1,721,248 research outputs found
Health Data Research UK PhD Recruitment 2023
No full textThis study describes a live experiment conducted by Health Data Research UK (HDRUK) during its recruitment for the HDRUK-Turing Wellcome PhD Programme in Health Data Science for entry in the academic year 2023/24
Survey of Data Science in UK Medical School Curricula Report August 2023
No full text<p>High-tech initiatives that embrace data science and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have already begun to boost hospital and health system efficiency and improve patient outcomes. We are entering a new age of invention and innovation in medicine and health care delivery. But there is still much work to be done before AI reaches its full potential in healthcare, and success will be dependent on leadership and expertise in the clinical work force of the future.<strong> </strong></p><p>With the support of the Medical Schools' Council (MSC) and in partnership with Health Education England and NHS Education Scotland, Health Data Research UK (HDR UK) carried out a brief survey of all UK Medical Schools to ascertain their understanding of health data science, if and how much data science medical students have exposure to during their studies and what the learning objectives are. The survey results were analysed and subsequent report was produced by Mr Adenrele Adekoya. </p>
Principles for Data Standards
No full textEstablishing common standards for healthcare data and metadata is a fundamental requirement to enable health data research to improve people’s lives. This document was published in June 2020 and sets out an approach to adopting data standards for health data research concerning structured electronic health records data only.
HDR UK proposes that organisations collect, store and provide their datasets according to defined open standards through the UK Alliance and other HDR UK infrastructure including the Hubs and research sites. Initial principles have been developed in consultation with data officers across HDR UK’s community. These principles are encouraged for organisations that are participating in any part of HDR UK’s activities, including contracted services or activities managed by members of the HDR UK community
Comparisons of polyexposure, polygenic, and clinical risk scores in risk prediction of type 2 diabetes
No full textOBJECTIVE: To establish a polyexposure score (PXS) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) incorporating 12 nongenetic exposures and examine whether a PXS and/or a polygenic risk score (PGS) improves diabetes prediction beyond traditional clinical risk factors. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We identified 356,621 unrelated individuals from the UK Biobank of White British ancestry with no prior diagnosis of T2D and normal HbA1c levels. Using self-reported and hospital admission information, we deployed a machine learning procedure to select the most predictive and robust factors out of 111 nongenetically ascertained exposure and lifestyle variables for the PXS in prospective T2D. We computed the clinical risk score (CRS) and PGS by taking a weighted sum of eight established clinical risk factors and >6 million single nucleotide polymorphisms, respectively. RESULTS: In the study population, 7,513 had incident T2D. The C-statistics for the PGS, PXS, and CRS models were 0.709, 0.762, and 0.839, respectively. Individuals in the top 10% of PGS, PXS, and CRS had 2.00-, 5.90-, and 9.97-fold greater risk, respectively, compared to the remaining population. Addition of PGS and PXS to CRS improved T2D classification accuracy, with a continuous net reclassification index of 15.2% and 30.1% for cases, respectively, and 7.3% and 16.9% for controls, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For T2D, the PXS provides modest incremental predictive value over established clinical risk factors. However, the concept of PXS merits further consideration in T2D risk stratification and is likely to be useful in other chronic disease risk prediction models
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
