| 1. |
- Aczel, Balazs, et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting multi-analyst studies
- 2021
-
Ingår i: eLIFE. - : eLife Sciences Publications. - 2050-084X. ; 10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Any large dataset can be analyzed in a number of ways, and it is possible that the use of different analysis strategies will lead to different results and conclusions. One way to assess whether the results obtained depend on the analysis strategy chosen is to employ multiple analysts and leave each of them free to follow their own approach. Here, we present consensus-based guidance for conducting and reporting such multi-analyst studies, and we discuss how broader adoption of the multi-analyst approach has the potential to strengthen the robustness of results and conclusions obtained from analyses of datasets in basic and applied research.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bisol, Giovanni Destro, et al.
(författare)
-
Perspectives on Open Science and scientific data sharing : an interdisciplinary workshop
- 2014
-
Ingår i: J ANTHROPOL SCI. - 1827-4765. ; 92, s. 179-200
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Looking at Open Science and Open Data from a broad perspective. This is the idea behind "Scientific data sharing: an interdisciplinary workshop", an initiative designed to foster dialogue between scholars from different scientific domains which was organized by the Istituto Italiano di Antropologia in Anagni, Italy, 2-4 September 2013. We here report summaries of the presentations and discussions at the meeting. They deal with four sets of issues: (i) setting a common framework, a general discussion of open data principles, values and opportunities; (ii) insights into scientific practices, a view of the way in which the open data movement is developing in a variety of scientific domains (biology, psychology, epidemiology and archaeology); (iii) a case study of human genomics, which was a trail-blazer in data sharing, and which encapsulates the tension that can occur between large-scale data sharing and one of the boundaries of openness, the protection of individual data; (iv) open science and the public, based on a round table discussion about the public communication of science and the societal implications of open science. There were three proposals for the planning of further interdisciplinary initiatives on open science. Firstly, there is a need to integrate top-down initiatives by governments, institutions and journals with bottom-up approaches from the scientific community. Secondly, more should be done to popularize the societal benefits of open science, not only in providing the evidence needed by citizens to draw their own conclusions on scientific issues that are of concern to them, but also explaining the direct benefits of data sharing in areas such as the control of infectious disease. Finally, introducing arguments from social sciences and humanities in the educational dissemination of open data may help students become more profoundly engaged with Open Science and look at science from a broader perspective.
|
|
| 3. |
- Lodder, Paul, et al.
(författare)
-
Type D Personality as a Risk Factor for Adverse Outcome in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease : An Individual Patient-Data Meta-analysis
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Psychosomatic Medicine. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0033-3174 .- 1534-7796. ; 85:2, s. 188-202
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ObjectiveType D personality, a joint tendency toward negative affectivity and social inhibition, has been linked to adverse events in patients with heart disease, although with inconsistent findings. Here, we apply an individual patient-data meta-analysis to data from 19 prospective cohort studies (N = 11,151) to investigate the prediction of adverse outcomes by type D personality in patients with acquired cardiovascular disease.MethodFor each outcome (all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, major adverse cardiac event, any adverse event), we estimated type D's prognostic influence and the moderation by age, sex, and disease type.ResultsIn patients with cardiovascular disease, evidence for a type D effect in terms of the Bayes factor (BF) was strong for major adverse cardiac event (BF = 42.5; odds ratio [OR] = 1.14) and any adverse event (BF = 129.4; OR = 1.15). Evidence for the null hypothesis was found for all-cause mortality (BF = 45.9; OR = 1.03), cardiac mortality (BF = 23.7; OR = 0.99), and myocardial infarction (BF = 16.9; OR = 1.12), suggesting that type D had no effect on these outcomes. This evidence was similar in the subset of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), but inconclusive for patients with heart failure (HF). Positive effects were found for negative affectivity on cardiac and all-cause mortality, with the latter being more pronounced in male than female patients.ConclusionAcross 19 prospective cohort studies, type D predicts adverse events in patients with CAD, whereas evidence in patients with HF was inconclusive. In both patients with CAD and HF, we found evidence for a null effect of type D on cardiac and all-cause mortality.
|
|
| 4. |
- Uhlmann, Eric, L., et al.
(författare)
-
Subjective Evidence Evaluation Survey For Multi-Analyst Studies
- 2024
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Multi-analyst studies explore how well an empirical claim withstands plausible alternative analyses of the same data set by multiple, independent analysis teams. Conclusions from these studies typically rely on a single outcome metric (e.g., effect size) provided by each analysis team. Although informative about the range of plausible effects in a data set, a single effect size from each team does not provide a complete, nuanced understanding of how analysis choices are related to the outcome. We used the Delphi consensus technique with input from 37 experts to develop an 18-item Subjective Evidence Evaluation Survey (SEES) to evaluate how each analysis team views the methodological appropriateness of the research design and the strength of evidence for the hypothesis. We illustrate the usefulness of the SEES in providing richer evidence assessment with pilot data from a previous multi-analyst study.
|
|
