Too much information, too little evidence: is waste in research fuelling the covid-19 infodemic?

Casigliani, Virginia; Nard, F. De; Vita, Erica De; Arzilli, Guglielmo; Grosso, Francesca; Quattrone, Filippo; Tavoschi, Lara; Lopalco, Pierluigi

doi:10.1136/bmj.m2672

Cited by 33 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…huge grants and funding—as they rush to produce novel insights on the deadly virus. Some scholars have framed this problem of competition in the context of COVID-19 as one of waste (Casigliani et al, 2020; Gale, 2020). “Some replication of studies is important, but unnecessary duplication of studies is wasteful” (Glasziou, Sanders, and Hoffman, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted September 7, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.04.20188771 doi: medRxiv preprint 21 COVID-19 as one of waste (Casigliani et al, 2020;Gale, 2020). "Some replication of studies is important, but unnecessary duplication of studies is wasteful" (Glasziou, Sanders, and Hoffman, 2020).…”

Section: Competition and Epistemic Oversupplymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

COVID-19 Preprints and Their Publishing Rate: An Improved Method

Lachapelle

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: As the COVID-19 pandemic persists around the world, the scientific community continues to produce and circulate knowledge on the deadly disease at an unprecedented rate. During the early stage of the pandemic, preprints represented nearly 40% of all English-language COVID-19 scientific corpus (6, 000+ preprints | 16, 000+ articles). As of mid-August 2020, that proportion dropped to around 28% (13, 000+ preprints | 49, 000+ articles). Nevertheless, preprint servers remain a key engine in the efficient dissemination of scientific work on this infectious disease. But, giving the uncertified nature of the scientific manuscripts curated on preprint repositories, their integration to the global ecosystem of scientific communication is not without creating serious tensions. This is especially the case for biomedical knowledge since the dissemination of bad science can have widespread societal consequences. Scope: In this paper, I propose a robust method that will allow the repeated monitoring and measuring of COVID-19 preprint's publication rate. I also introduce a new API called Upload-or-Perish. It is a micro-API service that enables a client to query a specific preprint manuscript's publication status and associated meta-data using a unique ID. This tool is in active development. Data: I use Covid-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19) to calculate COVID-19 preprint corpus' conversion rate to peer-reviewed articles. CORD-19 dataset includes preprints from arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv. Methods: I utilize conditional fuzzy logic on article titles to determine if a preprint has a published counterpart version in the database. My approach is an important departure from previous studies that rely exclusively on bioRxiv API to ascertain preprints' publication status. This is problematic since the level of false positives in bioRxiv metadata could be as high as 37%. Findings: My analysis reveals that around 15% of COVID-19 preprint manuscripts in CORD-19 dataset that were uploaded on from arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv between January and early August 2020 were published in a peer-reviewed venue. When compared to the most recent measure available, this represents a two-fold increase in a period of two months. My discussion review and theorize on the potential explanations for COVID-19 preprints' low conversion rate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Competition and Epistemic Oversupplymentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 Preprints and Their Publishing Rate: An Improved Method

Lachapelle

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The K10 was included in the study because of its well-established ability to categorize people in terms of clinically significant levels of mental distress. Scores on the K10 were used to categorize people into "psychologically well (0-19), " "mild mental disorder/distress (20)(21)(22)(23)(24), " "moderate mental disorder/distress (25)(26)(27)(28)(29), " and "severe mental disorder/distress (30+). "…”

Section: Psychological Distressmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are also an increasing number of yet-to-be peerreviewed reports that attest to deterioration of mental health due to the COVID-19 pandemic (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24). However, the current report does not provide an in-depth review of this material due to concern expressed by others (25,26) that some of these data may be misleading due to not having been appropriately peer-reviewed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Well-Being and Psychological Distress: Impact Upon a Single Country

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to have affected the psychological well-being and mental health of many people. Data on prevalence rates of mental health problems are needed for mental health service planning. Psychological well-being and prevalence of clinically significant mental distress were measured in a large sample from Wales 11–16 weeks into lockdown and compared to population-based data collected in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected using an online survey disseminated across Wales and open to adults (age 16+) from 9th June to 13th July 2020. Psychological well-being was indexed via the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale, and psychological distress was indexed via the K10. Data from 12,989 people who took part in this study were compared to that from April 2018 - March 2019, gathered by the National Survey for Wales ( N = 11,922). Well-being showed a large decrease from 2019 levels. Clinically significant psychological distress was found in around 50% of the population (men = 47.4%, women = 58.6%), with around 20% showing “severe” effects (men = 17.0%, women = 20.9%): a 3–4-fold increase in prevalence. Most affected were young people, women, and those in deprived areas. By June-July 2020 the COVID-19 pandemic had dramatic effects on the mental health of people living in Wales (and by implication those in the UK and beyond). The effects are larger than previous reports. This probably reflects that the current data were taken deeper into the lockdown period than previous evaluations. Mental health services need to prepare for this wave of mental health problems with an emphasis on younger adults, women, and in areas of greater deprivation.

show abstract

“…Other risk factors such as sex, smoking habits, and blood group have also been reported to be linked to the prevalence of the disease . The fact that continuous health service delivery was highly affected due to considerable morbidity and mortality rates, and psychological impacts among healthcare workers (Casigliani et al, 2020;Kursumovic et al, 2020), further stressed the need for an effective COVID-19 vaccine. Successful vaccination will not only protect the subject but also lead to the immunization of a large population and the development of herd immunity against the virus to curtail the viral spread promptly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives on RNA Vaccine Candidates for COVID-19

Borah

Deb

Al-Shar’i

et al. 2021

Front. Mol. Biosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the current outbreak caused by SARS-CoV-2, vaccination is acclaimed as a public health care priority. Rapid genetic sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 has triggered the scientific community to search for effective vaccines. Collaborative approaches from research institutes and biotech companies have acknowledged the use of viral proteins as potential vaccine candidates against COVID-19. Nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) vaccines are considered the next generation vaccines as they can be rapidly designed to encode any desirable viral sequence including the highly conserved antigen sequences. RNA vaccines being less prone to host genome integration (cons of DNA vaccines) and anti-vector immunity (a compromising factor of viral vectors) offer great potential as front-runners for universal COVID-19 vaccine. The proof of concept for RNA-based vaccines has already been proven in humans, and the prospects for commercialization are very encouraging as well. With the emergence of COVID-19, mRNA-1273, an mRNA vaccine developed by Moderna, Inc. was the first to enter human trials, with the first volunteer receiving the dose within 10 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 genetic sequencing. The recent interest in mRNA vaccines has been fueled by the state of the art technologies that enhance mRNA stability and improve vaccine delivery. Interestingly, as per the “Draft landscape of COVID-19 candidate vaccines” published by the World Health Organization (WHO) on December 29, 2020, seven potential RNA based COVID-19 vaccines are in different stages of clinical trials; of them, two candidates already received emergency use authorization, and another 22 potential candidates are undergoing pre-clinical investigations. This review will shed light on the rationality of RNA as a platform for vaccine development against COVID-19, highlighting the possible pros and cons, lessons learned from the past, and the future prospects.

show abstract

Too much information, too little evidence: is waste in research fuelling the covid-19 infodemic?

Cited by 33 publications

References 4 publications

COVID-19 Preprints and Their Publishing Rate: An Improved Method

COVID-19 Preprints and Their Publishing Rate: An Improved Method

The Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Well-Being and Psychological Distress: Impact Upon a Single Country

Perspectives on RNA Vaccine Candidates for COVID-19

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About