Explore the vast range of titles available.

In recent years, RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has become a very widely used technology for profiling gene expression. One of the most common aims of RNA-seq profiling is to identify genes or molecular pathways that are differentially expressed (DE) between two or more biological conditions. This article demonstrates a computational workflow for the detection of DE genes and pathways from RNA-seq data by providing a complete analysis of an RNA-seq experiment profiling epithelial cell subsets in the mouse mammary gland. The workflow uses R software packages from the open-source Bioconductor project and covers all steps of the analysis pipeline, including alignment of read sequences, data exploration, differential expression analysis, visualization and pathway analysis. Read alignment and count quantification is conducted using the Rsubread package and the statistical analyses are performed using the edgeR package. The differential expression analysis uses the quasi-likelihood functionality of edgeR.

High-throughput sequencing of PCR-amplified taxonomic markers (like the 16S rRNA gene) has enabled a new level of analysis of complex bacterial communities known as microbiomes. Many tools exist to quantify and compare abundance levels or microbial composition of communities in different conditions. The sequencing reads have to be denoised and assigned to the closest taxa from a reference database. Common approaches use a notion of 97% similarity and normalize the data by subsampling to equalize library sizes. In this paper, we show that statistical models allow more accurate abundance estimates. By providing a complete workflow in R, we enable the user to do sophisticated downstream statistical analyses, including both parameteric and nonparametric methods. We provide examples of using the R packages dada2, phyloseq, DESeq2, ggplot2 and vegan to filter, visualize and test microbiome data. We also provide examples of supervised analyses using random forests, partial least squares and linear models as well as nonparametric testing using community networks and the ggnetwork package.

Self-reported dietary intake is assessed by methods of real-time recording (food diaries and the duplicate portion method) and methods of recall (dietary histories, food frequency questionnaires, and 24-hour dietary recalls). Being less labor intensive, recall methods are more frequently employed in nutritional epidemiological investigations. However, sources of error, which include the participants' inability to fully and accurately recall their intakes as well as limitations inherent in the food composition databases applied to convert the reported food consumption to energy and nutrient intakes, may limit the validity of the generated information. The use of dietary biomarkers is often recommended to overcome such errors and better capture intra-individual variability in intake; nevertheless, it has its own challenges. To address measurement error associated with dietary questionnaires, large epidemiological investigations often integrate sub-studies for the validation and calibration of the questionnaires and/or administer a combination of different assessment methods (e.g. administration of different questionnaires and assessment of biomarker levels). Recent advances in the omics field could enrich the list of reliable nutrition biomarkers, whereas new approaches employing web-based and smart phone applications could reduce respondent burden and, possibly, reporting bias. Novel technologies are increasingly integrated with traditional methods, but some sources of error still remain. In the analyses, food and nutrient intakes always need to be adjusted for total daily energy intake to account for errors related to reporting.

The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

David Moher and colleagues from the EQUATOR network offer guidance and recommended steps for developing health research reporting guidelines.David Moher and colleagues from the EQUATOR network offer guidance and recommended steps for developing health research reporting guidelines.

Missing data are common in mobile health (mHealth) research. There has been little systematic investigation of how missingness is handled statistically in mHealth randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although some missing data patterns (ie, missing at random [MAR]) may be adequately addressed using modern missing data methods such as multiple imputation and maximum likelihood techniques, these methods do not address bias when data are missing not at random (MNAR). It is typically not possible to determine whether the missing data are MAR. However, higher attrition in active (ie, intervention) versus passive (ie, waitlist or no treatment) conditions in mHealth RCTs raise a strong likelihood of MNAR, such as if active participants who benefit less from the intervention are more likely to drop out. This study aims to systematically evaluate differential attrition and methods used for handling missingness in a sample of mHealth RCTs comparing active and passive control conditions. We also aim to illustrate a modern model-based sensitivity analysis and a simpler fixed-value replacement approach that can be used to evaluate the influence of MNAR. We reanalyzed attrition rates and predictors of differential attrition in a sample of 36 mHealth RCTs drawn from a recent meta-analysis of smartphone-based mental health interventions. We systematically evaluated the design features related to missingness and its handling. Data from a recent mHealth RCT were used to illustrate 2 sensitivity analysis approaches (pattern-mixture model and fixed-value replacement approach). Attrition in active conditions was, on average, roughly twice that of passive controls. Differential attrition was higher in larger studies and was associated with the use of MAR-based multiple imputation or maximum likelihood methods. Half of the studies (18/36, 50%) used these modern missing data techniques. None of the 36 mHealth RCTs reviewed conducted a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the possible consequences of data MNAR. A pattern-mixture model and fixed-value replacement sensitivity analysis approaches were introduced. Results from a recent mHealth RCT were shown to be robust to missing data, reflecting worse outcomes in missing versus nonmissing scores in some but not all scenarios. A review of such scenarios helps to qualify the observations of significant treatment effects. MNAR data because of differential attrition are likely in mHealth RCTs using passive controls. Sensitivity analyses are recommended to allow researchers to assess the potential impact of MNAR on trial results.

Development of free/libre open source software is usually done by a community of people with an interest in the tool. For scientific software, however, this is less often the case. Most scientific software is written by only a few authors, often a student working on a thesis. Once the paper describing the tool has been published, the tool is no longer developed further and is left to its own device. Here we describe the broad, multidisciplinary community we formed around a set of tools for statistical genomics. The GenABEL project for statistical omics actively promotes open interdisciplinary development of statistical methodology and its implementation in efficient and user-friendly software under an open source licence. The software tools developed withing the project collectively make up the GenABEL suite, which currently consists of eleven tools. The open framework of the project actively encourages involvement of the community in all stages, from formulation of methodological ideas to application of software to specific data sets. A web forum is used to channel user questions and discussions, further promoting the use of the GenABEL suite. Developer discussions take place on a dedicated mailing list, and development is further supported by robust development practices including use of public version control, code review and continuous integration. Use of this open science model attracts contributions from users and developers outside the “core team”, facilitating agile statistical omics methodology development and fast dissemination.

Relapse and recurrence of depression are common, contributing to the overall burden of depression globally. Accurate prediction of relapse or recurrence while patients are well would allow the identification of high-risk individuals and may effectively guide the allocation of interventions to prevent relapse and recurrence. To review prognostic models developed to predict the risk of relapse, recurrence, sustained remission, or recovery in adults with remitted major depressive disorder. We searched the Cochrane Library (current issue); Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards); Ovid Embase (1980 onwards); Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards); and Web of Science (1900 onwards) up to May 2021. We included development and external validation studies of multivariable prognostic models. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the Prediction model risk of bias assessment tool (PROBAST). We identified 12 eligible prognostic model studies (11 unique prognostic models): 8 model development-only studies, 3 model development and external validation studies and 1 external validation-only study. Multiple estimates of performance measures were not available and meta-analysis was therefore not necessary. Eleven out of the 12 included studies were assessed as being at high overall risk of bias and none examined clinical utility. Due to high risk of bias of the included studies, poor predictive performance and limited external validation of the models identified, presently available clinical prediction models for relapse and recurrence of depression are not yet sufficiently developed for deploying in clinical settings. There is a need for improved prognosis research in this clinical area and future studies should conform to best practice methodological and reporting guidelines.

Background Previous reviews have focussed on the rationale for employing the stepped wedge design (SWD), the areas of research to which the design has been applied and the general characteristics of the design. However these did not focus on the statistical methods nor addressed the appropriateness of sample size methods used.This was a review of the literature of the statistical methodology used in stepped wedge cluster randomised trials. Methods Literature Review. The Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched for methodological guides and RCTs which employed the stepped wedge design. Results This review identified 102 trials which employed the stepped wedge design compared to 37 from the most recent review by Beard et al. 2015. Forty six trials were cohort designs and 45 % ( n  = 46) had fewer than 10 clusters. Of the 42 articles discussing the design methodology 10 covered analysis and seven covered sample size. For cohort stepped wedge designs there was only one paper considering analysis and one considering sample size methods. Most trials employed either a GEE or mixed model approach to analysis ( n  = 77) but only 22 trials (22 %) estimated sample size in a way which accounted for the stepped wedge design that was subsequently used. Conclusions Many studies which employ the stepped wedge design have few clusters but use methods of analysis which may require more clusters for unbiased and efficient intervention effect estimates. There is the need for research on the minimum number of clusters required for both types of stepped wedge design. Researchers should distinguish in the sample size calculation between cohort and cross sectional stepped wedge designs. Further research is needed on the effect of adjusting for the potential confounding of time on the study power.

The book presents methods for the objective analysis of poetic language. Common objects of literary studies such as rhythm, semantic explications, interpretation and personal impressions are avoided. Only those properties of poetic texts are taken into account that could be quantified. The major chapters contain the analysis of phonic phenomena (frequency, euphony, assonance, alliteration, aggregation, rhyme), word properties (aspects of frequency, length, richness, word classes, sequences of word properties, characterisations). The synergetic control cycle is the result of the study of mutual links between properties. For all methods both statistical tests (evaluation, comparison), theoretical derivations (models), and examples are presented. The book is dedicated to the work of the famous Romanian poet Mihai Eminescu whose complete work was analysed, which made detailed illustrations of the method possible. The methods can be used mutatis mutandis for any language and text. It is the first comprehensive quantitative analysis of a poetic work.