| 1. |
- Carneiro, Clarissa F. D., et al.
(author)
-
Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature
- 2020
-
In: RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND PEER REVIEW. - : BMC. - 2058-8615. ; 5:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader's ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. Methods In this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals. Results Peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication. Conclusions Our results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.
|
|
| 2. |
- Greene, Chris, et al.
(author)
-
Microvascular stabilization via blood-brain barrier regulation prevents seizure activity
- 2022
-
In: Nature Communications. - : Springer Nature. - 2041-1723. ; 13
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Blood-brain barrier (BBB) dysfunction is associated with worse epilepsy outcomes however the underlying molecular mechanisms of BBB dysfunction remain to be elucidated. Tight junction proteins are important regulators of BBB integrity and in particular, the tight junction protein claudin-5 is the most enriched in brain endothelial cells and regulates size-selectivity at the BBB. Additionally, disruption of claudin-5 expression has been implicated in numerous disorders including schizophrenia, depression and traumatic brain injury, yet its role in epilepsy has not been fully deciphered. Here we report that claudin-5 protein levels are significantly diminished in surgically resected brain tissue from patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy. Concomitantly, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in these patients showed widespread BBB disruption. We show that targeted disruption of claudin-5 in the hippocampus or genetic heterozygosity of claudin-5 in mice exacerbates kainic acid-induced seizures and BBB disruption. Additionally, inducible knockdown of claudin-5 in mice leads to spontaneous recurrent seizures, severe neuroinflammation, and mortality. Finally, we identify that RepSox, a regulator of claudin-5 expression, can prevent seizure activity in experimental epilepsy. Altogether, we propose that BBB stabilizing drugs could represent a new generation of agents to prevent seizure activity in epilepsy patients.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Henshall, David C., et al.
(author)
-
Shaping the future of European epilepsy research : Final meeting report from EPICLUSTER
- 2023
-
In: Epilepsy Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0920-1211. ; 189
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Collaboration is essential to the conduct of basic, applied and clinical research and its translation into the technologies and treatments urgently needed to improve the lives of people living with brain diseases and the health professionals who care for them. EPICLUSTER was formed in 2019 by the European Brain Research Area (EBRA) to support the coordination of epilepsy research in Europe. A key objective was to provide a platform to discuss shared research priorities by bringing together scientists and clinicians with multiple stakeholders including patient organisations and industry and the networks and infrastructures that provide healthcare and support research. Additional objectives were to facilitate access and sharing of data and biosamples, working together to ensure epilepsy is a priority for research funding, and embedding a culture of public and patient involvement (PPI) among epilepsy researchers. In this meeting report, we summarise the shared research priorities discussed by the leadership of EPICLUSTER at the recent final meeting. We also briefly review the discussion on patient and industry priorities, guidance on starting PPI for epilepsy researchers, and the sustainability of funding and infrastructures needed to ensure a comprehensive stakeholder-embedded community for epilepsy research.
|
|
| 5. |
- Pitkänen, Asla, et al.
(author)
-
Advancing research toward faster diagnosis, better treatment, and end of stigma in epilepsy
- 2019
-
In: Epilepsia. - : Wiley. - 0013-9580 .- 1528-1167.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Seven large European Union (EU)–funded epilepsy-related research projects joined forces in May 2018 in Brussels, Belgium, in a unique community building event—the epiXchange conference. During this conference, 170 investigators from the projects DESIRE, EpimiRNA, EPISTOP, EpiTarget, EpiXchange, and EpiPGX as well as the European Reference Network EpiCARE, met up with key stakeholders including representatives of the European Commission, patient organizations, commercial partners, and other European and International groups. The epiXchange conference focused on sharing and reviewing the advances made by each project in the previous 5 years; describing the infrastructures generated; and discussing the innovations and commercial applications across five thematic areas: biomarkers, genetics, therapeutics, comorbidities, and biobanks and resources. These projects have, in fact, generated major breakthroughs including the discovery of biofluid-based molecules for diagnosis, elucidating new genetic causes of epilepsy, creating advanced new models of epilepsy, and the pre-clinical development of novel compounds. Workshop-style discussions focused on how to overcome scientific and clinical challenges for accelerating translation of research outcomes and how to increase synergies between the projects and stakeholders at a European level. The resulting advances would lead toward a measurable impact of epilepsy research through better diagnostics, treatments, and quality-of-life for persons with epilepsy. In addition, epiXchange provided a unique forum for examining how the different projects could build momentum for future novel groundbreaking epilepsy research in Europe and beyond. This report includes the main recommendations that resulted from these discussions.
|
|
