The Virtual Skeleton Database: An Open Access Repository for Biomedical Research and Collaboration

Background: Statistical shape models are widely used in biomedical research. They are routinely implemented for automatic image segmentation or object identification in medical images. In these fields, however, the acquisition of the large training datasets, required to develop these models, is usually a time-consuming process. Even after this effort, the collections of datasets are often lost or mishandled resulting in replication of work. Objective: To solve these problems, the Virtual Skeleton Database (VSD) is proposed as a centralized storage system where the data necessary to build statistical shape models can be stored and shared. Methods: The VSD provides an online repository system tailored to the needs of the medical research community. The processing of the most common image file types, a statistical shape model framework, and an ontology-based search provide the generic tools to store, exchange, and retrieve digital medical datasets. The hosted data are accessible to the community, and collaborative research catalyzes their productivity. Results: To illustrate the need for an online repository for medical research, three exemplary projects of the VSD are presented: (1) an international collaboration to achieve improvement in cochlear surgery and implant optimization, (2) a population-based analysis of femoral fracture risk between genders, and (3) an online application developed for the evaluation and comparison of the segmentation of brain tumors. Conclusions: The VSD is a novel system for scientific collaboration for the medical image community with a data-centric concept and semantically driven search option for anatomical structures. The repository has been proven to be a useful tool for collaborative model building, as a resource for biomechanical population studies, or to enhance segmentation algorithms.

Bringing results to fruition through publication: An analysis of a peer-reviewed, open access and context-focused journal's editorial practice

When it comes to helping to shape sustainable development, research is most useful when it bridges the science–implementation/management gap and when it brings development specialists and researchers into a dialogue (Hurni et al. 2004); can a peer-reviewed journal contribute to this aim? In the classical system for validation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, journals focus on knowledge exchange within the academic community and do not specifically address a ‘life-world audience’. Within a North-South context, another knowledge divide is added: the peer review process excludes a large proportion of scientists from the South from participating in the production of scientific knowledge (Karlsson et al. 2007). Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is a journal whose mission is based on an editorial strategy to build the bridge between research and development and ensure that authors from the global South have access to knowledge production, ultimately with a view to supporting sustainable development in mountains. In doing so, MRD faces a number of challenges that we would like to discuss with the td-net community, after having presented our experience and strategy as editors of this journal. MRD was launched in 1981 by mountain researchers who wanted mountains to be included in the 1992 Rio process. In the late 1990s, MRD realized that the journal needed to go beyond addressing only the scientific community. It therefore launched a new section addressing a broader audience in 2000, with the aim of disseminating insights into, and recommendations for, the implementation of sustainable development in mountains. In 2006, we conducted a survey among MRD’s authors, reviewers, and readers (Wymann et al. 2007): respondents confirmed that MRD had succeeded in bridging the gap between research and development. But we realized that MRD could become an even more efficient tool for sustainability if development knowledge were validated: in 2009, we began submitting ‘development’ papers (‘transformation knowledge’) to external peer review of a kind different from the scientific-only peer review (for ‘systems knowledge’). At the same time, the journal became open access in order to increase the permeability between science and society, and ensure greater access for readers and authors in the South. We are currently rethinking our review process for development papers, with a view to creating more space for communication between science and society, and enhancing the co-production of knowledge (Roux 2008). Hopefully, these efforts will also contribute to the urgent debate on the ‘publication culture’ needed in transdisciplinary research (Kueffer et al. 2007).

Feasibility platform for stroke studies: an online tool to improve eligibility criteria for clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Eligibility criteria are a key factor for the feasibility and validity of clinical trials. We aimed to develop an online tool to assess the potential effect of inclusion and exclusion criteria on the proportion of patients eligible for an acute stroke trial. METHODS We identified relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria of acute stroke trials. Based on these criteria and using a cohort of 1537 consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke from 3 stroke centers, we developed a web portal feasibility platform for stroke studies (FePASS) to estimate proportions of eligible patients for acute stroke trials. We applied the FePASS resource to calculate the proportion of patients eligible for 4 recent stroke studies. RESULTS Sixty-one eligibility criteria were derived from 30 trials on acute ischemic stroke. FePASS, publicly available at http://fepass.uni-muenster.de, displays the proportion of patients in percent to assess the effect of varying values of relevant eligibility criteria, for example, age, symptom onset time, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and prestroke modified Rankin Scale, on this proportion. The proportion of eligible patients for 4 recent stroke studies ranged from 2.1% to 11.3%. Slight variations of the inclusion criteria could substantially increase the proportion of eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS FePASS is an open access online resource to assess the effect of inclusion and exclusion criteria on the proportion of eligible patients for a stroke trial. FePASS can help to design stroke studies, optimize eligibility criteria, and to estimate the potential recruitment rate.