Dataset Information

Mission, Organization, and Future Direction of the Serological Sciences Network for COVID-19 (SeroNet) Epidemiologic Cohort Studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Global efforts are needed to elucidate the epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the underlying cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including seroprevalence, risk factors, and long-term sequelae, as well as immune responses after vaccination across populations and the social dimensions of prevention and treatment strategies.

Methods

In the United States, the National Cancer Institute in partnership with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, established the SARS-CoV-2 Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) as the nation's largest coordinated effort to study coronavirus disease 2019. The network comprises multidisciplinary researchers bridging gaps and fostering collaborations among immunologists, epidemiologists, virologists, clinicians and clinical laboratories, social and behavioral scientists, policymakers, data scientists, and community members. In total, 49 institutions form the SeroNet consortium to study individuals with cancer, autoimmune disease, inflammatory bowel diseases, cardiovascular diseases, human immunodeficiency virus, transplant recipients, as well as otherwise healthy pregnant women, children, college students, and high-risk occupational workers (including healthcare workers and first responders).

Results

Several studies focus on underrepresented populations, including ethnic minorities and rural communities. To support integrative data analyses across SeroNet studies, efforts are underway to define common data elements for standardized serology measurements, cellular and molecular assays, self-reported data, treatment, and clinical outcomes.

Conclusions

In this paper, we discuss the overarching framework for SeroNet epidemiology studies, critical research questions under investigation, and data accessibility for the worldwide scientific community. Lessons learned will help inform preparedness and responsiveness to future emerging diseases.

SUBMITTER: Figueiredo JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9129196 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:RATIONALE:One in 12 adults has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma. Acute exacerbations of these chronic lower respiratory diseases (CLRDs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Valid approaches to classifying cases and exacerbations in the general population are needed to facilitate prevention research. OBJECTIVES:To assess the feasibility, reproducibility, and performance of a protocol to identify CLRD cases and exacerbations triggering emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalizations in cohorts of patients derived from general populations of adults. METHODS:A protocol was developed to classify CLRD cases and severe exacerbations on the basis of review of medical records. ED and inpatient medical records were ascertained prospectively in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos, and inpatient records were retrospectively identified by administrative codes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. "Probable" exacerbations were defined as a physician's diagnosis of CLRD with acute respiratory symptoms. "Highly probable" exacerbations additionally required systemic corticosteroid therapy, and "definite" exacerbations required airflow limitation or evidence of CLRD on imaging studies. Adjudicated results were compared with CLRD cases identified by spirometry and self-report, and with an administrative definition of exacerbations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Protocol-based classification was completed independently by two physicians for 216 medical records (56 ED visits and 61 hospitalizations in the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos; 99 hospitalizations in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis). Reviewer disagreement occurred in 2-5% of cases and 4-8% of exacerbations. Eighty-nine percent of records were confirmed as at least probable CLRD cases. Fifty-six percent of confirmed CLRD cases had airflow limitation on the basis of baseline study spirometry. Of records that described CLRD as the primary discharge diagnosis code, an acute exacerbation was confirmed as at least probable for 96% and as highly probable or definite for 77%. Only 50% of records with CLRD as a secondary code were confirmed, although such records accounted for over half of all confirmed exacerbations. CONCLUSIONS:CLRD cases and severe exacerbations without preceding documentation of airflow limitation are identified frequently in population-based cohorts of persons. A primary discharge diagnosis of CLRD is specific but insensitive for defining exacerbations. Protocol-based classification of medical records may be appropriate to supplement and to validate identification of CLRD cases and exacerbations in general population studies. Clinical trials registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00005487 and NCT02060344).

Project description:The Dichotic Digits test (DDT) has been widely used to assess central auditory processing but there is limited information on observed DDT performance in a general population. The purpose of the study was to determine factors related to DDT performance in a large cohort spanning the adult age range.The study was cross-sectional and subjects were participants in the Epidemiology of Hearing Loss Study (EHLS), a population-based investigation of age-related hearing loss, or the Beaver Dam Offspring Study (BOSS), a study of aging in the adult offspring of the EHLS members. Subjects seen during the 4th EHLS (2008 to 2010) or the 2nd BOSS (2010 to 2013) examination were included (N = 3655 participants [1391 EHLS, 2264 BOSS]; mean age = 61.1 years, range = 21 to 100 years). The free and right ear-directed recall DDTs were administered using 25 sets of triple-digit pairs with a 70 dB HL presentation level. Pure-tone audiometric testing was conducted and the pure-tone threshold average (PTA) at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4?kHz was categorized using the worse ear: no loss = PTA ? 25 dB HL; mild loss = 25 < PTA ? 40 dB HL; moderate or marked loss = PTA > 40 dB HL. Cognitive impairment was defined as a Mini-Mental State Examination score < 24 (maximum = 30) or a self- or proxy-reported history of dementia or Alzheimer's disease. Demographic information was self-reported. General linear models were fit and multiple linear regression was performed.The mean total free recall DDT score was 76.7% (range = 21.3 to 100%). Less than 10% of the participants had a total free recall score below 60% correct. The mean right ear-directed recall score was 98.4% with 69% of the participants scoring 100% and another 15.5% scoring 98.7% (1 incorrect digit). In multivariable modeling of the total free recall scores, the predicted mean free recall score was 1 percentage point lower for every 5-year increase in age, 2.3 percentage points lower in males than females, 8.7 percentage points lower in participants with less than a high school degree than in those with college degrees, 6.8 percentage points lower in participants with a moderate or marked hearing loss compared with no hearing loss, and 8.3 percentage points lower in participants with cognitive impairment compared with those without cognitive impairment. These 5 factors were independently and significantly related to performance and accounted for 22.7% of the total variability in free recall scores.Substantial variation in the total free recall DDT scores but very little variation in the right ear-directed recall DDT scores was observed. Age, sex, education, hearing loss severity, and cognitive impairment were found to be significantly related to DDT scores but explained less than 25% of the total variability in total free recall scores. The right ear-directed recall DDT by itself may not be of benefit in assessing central auditory processing in a general population because of its limited variability but further evaluation of factors potentially related to free recall DDT variability may prove useful.