Étiquette : biomedical research

Catégories
EN

A decentralized future for the open-science databases

Authors : Gaurav Sharma, Viorel Munteanu, Nika Mansouri Ghiasi, Jineta Banerjee, Susheel Varma, Luca Foschini, Kyle Ellrott, Onur Mutlu, Dumitru Ciorbă, Roel A. Ophoff, Viorel Bostan, Christopher E Mason, Jason H. Moore, Despoina Sousoni, Arunkumar Krishnan, Christopher E. Mason, Mihai Dimian, Gustavo Stolovitzky, Fabio G. Liberante, Taras K. Oleksyk, Serghei Mangul

Continuous and reliable access to curated biological data repositories is indispensable for accelerating rigorous scientific inquiry and fostering reproducible research. Centralized repositories, though widely used, are vulnerable to single points of failure arising from cyberattacks, technical faults, natural disasters, or funding and political uncertainties.

This can lead to widespread data unavailability, data loss, integrity compromises, and substantial delays in critical research, ultimately impeding scientific progress. Centralizing essential scientific resources in a single geopolitical or institutional hub is inherently dangerous, as any disruption can paralyze diverse ongoing research.

The rapid acceleration of data generation, combined with an increasingly volatile global landscape, necessitates a critical re-evaluation of the sustainability of centralized models. Implementing federated and decentralized architectures presents a compelling and future-oriented pathway to substantially strengthen the resilience of scientific data infrastructures, thereby mitigating vulnerabilities and ensuring the long-term integrity of data.

Here, we examine the structural limitations of centralized repositories, evaluate federated and decentralized models, and propose a hybrid framework for resilient, FAIR, and sustainable scientific data stewardship. Such an approach offers a significant reduction in exposure to governance instability, infrastructural fragility, and funding volatility, and also fosters fairness and global accessibility.

The future of open science depends on integrating these complementary approaches to establish a globally distributed, economically sustainable, and institutionally robust infrastructure that safeguards scientific data as a public good, further ensuring continued accessibility, interoperability, and preservation for generations to come.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.19206

Catégories
EN

Trends of Publication of Negative Trials Over Time

Authors : Bruno Laviolle, Clara Locher, Jean-Sébastien Allain, Quentin Le Cornu, Pierre Charpentier, Marie Lefebvre, Clémence Le Pape, Cyril Leven, Clément Palpacuer, Clémence Pontoizeau, Eric Bellissant, Florian Naudet

Studies with negative results are less likely to be published than others, potentially leading to publication bias. Introduced in 2000, trial registration could have participated in decreasing the proportion of unpublished studies. We assessed the proportion of negative randomized controlled trials (RCT) over the last 20 years.

We searched Medline for RCT published in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 in the British Medical Journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine. The primary endpoint was the proportion of negative (final comparison on the primary study-endpoint without statistical significance or favoring the control arm) studies published in 2000 and 2020.

Factors independently associated with the publication of negative studies were identified using multivariable analysis. A total of 1,542 studies were included. The proportion of negative RCT significantly increased between 2000 and 2020 (from 27.6% to 37.4%; P = 0.01), however, the trend over time was not significant (P = 0.203). In multivariable analysis, the following factors were associated with a higher proportion of published negative studies: superiority (P < 0.001), two-group trials (P < 0.001), number of patients ≥510 (P < 0.001), cardiology trials (P = 0.003), emergency/critical care trials (P < 0.001), obstetrics trials (P = 0.032), surgery trials (P = 0.006), pneumology trials (P = 0.029).

Exclusive industry funding was associated with a lower proportion of published negative studies (P < 0.001). The proportion of published negative studies in 2020 was higher only when compared to 2000. During the two decades, no trend was noticeable. There is no clear relationship between trial registration and the publication of negative results over time.

URL : Trends of Publication of Negative Trials Over Time

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3535

Catégories
EN

The role of preprints in open science: Accelerating knowledge transfer from science to technology

Authors : Zhiqi Wang, Yue Chen, Chun Yang

Preprints have become increasingly essential in the landscape of open science, facilitating not only the exchange of knowledge within the scientific community but also bridging the gap between science and technology.

However, the impact of preprints on technological innovation, given their unreviewed nature, remains unclear. This study fills this gap by conducting a comprehensive scientometric analysis of patent citations to bioRxiv preprints submitted between 2013 and 2021, measuring and accessing the contribution of preprints in accelerating knowledge transfer from science to technology.

Our findings reveal a growing trend of patent citations to bioRxiv preprints, with a notable surge in 2020, primarily driven by the COVID-19 pandemic. Preprints play a critical role in accelerating innovation, not only expedite the dissemination of scientific knowledge into technological innovation but also enhance the visibility of early research results in the patenting process, while journals remain essential for academic rigor and reliability. w

The substantial number of post-online-publication patent citations highlights the critical role of the open science model-particularly the « open access » effect of preprints-in amplifying the impact of science on technological innovation.

This study provides empirical evidence that open science policies encouraging the early sharing of research outputs, such as preprints, contribute to more efficient linkage between science and technology, suggesting an acceleration in the pace of innovation, higher innovation quality, and economic benefits.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.20225

Catégories
EN

Why is it important to implement meta-research in universities and institutes with medical research activities

Authors : Ivan David Lozada-Martinez, Dionicio Neira-Rodado, Darly Martinez-Guevara, Hary Salome Cruz-Soto, Maria Paula Sanchez-Echeverry, Yamil Liscano

In recent years, there has been a growing concern over questionable practices and a lack of rigor in scientific activities, particularly in health and medical sciences.

Universities and research institutes are key players in the development of science, technology, and innovation. Academic institutions, whose primary mission is to generate and disseminate knowledge, bear the responsibility in many parts of the world to act as consultants and guardians of scientific integrity in health research.

Then, universities and research institutes must act as guardians of the research and technological development process, utilizing methodological and operational evaluation tools to validate the rigor and quality of medical research.

Meta-research is defined as the research of research itself. Some of the most important specific objectives of meta-research include the assessment of research relevance, the evaluation of evidence validity, and the exploration of scientific integrity.

A significant portion of evidence in the medical and health sciences literature has been found to be redundant, misleading, or inconsistent. Although this issue is of great importance in global health, discussions about practical and tangible solutions remain fragmented and limited.

The aim of this manuscript is to highlight the significance of employing meta-research within universities and research institutes as a tool to monitor scientific rigor and promote responsible practices in medical research.

URL : Why is it important to implement meta-research in universities and institutes with medical research activities

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1497280

Catégories
EN

Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial

Authors : Melissa L Rethlefsen, Sara Schroter, Lex M Bouter, Jamie J Kirkham,  David Moher, Ana Patricia Ayala, David Blanco, Tara J Brigham, Holly K Grossetta Nardini,  Shona Kirtley, Kate Nyhan, Whitney Townsend, Maurice Zeegers

Objective

To evaluate the impact of adding librarians and information specialists (LIS) as methodological peer reviewers to the formal journal peer review process on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches in the medical literature.

Design

Pragmatic two-group parallel randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Three biomedical journals.

Participants

Systematic reviews and related evidence synthesis manuscripts submitted to The BMJ, BMJ Open and BMJ Medicine and sent out for peer review from 3 January 2023 to 1 September 2023. Randomisation (allocation ratio, 1:1) was stratified by journal and used permuted blocks (block size=4). Of 2670 manuscripts sent to peer review during study enrollment, 400 met inclusion criteria and were randomised (62 The BMJ, 334 BMJ Open, 4 BMJ Medicine). 76 manuscripts were revised and resubmitted in the intervention group and 90 in the control group by 2 January 2024.

Interventions

All manuscripts followed usual journal practice for peer review, but those in the intervention group had an additional (LIS) peer reviewer invited.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcomes are the differences in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups in the quality of reporting and risk of bias. Quality of reporting was measured using four prespecified PRISMA-S items. Risk of bias was measured using ROBIS Domain 2. Assessments were done in duplicate and assessors were blinded to group allocation. Secondary outcomes included differences between groups for each individual PRISMA-S and ROBIS Domain 2 item. The difference in the proportion of manuscripts rejected as the first decision post-peer review between the intervention and control groups was an additional outcome.

Results

Differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches (4.4% difference, 95% CI: −2.0% to 10.7%) and risk of bias in searches (0.5% difference, 95% CI: −13.7% to 14.6%) showed no statistically significant differences between groups. By 4 months post-study, 98 intervention and 70 control group manuscripts had been rejected after peer review (13.8% difference, 95% CI: 3.9% to 23.8%).

Conclusions

Inviting LIS peer reviewers did not impact adequate reporting or risk of bias of searches in first revision manuscripts of biomedical systematic reviews and related review types, though LIS peer reviewers may have contributed to a higher rate of rejection after peer review.

URL : Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113527

Catégories
EN

Improving the reporting of research impact assessments: a systematic review of biomedical funder research impact assessments

Authors : Rachel Abudu, Kathryn Oliver, Annette Boaz

The field of research impact assessment (RIA) has seen remarkable growth over the past three decades. Increasing numbers of RIA frameworks have been developed and applied by research funders and new technologies can capture some research impacts automatically. However, RIAs are too different to draw comparable conclusions about what type of methods, data or processes are best suited to assess research impacts of different kinds, or how funders should most efficiently implement RIAs.

To usher in the next era of RIA and mature the field, future RIA methodologies should become more transparent, standardized and easily implementable. Key to these efforts is an improved understanding of how to practically implement and report on RIA at the funder-level. Our aim is to address this gap through two major contributions.

First, we identify common items across existing best practice guidelines for RIA, creating a preliminary reporting checklist for standardized RIA reporting. Next, we systematically reviewed studies examining funders’ assessment of biomedical grant portfolios to examine how funders reported the results of their RIAs across the checklist, as well as the operational steps funders took to perform their RIA and the variation in how funders implemented the same RIA frameworks.

We compare evidence on current RIA practices with the reporting checklist to identify good practice for RIA reporting, gaps in the evidence base for future research, and recommendations for future effective RIA.

URL : Improving the reporting of research impact assessments: a systematic review of biomedical funder research impact assessments

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae060

Catégories
EN

“Giving them the best information I could with whatever I had at hand”. Physicians’ online health communication practices in a post-normal science context

Authors : Lucía Céspedes, Alice Fleerackers,  Lauren A. Maggio

This study describes US-based physicians’ online public communication practices, particularly on the social media platform Twitter/X, during the COVID-19 pandemic. We draw on 28 semi-structured interviews to examine how they responded to the unique COVID-19 context with respect to each of the four features of post-normal science (PNS): facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, and decisions urgent.

Our analysis reveals that the pandemic shifted what, why, and how physicians used the platform, and with whom they aimed to communicate. We discuss the implications of these changes in their online communication habits, discourses, and representations around social media as a reaction to the context of PNS brought about by the pandemic.

URL : “Giving them the best information I could with whatever I had at hand”. Physicians’ online health communication practices in a post-normal science context

DOI : https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23060204