| 1. |
- Buchanan, E. M., et al.
(författare)
-
The Psychological Science Accelerator's COVID-19 rapid-response dataset
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Scientific Data. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2052-4463. ; 10:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Lakens, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
Justify your alpha
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Nature Human Behaviour. - : Nature Publishing Group. - 2397-3374. ; 2:3, s. 168-171
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In response to recommendations to redefine statistical significance to P ≤ 0.005, we propose that researchers should transparently report and justify all choices they make when designing a study, including the alpha level.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Ebersole, Charles R., et al.
(författare)
-
Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. - : Sage. - 2515-2467 .- 2515-2459. ; 3:3, s. 309-331
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3-9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276-3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Delta r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00-.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19-.50).
|
|
| 6. |
- vom Saal, Frederick S., et al.
(författare)
-
The Conflict between Regulatory Agencies over the 20,000-Fold Lowering of the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for Bisphenol A (BPA) by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 132:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommended lowering their estimated tolerable daily intake (TDI) for bisphenol A (BPA) 20,000-fold to 0.2 ng/kg body weight (BW)/day. BPA is an extensively studied high production volume endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) associated with a vast array of diseases. Prior risk assessments of BPA by EFSA as well as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have relied on industry-funded studies conducted under good laboratory practice protocols (GLP) requiring guideline end points and detailed record keeping, while also claiming to examine (but rejecting) thousands of published findings by academic scientists. Guideline protocols initially formalized in the mid-twentieth century are still used by many regulatory agencies. EFSA used a 21st century approach in its reassessment of BPA and conducted a transparent, but time-limited, systematic review that included both guideline and academic research. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) opposed EFSA’s revision of the TDI for BPA.Objectives: We identify the flaws in the assumptions that the German BfR, as well as the FDA, have used to justify maintaining the TDI for BPA at levels above what a vast amount of academic research shows to cause harm. We argue that regulatory agencies need to incorporate 21st century science into chemical hazard identifications using the CLARITY-BPA (Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity) nonguideline academic studies in a collaborative government–academic program model.Discussion: We strongly endorse EFSA’s revised TDI for BPA and support the European Commission’s (EC) apparent acceptance of this updated BPA risk assessment. We discuss challenges to current chemical risk assessment assumptions about EDCs that need to be addressed by regulatory agencies to, in our opinion, become truly protective of public health. Addressing these challenges will hopefully result in BPA, and eventually other structurally similar bisphenols (called regrettable substitutions) for which there are known adverse effects, being eliminated from all food-related and many other uses in the EU and elsewhere.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Green, C., et al.
(författare)
-
A Horizon Scan to Support Chemical Pollution-Related Policymaking for Sustainable and Climate-Resilient Economies
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. - : Wiley. - 0730-7268 .- 1552-8618. ; 42:6, s. 1212-1228
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- While chemicals are vital to modern society through materials, agriculture, textiles, new technology, medicines, and consumer goods, their use is not without risks. Unfortunately, our resources seem inadequate to address the breadth of chemical challenges to the environment and human health. Therefore, it is important we use our intelligence and knowledge wisely to prepare for what lies ahead. The present study used a Delphi-style approach to horizon-scan future chemical threats that need to be considered in the setting of chemicals and environmental policy, which involved a multidisciplinary, multisectoral, and multinational panel of 25 scientists and practitioners (mainly from the United Kingdom, Europe, and other industrialized nations) in a three-stage process. Fifteen issues were shortlisted (from a nominated list of 48), considered by the panel to hold global relevance. The issues span from the need for new chemical manufacturing (including transitioning to non-fossil-fuel feedstocks); challenges from novel materials, food imports, landfills, and tire wear; and opportunities from artificial intelligence, greater data transparency, and the weight-of-evidence approach. The 15 issues can be divided into three classes: new perspectives on historic but insufficiently appreciated chemicals/issues, new or relatively new products and their associated industries, and thinking through approaches we can use to meet these challenges. Chemicals are one threat among many that influence the environment and human health, and interlinkages with wider issues such as climate change and how we mitigate these were clear in this exercise. The horizon scan highlights the value of thinking broadly and consulting widely, considering systems approaches to ensure that interventions appreciate synergies and avoid harmful trade-offs in other areas. We recommend further collaboration between researchers, industry, regulators, and policymakers to perform horizon scanning to inform policymaking, to develop our ability to meet these challenges, and especially to extend the approach to consider also concerns from countries with developing economies. Environ Toxicol Chem 2023;00:1-17. (c) 2023 Crown copyright and The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the King's Printer for Scotland.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Beauxis-Aussalet, Emma, et al.
(författare)
-
The Role of Interactive Visualization in Fostering Trust in AI
- 2021
-
Ingår i: IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. - : IEEE. - 0272-1716 .- 1558-1756. ; 41:6, s. 7-12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies across application domains has prompted our society to pay closer attention to AI's trustworthiness, fairness, interpretability, and accountability. In order to foster trust in AI, it is important to consider the potential of interactive visualization, and how such visualizations help build trust in AI systems. This manifesto discusses the relevance of interactive visualizations and makes the following four claims: i) trust is not a technical problem, ii) trust is dynamic, iii) visualization cannot address all aspects of trust, and iv) visualization is crucial for human agency in AI.
|
|
