Search

Preprints, versions of scientific manuscripts that precede peer review, are growing in popularity. They offer an opportunity to democratize and accelerate research, as they have no publication costs or a lengthy peer review process. Preprints are often later published in peer-reviewed venues, but these publications and the original preprints are frequently not linked in any way. To this end, we developed a tool, PreprintMatch, to find matches between preprints and their corresponding published papers, if they exist. This tool outperforms existing techniques to match preprints and papers, both on matching performance and speed. PreprintMatch was applied to search for matches between preprints (from bioRxiv and medRxiv), and PubMed. The preliminary nature of preprints offers a unique perspective into scientific projects at a relatively early stage, and with better matching between preprint and paper, we explored questions related to research inequity. We found that preprints from low income countries are published as peer-reviewed papers at a lower rate than high income countries (39.6% and 61.1%, respectively), and our data is consistent with previous work that cite a lack of resources, lack of stability, and policy choices to explain this discrepancy. Preprints from low income countries were also found to be published quicker (178 vs 203 days) and with less title, abstract, and author similarity to the published version compared to high income countries. Low income countries add more authors from the preprint to the published version than high income countries (0.42 authors vs 0.32, respectively), a practice that is significantly more frequent in China compared to similar countries. Finally, we find that some publishers publish work with authors from lower income countries more frequently than others.

Citations play an important role in researchers careers as a key factor in evaluation of scientific impact. Many anecdotes advice authors to exploit this fact and cite prospective reviewers to try obtaining a more positive evaluation for their submission. In this work, we investigate if such a citation bias actually exists: Does the citation of a reviewers own work in a submission cause them to be positively biased towards the submission? In conjunction with the review process of two flagship conferences in machine learning and algorithmic economics, we execute an observational study to test for citation bias in peer review. In our analysis, we carefully account for various confounding factors such as paper quality and reviewer expertise, and apply different modeling techniques to alleviate concerns regarding the model mismatch. Overall, our analysis involves 1,314 papers and 1,717 reviewers and detects citation bias in both venues we consider. In terms of the effect size, by citing a reviewers work, a submission has a non-trivial chance of getting a higher score from the reviewer: an expected increase in the score is approximately 0.23 on a 5-point Likert item. For reference, a one-point increase of a score by a single reviewer improves the position of a submission by 11% on average.

Medical natural language processing (NLP) systems are a key enabling technology for transforming Big Data from clinical report repositories to information used to support disease models and validate intervention methods. However, current medical NLP systems fall considerably short when faced with the task of logically interpreting clinical text. In this paper, we describe a framework inspired by mechanisms of human cognition in an attempt to jump the NLP performance curve. The design centers on a hierarchical semantic compositional model (HSCM), which provides an internal substrate for guiding the interpretation process. The paper describes insights from four key cognitive aspects: semantic memory, semantic composition, semantic activation, and hierarchical predictive coding. We discuss the design of a generative semantic model and an associated semantic parser used to transform a free-text sentence into a logical representation of its meaning. The paper discusses supportive and antagonistic arguments for the key features of the architecture as a long-term foundational framework.

Quantifying the colors of objects is useful in a wide range of applications, including medical diagnosis, agricultural monitoring, and food safety. Accurate colorimetric measurement of objects is a laborious process normally performed through a color matching test in the laboratory. A promising alternative is to use digital images for colorimetric measurement, due to their portability and ease of use. However, image-based measurements suffer from errors caused by the non-linear image formation process and unpredictable environmental lighting. Solutions to this problem often perform relative color correction among multiple images through discrete color reference boards, which may yield biased results due to the lack of continuous observation. In this paper, we propose a smartphone-based solution, that couples a designated color reference board with a novel color correction algorithm, to achieve accurate and absolute color measurements. Our color reference board contains multiple color stripes with continuous color sampling at the sides. A novel correction algorithm is proposed to utilize a first-order spatial varying regression model to perform the color correction, which leverages both the absolute color magnitude and scale to maximize the correction accuracy. The proposed algorithm is implemented as a "human-in-the-loop" smartphone application, where users are guided by an augmented reality scheme with a marker tracking module to take images at an angle that minimizes the impact of non-Lambertian reflectance. Our experimental results show that our colorimetric measurement is device independent and can reduce up to 90% color variance for images collected under different lighting conditions. In the application of reading pH values from test papers, we show that our system performs 200% better than human reading. The designed color reference board, the correction algorithm, and our augmented reality guiding approach form an integrated system as a novel solution to measure color with increased accuracy. This technique has the flexibility to improve color reading performance in systems beyond existing applications, evidenced by both qualitative and quantitative experiments on example applications such as pH-test reading.

The Anticoagulation Length of Therapy and Risk of New Adverse Events In Venous Thromboembolism (ALTERNATIVE) study was designed to compare the benefits and harms of different treatment options for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). In this paper, we describe the study cohort, survey data collection, and preliminary results. We identified 39,605 adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) from two large integrated health care delivery systems who were diagnosed with incident VTE and received initial anticoagulation therapy of 3 months or longer. A subset of the cohort (12,737) was invited to participate in a survey. Surveys were completed in English, Spanish or Mandarin via a mailed questionnaire, an online secure web link, or telephone. The survey domains included demographics, personal medical history, anticoagulant treatment history, anticoagulant treatment satisfaction, health-related quality of life and health literacy. A total of 5,017 patients participated in the survey for an overall response rate of 39.4%. The mean (SD) age of the survey respondents was 63.0 (14.5) years and self-reported race was 76.0% White/European, 11.1% Black/African American, and 3.8% Asian/Pacific Islander and 14.0% reported Hispanic ethnicity. Sixty percent of respondents completed the web survey, while 29.0% completed the mail-in paper survey, and 11.0% completed the survey via telephone. The ALTERNATIVE Study will address knowledge gaps by comparing several treatment alternatives for the extended management of VTE so that this information could be used by patients and clinicians to make more informed, patient-centered treatment choices.

The question of whether it is appropriate to attribute authorship to deceased individuals of original studies in the biomedical literature is contentious. Authorship guidelines utilized by journals do not provide a clear consensus framework that is binding on those in the field. To guide and inform the implementation of authorship frameworks it would be useful to understand the extent of the practice in the scientific literature, but studies that have systematically quantified the prevalence of this phenomenon in the biomedical literature have not been performed to date. To address this issue, we quantified the prevalence of publications by deceased authors in the biomedical literature from the period 1990-2020. We screened 2,601,457 peer-reviewed papers from the full text Europe PubMed Central database. We applied natural language processing, stringent filtering and manual curation to identify a final set of 1,439 deceased authors. We then determined these authors published a total of 38,907 papers over their careers with 5,477 published after death. The number of deceased publications has been growing rapidly, a 146-fold increase since the year 2000. This rate of increase was still significant when accounting for the growing total number of publications and pool of authors. We found that more than 50% of deceased author papers were first submitted after the death of the author and that over 60% of these papers failed to acknowledge the deceased authors status. Most deceased authors published less than 10 papers after death but a small pool of 30 authors published significantly more. A pool of 266 authors published more than 90% of their total publications after death. Our analysis indicates that the attribution of deceased authorship in the literature is not an occasional occurrence but a burgeoning trend. A consensus framework to address authorship by deceased scientists is warranted.

Water affordability is central to water access but remains a challenge to measure. California enshrined the human right to safe and affordable water in 2012 but the question remains: how should water affordability be measured across the state? This paper contributes to this question in three steps. First, we identify key dimensions of water affordability measures (including scale, volume of water needed to meet 'basic' needs, and affordability criteria) and a cross-cutting theme (social equity). Second, using these dimensions, we develop three affordability ratios measured at the water system scale for households with median, poverty level, and deep poverty (i.e., half the poverty level) incomes and estimate the corresponding percentage of households at these income levels. Using multiple measures conveys a fuller picture of affordability given the known limitations of specific affordability measures. Third, we analyze our results disaggregated by a key characteristic of water system vulnerability-water system size. We find that water is relatively affordable for median income households. However, we identify high unaffordability for households in poverty in a large fraction of water systems. We identify several scenarios with different policy implications for the human right to water, such as very small systems with high water bills and low-income households within large water systems. We also characterize how data gaps complicate theoretical ideals and present barriers in human right to water monitoring efforts. This paper presents a systematic approach to measuring affordability and represents the first statewide assessment of water affordability within California's community water systems.

In recent decades, animal welfare science has evolved to utilize a multidisciplinary approach to assess the welfare of animals in accredited zoos and aquariums. Science-based animal welfare assessments have become an essential component of management programs and widespread application is expected by animal care professionals. Management practices for bottlenose dolphins in accredited facilities incorporate several programs that potentially impact animal welfare including environmental enrichment and animal training. Additionally, habitat characteristics, such as the dimensions of the habitat, have been proposed to affect welfare. While accredited facilities are required to meet high standards of care, habitat characteristics and management practices are not standardized across locations. Knowledge and subsequent application of these practices and habitat characteristics can enhance our understanding of factors associated with positive welfare. As part of a larger study of dolphin welfare titled "Towards understanding the welfare of cetaceans in zoos and aquariums" (colloquially called the Cetacean Welfare Study), survey data were collected from 86 bottlenose dolphins in 40 habitats at 38 facilities in seven countries. The major aims of this paper are to provide general descriptive information regarding dolphin management in accredited zoos and aquariums and to provide supplemental context to the other research published from the Cetacean Welfare Study data set. This paper provides a review of current habitat characteristics and management practices at those 38 accredited zoos and aquariums. These data enabled the identification and quantification of how cetacean management practices differed between participating facilities accredited by the Alliance for Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums and the Association of Zoos & Aquariums. Variables were selected based on their potential association with welfare including the physical habitat, environmental enrichment, and training programs. The variables were also used for subsequent research in this collection of related papers to investigate important connections between potential indicators of welfare and habitat characteristics, environmental enrichment, and training programs.

Water affordability is central to water access but remains a challenge to measure. California enshrined the human right to safe and affordable water in 2012 but the question remains: how should water affordability be measured across the state? This paper contributes to this question in three steps. First, we identify key dimensions of water affordability measures (including scale, volume of water needed to meet 'basic' needs, and affordability criteria) and a cross-cutting theme (social equity). Second, using these dimensions, we develop three affordability ratios measured at the water system scale for households with median, poverty level, and deep poverty (i.e., half the poverty level) incomes and estimate the corresponding percentage of households at these income levels. Using multiple measures conveys a fuller picture of affordability given the known limitations of specific affordability measures. Third, we analyze our results disaggregated by a key characteristic of water system vulnerability-water system size. We find that water is relatively affordable for median income households. However, we identify high unaffordability for households in poverty in a large fraction of water systems. We identify several scenarios with different policy implications for the human right to water, such as very small systems with high water bills and low-income households within large water systems. We also characterize how data gaps complicate theoretical ideals and present barriers in human right to water monitoring efforts. This paper presents a systematic approach to measuring affordability and represents the first statewide assessment of water affordability within California's community water systems.

In recent decades, animal welfare science has evolved to utilize a multidisciplinary approach to assess the welfare of animals in accredited zoos and aquariums. Science-based animal welfare assessments have become an essential component of management programs and widespread application is expected by animal care professionals. Management practices for bottlenose dolphins in accredited facilities incorporate several programs that potentially impact animal welfare including environmental enrichment and animal training. Additionally, habitat characteristics, such as the dimensions of the habitat, have been proposed to affect welfare. While accredited facilities are required to meet high standards of care, habitat characteristics and management practices are not standardized across locations. Knowledge and subsequent application of these practices and habitat characteristics can enhance our understanding of factors associated with positive welfare. As part of a larger study of dolphin welfare titled "Towards understanding the welfare of cetaceans in zoos and aquariums" (colloquially called the Cetacean Welfare Study), survey data were collected from 86 bottlenose dolphins in 40 habitats at 38 facilities in seven countries. The major aims of this paper are to provide general descriptive information regarding dolphin management in accredited zoos and aquariums and to provide supplemental context to the other research published from the Cetacean Welfare Study data set. This paper provides a review of current habitat characteristics and management practices at those 38 accredited zoos and aquariums. These data enabled the identification and quantification of how cetacean management practices differed between participating facilities accredited by the Alliance for Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums and the Association of Zoos & Aquariums. Variables were selected based on their potential association with welfare including the physical habitat, environmental enrichment, and training programs. The variables were also used for subsequent research in this collection of related papers to investigate important connections between potential indicators of welfare and habitat characteristics, environmental enrichment, and training programs.