Standards recommendations for the Earth BioGenome Project.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lawniczak MKN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8795494 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Standards recommendations for the Earth BioGenome Project.
Lawniczak Mara K N MKN Durbin Richard R Flicek Paul P Lindblad-Toh Kerstin K Wei Xiaofeng X Archibald John M JM Baker William J WJ Belov Katherine K Blaxter Mark L ML Marques Bonet Tomas T Childers Anna K AK Coddington Jonathan A JA Crandall Keith A KA Crawford Andrew J AJ Davey Robert P RP Di Palma Federica F Fang Qi Q Haerty Wilfried W Hall Neil N Hoff Katharina J KJ Howe Kerstin K Jarvis Erich D ED Johnson Warren E WE Johnson Rebecca N RN Kersey Paul J PJ Liu Xin X Lopez Jose Victor JV Myers Eugene W EW Pettersson Olga Vinnere OV Phillippy Adam M AM Poelchau Monica F MF Pruitt Kim D KD Rhie Arang A Castilla-Rubio Juan Carlos JC Sahu Sunil Kumar SK Salmon Nicholas A NA Soltis Pamela S PS Swarbreck David D Thibaud-Nissen Françoise F Wang Sibo S Wegrzyn Jill L JL Zhang Guojie G Zhang He H Lewin Harris A HA Richards Stephen S
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20220101 4
A global international initiative, such as the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP), requires both agreement and coordination on standards to ensure that the collective effort generates rapid progress toward its goals. To this end, the EBP initiated five technical standards committees comprising volunteer members from the global genomics scientific community: Sample Collection and Processing, Sequencing and Assembly, Annotation, Analysis, and IT and Informatics. The current versions of the resulting st ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8795548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Level of evidence5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.
| S-EPMC6663309 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvolving standards of good publication practice (GPP) and a survey conducted in 2009 of authors, who were investigators and researchers not employed by the company prompted changes to GSK Vaccines' publication practices. We conducted a follow-up survey in 2012 to assess the company's revised practices and to evaluate understanding of GPP among investigators and researchers who had previously authored at least one publication in collaboration with GSK Vaccines.MethodsThe 50-question web-based survey addressed authoring practices and transparency of decision-making. Investigators and researchers (n = 1,273) who had authored at least one publication reporting on GSK Vaccines-sponsored human research since 2007, were invited to participate. Responses to 37 closed questions are presented. The remaining 13 questions were open-ended or did not concern publication practices.ResultsA total of 415 external authors (32.6%) responded. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria were clear to most respondents (78.1%); 7.7% found they were unclear. The majority of participants (86.8%) found GSK Vaccines' authorship questionnaire a suitable tool to assess eligibility for authorship as per the ICMJE criteria. However, only 68.5% felt that the outcome of the questionnaire is communicated appropriately and 58.3% felt well informed on changes in authorship. Nearly two-thirds (62.9%) of respondents felt that having a pharmaceutical company employee as lead author makes manuscript acceptance less likely. Access to relevant data was regarded as sufficient by 78.5% of respondents. Briefing meetings before publication start, publication steering committees and core writing teams were recognized as valuable publication practices. Professional medical writing support was seen as adding value to publication development by 87.7% of participants. Most respondents agreed that manuscript discussions should start early, with 81.7% stating that they were in favor of introducing a formalized 'author agreement' at the publication start.ConclusionsGSK Vaccines made changes to its publication practices to ensure improved transparency and better involvement of external authors. The results of this survey suggest that these changes have been effective to a large extent. They confirm the need for effective and timely communication, as well as transparent processes for authorship and decision-making during publication development. The identified gaps in GPP will help to guide further improvements to the company's policies on publication practices.
| S-EPMC4247206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of core outcome sets (COS) ensures that researchers measure and report those outcomes that are most likely to be relevant to users of their research. Several hundred COS projects have been systematically identified to date, but there has been no formal quality assessment of these studies. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD) project aimed to identify minimum standards for the design of a COS study agreed upon by an international group, while other specific guidance exists for the final reporting of COS development studies (Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting [COS-STAR]).Methods and findingsAn international group of experienced COS developers, methodologists, journal editors, potential users of COS (clinical trialists, systematic reviewers, and clinical guideline developers), and patient representatives produced the COS-STAD recommendations to help improve the quality of COS development and support the assessment of whether a COS had been developed using a reasonable approach. An open survey of experts generated an initial list of items, which was refined by a 2-round Delphi survey involving nearly 250 participants representing key stakeholder groups. Participants assigned importance ratings for each item using a 1-9 scale. Consensus that an item should be included in the set of minimum standards was defined as at least 70% of the voting participants from each stakeholder group providing a score between 7 and 9. The Delphi survey was followed by a consensus discussion with the study management group representing multiple stakeholder groups. COS-STAD contains 11 minimum standards that are the minimum design recommendations for all COS development projects. The recommendations focus on 3 key domains: the scope, the stakeholders, and the consensus process.ConclusionsThe COS-STAD project has established 11 minimum standards to be followed by COS developers when planning their projects and by users when deciding whether a COS has been developed using reasonable methods.
| S-EPMC5689835 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Increasing our understanding of Earth's biodiversity and responsibly stewarding its resources are among the most crucial scientific and social challenges of the new millennium. These challenges require fundamental new knowledge of the organization, evolution, functions, and interactions among millions of the planet's organisms. Herein, we present a perspective on the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP), a moonshot for biology that aims to sequence, catalog, and characterize the genomes of all of Earth's eukaryotic biodiversity over a period of 10 years. The outcomes of the EBP will inform a broad range of major issues facing humanity, such as the impact of climate change on biodiversity, the conservation of endangered species and ecosystems, and the preservation and enhancement of ecosystem services. We describe hurdles that the project faces, including data-sharing policies that ensure a permanent, freely available resource for future scientific discovery while respecting access and benefit sharing guidelines of the Nagoya Protocol. We also describe scientific and organizational challenges in executing such an ambitious project, and the structure proposed to achieve the project's goals. The far-reaching potential benefits of creating an open digital repository of genomic information for life on Earth can be realized only by a coordinated international effort.
| S-EPMC5924910 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Up to 50% of cancer patients and up to 90% of those in terminal stages experience pain associated with disease progression, poor quality of life, and social impact on caregivers. This study aimed to establish standards for the accreditation of oncological pain management in healthcare organizations. A mixed methods approach was used. First, a pragmatic literature review was conducted. Second, consensus between professionals and patients was reached using the Nominal Group and Delphi technique in a step that involved anesthesiologists, oncologists, family physicians, nurses, psychologists, patient representatives, and caregivers. Third, eight hospitals participated in a pilot assessment of the level of fulfillment of each standard. A total of 37 standards were extracted. The Nominal Group produced additional standards, of which 60 were included in Questionnaire 0 that was used in the Delphi Technique. Two Delphi voting rounds were performed to reach a high level of consensus, and involved 64 and 62 participants with response rates of 90% and 87%, respectively. Finally, 39 standards for the management of cancer pain were agreed upon. In the self-evaluation, the average range of compliance was between 56.4% and 100%. The consensus standards of the ACDON Project might improve the monitoring of cancer pain management. These standards satisfied the demands of professionals and patients and could be used for the accreditation of approaches in cancer pain management.
| S-EPMC7914789 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionWhile the demand for aesthetic procedures is rising, complications are rising alongside. Infection is a frequent complication, there is therefore an increased need for strict aseptic technique, particularly in procedures breaching the skin. The level of training of practitioners carrying out these procedures varies and there are no comprehensive guidelines on aseptic aesthetic practice in the Benelux region.ObjectiveDeveloping a step-by-step procedure for achieving and maintaining a high standard of aseptic conditions in a standard aesthetic practice in the Benelux region.MethodsA consensus group of 10 aesthetic medical practitioners (dermatologists, plastic surgeons, and cosmetic physicians) representing the Benelux region convened to discuss best practice for aseptic techniques in medical aesthetics. Step-by-step procedures were recommended to achieve optimal aseptic practice in private facilities and define important considerations for reducing infection risk. Recommendations were based on current evidence and extensive clinical experience.ResultsRecommendations were made to achieve and maintain a high standard of asepsis and infection control. Guidance included maintaining high standard aseptic conditions of the injecting room, the injecting area on the patient, the injection procedure, the materials, and procedures commonly used to achieve aseptic conditions.ConclusionsThis expert consensus summary publication recommends aseptic procedures, setting a standard with the goal of minimizing rates of complications in aesthetic clinical practice in the Benelux region.
| S-EPMC10086968 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Graduate medical education training in hematology in North America is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Trainees routinely review peripheral blood smears (PBS) in providing clinical care. Competency in PBS review at graduation is required by the ACGME. However, there are no consensus guidelines on best practices surrounding PBS review, education, or competency. We describe the generation of proposed theory and the consensus recommendations developed through a multi-institutional focus group, developed using constructivist grounded theory and a modified nominal group technique. Eight academic hematologists, spanning classical and malignant hematology, enrolled and participated in 2 one-hour focus groups. All routinely worked with fellows and half had formally instructed trainees on PBS interpretation. Focus group data were analyzed using mixed-methods techniques. Tenets of emerging theory were identified through inductive coding. Consensus recommendations (CR) were generated. Participants reviewed CR in an iterative fashion until consensus was reached. Strong consensus was reached on multiple aspects of PBS education. All agreed that trainees should learn PBS review through a systematic approach. Group discussion focused on disorders of red and white blood cells. The diagnoses of acute leukemia and thrombotic microangiopathies were most commonly discussed, with specific emphasis on disorders in which prompt recognition was required to avert significant patient morbidity. These CR offer external validity to future research and curricular development for both PBS review and other visuospatial tasks in medical education.
| S-EPMC10336252 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The translation of MRS to clinical practice has been impeded by the lack of technical standardization. There are multiple methods of acquisition, post-processing, and analysis whose details greatly impact the interpretation of the results. These details are often not fully reported, making it difficult to assess MRS studies on a standardized basis. This hampers the reviewing of manuscripts, limits the reproducibility of study results, and complicates meta-analysis of the literature. In this paper a consensus group of MRS experts provides minimum guidelines for the reporting of MRS methods and results, including the standardized description of MRS hardware, data acquisition, analysis, and quality assessment. This consensus statement describes each of these requirements in detail and includes a checklist to assist authors and journal reviewers and to provide a practical way for journal editors to ensure that MRS studies are reported in full.
| S-EPMC8647919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveEstimated fetal weight (EFW) and fetal biometry are complementary measures used to screen for fetal growth disturbances. Our aim was to provide international EFW standards to complement the INTERGROWTH-21st Fetal Growth Standards that are available for use worldwide.MethodsWomen with an accurate gestational-age assessment, who were enrolled in the prospective, international, multicenter, population-based Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study (FGLS) and INTERBIO-21st Fetal Study (FS), two components of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project, had ultrasound scans every 5 weeks from 9-14 weeks' until 40 weeks' gestation. At each visit, measurements of fetal head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter, occipitofrontal diameter, abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL) were obtained blindly by dedicated research sonographers using standardized methods and identical ultrasound machines. Birth weight was measured within 12 h of delivery by dedicated research anthropometrists using standardized methods and identical electronic scales. Live babies without any congenital abnormality, who were born within 14 days of the last ultrasound scan, were selected for inclusion. As most births occurred at around 40 weeks' gestation, we constructed a bootstrap model selection and estimation procedure based on resampling of the complete dataset under an approximately uniform distribution of birth weight, thus enriching the sample size at extremes of fetal sizes, to achieve consistent estimates across the full range of fetal weight. We constructed reference centiles using second-degree fractional polynomial models.ResultsOf the overall population, 2404 babies were born within 14 days of the last ultrasound scan. Mean time between the last scan and birth was 7.7 (range, 0-14) days and was uniformly distributed. Birth weight was best estimated as a function of AC and HC (without FL) as log(EFW) = 5.084820 - 54.06633 × (AC/100)3 - 95.80076 × (AC/100)3 × log(AC/100) + 3.136370 × (HC/100), where EFW is in g and AC and HC are in cm. All other measures, gestational age, symphysis-fundus height, amniotic fluid indices and interactions between biometric measures and gestational age, were not retained in the selection process because they did not improve the prediction of EFW. Applying the formula to FGLS biometric data (n = 4231) enabled gestational age-specific EFW tables to be constructed. At term, the EFW centiles matched those of the INTERGROWTH-21st Newborn Size Standards but, at < 37 weeks' gestation, the EFW centiles were, as expected, higher than those of babies born preterm. Comparing EFW cross-sectional values with the INTERGROWTH-21st Preterm Postnatal Growth Standards confirmed that preterm postnatal growth is a different biological process from intrauterine growth.ConclusionsWe provide an assessment of EFW, as an adjunct to routine ultrasound biometry, from 22 to 40 weeks' gestation. However, we strongly encourage clinicians to evaluate fetal growth using separate biometric measures such as HC and AC, as well as EFW, to avoid the minimalist approach of focusing on a single value. © 2016 Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.
| S-EPMC5516164 | biostudies-literature