| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Aubert, S, et al.
(författare)
-
Global Matrix 4.0 Physical Activity Report Card Grades for Children and Adolescents: Results and Analyses From 57 Countries
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of physical activity & health. - : Human Kinetics. - 1543-5474 .- 1543-3080. ; 19:11, s. 700-728
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The Global Matrix 4.0 on physical activity (PA) for children and adolescents was developed to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the global variation in children’s and adolescents’ (5–17 y) PA, related measures, and key sources of influence. The objectives of this article were (1) to summarize the findings from the Global Matrix 4.0 Report Cards, (2) to compare indicators across countries, and (3) to explore trends related to the Human Development Index and geo-cultural regions. Methods: A total of 57 Report Card teams followed a harmonized process to grade the 10 common PA indicators. An online survey was conducted to collect Report Card Leaders’ top 3 priorities for each PA indicator and their opinions on how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted child and adolescent PA indicators in their country. Results: Overall Physical Activity was the indicator with the lowest global average grade (D), while School and Community and Environment were the indicators with the highest global average grade (C+). An overview of the global situation in terms of surveillance and prevalence is provided for all 10 common PA indicators, followed by priorities and examples to support the development of strategies and policies internationally. Conclusions: The Global Matrix 4.0 represents the largest compilation of children’s and adolescents’ PA indicators to date. While variation in data sources informing the grades across countries was observed, this initiative highlighted low PA levels in children and adolescents globally. Measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, local/international conflicts, climate change, and economic change threaten to worsen this situation.
|
|
| 6. |
- 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).
|
|
| 7. |
- Gaba, F, et al.
(författare)
-
Determining post-operative morbidity and mortality following gynecological oncology surgery: protocol for a multicenter, international, prospective cohort study (Global Gynaecological Oncology Surgical Outcomes Collaborative-GO SOAR)
- 2021
-
Ingår i: International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society. - : BMJ. - 1525-1438. ; 31:9, s. 1287-1291
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Global Gynaecological Oncology Surgical Outcomes Collaborative (GO SOAR) aims to develop a network of gynecological oncology surgeons, surgical departments, and other interested parties that will have the long-term ability to collaborate on outcome studies. The protocol for the first collaborative study is presented here.Primary ObjectiveTo evaluate international variation in 30-day post-operative morbidity and mortality following gynecological oncology surgery between very high/high and medium/low human development index country settings.HypothesisThere is no variation in post-operative morbidity and mortality following gynecological oncology surgery between very high/high and medium/low human development index country settings.Study DesignInternational, multicenter, prospective cohort study. Patient data will be collected over a consecutive 30-day period through gynecological oncology multidisciplinary teams/tumor boards and clinics across different human development index country groups. All data are collected on a customized, secure, password protected, central REDCap database.Major Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaInclusion criteria include women aged ≥18 years undergoing elective/emergency, curative/palliative surgery for primary/recurrent tubo-ovarian/peritoneal, endometrial, cervical, vulval, vaginal, gestational trophoblastic malignancies. Surgical modality may be open, minimal access (laparoscopic/robotic), or vaginal.Primary Endpoint30-day post-operative morbidity and mortality defined as per Clavien-Dindo classification system.Sample Size1100 (550/arm).Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting ResultsIt is estimated recruitment will be completed by 2022 and results published by 2023.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04579861 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04579861).
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Li, Yafang, et al.
(författare)
-
Genome-wide interaction analysis identified low-frequency variants with sex disparity in lung cancer risk
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Human Molecular Genetics. - : Oxford University Press. - 0964-6906 .- 1460-2083. ; 31:16, s. 2831-2843
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Differences by sex in lung cancer incidence and mortality have been reported which cannot be fully explained by sex differences in smoking behavior, implying existence of genetic and molecular basis for sex disparity in lung cancer development. However, the information about sex dimorphism in lung cancer risk is quite limited despite the great success in lung cancer association studies. By adopting a stringent two-stage analysis strategy, we performed a genome-wide gene-sex interaction analysis using genotypes from a lung cancer cohort including ~ 47 000 individuals with European ancestry. Three low-frequency variants (minor allele frequency < 0.05), rs17662871 [odds ratio (OR) = 0.71, P = 4.29×10-8); rs79942605 (OR = 2.17, P = 2.81×10-8) and rs208908 (OR = 0.70, P = 4.54×10-8) were identified with different risk effect of lung cancer between men and women. Further expression quantitative trait loci and functional annotation analysis suggested rs208908 affects lung cancer risk through differential regulation of Coxsackie virus and adenovirus receptor gene expression in lung tissues between men and women. Our study is one of the first studies to provide novel insights about the genetic and molecular basis for sex disparity in lung cancer development.
|
|
| 10. |
- Li, Yafang, et al.
(författare)
-
Lung cancer in ever- and never-smokers : findings from multi-population GWAS studies
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. - : American Association For Cancer Research (AACR). - 1055-9965 .- 1538-7755. ; 33:3, s. 389-399
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Clinical, molecular, and genetic epidemiology studies displayed remarkable differences between ever- and never-smoking lung cancer.METHODS: We conducted a stratified multi-population (European, East Asian, and African descent) association study on 44,823 ever-smokers and 20,074 never-smokers to identify novel variants that were missed in the non-stratified analysis. Functional analysis including expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) colocalization and DNA damage assays, and annotation studies were conducted to evaluate the functional roles of the variants. We further evaluated the impact of smoking quantity on lung cancer risk for the variants associated with ever-smoking lung cancer.RESULTS: Five novel independent loci, GABRA4, intergenic region 12q24.33, LRRC4C, LINC01088, and LCNL1 were identified with the association at two or three populations (P < 5 × 10-8). Further functional analysis provided multiple lines of evidence suggesting the variants affect lung cancer risk through excessive DNA damage (GABRA4) or cis-regulation of gene expression (LCNL1). The risk of variants from 12 independent regions, including the well-known CHRNA5, associated with ever-smoking lung cancer was evaluated for never-smokers, light-smokers (packyear ≤ 20), and moderate-to-heavy-smokers (packyear > 20). Different risk patterns were observed for the variants among the different groups by smoking behavior.CONCLUSIONS: We identified novel variants associated with lung cancer in only ever- or never-smoking groups that were missed by prior main-effect association studies. IMPACT: Our study highlights the genetic heterogeneity between ever- and never-smoking lung cancer and provides etiologic insights into the complicated genetic architecture of this deadly cancer.
|
|
| 11. |
- Naudet, Florian, et al.
(författare)
-
Medical journal requirements for clinical trial data sharing : Ripe for improvement
- 2021
-
Ingår i: PLoS Medicine. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1549-1277 .- 1549-1676. ; 18:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Summary points:Efficient sharing and reuse of data from clinical trials are critical in advancing medical knowledge and developing improved treatments.We believe that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) clinical trial data sharing policy is currently inadequate.Although data sharing plans help increase transparency, they do not ensure that data are shared, and they are often inadequately implemented.We believe that the ICMJE should adapt a stronger policy on data sharing that is enforced rigorously in all ICMJE members and affiliated journals.The policy should include a strong evaluation component to ensure that all clinical trial data are shared, their value maximized, and data producers incentivized.
|
|
