Search

Eukaryotes have evolved to dominate the biosphere today, accounting for most documented living species and the vast majority of the Earth’s biomass. Consequently, understanding how these biologically complex organisms initially diversified in the Proterozoic Eon over 539 million years ago is a foundational question in evolutionary biology. Over the last 70 years, palaeontologists have sought to document the rise of eukaryotes with fossil evidence. However, the delicate and microscopic nature of their sub-cellular features affords early eukaryotes diminished preservation potential. Chemical biomarker signatures of eukaryotes and the genetics of living eukaryotes have emerged as complementary tools for reconstructing eukaryote ancestry. In this review, we argue that exceptionally preserved Proterozoic microfossils are critical to interpreting these complementary tools, providing crucial calibrations to molecular clocks and testing hypotheses of palaeoecology. We highlight recent research on their preservation and biomolecular composition that offers new ways to enhance their utility.

During COVID-19, countless dashboards served as the central media for people to learn critical information about the pandemic. Varied actors, including news organizations, government agencies, universities, and nongovernmental organizations, created and maintained these dashboards, through the onerous labor of collecting, categorizing, and circulating COVID data. This study uncovers different forms of labor and data practices—the work of “COVID data builders”—behind the construction of these dashboards based on in-depth interviews with volunteers and practitioners across the United States and India who participated in COVID dashboard projects. Specifically, we examine projects focused on marginalized and missing COVID data that aimed to show the pandemic's disproportionate and unjust impact. Through an investigation of data builders’ encounters and experiences with missing COVID data in mediating the pandemic, we ask: What data problems did COVID data builders encounter? How did they produce missing COVID data while questioning its representational capacity? And lastly, what “alternative epistemologies of data” beyond representation do their data practices suggest? Through our analysis, we surfaced three types of epistemological ambiguities COVID data builders encountered within their datasets: disappearing and ephemeral data, obscuring data, and disregarded data. By highlighting these different epistemological dimensions of missing data, we conclude that focusing on the performative and infrastructural aspects of what makes datasets “work” builds a new vocabulary for addressing missing data beyond representation. We argue that the politics of counting COVID cases is grounded in the material and affective labor of confronting, navigating, and negotiating with data's epistemological ambiguities.

Abstract Background To understand our performance with respect to the collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure (PROM) data, we examined the protocol content, data completeness and publication of PROs from interventional trials conducted at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (RM) and explored factors associated with data missingness and PRO publication. Design From local records, we identified closed, intervention trials sponsored by RM that opened after 1995 and collected PROMs as primary, secondary or exploratory outcomes. Protocol data were extracted by two researchers and scored against the SPIRIT-PRO (PRO protocol content checklist; score 0–100, higher scores indicate better completeness). For studies with locally held datasets, the information team summarized for each study, PRO completion defined as the number of expected (as per protocol) PRO measurements versus the number of actual (i.e. completed) PRO measurements captured in the study data set. Relevant publications were identified by searching three online databases and chief investigator request. Data were extracted and each publication scored against the CONSORT-PRO (PRO manuscript content checklist; scored as SPIRIT-PRO above). Descriptive statistics are presented with exploratory comparisons of point estimates and 95% confidence intervals. Results Twenty-six of 65 studies were included in the review. Nineteen studies had accessible datasets and 18 studies published at least one article. Fourteen studies published PRO results. Most studies had a clinical (rather than PRO) primary outcome (16/26). Across all studies, responses in respect of 35 of 69 PROMs were published. Trial protocols scored on average 46.7 (range 7.1–92.9) on the SPIRIT-PRO. Among studies with accessible data, half (10/19) had less than 25% missing measurements. Publications scored on average 80.9 (range 36–100%) on the CONSORT-PRO. Studies that published PRO results had somewhat fewer missing measurements (19% [7–32%] vs 60% [− 26 to 146%]). For individual PROMs within studies, missing measurements were lower for those that were published (17% [10–24%] vs 41% [18–63%]). Studies with higher SPIRIT-PRO scores and PROs as primary endpoints (13% [4–22%] vs 39% [10–58%]) had fewer missing measurements. Conclusions Missing data may affect publication of PROs. Extent of inclusion of SPIRIT-PRO protocol items and PROs as primary endpoints may improve data completeness. Preliminary evidence from the study suggests a future larger study examining the relationship between PRO completion and publication is warranted.

This study uses a sociocultural perspective, which views literacy as embedded in people's daily practices and shaped by social contexts, to explore how a misinformation escape room can support learning about misinformation. While the sociocultural perspective has a rich theoretical foundation, it has rarely been used to examine, much less evaluate, information and media literacy interventions. In this paper, we posit that the topic of misinformation makes a strong case for using the sociocultural model and explore a misinformation escape room through this lens. We present findings of a nationwide study of an online misinformation escape room with post‐game debrief discussion conducted at 10 public libraries that hosted 53 game sessions involving 211 players. The mixed methods study finds the game and accompanying debrief supported players in reflecting upon social media platform infrastructures, the psychological and emotional dimensions of misinformation, and how their personal behaviors intersect with online misinformation. We discuss how the sociocultural perspective can enrich our understanding of the role played by certain attributes of the game—narrative, debrief, and collaboration—thereby providing insights for the design of media and information literacy interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) is recommended by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence as the first-line imaging tool for diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Reporting WB-MRI scans requires expertise to interpret and can be challenging for radiologists who need to meet rapid turn-around requirements. Automated computational tools based on machine learning (ML) could assist the radiologist in terms of sensitivity and reading speed and would facilitate improved accuracy, productivity and cost-effectiveness. The MALIMAR study aims to develop and validate a ML algorithm to increase the diagnostic accuracy and reading speed of radiological interpretation of WB-MRI compared with standard methods.Methods and analysis This phase II/III imaging trial will perform retrospective analysis of previously obtained clinical radiology MRI scans and scans from healthy volunteers obtained prospectively to implement training and validation of an ML algorithm. The study will comprise three project phases using approximately 633 scans to (1) train the ML algorithm to identify active disease, (2) clinically validate the ML algorithm and (3) determine change in disease status following treatment via a quantification of burden of disease in patients with myeloma. Phase 1 will primarily train the ML algorithm to detect active myeloma against an expert assessment (‘reference standard’). Phase 2 will use the ML output in the setting of radiology reader study to assess the difference in sensitivity when using ML-assisted reading or human-alone reading. Phase 3 will assess the agreement between experienced readers (with and without ML) and the reference standard in scoring both overall burden of disease before and after treatment, and response.Ethics and dissemination MALIMAR has ethical approval from South Central—Oxford C Research Ethics Committee (REC Reference: 17/SC/0630). IRAS Project ID: 233501. CPMS Portfolio adoption (CPMS ID: 36766). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part. MALIMAR is funded by National Institute for Healthcare Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation funding (NIHR EME Project ID: 16/68/34). Findings will be made available through peer-reviewed publications and conference dissemination.Trial registration number NCT03574454.

Over the past two decades, depression has become a prominent global public health concern, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Movement for Global Mental Health have developed international guidelines to improve mental health services globally, prioritizing LMICs. These efforts hold promise for advancing care and treatment for depression and other mental, neurological, and substance abuse disorders in LMICs. The intervention guides, such as the WHO's mhGAP-Intervention Guides, are evidence-based tools and guidelines to help detect, diagnose, and manage the most common mental disorders. Using the Global South as an empirical site, this article draws on Foucauldian critical discourse and document analysis methods to explore how these international intervention guides operate as part of knowledge-power processes that inscribe and materialize in the world in some forms rather than others. It is proposed that these international guidelines shape the global discourse about depression through their (re)production of biopolitical assumptions and impacts, governmentality, and "conditions of possibility." The article uses empirical data to show nuance, complexity, and multi-dimensionality where binary thinking sometimes dominates, and to make links across arguments for and against global mental health. The article concludes by identifying several resistive discourses and suggesting reconceptualizing the treatment gap for common mental disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Manual of dietetic practice ('Manual') is the core textbook for qualified and student dietitians. A survey was conducted to explore views on the scope, content and presentation of the Manual to inform the forthcoming edition. Methods: The survey comprised of questions on demographics, structure, content, access (print/digital), missing topics, strengths and weaknesses. It was distributed to members of the British Dietetic Association (BDA) and other relevant groups in August 2022. Responses are presented as frequencies and free text as themes. Results: Of 1179 responses, 91% were from professionals, of whom 72% were registered dietitians with a mean of 12.7 years (range: 1–44) in practice: 60% worked in the United Kingdom with 52% based in a clinical setting. The printed version was preferred: 59% professionals, 60% students, 94% professionals and 88% students were satisfied with the structure; however, 26% professionals and 22% students identified content that was lacking or outdated, including mental health and sustainability. The strengths were its comprehensive coverage and respected contributing authors. Weaknesses included the cost, size, lack of visual aids and currency. Professionals indicated the seventh edition should focus on more practical information required for clinical practice, whereas students wanted more emphasis on summarised information and visual formats. Conclusions: The survey proved a valuable method to engage with the readership to ensure the next edition reflected their requirements. Although nearly all respondents were satisfied with the scope and content, the results highlighted those topics lacking and/or outdated. Results also showed that the next edition should focus on practical information required for clinical practice, with more summarised and visual formats. Key points: This article presents the results of an online survey to explore views on the scope, content and presentation of the UK Dietetic profession's core text, Manual of dietetic practice.The survey was initiated by the editorial team who felt it important to explore ways in which the new edition of the Manual could be updated to meet the emerging needs of readers, namely qualified dietitians and students of dietetics.Over 1100 respondents completed the survey comprising 91% professionals, 72% of whom were registered dietitians who had been practicing in the UK healthcare system for an average 12 years.Thematic analysis revealed readers felt the Manual to be a highly respected text, regarded as the 'go‐to' source for guidance on the practice of clinical dietetics with comprehensive coverage and extremely knowledgeable contributing authors.However, despite its positive qualities, the Manual suffered from cumbersome updating processes meaning that its content lagged behind real‐life clinical practice.The survey proved a valuable method to engage with the readership to ensure the next edition reflected readers' requirements for updated Manual content, style and format.The editors will ensure the forthcoming seventh edition focuses on practical information required for clinical practice, with more summarised form and visual formats.Further, moving forward it is hoped that there will be more aggressive promotion of the online version of the Manual as it is a format which facilitates content update and is likely to become more widely accessed in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]