The US National Library of Medicine regularly collects summary data on direct use of Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) resources. The summary data sources include UMLS user registration data, required annual reports submitted by registered users, and statistics on downloads and application programming interface calls. In 2019, the National Library of Medicine analyzed the summary data on 2018 UMLS use. The library also conducted a scoping review of the literature to provide additional intelligence about the research uses of UMLS as input to a planned 2020 review of UMLS production methods and priorities. 5043 direct users of UMLS data and tools downloaded 4402 copies of the UMLS resources and issued 66 130 951 UMLS application programming interface requests in 2018. The annual reports and the scoping review results agree that the primary UMLS uses are to process and interpret text and facilitate mapping or linking between terminologies. These uses align with the original stated purpose of the UMLS.

As librarians are generally advocates of open access and data sharing, it is a bit surprising that peer-reviewed journals in the field of librarianship have been slow to adopt data sharing policies. Starting October 1, 2019, the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) is taking a step forward and implementing a firm data sharing policy to increase the rigor and reproducibility of published research, enable data reuse, and promote open science. This editorial explains the data sharing policy, describes how compliance with the policy will fit into the journal’s workflow, and provides further guidance for preparing for data sharing.

Providing access to the data underlying research results in published literature allows others to reproduce those results or analyze the data in new ways. Health sciences librarians and information professionals have long been advocates of data sharing. It is time for us to practice what we preach and share the data associated with our published research. This editorial describes the activity of a working group charged with developing a research data sharing policy for the Journal of the Medical Library Association.

BackgroundGiven the limited supply of two COVID-19 vaccines, it will be important to choose which risk groups to prioritize for vaccination in order to get the most health benefits from that supply.MethodIn order to help decide how to get the maximum health yield from this limited supply, we implemented a logistic regression model to predict COVID-19 death risk by age, race, and sex and did the same to predict COVID-19 case risk.ResultsOur predictive model ranked all demographic groups by COVID-19 death risk. It was highly concentrated in some demographic groups, e.g. 85+ year old Black, Non-Hispanic patients suffered 1,953 deaths per 100,000. If we vaccinated the 17 demographic groups at highest COVID-19 death ranked by our logistic model, it would require only 3.7% of the vaccine supply needed to vaccinate all the United States, and yet prevent 47% of COVID-19 deaths. Nursing home residents had a higher COVID-19 death risk at 5,200 deaths/100,000, more than our highest demographic risk group. Risk of prison residents and health care workers (HCW) were lower than that of our demographic groups with the highest risks.We saw much less concentration of COVID-19 case risk in any demographic groups compared to the high concentration of COVID-19 death in some such groups. We should prioritize vaccinations with the goal of reducing deaths, not cases, while the vaccine supply is low.ConclusionSARS-CoV-2 vaccines protect against severe COVID-19 infection and thus against COVID-19 death per vaccine studies. Allocating at least some of the early vaccine supplies to high risk demographic groups could maximize lives saved. Our model, and the risk estimate it produced, could help states define their vaccine allocation rules.