Data structuring may prevent ambiguity and improve personalized medical prognosis.

Topics expected to influence personalized medicine (PM), where medical decisions, practices, and treatments are tailored to the individual patient, are reviewed. Lack of discrimination due to different biological conditions that express similar values of numerical variables (ambiguity) is regarded to be a major potential barrier for PM. This material explores possible causes and sources of ambiguity and offers suggestions for mitigating the impacts of uncertainties. Three causes of ambiguity are identified: (1) delayed adoption of innovations, (2) inadequate emphases, and (3) inadequate processes used when new medical practices are developed and validated. One example of the first problem is the relative lack of medical research on "compositional data" -the type that characterizes leukocyte data. This omission results in erroneous use of data abundantly utilized in medicine, such as the blood cell differential. Emphasis on data output ‒not biomedical interpretation that facilitates the use of clinical data‒ exemplifies the second type of problems. Reliance on tools generated in other fields (but not validated within biomedical contexts) describes the last limitation. Because reductionism is associated with these problems, non-reductionist alternatives are reviewed as potential remedies. Data structuring (converting data into information) is considered a key element that may promote PM. To illustrate a process that includes data-information-knowledge and decision-making, previously published data on COVID-19 are utilized. It is suggested that ambiguity may be prevented or ameliorated. Provided that validations are grounded on biomedical knowledge, approaches that describe certain criteria - such as non-overlapping data intervals of patients that experience different outcomes, immunologically interpretable data, and distinct graphic patterns - can inform, at personalized bases, earlier and/or with fewer observations.

Multi-Cellular Immunological Interactions Associated With COVID-19 Infections.

To rapidly prognosticate and generate hypotheses on pathogenesis, leukocyte multi-cellularity was evaluated in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients treated in India or the United States (152 individuals, 384 temporal observations). Within hospital (<90-day) death or discharge were retrospectively predicted based on the admission complete blood cell counts (CBC). Two methods were applied: (i) a "reductionist" one, which analyzes each cell type separately, and (ii) a "non-reductionist" method, which estimates multi-cellularity. The second approach uses a proprietary software package that detects distinct data patterns generated by complex and hypothetical indicators and reveals each data pattern's immunological content and associated outcome(s). In the Indian population, the analysis of isolated cell types did not separate survivors from non-survivors. In contrast, multi-cellular data patterns differentiated six groups of patients, including, in two groups, 95.5% of all survivors. Some data structures revealed one data point-wide line of observations, which informed at a personalized level and identified 97.8% of all non-survivors. Discovery was also fostered: some non-survivors were characterized by low monocyte/lymphocyte ratio levels. When both populations were analyzed with the non-reductionist method, they displayed results that suggested survivors and non-survivors differed immunologically as early as hospitalization day 1.

Biologically grounded scientific methods: The challenges ahead for combating epidemics.

The protracted COVID 19 pandemic may indicate failures of scientific methodologies. Hoping to facilitate the evaluation and/or update of methods relevant in Biomedicine, several aspects of scientific processes are here explored. First, the background is reviewed. In particular, eight topics are analyzed: (i) the history of Higher Education models in reference to the pursuit of science and the type of student cognition pursued, (ii) whether explanatory or actionable knowledge is emphasized depending on the well- or ill-defined nature of problems, (iii) the role of complexity and dynamics, (iv) how differences between Biology and other fields influence methodologies, (v) whether theory, hypotheses or data drive scientific research, (vi) whether Biology is reducible to one or a few factors, (vii) the fact that data, to become actionable knowledge, require structuring, and (viii) the need of inter-/trans-disciplinary knowledge integration. To illustrate how these topics interact, a second section describes four temporal stages of scientific methods: conceptualization, operationalization, validation and evaluation. They refer to the transition from abstract (non-measurable) concepts (such as 'health') to the selection of concrete (measurable) operations (such as 'quantification of ́anti-virus specific antibody titers'). Conceptualization is the process that selects concepts worth investigating, which continues as operationalization when data-producing variables viewed to reflect critical features of the concepts are chosen. Because the operations selected are not necessarily valid, informative, and may fail to solve problems, validations and evaluations are critical stages, which require inter/trans-disciplinary knowledge integration. It is suggested that data structuring can substantially improve scientific methodologies applicable in Biology, provided that other aspects here mentioned are also considered. The creation of independent bodies meant to evaluate biologically oriented scientific methods is recommended.

COVID-19 related interdisciplinary methods: Preventing errors and detecting research opportunities.

More than 130,000 peer-reviewed studies have been published within one year after COVID-19 emerged in many countries. This large and rapidly growing field may overwhelm the synthesizing abilities of both researchers and policy-makers. To provide a sinopsis, prevent errors, and detect cognitive gaps that may require interdisciplinary research methods, the literature on COVID-19 is summarized, twice. The overall purpose of this study is to generate a dialogue meant to explain the genesis of and/or find remedies for omissions and contradictions. The first review starts in Biology and ends in Policy. Policy is chosen as a destination because it is the setting where cognitive integration must occur. The second review follows the opposite path: it begins with stated policies on COVID-19 and then their assumptions and disciplinary relationships are identified. The purpose of this interdisciplinary method on methods is to yield a relational and explanatory view of the field -one strategy likely to be incomplete but usable when large bodies of literature need to be rapidly summarized. These reviews identify nine inter-related problems, research needs, or omissions, namely: (1) nation-wide, geo-referenced, epidemiological data collection systems (open to and monitored by the public); (2) metrics meant to detect non-symptomatic cases -e.g., test positivity-; (3) cost-benefit oriented methods, which should demonstrate they detect silent viral spreaders even with limited testing; (4) new personalized tests that inform on biological functions and disease correlates, such as cell-mediated immunity, co-morbidities, and immuno-suppression; (5) factors that influence vaccine effectiveness; (6) economic predictions that consider the long-term consequences likely to follow epidemics that growth exponentially; (7) the errors induced by self-limiting and/or implausible paradigms, such as binary and reductionist approaches; (8) new governance models that emphasize problem-solving skills, social participation, and the use of scientific knowledge; and (9) new educational programs that utilize visual aids and audience-specific communication strategies. The analysis indicates that, to optimally address these problems, disciplinary and social integration is needed. By asking what is/are the potential cause(s) and consequence(s) of each issue, this methodology generates visualizations that reveal possible relationships as well as omissions and contradictions. While inherently limited in scope and likely to become obsolete, these shortcomings are avoided when this 'method on methods' is frequently practiced. Open-ended, inter-/trans-disciplinary perspectives and broad social participation may help researchers and citizens to construct, de-construct, and re-construct COVID-19 related research.

Early network properties of the COVID-19 pandemic - The Chinese scenario.

OBJECTIVES: To control epidemics, sites more affected by mortality should be identified. METHODS: Defining epidemic nodes as areas that included both most fatalities per time unit and connections, such as highways, geo-temporal Chinese data on the COVID-19 epidemic were investigated with linear, logarithmic, power, growth, exponential, and logistic regression models. A z-test compared the slopes observed. RESULTS: Twenty provinces suspected to act as epidemic nodes were empirically investigated. Five provinces displayed synchronicity, long-distance connections, directionality and assortativity - network properties that helped discriminate epidemic nodes. The rank I node included most fatalities and was activated first. Fewer deaths were reported, later, by rank II and III nodes, while the data from rank I-III nodes exhibited slopes, the data from the remaining provinces did not. The power curve was the best fitting model for all slopes. Because all pairs (rank I vs. rank II, rank I vs. rank III, and rank II vs. rank III) of epidemic nodes differed statistically, rank I-III epidemic nodes were geo-temporally and statistically distinguishable. CONCLUSIONS: The geo-temporal progression of epidemics seems to be highly structured. Epidemic network properties can distinguish regions that differ in mortality. This real-time geo-referenced analysis can inform both decision-makers and clinicians.