This week, I got to talk to Natalie Dean about vaccines and information about vaccines, and There are edges Nicole Wetsman and Nilay Patel continue Vergecast. It was a great conversation with Dean, an assistant professor of biostatistics at the University of Florida and an infectious disease epidemiologist who has worked on designing vaccine tests.
After the podcast, I got to ask something that was on my mind: How did she – the person who works with scientific data every day – feel about the flood of early versions of scientific studies being posted online? And how much should ordinary people pay attention to them?
Before we get to the answers, let’s take a quick step back to talk about what this initial study is about. Scientists call them preprints, and they are studies that are posted online before being published in a scientific journal. They have not been thoroughly investigated by other experts (a process known as peer review). Printprints are helpful to scientists because they quickly put data into a world that could be useful to other researchers.
The damage? They are essentially the first drafts, and the conclusion may change after the researchers have responded. Balancing the need for quick data with the need to review before work is made public is particularly difficult during an epidemic – and both the pace of publication and attention to prints have certainly increased over the past few months.
“These preprint servers have been around before, but they’ve never been used to this degree,” says Dean. In the long run, reputable journals would refuse to publish a paper if it had been placed elsewhere, meaning that scientists kept their research on the cover until the final draft.
That has begun to change in the last few years as magazines have eased their restrictions. Now available online is a flood of papers related to coronavirus available, and some may attract attention – and confusion. As Kelsey wrote for Piper, not all that attention is a good thing Vox Back In May:
The new, faster pace could mean that badly defective pre-prints are widely distributed and covered in the media, encouraging the spread of misinformation and forcing other scientists to waste valuable time by debunking them in public which is usually peer-to-peer. -Will be rejected in the review process. .
Piper pointed out that preprints also have many advantages, – they force data to move forward at the pace of the 21st century, rather than being stuck in the 19th century, and when many experts are actively involved in the process, they can cut. Tons of unnecessary downtime.
This is especially true in epidemics. “My feeling is that the benefits outweigh the risks in a situation when time is of the essence, and we will all learn from each other,” says Dean. And the pace of academic publishing is so slow that I think it’s still not viable. ”
But still it is a big disadvantage. “Scientists know how to evaluate the limitations of preprints. But it’s challenging for the public to do that, “says Dean.
She’s got a good tip to help readers start evaluating news stories about printers: see the limitations. A story that tells you what a study is No Is helpful. This doesn’t just apply to preprints, either: it’s a good piece of advice for any story about a scientific paper. All studies have limitations; Good journalists tell you what they are.
In other words, look for a peer review in a news story, especially when it comes to print print. Look for it on Twitter, where Dean and other researchers have thrown cold water on extraordinary claims. Look at the efforts of volunteers dedicated to it, such as Johannes Hopkins ’2019 novel Coronavirus Research Compendium which actively evaluates papers that get a lot of media attention. Look for that Quick reviews: COVID-19, A peer-reviewed COVID-19 open access journal explicitly dedicated to preprints. And often, as we are swept away by the flood of information, beats to look skeptically at claims that seem unreliable.
“The more evidence the outcome seems, the more evidence we need to support it,” says Dean.
Here’s what else is going on this week:
Research
About 2 percent of Red Cross blood donors have Covid-19 antibodies
A Red Cross study found that only a small number of blood donors had coronavirus antibodies. “Very few people in the United States have been infected with the virus,” he said This is destroying the country, reports Nicole Wetsman.
(Nicole Wetsman / Edge)
Coronavirus can increase premature birth, studies suggest
A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found some evidence that coronavirus infection in pregnant women can increase the rate of premature birth, but other experts say much more information is needed.
(Ronnie Carin Rabin / The New York Times)
Development
Two pharma companies release their coronavirus vaccine blueprints to regain public confidence
This week, both Moderna and Pfizer released their respective blueprints for their respective clinical trials. The documents cover how companies have mapped out their tests, and provide a window into the vaccine development process at a time when confidence in that process is waning. (Stephanie M. Lee and Dan Vargano / BuzzFeed)
How to ship the vaccine at Ov80 C, and other obstacles in the covid fight
To prepare for the vaccine rollout, FedEx and UPS are installing freezers at hubs around the world. Also, there is a shortage of dry ice.
(David Gels / The New York Times)
Lily’s covid-19 antibody helps to get rid of some patients’ virus systems in the early analysis
Preliminary data from treatment studies involving antibodies produced produced some promising initial results. But the results are too early and its peers have not been reviewed.
(Matthew Harper and Damien Garde / State)
Perspective
Epidemic loneliness has claimed thousands of Alzheimer’s patients while families watch from afar
In an effort to protect patients from coronavirus, nursing homes have closed their doors to visitors. It has been a devastating path for families trying to care for Alzheimer’s or dementia patients. (William Wayne / W. Washington Post)
I am not a brave person. I am also patient 1133.
Author Molly Jong-Fast writes about her experience as a volunteer in the Pfizer vaccine trial and why she chose to participate in the first place:
I am a normal, un-brave person. I am now also a part of history, part of a small group that is protected from the deadly virus, or not, but whose experience will be something to teach others. I no longer feel like I’m waiting to get sick.
(Molly Jong-Fast / The New York Times)
More than the number
For more than 30,316,394 people worldwide who tested positive, your path to recovery may be easier.
Family and friends of the 8,8,3 of people who have died worldwide – 198,306 in the U.S. – have not forgotten your loved ones.
Be safe, everyone.
