Qualitative analysis of the interdisciplinary interaction between data analysis specialists and novice clinical researchers.

BACKGROUND: The inherent complexity of statistical methods and clinical phenomena compel researchers with diverse domains of expertise to work in interdisciplinary teams, where none of them have a complete knowledge in their counterpart's field. As a result, knowledge exchange may often be characterized by miscommunication leading to misinterpretation, ultimately resulting in errors in research and even clinical practice. Though communication has a central role in interdisciplinary collaboration and since miscommunication can have a negative impact on research processes, to the best of our knowledge, no study has yet explored how data analysis specialists and clinical researchers communicate over time. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted qualitative analysis of encounters between clinical researchers and data analysis specialists (epidemiologist, clinical epidemiologist, and data mining specialist). These encounters were recorded and systematically analyzed using a grounded theory methodology for extraction of emerging themes, followed by data triangulation and analysis of negative cases for validation. A policy analysis was then performed using a system dynamics methodology looking for potential interventions to improve this process. Four major emerging themes were found. Definitions using lay language were frequently employed as a way to bridge the language gap between the specialties. Thought experiments presented a series of "what if" situations that helped clarify how the method or information from the other field would behave, if exposed to alternative situations, ultimately aiding in explaining their main objective. Metaphors and analogies were used to translate concepts across fields, from the unfamiliar to the familiar. Prolepsis was used to anticipate study outcomes, thus helping specialists understand the current context based on an understanding of their final goal. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The communication between clinical researchers and data analysis specialists presents multiple challenges that can lead to errors.

The effect of differences in methodology among some recent applications of shearing quotients.

A shearing quotient (SQ) is a way of quantitatively representing the Phase I shearing edges on a molar tooth. Ordinary or phylogenetic least squares regression is fit to data on log molar length (independent variable) and log sum of measured shearing crests (dependent variable). The derived linear equation is used to generate an 'expected' shearing crest length from molar length of included individuals or taxa. Following conversion of all variables to real space, the expected value is subtracted from the observed value for each individual or taxon. The result is then divided by the expected value and multiplied by 100. SQs have long been the metric of choice for assessing dietary adaptations in fossil primates. Not all studies using SQ have used the same tooth position or crests, nor have all computed regression equations using the same approach. Here we focus on re-analyzing the data of one recent study to investigate the magnitude of effects of variation in 1) shearing crest inclusion, and 2) details of the regression setup. We assess the significance of these effects by the degree to which they improve or degrade the association between computed SQs and diet categories. Though altering regression parameters for SQ calculation has a visible effect on plots, numerous iterations of statistical analyses vary surprisingly little in the success of the resulting variables for assigning taxa to dietary preference. This is promising for the comparability of patterns (if not casewise values) in SQ between studies. We suggest that differences in apparent dietary fidelity of recent studies are attributable principally to tooth position examined.