromegaly. We hypothesized that bone tissue compartments were differentially affected by hormonal alterations in active and controlled acromegaly. We aimed to study the effect of sex and gonadal status on long‐term outcome of bone mass and structure to understand the biomechanical competence of bone. We followed 62 patients with newly diagnosed acromegaly longitudinally (median 4.8 years after pituitary surgery) to investigate changes assessed by dual X‐ray absorptiometry (DXA), trabecular bone score (TBS), and hip structure analysis (HSA). At diagnosis, patients had increased bone mineral density (BMD) in most compartments compared with normative data (Z‐scores). Conversely, TBS Z‐score was decreased (Z = −0.64 (SD 1.73), p = 0.028). Following treatment of acromegaly, BMD increased further in compartments containing predominantly trabecular bone, such as the lumbar spine, in eugonadal and male subjects, while compartments with predominantly cortical bone, such as the hip and femoral neck, were unchanged. Total body measurements showed further increase in BMD independent of sex and gonadal status. TBS did not change. HSA revealed a significant decrease in cortical thickness in both sexes independent of gonadal status, whereas the overall size of bone (hip axis length and neck width) did not change over time. In conclusion, patients with acromegaly had increased bone mass and dimensions by DXA. Following normalization of disease activity, BMD increased mainly in compartments rich in trabecular bone, reflecting a closure of the remodeling space. However, HSA revealed a significant decrease in cortical thickness, implying endocortical trabecularization, potentially explaining the increased risk for incident vertebral fractures following treatment. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research