Search

Background: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a prevalent hematological complication associated with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers due to an increased loss of iron and decreased iron absorption. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the use of parenteral iron to treat IDA in patients with GI cancer. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINHAL and Scopus were searched from January 1, 2010 to September 29, 2023 with no language restrictions. We excluded editorials, case reports, abstracts, conference papers, and poster presentations. Studies were included if they discussed IDA, GI neoplasms, use of iron supplementation (with or without erythropoietin-stimulating agents [ESAs]), defined anemia and had an adult patient population. We assessed the efficacy of parenteral iron in comparison to other iron supplementation methods when treating IDA in patients with GI cancer. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 (RoB 2) and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tools were used to assess the quality of the included studies. Moreover, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization data collection form was used to collect pertinent study information. Results: Our search yielded 3,969 studies across all databases. Twenty-one studies were included (6 randomized control trials; 15 non-randomized studies). Of the 15 studies evaluating hemoglobin (Hb) response, seven studies found an increase in Hb levels when patients were treated with IV iron. The 14 studies evaluating red blood cell (RBC) transfusion rates found conflicting differences in RBC transfusion needs when treated with IV iron. Studies analyzing health related outcomes typically found an increase in quality of life and decreased post-operative complications. Discussion: This review demonstrates improved outcomes of IDA in patients with GI cancer treated with IV iron instead of other iron supplementation methods. Timely diagnosis and appropriate IDA management can greatly improve quality of life in this patient population, especially if myelosuppressive chemotherapy is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Commercial electroencephalography (EEG) devices have become increasingly available over the last decade. These devices have been used in a wide variety of fields ranging from engineering to cognitive neuroscience. Purpose: The aim of this study was to chart peer-review articles that used consumer-grade EEG devices to collect neural data. We provide an overview of the research conducted with these relatively more affordable and user-friendly devices. We also inform future research by exploring the current and potential scope of consumer-grade EEG. Methods: We followed a five-stage methodological framework for a scoping review that included a systematic search using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. We searched the following online databases: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore. We charted study data according to application (BCI, experimental research, validation, signal processing, and clinical) and location of use as indexed by the first author's country. Results: We identified 916 studies that used data recorded with consumer-grade EEG: 531 were reported in journal articles and 385 in conference papers. Emotiv devices were used most, followed by the NeuroSky MindWave, OpenBCI, interaXon Muse, and MyndPlay Mindband. The most common usage was for brain-computer interfaces, followed by experimental research, signal processing, validation, and clinical purposes. Conclusions: Consumer-grade EEG is a useful tool for neuroscientific research and will likely continue to be used well into the future. Our study provides a comprehensive review of their application, as well as future directions for researchers who plan to use these devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some states in the U.S. have traditionally received less federal research funding than other states. The National Science Foundation (NSF) created a program in 1979, called the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) to enhance the research competitiveness in such states. While the geographic disparity in federal research funding is well known, the overall impact of federal funding on the research performance of EPSCoR and non-EPSCoR has not been previously studied. In the current study, we compared the combined research productivity of Ph.D. granting institutions in EPSCoR versus the non-EPSCoR states to better understand the scientific impact of federal investments in sponsored research across all states. The research outputs we measured included journal articles, books, conference papers, patents, and citation count in academic literature. Unsurprisingly, results indicated that the non-EPSCoR states received significantly more federal research funding than their EPSCoR counterparts, which correlated with a higher number of faculty members in the non-EPSCoR versus EPSCoR states. Also, in the overall research productivity expressed on a per capita, the non-EPSCoR states fared better than EPSCoR states. However, when the research output was measured based on per $1M investment of federal research funding, EPSCoR states performed significantly better than the non-EPSCoR states in many research productivity indicators, with the notable exception of patents. Together, this study found preliminary evidence that EPSCoR states achieved a high degree of research productivity despite receiving significantly fewer federal research dollars. The limitations and next steps of this study are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Author summary: Conferences are great venues for disseminating algorithmic bioinformatics results, but they unfortunately do not offer an opportunity to make major revisions in the way that journals do. As a result, it is not possible for authors to fix mistakes that might be easily correctable but nevertheless can cause the paper to be rejected. As a reviewer, I wish that I had the opportunity to tell the authors, "Hey, you forgot to do this really important thing, without which it is hard to accept the paper, but if you could go back and fix it, you might have a great paper for the conference." This lack of a back and forth can be especially problematic for first-time submitters or those from outside the field, e.g., biologists. In this article, I outline Ten Simple Rules to follow when writing an algorithmic bioinformatics conference paper to avoid having it rejected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]