Genomics of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis

Hepatic fibrosis is the response to chronic injury from viral, toxic, metabolic, cholestatic, or autoimmune liver injury. However, only a minority of affected individuals develop advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis, suggesting that modifiers determine the individual risk. Aside from well-established progression factors including gender, duration of exposure to the disease, and ethnicity, unknown host genetic factors are likely to influence disease progression and prognosis. Potential genetic susceptibility loci are single nucleotide polymorphisms in fibrosis-associated genes, point mutations, microsatellites, and haplotype blocks composed of genes pivotal for fibrosis development. However, the study of complex polygenetic diseases poses numerous pitfalls in contrast to the elucidation of monogenetic (i.e., Mendelian) diseases. Many publications on the role of certain genetic variants in modulating the progression of hepatic fibrosis have been limited by inadequate study design and low statistical power. At present, powerful research strategies are being developed that allow the application of knowledge derived from the successful sequencing of the human genome that will help to translate our newly acquired insight into practical improvements for research activities and medical practice.

On producing and sharing knowledge across boundaries: experiences from the interfaces of an international development research network

The number of large research networks and programmes engaging in knowledge production for development has grown over the past years. One of these programmes devoted to generating knowledge about and for development is National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North–South, a cross-disciplinary, international development research network funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the Swiss National Science Foundation. Producing relevant knowledge for development is a core goal of the programme and an important motivation for many of the participating researchers. Over the years, the researchers have made use of various spaces for exchange and instruments for co-production of knowledge by academic and non-academic development actors. In this article we explore the characteristics of co-producing and sharing knowledge in interfaces between development research, policy and NCCR North–South practice. We draw on empirical material of the NCCR North–South programme and its specific programme element of the Partnership Actions. Our goal is to make use of the concept of the interface to reflect critically about the pursued strategies and instruments applied in producing and sharing knowledge for development across boundaries.

Making research works visible and stimulating a research milieu in the field of social work - The European Resource Centre for Social Work Research (CERTS)

The project to create a European Resource Centre for Social Work Research (CERTS) has been agreed in December 2001 by the General Research Board of the European Commission within the framework programme 'Accompanying Measures for the improving the Human research potential and the Socio Economic Knowledge Base'.

Open Access and Digital Repositories

Funded by the Library and the Vice President for Research and Economic Development, Digital Repository @ Iowa State University is a service for Iowa State's faculty, students and staff to manage, preserve and provide access to their scholarship. This presentation provides an overview of open access and introduces the repository to the Library Liaisons.

Pregnancy and birth cohort resources in europe: a large opportunity for aetiological child health research

BACKGROUND During the past 25 years, many pregnancy and birth cohorts have been established. Each cohort provides unique opportunities for examining associations of early-life exposures with child development and health. However, to fully exploit the large amount of available resources and to facilitate cross-cohort collaboration, it is necessary to have accessible information on each cohort and its individual characteristics. The aim of this work was to provide an overview of European pregnancy and birth cohorts registered in a freely accessible database located at http://www.birthcohorts.net. METHODS European pregnancy and birth cohorts initiated in 1980 or later with at least 300 mother-child pairs enrolled during pregnancy or at birth, and with postnatal data, were eligible for inclusion. Eligible cohorts were invited to provide information on the data and biological samples collected, as well as the timing of data collection. RESULTS In total, 70 cohorts were identified. Of these, 56 fulfilled the inclusion criteria encompassing a total of more than 500,000 live-born European children. The cohorts represented 19 countries with the majority of cohorts located in Northern and Western Europe. Some cohorts were general with multiple aims, whilst others focused on specific health or exposure-related research questions. CONCLUSION This work demonstrates a great potential for cross-cohort collaboration addressing important aspects of child health. The web site, http://www.birthcohorts.net, proved to be a useful tool for accessing information on European pregnancy and birth cohorts and their characteristics.

The COLOSS BEEBOOK Volume II, Standard methods for Apis mellifera pest and pathogen research: Introduction

The COLOSS BEEBOOK is a practical manual compiling standard methods in all fields of research on the western honey bee, Apis mellifera. The COLOSS network was founded in 2008 as a consequence of the heavy and frequent losses of managed honey bee colonies experienced in many regions of the world (Neumann and Carreck, 2010). As many of the world’s honey bee research teams began to address the problem, it soon became obvious that a lack of standardized research methods was seriously hindering scientists’ ability to harmonize and compare the data on colony losses obtained internationally. In its second year of activity, during a COLOSS meeting held in Bern, Switzerland, the idea of a manual of standardized honey bee research methods emerged. The manual, to be called the COLOSS BEEBOOK, was inspired by publications with similar purposes for fruit fly research (Lindsley and Grell, 1968; Ashburner, 1989; Roberts, 1998; Greenspan, 2004).

A Research Roadmap for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – What We Need to Know by 2020

Background: The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella’s several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting. Methods: We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7–9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9–11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella’s scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012. Results: Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens’ needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework. Conclusions: We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens’ attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understand why it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EUwide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe’s reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.

Replications of fundamental research models in ultra high dilutions 1994 and 2015 - update on a bibliometric study

INTRODUCTION This paper focuses exclusively on experimental models with ultra high dilutions (i.e. beyond 10(-23)) that have been submitted to replication scrutiny. It updates previous surveys, considers suggestions made by the research community and compares the state of replication in 1994 with that in 2015. METHODS Following literature research, biochemical, immunological, botanical, cell biological and zoological studies on ultra high dilutions (potencies) were included. Reports were grouped into initial studies, laboratory-internal, multicentre and external replications. Repetition could yield either comparable, or zero, or opposite results. The null-hypothesis was that test and control groups would not be distinguishable (zero effect). RESULTS A total of 126 studies were found. From these, 28 were initial studies. When all 98 replicative studies were considered, 70.4% (i.e. 69) reported a result comparable to that of the initial study, 20.4% (20) zero effect and 9.2% (9) an opposite result. Both for the studies until 1994 and the studies 1995-2015 the null-hypothesis (dominance of zero results) should be rejected. Furthermore, the odds of finding a comparable result are generally higher than of finding an opposite result. Although this is true for all three types of replication studies, the fraction of comparable studies diminishes from laboratory-internal (total 82.9%) to multicentre (total 75%) to external (total 48.3%), while the fraction of opposite results was 4.9%, 10.7% and 13.8%. Furthermore, it became obvious that the probability of an external replication producing comparable results is bigger for models that had already been further scrutinized by the initial researchers. CONCLUSIONS We found 28 experimental models which underwent replication. In total, 24 models were replicated with comparable results, 12 models with zero effect, and 6 models with opposite results. Five models were externally reproduced with comparable results. We encourage further replications of studies in order to learn more about the model systems used.

New Sites, New Challenges? Ethical and Methodological Questions in the Context of Research on Migration Exclusion

The challenges of research ethics and methodologies have been reflected on extensively, but – aside from the context of feminist methodologies – less so in relation to research on particular migration sites such as in transit, detention centres, at the borders or within migration administration. First attempts in this direction have been made (Düvell et al. 2010, Fresia et al. 2005, Riedner 2014, van Liempt/Bilger2009), however, more reflection and theorization is needed, considering the contested nature of these temporal and volatile sites. In this workshop, we thus aim at examining methodological as well as ethical questions that arise during field work: We attempt to reflect the power relations involved in the research process, the ethics of research design, the dissemination of research results, the question of gaining access to and – whenever necessary – staying in contact with our research subjects. How can we negotiate informed consent with subjects whose life is currently marked by transit and insecurity concerning their own future, and who are in an uncertain situation in which substantial information (legal, social, cultural etc.) is likely to be missing? How do we deal with the dilemma of possibly contributing to knowledge production that might facilitate removals and deportations in the future, considering that the reception of the results is not in the hands of the researchers? How do we deal with the anticipated as well as unexpected impacts of our research on social and political practice? Regarding fieldwork in state institutions, how do we negotiate the multiple loyalties we often find ourselves faced with as social researchers, both with the excluded migrants and with the authorities implementing the exclusions – two groupings considered to be opposite to each other (Lavanchy 2013)? Which different roles do researchers need to take on? The aim of our workshop is first and foremost to exchange experiences on fieldwork with others doing qualitative research on related topics and to consider its possible implications – including affective dimensions – for all participants involved in the research process: the migrants, the security staff of detention centres, its social workers, border police and bureaucrats and, last but not least, the researchers themselves. Furthermore, we generally wish to reflect upon the question of how best to conduct research in this contested field, applying an interdisciplinary perspective.

Community College Student Participation in Undergraduate Research: An Explanatory Case Study for Faculty and Research Mentors

This study adapted the current model of science undergraduate research experiences (URE's) and applied this novel modification to include community college students. Numerous researchers have examined the efficacy of URE's in improving undergraduate retention and graduation rates, as well as matriculation rates for graduate programs. However, none have detailed the experience for community college students, and few have employed qualitative methodologies to gather relevant descriptive data from URE participants. This study included perspectives elicited from both non-traditional student participants and the established laboratory community. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the traditional model for a non-traditional student population. The research effort described here utilized a qualitative design and an explanatory case study methodology. Six non-traditional students from the Maine Community College System participated in this study. Student participants were placed in six academic research laboratories located throughout the state. Student participants were interviewed three times during their ten-week internship and asked to record their personal reflections in electronic format. Participants from the established research community were also interviewed. These included both faculty mentors and other student laboratory personnel. Ongoing comparative analysis of the textual data revealed that laboratory organizational structure and social climate significantly influence acculturation outcomes for non-traditional URE participants. Student participants experienced a range of acculturation outcomes from full integration to marginalization. URE acculturation outcomes influenced development of non-traditional students? professional and academic self-concepts. Positive changes in students? self-concepts resulted in greater commitment to individual professional goals and academic aspirations. The findings from this study suggest that traditional science URE models can be successfully adapted to meet the unique needs of a non-traditional student population – community college students. These interpretations may encourage post-secondary educators, administrators, and policy makers to consider expanded access and support for non-traditional students seeking science URE opportunities.

Performance tiers: Implementing comparative effectiveness analysis in the health care setting through operations research and spatial methods

This dissertation develops and tests a comparative effectiveness methodology utilizing a novel approach to the application of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) in health studies. The concept of performance tiers (PerT) is introduced as terminology to express a relative risk class for individuals within a peer group and the PerT calculation is implemented with operations research (DEA) and spatial algorithms. The analysis results in the discrimination of the individual data observations into a relative risk classification by the DEA-PerT methodology. The performance of two distance measures, kNN (k-nearest neighbor) and Mahalanobis, was subsequently tested to classify new entrants into the appropriate tier. The methods were applied to subject data for the 14 year old cohort in the Project HeartBeat! study.^ The concepts presented herein represent a paradigm shift in the potential for public health applications to identify and respond to individual health status. The resultant classification scheme provides descriptive, and potentially prescriptive, guidance to assess and implement treatments and strategies to improve the delivery and performance of health systems. ^

Observations from the Balcony: Directions for Pediatric Health Disparities Research and Policy

In 2002, the Institute of Medicine released Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Healthcare, a landmark monograph documenting health disparities in the U.S. health care system. Since the publication of Unequal Treatment, the field of pediatric health disparities research has advanced significantly with a proliferation of studies examining a wide array of topics concerning inequities in child health. Advances in health care policy and legislation have also added to a heightened discourse on pediatric health disparities. While there has been substantial activity in efforts to address pediatric health disparities, questions remain regarding whether these efforts have changed the trajectory of health equity among children. The aim of this paper is to examine the practical challenges of addressing pediatric health disparities in the dynamic context of global changes in health care research, policy, and legislation relevant to children. Using the Adaptive Leadership framework, this paper outlines a conceptual model for assessing the scope of progress made in addressing pediatric health disparities, diagnoses the continued adaptive challenges of pediatric health disparities, and provides an agenda for further work and future investment.