Use of expert elicitation to assign weights to climate and hydrological models in climate impact studies

Various methods are available for assessing uncertainties in climate impact studies. Among such methods, model weighting by expert elicitation is a practical way to provide a weighted ensemble of models for specific real-world impacts. The aim is to decrease the influence of improbable models in the results and easing the decision-making process. In this study both climate and hydrological models are analyzed and the result of a research experiment is presented using model weighting with the participation of 6 climate model experts and 6 hydrological model experts. For the experiment, seven climate models are a-priori selected from a larger Euro-CORDEX ensemble of climate models and three different hydrological models are chosen for each of the three European river basins. The model weighting is based on qualitative evaluation by the experts for each of the selected models based on a training material that describes the overall model structure and literature about climate models and the performance of hydrological models for the present period. The expert elicitation process follows a three-stage approach, with two individual elicitations of probabilities and a final group consensus, where the experts are separated into two different community groups: a climate and a hydrological modeller group. The dialogue reveals that under the conditions of the study, most climate modellers prefer the equal weighting of ensemble members, whereas hydrological impact modellers in general are more open for assigning weights to different models in a multi model ensemble, based on model performance and model structure. Climate experts are more open to exclude models, if obviously flawed, than to put weights on selected models in a relatively small ensemble. The study shows that expert elicitation can be an efficient way to assign weights to different hydrological models, and thereby reduce the uncertainty in climate impact. However, for the climate model ensemble, comprising seven models, the elicitation in the format of this study could only reestablish a uniform weight between climate models.

How frail is frail? A systematic scoping review and synthesis of high impact studies

Aims While the frailty index (FI) is a continuous variable, an FI score of 0.25 has construct and predictive validity to categorise community-dwelling older adults as frail or non-frail. Our study aimed to explore which FI categories (FI scores and labels) were being used in high impact studies of adults across different care settings and why these categories were being chosen by study authors. Methods For this systematic scoping review, Medline, Cochrane and EMBASE databases were searched for studies that measured and categorised an FI. Of 1314 articles screened, 303 met the eligibility criteria (community: N = 205; residential aged care: N = 24; acute care: N = 74). For each setting, the 10 studies with the highest field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) were identified and data, including FI scores and labels and justification provided, were extracted and analysed. Results FI scores used to distinguish frail and non-frail participants varied from 0.12 to 0.45 with 0.21 and 0.25 used most frequently. Additional categories such as mildly, moderately and severely frail were defined inconsistently. The rationale for selecting particular FI scores and labels were reported in most studies, but were not always relevant. Conclusions High impact studies vary in the way they categorise the FI and while there is some evidence in the community-dweller literature, FI categories have not been well validated in acute and residential aged care. For the time being, in those settings, the FI should be reported as a continuous variable wherever possible. It is important to continue working towards defining frailty categories as variability in FI categorisation impacts the ability to synthesise results and to translate findings into clinical practice.

The Role of Decision Impact Studies in Genomic Medicine in Cancer Care: A Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis Protocol

BackgroundDecision impact studies have become increasingly prevalent in oncology in recent years, particularly in breast cancer prognostic research. Such studies, which aim to evaluate the impact of a test on clinical decision-making, appear to be a new form of knowledge with the potential to impact clinical practice and regulatory decision-making in genomic medicine. Yet their origins, intended purpose and usage have not yet been explored. The objectives of this review are to identify and characterize decision impact studies in genomic medicine in cancer care. This review is comprised of two parts. First, we will conduct a scoping review to catalogue the characteristics of decision impact studies. The scoping review will be followed by a bibliometric analysis to understand the role of actors and institutions in the production and dissemination of this new knowledge, by identifying influential articles, authors, global research trends and collaboration networks. MethodsWe will conduct a scoping review and a bibliometric analysis of the scoping review results. The search will include four databases, Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, using a comprehensive search strategy developed through a preliminary review of the literature. Arksey & O’Malley’s scoping review methodology, with updates by Levac et al. will be used, and the review will be reported following the PRISMA-ScR checklist. The FT Model will be used to collect and analyze data on clinical utility of decision impact studies. Our bibliometric analysis, using Bibliometrix software, will elucidate the evolution of these studies and provide data on the trends, influences and networks emerging in the field.DiscussionThis review will be a first step in understanding the evolution and uses of these studies and their potential influence on the integration of emerging genomic technologies into clinical practice. By exploring their origin and evolution across space and time, this study will equip future research to investigate the role of these studies in decision-making for regulatory processes, including market access and public and private coverage decision-making. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/hm3jr

Trends of High-Impact Studies in Pharmacology and Pharmacy: A Cross-Sectional Study

Objective: To investigate the trends of high-impact studies in pharmacology and pharmacy research and to provide evidence for future research in the field of pharmacology and pharmacy.Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed to understand the current status of high-impact studies (top 1%) in pharmacology and pharmacy research via InCites tool based on Web of Science Core Collection. VOSViewer software was used to visualize the results. The outcomes included development trends, countries, subject areas, research institutes, collaborative networks, and subject terms.Results: We found 4,273 high-impact (top 1%) studies between 2011 and 2020 in the field of pharmacology and pharmacy. The number of studies increased from 366 in 2011 to 510 in 2020. These studies were mainly distributed in the following Web of Science subject categories: pharmacology and pharmacy (n = 4,188); neurosciences (n = 397); chemistry, multidisciplinary (n = 359); chemistry, medicinal (n = 314); microbiology (n = 301); biotechnology and applied microbiology (n = 280). These studies were cited in 646,855 studies from more than 100 Web of Science subject categories, and studies in pharmacology pharmacy accounted for the largest share of these citations. The top three countries that contributed the highest number of studies were the United States, United Kingdom, and China. The top three institutions that contributed the highest number of studies in the United States were the University of California System, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Harvard University. The top research collaborative circle was from universities in the United States. The top international collaborative circle was from universities from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and China. The subject-term analysis indicated that cancer was still the top disease, NF-κB was the top signaling pathway, and drug-delivery and nanoparticles were the top methods.Conclusion: The high-impact studies in pharmacology and pharmacy research have grown over time. The United States, the United Kingdom, and China are the top countries that contributed the high-impact studies. Cancer is still the greatest challenge in the field of disease treatment. It calls for more international collaboration in pharmacology and pharmacy research, which will help discover novel drugs.