Gender differences in professional social networks use among critical care researchers

BACKGROUND

Recent studies highlight that female anaesthesiology researchers have lower visibility on professional social networks (PSNs) than male researchers.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this work was to compare the use of PSNs between women and men in critical care research.

METHODS

We included the first/last authors (FAs/LAs) among the most frequently cited articles in 2018 and 2019 in three critical care journals (Intensive Care Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, and Critical Care). We compared the use of three PSNs-Twitter, ResearchGate, and LinkedIn-between women and men in the FA/LA positions.

RESULTS

We analysed 494 articles, which allowed us to include 426 FAs and 383 LAs. The use of a PSN was similar between women and men (Twitter: 35 vs. 31% FA p = 0.76, 38 vs. 31% LA p = 0.24; ResearchGate: 60 vs. 70% FA p = 0.06, 67 vs. 66% LA p = 0.95; LinkedIn: 54 vs. 56% FA p = 0.25, 68 vs. 64% LA p = 0.58; respectively). On ResearchGate, women had a lower reputation score (FA group 26.4 [19.5-31.5] vs. 34.8 [27.4-41.6], p < 0.01; LA group 38.5 [30.9-43.7] vs. 42.3 [37.6-46.4], p < 0.01) and fewer followers (FA group 28.5 [19-45] vs. 68.5 [72,5-657] p < 0.01; LA group 96.5 [43,8-258] vs. 178 [76.3-313.5] p = 0.02). Female researchers were FAs in 30% of the articles and LAs in 16%.

CONCLUSION

In the field of critical care, the visibility of female researchers on the social networks dedicated to scientific research is lower than that of male researchers.

Perception, practice, and barriers toward research among pediatric undergraduates: a cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey

BACKGROUND

Scientific research activities are crucial for the development of clinician-scientists. However, few people pay attention to the current situation of medical research in pediatric medical students in China. This study aims to assess the perceptions, practices and barriers toward medical research of pediatric undergraduates.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted among third-year, fourth-year and fifth-year pediatric students from Zhejiang University School of Medicine in China via an anonymous online questionnaire. The questionnaires were also received from fifth-year students majoring in other medicine programs [clinical medicine ("5 + 3") and clinical medicine (5-year)].

RESULTS

The response rate of pediatric undergraduates was 88.3% (68/77). The total sample of students enrolled in the study was 124, including 36 students majoring in clinical medicine ("5 + 3") and 20 students majoring in clinical medicine (5-year). Most students from pediatrics ("5 + 3") recognized that research was important. Practices in scientific research activities are not satisfactory. A total of 51.5%, 35.3% and 36.8% of the pediatric students participated in research training, research projects and scientific article writing, respectively. Only 4.4% of the pediatric students contributed to publishing a scientific article, and 14.7% had attended medical congresses. None of them had given a presentation at a congress. When compared with fifth-year students in the other medicine program, the frequency of practices toward research projects and training was lower in the pediatric fifth-year students. Lack of time, lack of guidance and lack of training were perceived as the main barriers to scientific work. Limited English was another obvious barrier for pediatric undergraduates. Pediatric undergraduates preferred to participate in clinical research (80.9%) rather than basic research.

CONCLUSIONS

Although pediatric undergraduates recognized the importance of medical research, interest and practices in research still require improvement. Lack of time, lack of guidance, lack of training and limited English were the common barriers to scientific work. Therefore, research training and English improvement were recommended for pediatric undergraduates.

Use and reporting of inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting for multicategory treatments in medical research: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Causal inference methods for observational data represent an alternative to randomised controlled trials when they are not feasible or when real-world evidence is sought. Inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) is one of the most popular approaches to account for confounding in observational studies. In medical research, IPTW is mainly applied to estimate the causal effect of a binary treatment, even when the treatment has in fact multiple categories, despite the availability of IPTW estimators for multiple treatment categories. This raises questions about the appropriateness of the use of IPTW in this context. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of medical publications reporting the use of IPTW in the presence of a multi-category treatment. Our objectives were to investigate the frequency of use and the implementation of these methods in practice, and to assess the quality of their reporting.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Using Pubmed, Embase and Web of Science, we screened 5660 articles and retained 106 articles in the final analysis that were from 17 different medical areas. This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022352669).

RESULTS

The number of treatment groups varied between 3 and 9, with a large majority of articles (90 [84.9%]) including 3 or 4 groups. The most commonly used method for estimating the weights was multinomial regression (51 [48.1%]) and generalized boosted models (48 [45.3%]). The covariates of the weight model were reported in 91 articles (85.9 %). Twenty-six articles (24.5 %) did not discuss the balance of covariates after weighting, and only 16 articles (15.1 %) referred to the assumptions needed to obtain correct inferences.

CONCLUSION

The results of this systematic review illustrate that medical publications scarcely use IPTW methods for more than two treatment categories. Among the publications that did, the quality of reporting was suboptimal, in particular in regard to the assumptions and model building. IPTW for multi-category treatments could be applied more broadly in medical research, and the application of the proposed guidelines in this context will help researchers to report their results and to ensure reproducibility of their research.

Attitude towards consent-free research use of personal medical data in the general German population

Background

The design of appropriate consent procedures for the secondary use of personal health data is a key concern of current medical research. In Germany, the concept of 'data donation' has recently come into focus, defined as a legal entitlement to the research use of personal medical data without prior consent, combined with an easy-to-exercise right of the data subjects to opt-out.

Methods

Standardized online interviews of 3,013 individuals, representative of the German online population, were conducted in August 2022 to determine their attitude towards data donation for medical research.

Results

A majority of participants supported a consent-free data donation regulation, both for publicly funded (85.1%) and for private medical research (66.4%). Major predictors of a positive attitude towards data donation included (i) sufficient appreciation of the respective kind of research (i.e. public or private), (ii) a reciprocity attitude that patients who benefit from research have a duty to support research, and (iii) sufficient trust in data protection and data control.

Conclusion

People's attitude towards data donation to medical research is generally positive in Germany and depends upon factors that can be curbed by legislation and internal rules of procedure. Worthy of note, designing data donation in the form of an opt-out regulation does not necessarily mean that the paradigm of informedness has to be abandoned. Rather the process of information provision must be shifted towards the creation of basic knowledge in the general population about the risks and benefits of data-intensive medical research ('health data literacy').

Primary care involvement in clinical research - prerequisites, motivators, and barriers: results from a study series

BACKGROUND

Long-term reinforcement in the role of primary care and improvement the healthcare system as a whole requires the involvement of GPs in clinical research processes. However, many clinical studies fail due to failure to achieve sample population targets amongst GPs and their patients. This issue has been identified and discussed, but effective strategies to overcome it are still lacking. One of the reasons is that the positions, requirements, and experiences of GPs on participating in clinical research have hardly been examined up to now.

METHODS

The years 2021 and 2022 saw three quantitative and qualitative surveys amongst GPs in Germany with the aim of shedding light on the attitudes, experiences, and potential issues regarding the involvement of primary care in clinical research projects and participation in cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) in a general sense. This overview summarises and abstracts conclusions gained from the exploratory series of studies and compares the results with the current research situation. From here, this contribution will then develop an approach towards optimising the integration of GPs into clinical research.

RESULTS

Most of the GPs asked associated clinical research with opportunities and potential such as closing gaps in healthcare, using evidence-based instruments, optimising diagnostic and therapeutic management, and reinforcement of multiprofessional healthcare. Even so, many GPs unsure as to how far primary care in particular would stand to benefit from studies of this type in the long term. Respondents were also divided on willingness to participate in clinical research. GPs having already participated in Innovation Fund projects generally saw a benefit regarding intervention and cost-benefit relationship. However, some also reported major hurdles and stress factors such as excessive documentation and enrolment requirements, greater interference in practice routines, and sometimes poor integration into project processes such as in communication and opportunities to play an active role in the project.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the studies presented provide indications as to how GPs perceive clinical research projects and cRCTs as a whole and from their existing project experience, and on the requirements that studies would have to meet for GPs to be willing to participate. In particular, making sure that clinical studies fully conform with GPs would play a major role; this especially applies to freedom to make medical decisions, limitation of documentation obligations, interference in regular practice routine, greater involvement in research planning, and long-term reinforcement in the role of primary care. Clinical research projects and cRCTs should be planned, designed, and communicated for clear and visible relevance to everyday primary care.

Extensive dynamic changes in the human transcriptome and its circadian organization during prolonged bed rest

Physiological and molecular processes including the transcriptome change across the 24-h day, driven by molecular circadian clocks and behavioral and systemic factors. It is not known how the temporal organization of the human transcriptome responds to a long-lasting challenge. This may, however, provide insights into adaptation, disease, and recovery. We investigated the human 24-h time series transcriptome in 20 individuals during a 90-day constant bed rest protocol. We show that the protocol affected 91% of the transcriptome with 76% of the transcriptome still affected after 10 days of recovery. Dimensionality-reduction approaches revealed that many affected transcripts were associated with mRNA translation and immune function. The number, amplitude, and phase of rhythmic transcripts, including clock genes, varied significantly across the challenge. These findings of long-lasting changes in the temporal organization of the transcriptome have implications for understanding the mechanisms underlying health consequences of conditions such as microgravity and bed rest.

The Role of ChatGPT in Medical Research: Progress and Limitations

Advancements in AI have resulted in the development of sophisticated language models like ChatGPT, which can generate human-like text. While ChatGPT is useful for clarifying concepts and providing basic guidance, it has limitations. It lacks the ability to provide the latest scientific information and access original medical databases. Studies have shown that ChatGPT's text can be robotic, shallow, and lacking a human touch. It has also been found to provide misleading or inaccurate information. Researchers and medical professionals should be aware of these limitations and not solely rely on ChatGPT for complex tasks. The human element and real-world experiences are indispensable in science, and consulting experts is advisable for reliable insights.