Tools for the Assessment of Undergraduate Research Outcomes

The recent focus on the importance of assessment has resulted in the development of a number of tools to assess student learning outcomes (e.g. Angelo & Cross, 1993). However, most of these tools have focused on what students learn in the classroom. The outcomes of student involvement in research tend to be less well defined, and therefore more difficult to measure, than the outcomes of traditional classroom learning. Nevertheless, some of the existing assessment tools may be appropriate for the assessment of learning through research, and others have recently been developed explicitly for that purpose (e.g. Lopatto, 2004; Tariq, Stefani, Butcher, & Heylings, 1998). Of the many outcomes listed for psychology majors by the American Psychological Association (APA, 2002), those that seem to be particularly likely to be enhanced by conducting research include understanding research methods, critical thinking, and oral and written communication (assuming that the student writes a paper or gives an oral presentation of the research)

Are Gender Differences in Empathy Due to Differences in Emotional Reactivity?

The purpose of this study was to determine whether gender differences in empathy reflect differences in self-rated emotion, and whether they are influenced by the nature of the target of the empathy (friend or enemy). 24 men and 36 women were asked to rate how much happiness, sadness, and anger they would feel if each of ten scenarios happened to themselves, and how they would feel if it happened to a friend or enemy. Overall, women rated themselves as feeling more happiness and sadness than men, whether the event happened to themselves, or to a friend or enemy. This suggests gender differences in self-reported empathy may be due to differences in general emotional responsiveness. An empathy score was computed by subtracting, for each scenario, the rating for the other person from the rating for self. Women showed a greater difference between friend and enemy than men

Gesture enhances learning of a complex statistical concept

Prior research has shown that gestures that co-occur with speech can improve understanding of abstract concepts by embodying the underlying meaning of those concepts, thereby making them more accessible to the listener. The present study examined the effect of gesture on undergraduate students’ learning of a complex statistical concept (analysis of variance; ANOVA). Students in three classes watched a brief video in which the speaker explained the conceptual background of ANOVA while using gesture and students in three other classes saw a similar video with the same speech, but no gesture. Students who saw the gesture learned significantly more, as measured by the increase in scores between a pre-test and a post-test. These results suggest that teachers can enhance students’ learning through the strategic use of gesture

Contrasting prefrontal cortex contributions to episodic memory dysfunction in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia and alzheimer's disease

Recent evidence has questioned the integrity of episodic memory in behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD), where recall performance is impaired to the same extent as in Alzheimer's disease (AD). While these deficits appear to be mediated by divergent patterns of brain atrophy, there is evidence to suggest that certain prefrontal regions are implicated across both patient groups. In this study we sought to further elucidate the dorsolateral (DLPFC) and ventromedial (VMPFC) prefrontal contributions to episodic memory impairment in bvFTD and AD. Performance on episodic memory tasks and neuropsychological measures typically tapping into either DLPFC or VMPFC functions was assessed in 22 bvFTD, 32 AD patients and 35 age- and education-matched controls. Behaviourally, patient groups did not differ on measures of episodic memory recall or DLPFC-mediated executive functions. BvFTD patients were significantly more impaired on measures of VMPFC-mediated executive functions. Composite measures of the recall, DLPFC and VMPFC task scores were covaried against the T1 MRI scans of all participants to identify regions of atrophy correlating with performance on these tasks. Imaging analysis showed that impaired recall performance is associated with divergent patterns of PFC atrophy in bvFTD and AD. Whereas in bvFTD, PFC atrophy covariates for recall encompassed both DLPFC and VMPFC regions, only the DLPFC was implicated in AD. Our results suggest that episodic memory deficits in bvFTD and AD are underpinned by divergent prefrontal mechanisms. Moreover, we argue that these differences are not adequately captured by existing neuropsychological measures

FUTURE-AI: International consensus guideline for trustworthy and deployable artificial intelligence in healthcare

Despite major advances in artificial intelligence (AI) for medicine and healthcare, the deployment and adoption of AI technologies remain limited in real-world clinical practice. In recent years, concerns have been raised about the technical, clinical, ethical and legal risks associated with medical AI. To increase real world adoption, it is essential that medical AI tools are trusted and accepted by patients, clinicians, health organisations and authorities. This work describes the FUTURE-AI guideline as the first international consensus framework for guiding the development and deployment of trustworthy AI tools in healthcare. The FUTURE-AI consortium was founded in 2021 and currently comprises 118 inter-disciplinary experts from 51 countries representing all continents, including AI scientists, clinicians, ethicists, and social scientists. Over a two-year period, the consortium defined guiding principles and best practices for trustworthy AI through an iterative process comprising an in-depth literature review, a modified Delphi survey, and online consensus meetings. The FUTURE-AI framework was established based on 6 guiding principles for trustworthy AI in healthcare, i.e. Fairness, Universality, Traceability, Usability, Robustness and Explainability. Through consensus, a set of 28 best practices were defined, addressing technical, clinical, legal and socio-ethical dimensions. The recommendations cover the entire lifecycle of medical AI, from design, development and validation to regulation, deployment, and monitoring. FUTURE-AI is a risk-informed, assumption-free guideline which provides a structured approach for constructing medical AI tools that will be trusted, deployed and adopted in real-world practice. Researchers are encouraged to take the recommendations into account in proof-of-concept stages to facilitate future translation towards clinical practice of medical AI

Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury

Objective: We aimed to explore the added value of common machine learning (ML) algorithms for prediction of outcome for moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Study Design and Setting: We performed logistic regression (LR), lasso regression, and ridge regression with key baseline predictors in the IMPACT-II database (15 studies, n = 11,022). ML algorithms included support vector machines, random forests, gradient boosting machines, and artificial neural networks and were trained using the same predictors. To assess generalizability of predictions, we performed internal, internal-external, and external validation on the recent CENTER-TBI study (patients with Glasgow Coma Scale <13, n = 1,554). Both calibration (calibration slope/intercept) and discrimination (area under the curve) was quantified. Results: In the IMPACT-II database, 3,332/11,022 (30%) died and 5,233(48%) had unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale less than 4). In the CENTER-TBI study, 348/1,554(29%) died and 651(54%) had unfavorable outcome. Discrimination and calibration varied widely between the studies and less so between the studied algorithms. The mean area under the curve was 0.82 for mortality and 0.77 for unfavorable outcomes in the CENTER-TBI study. Conclusion: ML algorithms may not outperform traditional regression approaches in a low-dimensional setting for outcome prediction after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Similar to regression-based prediction models, ML algorithms should be rigorously validated to ensure applicability to new populations

Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury: Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.

INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches

How do 66 European institutional review boards approve one protocol for an international prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury? Experiences from the CENTER-TBI study

Abstract: Background: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75–224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion: We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries