52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

Neuregulin 1 acts as an axonal signal that regulates multiple aspects of Schwann cell development including the survival and migration of Schwann cell precursors, the ensheathment of axons and subsequent elaboration of the myelin sheath. To examine the role of this factor in remyelination and repair following nerve injury, we ablated neuregulin 1 in the adult nervous system using a tamoxifen inducible Cre recombinase transgenic mouse system. The loss of neuregulin 1 impaired remyelination after nerve crush, but did not affect Schwann cell proliferation associated with Wallerian degeneration or axon regeneration or the clearance of myelin debris by macrophages. Myelination changes were most marked at 10 days after injury but still apparent at 2 months post-crush. Transcriptional analysis demonstrated reduced expression of myelin-related genes during nerve repair in animals lacking neuregulin 1. We also studied repair over a prolonged time course in a more severe injury model, sciatic nerve transection and reanastamosis. In the neuregulin 1 mutant mice, remyelination was again impaired 2 months after nerve transection and reanastamosis. However, by 3 months post-injury axons lacking neuregulin 1 were effectively remyelinated and virtually indistinguishable from control. Neuregulin 1 signalling is therefore an important factor in nerve repair regulating the rate of remyelination and functional recovery at early phases following injury. In contrast to development, however, the determination of myelination fate following nerve injury is not dependent on axonal neuregulin 1 expression. In the early phase following injury, axonal neuregulin 1 therefore promotes nerve repair, but at late stages other signalling pathways appear to compensate.

No abstract

Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, and Hannon (2002, Study 1) demonstrated a causal link between subjective commitment to a relationship and how people responded to hypothetical betrayals of that relationship. Participants primed to think about their commitment to their partner (high commitment) reacted to the betrayals with reduced exit and neglect responses relative to those primed to think about their independence from their partner (low commitment). The priming manipulation did not affect constructive voice and loyalty responses. Although other studies have demonstrated a correlation between subjective commitment and responses to betrayal, this study provides the only experimental evidence that inducing changes to subjective commitment can causally affect forgiveness responses. This Registered Replication Report (RRR) meta-analytically combines the results of 16 new direct replications of the original study, all of which followed a standardized, vetted, and preregistered protocol. The results showed little effect of the priming manipulation on the forgiveness outcome measures, but it also did not observe an effect of priming on subjective commitment, so the manipulation did not work as it had in the original study. We discuss possible explanations for the discrepancy between the findings from this RRR and the original study.

No abstract

Injured patients with lung contusion (LC) are at risk of developing bacterial pneumonia (PNA) followed by sepsis and death. A recent Genome-wide Association Study, showed FER gene expression positively correlating with survival rates among individuals with above conditions. We sought to determine if electroporation-mediated (EP) delivery of FER gene could indeed improve survival, in a lethal model of combined LC and PNA. C57BL/6 mice sustained unilateral LC, which preceded a 500 Klebsiella CFU inoculation by 6 hrs. In-between these insults, human FER plasmid (pFER) was introduced into the lungs followed by eight EP pulses applied externally (10ms at 200V/cm). Control groups included EP of empty vector (pcDNA3) or Na+/K+-ATPase genes (pPump) and no treatment (LC + PNA). We recorded survival, histology, lung mechanics, bronchial alveolar fluid (BAL), FER and inflammatory gene expression and bacteriology. The data shows that 7-day survival was significantly improved by pFER compared to control groups. pFER increased BAL monocytes and activated antibacterial response genes (NOS, Fizz). pFER treatment showed decreased lung and blood Klebsiella counts reaching, in some cases, complete sterilization. In conclusion, FER gene delivery promoted survival in LC+PNA mice via recruitment of activated immune cells, improving efficiency of bacterial clearance within contused lung

No abstract

Background Health care organizations increasingly depend on business intelligence tools, including “dashboards,” to capture, analyze, and present data on performance metrics. Ideally, dashboards allow users to quickly visualize actionable data to inform and optimize clinical and organizational performance. In reality, dashboards are typically embedded in complex health care organizations with massive data streams and end users with distinct needs. Thus, designing effective dashboards is a challenging task and theoretical underpinnings of health care dashboards are poorly characterized; even the concept of the dashboard remains ill-defined. Researchers, informaticists, clinical managers, and health care administrators will benefit from a clearer understanding of how dashboards have been developed, implemented, and evaluated, and how the design, end user, and context influence their uptake and effectiveness. Objective This scoping review first aims to survey the vast published literature of “dashboards” to describe where, why, and for whom they are used in health care settings, as well as how they are developed, implemented, and evaluated. Further, we will examine how dashboard design and content is informed by intended purpose and end users. Methods In July 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed literature using a targeted strategy developed with a research librarian and retrieved 5188 results. Following deduplication, 3306 studies were screened in duplicate for title and abstract. Any abstracts mentioning a health care dashboard were retrieved in full text and are undergoing duplicate review for eligibility. Articles will be included for data extraction and analysis if they describe the development, implementation, or evaluation of a dashboard that was successfully used in routine workflow. Articles will be excluded if they were published before 2015, the full text is unavailable, they are in a non-English language, or they describe dashboards used for public health tracking, in settings where direct patient care is not provided, or in undergraduate medical education. Any discrepancies in eligibility determination will be adjudicated by a third reviewer. We chose to focus on articles published after 2015 and those that describe dashboards that were successfully used in routine practice to identify the most recent and relevant literature to support future dashboard development in the rapidly evolving field of health care informatics. Results All articles have undergone dual review for title and abstract, with a total of 2019 articles mentioning use of a health care dashboard retrieved in full text for further review. We are currently reviewing all full-text articles in duplicate. We aim to publish findings by mid-2022. Findings will be reported following guidance from the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. Conclusions This scoping review will provide stakeholders with an overview of existing dashboard tools, highlighting the ways in which dashboards have been developed, implemented, and evaluated in different settings and for different end user groups, and identify potential research gaps. Findings will guide efforts to design and use dashboards in the health care sector more effectively. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/34894