A review of the Institute of Medicine's analysis of using chimpanzees in biomedical research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jones RC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4033812 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignDescriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).DataData comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols).Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors.ConclusionsAlthough the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.
| S-EPMC7993305 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To quantify the improvement in US life expectancy required to reach parity with high-resource nations by 2030, to document historical precedent of this rate, and to discuss the plausibility of achieving this rate in the United States. METHODS:We performed a demographic analysis of secondary data in 5-year periods from 1985 to 2015. RESULTS:To achieve the United Nations projected mortality estimates for Western Europe in 2030, the US life expectancy must grow at 0.32% a year between 2016 and 2030. This rate has precedent, even in low-mortality populations. Over 204 country-periods examined, nearly half exhibited life-expectancy growth greater than 0.32%. Of the 51 US states observed, 8.2% of state-periods demonstrated life-expectancy growth that exceeded the 0.32% target. CONCLUSIONS:Achieving necessary growth in life expectancy over the next 15 years despite historical precedent will be challenging. Much all-cause mortality is structured decades earlier and, at present, older-age mortality reductions in the United States are decelerating. Addressing mortality decline at all ages will require enhanced political will and a strong commitment to equity improvement in the US population.
| S-EPMC5719677 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Schistosomiasis remains a health burden in many parts of the world. The complex life cycle of Schistosoma parasites and the economic and societal conditions present in endemic areas make the prospect of eradication unlikely in the foreseeable future. Continued and vigorous research efforts must therefore be directed at this disease, particularly since only a single World Health Organization (WHO)-approved drug is available for treatment. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Schistosomiasis Resource Center (SRC) at the Biomedical Research Institute provides investigators with the critical raw materials needed to carry out this important research. The SRC makes available, free of charge (including international shipping costs), not only infected host organisms but also a wide array of molecular reagents derived from all life stages of each of the three main human schistosome parasites. As the field of schistosomiasis research rapidly advances, it is likely to become increasingly reliant on omics, transgenics, epigenetics, and microbiome-related research approaches. The SRC has and will continue to monitor and contribute to advances in the field in order to support these research efforts with an expanding array of molecular reagents. In addition to providing investigators with source materials, the SRC has expanded its educational mission by offering a molecular techniques training course and has recently organized an international schistosomiasis-focused meeting. This review provides an overview of the materials and services that are available at the SRC for schistosomiasis researchers, with a focus on updates that have occurred since the original overview in 2008.
| S-EPMC5072641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Digitization of a health record changes its accessibility. An electronic health record (EHR) can be accessed by multiple authorized users. Health information from EHRs contributes to learning healthcare systems' development. The objective of this systematic review is to answer a question: What are ethical issues concerning research using EHRs in the literature? We searched Medline Ovid, Embase and Scopus for publications concerning ethical issues of research use of EHRs. We employed the constant comparative method to retrieve common ethical themes. We descriptively summarized empirical studies. The study reveals the breadth, depth, and complexity of ethical problems associated with research use of EHRs. The central ethical question that emerges from the review is how to manage access to EHRs. Managing accessibility consists of interconnected and overlapping issues: streamlining research access to EHRs, minimizing risk, engaging and educating patients, as well as ensuring trustworthy governance of EHR data. Most of the ethical problems concerning EHR-based research arise from rapid cultural change. The framing of concepts of privacy, as well as individual and public dimensions of beneficence, are changing. We are currently living in the middle of this transition period. Human emotions and mental habits, as well as laws, are lagging behind technological developments. In the medical tradition, individual patient's health has always been in the center. Transformation of healthcare care, its digitalization, seems to have some impacts on our perspective of health care ethics, research ethics and public health ethics.
| S-EPMC8214390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To advance the development of point-of-care technology (POCT), the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering established the POCT Research Network (POCTRN), comprised of Centers that emphasize multidisciplinary partnerships and close facilitation to move technologies from an early stage of development into clinical testing and patient use. This paper describes the POCTRN and the three currently funded Centers as examples of academic-based organizations that support collaborations across disciplines, institutions, and geographic regions to successfully drive innovative solutions from concept to patient care.
| S-EPMC5052024 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ten years after the approval of the Chilean bill that regulates scientific research in humans (Law Nº 20.120), and considering the current status of accreditation and training of many Research Ethics Committee (REC), it is necessary to analyze their performance. We analyzed the Chilean experience with REC aiming to propose a differential type of review, considering the risks to research participants. To improve the quality of the review and the efficiency of these committees, we propose to differentiate the revisions depending on the type of project, its methods and its risks. Initially, the types of review should be classified as exempt from review, expedited review and full review by the committee. In this proposal the type of review is confirmed or can be modified by a designated member of the committee after an initial review of the project. Thus, the deliberation and review times of the committee could be optimized avoiding delays in their revision.
| S-EPMC8083817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To audit the proportion of clinical trials that had been publically registered and, of the completed trials, the proportion published.2 major research institutions supported by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR).The proportion of trials reporting results within 12 months, 24 months and 'ever'. Factors associated with non-publication were analysed using logistic regression.Phases 2-4 clinical trials identified from internal documents and publication lists.In total, 286 trials were identified. We could not find registration for 4 (1.4%) of these, all of which were completed and published. Of the trials with a registered completion date pre-January 2015, just over half (56%) were published, and half of these were published within 12 months (36/147, 25%). For some trials, information on the public registers was found to be out-of-date and/or inaccurate. No clinical trial characteristics were found to be significantly associated with non-publication. We have produced resources to facilitate similar audits elsewhere.It was feasible to conduct an internal audit of registration and publication in 2 major research institutions. Performance was similar to, or better than, comparable cohorts of trials sampled from registries. The major resource input required was manually seeking information: if all registry entries were maintained, then almost the entire process of audit could be automated--and routinely updated--for all research centres and funders.
| S-EPMC4785314 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe evaluation of translational health research is important for various reasons such as the research impact assessment, research funding allocation, accountability, and strategic research policy formulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the research productivity, strength and diversity of research collaboration networks and impact of research supported by a large biomedical research centre in the United Kingdom (UK).MethodsBibliometric analysis of research publications by translational researchers affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) from April 2012 to March 2017.ResultsAnalysis included 2377 translational research publications that were published during the second 5-year funding period of the NIHR Oxford BRC. Author details were available for 99.75% of the publications with DOIs (2359 of 2365 with DOIs), and the number of authors per publication was median 9 (mean = 18.03, SD = 3.63, maximum = 2467 authors). Author lists also contained many consortia, groups, committees, and teams (n = 165 in total), with 1238 additional contributors, where membership was reported. The BRC co-authorship i.e., research collaboration network for these publications involved 20,229 nodes (authors, of which 1606 nodes had Oxford affiliations), and approximately 4.3 million edges (authorship linkages). Articles with a valid DOIs (2365 of 2377, 99.5%) were collectively cited more than 155,000 times and the average Field Citation Ratio was median 6.75 (geometric mean = 7.12) while the average Relative Citation Ratio was median 1.50 (geometric mean = 1.83) for the analysed publications.ConclusionsThe NIHR Oxford BRC generated substantial translational research publications and facilitated a huge collaborative network of translational researchers working in complex structures and consortia, which shows success across the whole of this BRC funding period. Further research involving continued uptake of unique persistent identifiers and the tracking of other research outputs such as clinical innovations and patents would allow a more detailed understanding of large research enterprises such as NIHR BRCs in the UK.
| S-EPMC8626935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Summer Institute Program to Increase Diversity (SIPID) in Health-Related Research is a career advancement opportunity sponsored by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Three mentored programs address difficulties experienced by junior investigators in establishing independent research careers and academic advancement. Aims are to increase the number of faculty from under-represented minority groups who successfully compete for external research funding. Data were collected using a centralized data-entry system from three Summer Institutes. Outcomes include mentees' satisfaction rating about the program, grant and publications productivity and specific comments. Fifty-eight junior faculty mentees (38% male) noticeably improved their rates of preparing/submitting grant applications and publications, with a 18-23% increase in confidence levels in planning and conducting research. According to survey comments, the training received in grantsmanship skills and one-on-one mentoring were the most valuable program components. The SIPID mentoring program was highly valued by the junior faculty mentees. The program will continue in 2011-2014 as PRIDE (PRogram to Increase Diversity among individuals Engaged in health-related research). Long-term follow-up of current mentees will be indexed at five years post training (2013). In summary, these mentoring programs hope to continue increasing the diversity of the next generation of scientists in biomedical research.
| S-EPMC4324679 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is an increasing need to evaluate the production and impact of medical research produced by institutions. Many indicators exist, yet we do not have enough information about their relevance. The objective of this systematic review was (1) to identify all the indicators that could be used to measure the output and outcome of medical research carried out in institutions and (2) enlist their methodology, use, positive and negative points.MethodologyWe have searched 3 databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science) using the following keywords: [Research outcome* OR research output* OR bibliometric* OR scientometric* OR scientific production] AND [indicator* OR index* OR evaluation OR metrics]. We included articles presenting, discussing or evaluating indicators measuring the scientific production of an institution. The search was conducted by two independent authors using a standardised data extraction form. For each indicator we extracted its definition, calculation, its rationale and its positive and negative points. In order to reduce bias, data extraction and analysis was performed by two independent authors.FindingsWe included 76 articles. A total of 57 indicators were identified. We have classified those indicators into 6 categories: 9 indicators of research activity, 24 indicators of scientific production and impact, 5 indicators of collaboration, 7 indicators of industrial production, 4 indicators of dissemination, 8 indicators of health service impact. The most widely discussed and described is the h-index with 31 articles discussing it.DiscussionThe majority of indicators found are bibliometric indicators of scientific production and impact. Several indicators have been developed to improve the h-index. This indicator has also inspired the creation of two indicators to measure industrial production and collaboration. Several articles propose indicators measuring research impact without detailing a methodology for calculating them. Many bibliometric indicators identified have been created but have not been used or further discussed.
| S-EPMC4383328 | biostudies-literature