In silico analysis of overall survival with YBX1 in male and female solid tumours.

The Y-box binding protein-1 (YBX1) gene codes for a multifunctional oncoprotein that is increasingly being linked to the regulations of many aspects of cancer cell biology. Disparities in treatment outcomes between male and female cancer patients are increasingly reported. This study aimed to examine the relationship between YBX1 expression and overall survival in male and female patients with solid tumours. Overall survival and YBX1 expression data for cohorts of male and female cancer patients obtained from freely available databases were analysed with a cox proportional hazard model with covariates of biological sex and YBX1 expression. Kaplan-Meier curves and Violin plots were constructed for segregated male and female cohorts. High YBX1 expression was significantly associated with poor survival in 2 female-only and 4 mixed-sex cancer sites. In female lung cancer patients, better survival and lower YBX1 expression were identified. The clinical importance of YBX1 expression in cancer ought to be evaluated in a sex-specific manner, especially in lung cancer.

Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science.

The reality that volumes of published biomedical research are not reproducible is an increasingly recognized problem. Spurious results reduce trustworthiness of reported science, increasing research waste. While science should be self-correcting from a philosophical perspective, that in insolation yields no information on efforts required to nullify suspect findings or factors shaping how quickly science may be corrected. There is also a paucity of information on how perverse incentives in the publishing ecosystem favouring novel positive findings over null results shape the ability of published science to self-correct. Knowledge of factors shaping self-correction of science remain obscure, limiting our ability to mitigate harms. This modelling study introduces a simple model to capture dynamics of the publication ecosystem, exploring factors influencing research waste, trustworthiness, corrective effort and time to correction. Results from this work indicate that research waste and corrective effort are highly dependent on field-specific false positive rates and time delays to corrective results to spurious findings are propagated. The model also suggests conditions under which biomedical science is self-correcting and those under which publication of correctives alone cannot stem propagation of untrustworthy results. Finally, this work models a variety of potential mitigation strategies, including researcher- and publisher-driven interventions.

Impact of human papillomavirus age-related prevalence and vaccination levels on interpretation of cervical screening modalities: a modelling study.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical screening is a life-saving intervention, which reduces the incidence of and mortality from cervical cancer in the population. Human papillomavirus (HPV) based screening modalities hold unique promise in improving screening accuracy. HPV prevalence varies markedly by age, as does resultant cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), with higher rates recorded in younger women. With the advent of effective vaccination for HPV drastically reducing prevalence of both HPV and CIN, it is critical to model how the accuracy of different screening approaches varies with age cohort and vaccination status. This work establishes a model for the age-specific prevalence of HPV factoring in vaccine coverage and predicts how the accuracy of common screening modalities is affected by age profile and vaccine uptake. DESIGN: Modelling study of HPV infection rates by age, ascertained from European cohorts prior to the introduction of vaccination. Reductions in HPV due to vaccination were estimated from the bounds predicted from multiple modelling studies, yielding a model for age-varying HPV and CIN grades 2 and above (CIN2+) prevalence. SETTING: Performance of both conventional liquid-based cytology (LBC) screening and HPV screening with LBC reflex (HPV reflex) was estimated under different simulated age cohorts and vaccination levels. PARTICIPANTS: Simulated populations of varying age and vaccination status. RESULTS: HPV-reflex modalities consistently result in much lower incidence of false positives than LBC testing, with an accuracy that improves even as HPV and CIN2+ rates decline. CONCLUSIONS: HPV-reflex tests outperform LBC tests across all age profiles, resulting in greater test accuracy. This improvement is especially pronounced as HPV infection rates fall and suggests HPV-reflex modalities are robust to future changes in the epidemiology of HPV.

Region of Attainable Redaction, an extension of Ellipse of Insignificance analysis for gauging impacts of data redaction in dichotomous outcome trials.

In biomedical science, it is a reality that many published results do not withstand deeper investigation, and there is growing concern over a replicability crisis in science. Recently, Ellipse of Insignificance (EOI) analysis was introduced as a tool to allow researchers to gauge the robustness of reported results in dichotomous outcome design trials, giving precise deterministic values for the degree of miscoding between events and non-events tolerable simultaneously in both control and experimental arms (Grimes, 2022). While this is useful for situations where potential miscoding might transpire, it does not account for situations where apparently significant findings might result from accidental or deliberate data redaction in either the control or experimental arms of an experiment, or from missing data or systematic redaction. To address these scenarios, we introduce Region of Attainable Redaction (ROAR), a tool that extends EOI analysis to account for situations of potential data redaction. This produces a bounded cubic curve rather than an ellipse, and we outline how this can be used to identify potential redaction through an approach analogous to EOI. Applications are illustrated, and source code, including a web-based implementation that performs EOI and ROAR analysis in tandem for dichotomous outcome trials is provided.

The ellipse of insignificance, a refined fragility index for ascertaining robustness of results in dichotomous outcome trials.

There is increasing awareness throughout biomedical science that many results do not withstand the trials of repeat investigation. The growing abundance of medical literature has only increased the urgent need for tools to gauge the robustness and trustworthiness of published science. Dichotomous outcome designs are vital in randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and observational data for ascertaining differences between experimental and control arms. It has however been shown with tools like the fragility index (FI) that many ostensibly impactful results fail to materialize when even small numbers of patients or subjects in either the control or experimental arms are recoded from event to non-event. Critics of this metric counter that there is no objective means to determine a meaningful FI. As currently used, FI is not multidimensional and is computationally expensive. In this work, a conceptually similar geometrical approach is introduced, the ellipse of insignificance. This method yields precise deterministic values for the degree of manipulation or miscoding that can be tolerated simultaneously in both control and experimental arms, allowing for the derivation of objective measures of experimental robustness. More than this, the tool is intimately connected with sensitivity and specificity of the event/non-event tests, and is readily combined with knowledge of test parameters to reject unsound results. The method is outlined here, with illustrative clinical examples.

Science and medicine are vital to the well-being of humankind. Yet for all the incredible advances science has made, the unfortunate reality is that a worrying fraction of biological research is not reliable. Erroneous results might arise by chance or because of scientists' mistakes or ineptitude. Very occasionally, researchers may behave unethically and fabricate or inappropriately manipulate their data. Inevitably, this can lead to untrustworthy research that misleads scientists and the public on questions integral to our health. Indeed, a recent study showed the results of several high-profile cancer papers could not be fully replicated. This problem is not unique to cancer, and studies on various other diseases have also not stood up to scrutiny from outside investigators. Finding ways to detect dubious results is therefore essential to protect the public's well-being and maintain public trust in science. Here, Grimes demonstrates a new tool called the 'Ellipse of Insignificance' for measuring the reliability of dichotomous studies which are commonly used in many branches of biomedical sciences, including clinical trials. These studies typically compare two groups: one which was subjected to a specific treatment, and a control group which was not. Statistical methods are then applied to estimate how likely it is that differences in the number of observed events between the groups are real or due to chance. The tool created by Grimes explores what would happen to seemingly strong results if some of the events in both the control and experimental arm of the study are recoded. It then assesses how much nudging is needed to change the statistical outcome of the experiment: the more interventions the result can withstand, the more robust the experiment. Grimes tested the tool and showed that a study suggesting a link between miscarriage and magnetic field exposure was likely unreliable because shifting the outcomes of less than two participants would change the result. Scientists could use the Ellipse of Insignificance tool to quickly identify misleading published results or potential research fraud. Doing this could benefit researchers and protect the public from potential harm. It may also help preserve research integrity, increase transparency, and bolster public trust in science.

Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: Concerns over radiofrequency radiation (RFR) and carcinogenesis have long existed, and the advent of 5G mobile technology has seen a deluge of claims asserting that the new standard and RFR in general may be carcinogenic. For clinicians and researchers in the field, it is critical to address patient concerns on the topic and to be familiar with the existent evidence base. OBSERVATIONS: This review considers potential biophysical mechanisms of cancer induction, elucidating mechanisms of electromagnetically induced DNA damage and placing RFR in appropriate context on the electromagnetic spectrum. The existent epidemiological evidence in humans and laboratory animals to date on the topic is also reviewed and discussed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The evidence from these combined strands strongly indicates that claims of an RFR-cancer link are not supported by the current evidence base. Much of the research to date, however, has been undermined by methodological shortcomings, and there is a need for higher-quality future research endeavors. Finally, the role of fringe science and unsubstantiated claims in patient and public perception on this topic is highly relevant and must be carefully considered.

Balancing benefits and potential risks of vaccination: the precautionary principle and the law of unintended consequences.

Vaccination is a life-saving endeavour, yet risk and uncertainty are unavoidable in science and medicine. Vaccination remains contentious in the public mind, and vaccine hesitancy is a serious public health issue. This has recently been reignited in the discussion over potential side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, and the decision by several countries to suspend measures such as the AstraZeneca vaccine. In these instances, the precautionary principle has often been invoked as a rationale, yet such heuristics do not adequately weigh potential harms against real benefits. How we analyse, communicate and react to potential harms is absolutely paramount to ensure the best decisions and outcomes for societal health, and maintaining public confidence. While balancing benefits and risks is an essential undertaking, it cannot be achieved without due consideration of several other pertinent factors, especially in the context of vaccination, where misguided or exaggerated fears have in the past imperilled public health. While well meaning, over reactions to potential hazards of vaccination and other health interventions can have unintended consequences, and cause lingering damage to public trust. In this analysis, we explore the challenges of assessing risk and benefit, and the limitations of the precautionary principle in these endeavours. When risk is unclear, cautious vigilance might be a more pragmatic and useful policy than reactionary suspensions.

The Struggle against Cancer Misinformation.

Cancer misinformation has become an increasingly prevalent problem, imperiling public health and understanding. Cancer researchers and clinicians must play a significant role in combating its detrimental consequences.

Prioritising Informed Health Choices Key Concepts for those impacted by cancer: a protocol.

Background: Few areas of health have been as insidiously influenced by misinformation as cancer. Thus, interventions that can help people impacted by cancer reduce the extent to which they are victims of misinformation are necessary. The Informed Health Choices (IHC) initiative has developed Key Concepts that can be used in the development of interventions for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about the effects of health treatments. We are developing an online education programme called Informed Health Choices-Cancer (IHC-C) based on the IHC Key Concepts. We will provide those impacted by cancer with the knowledge and skills necessary to think critically about the reliability of health information and claims and make informed choices. Methods: We will establish a steering group (SG) of 12 key stakeholders, including oncology specialists and academics. In addition, we will establish a patient and public involvement (PPI) panel of 20 people impacted by cancer. After training the members on the Key Concepts and the prioritisation process, we will conduct a two-round prioritisation process. In the first round, 12 SG members and four PPI panel members will prioritise Key Concepts for inclusion. In the second round, the remaining 16 PPI members will undertake the prioritisation based on the prioritised Key Concepts from the first round. Participants in both rounds will use a structured judgement form to rate the importance of the Key Concepts for inclusion in the online IHC-C programme. A consensus meeting will be held, where members will reach a consensus on the Key Concepts to be included and rank the order in which the prioritised Key Concepts will be addressed in the IHC-C programme. Conclusions: At the end of this process, we will identify which Key Concepts should be included and the order in which they should be addressed in the IHC-C programme.

The new normal? Redaction bias in biomedical science.

A concerning amount of biomedical research is not reproducible. Unreliable results impede empirical progress in medical science, ultimately putting patients at risk. Many proximal causes of this irreproducibility have been identified, a major one being inappropriate statistical methods and analytical choices by investigators. Within this, we formally quantify the impact of inappropriate redaction beyond a threshold value in biomedical science. This is effectively truncation of a dataset by removing extreme data points, and we elucidate its potential to accidentally or deliberately engineer a spurious result in significance testing. We demonstrate that the removal of a surprisingly small number of data points can be used to dramatically alter a result. It is unknown how often redaction bias occurs in the broader literature, but given the risk of distortion to the literature involved, we suggest that it must be studiously avoided, and mitigated with approaches to counteract any potential malign effects to the research quality of medical science.

Modeling Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies With Varying Levels of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination.

Importance: Cervical cancer screening is a lifesaving intervention, with an array of approaches, including liquid-based cytology (LBC), molecular testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and combinations via parallel cotesting or sequential triage. Maximizing screening efficacy while minimizing overtreatment is vital, especially when considering how the HPV vaccine will affect the interpretation of results. Objectives: To estimate the likely outcomes of different screening modalities and to model how the increasing uptake of the HPV vaccine could affect the interpretation of screening results. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytic model established a simple Markov model to compare the outcomes of different cervical cancer screening modalities on a simulated population of women (aged ≥25 years), considering different levels of HPV vaccination. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 and 3 detected and missed, the number of false positives, and the number of tests required to achieve a given level of accuracy. Positive and negative predictive values of different modalities were simulated under varying levels of HPV vaccination and therefore HPV prevalence. Results: In a simulated population of 1000 women aged 25 years and older with an HPV prevalence of 2%, HPV-based modalities outperformed LBC-based approaches, detecting 19% more true positives (HPV test sensitivity, 89.9% [95% CI, 88.6%-91.1%]; LBC test sensitivity, 75.5% [95% CI, 66.6%-82.7%]). While cotesting markedly reduced missed cases, detecting 29% more true positives than LBC alone (19.5 [95% CI, 19.3-19.7] per 1000 women screened vs 15.1 [95% CI, 13.3-16.5] per 1000 women screened), it unacceptably increased excess colposcopy referral by 94% (184.4 [95% CI, 181.8-188.0] false positives per 1000 women screened vs 95.1 [95% CI, 93.1-97.0] false positives per 1000 women screened). By contrast, triage testing with reflex screening substantially reduced false positives by a factor of approximately 10 (eg, HPV with LBC triage, 9.6 [95% CI, 9.3-10.0] per 1000 women screened). Over a lifetime of screening, reflex approaches with appropriate test intervals maximized therapeutic efficacy; as HPV vaccination rates increased, HPV-based screening approaches resulted in fewer unnecessary colposcopies than LBC approaches (HPV testing, 80% vaccine coverage: 44.1 [95% CI, 40-45.9] excess colposcopies; LBC testing, 80% vaccine coverage: 96.9 [95% CI, 96.8-97.0] excess colposcopies). Conclusions and Relevance: In this decision analytic model, the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening was dependent on the prevalence of cervical dysplasia and/or HPV infection or vaccination in a population as well as the sensitivity and specificity of various modalities. Although screening is lifesaving, overtesting or modalities inappropriate to the target population may cause significant harm, including overtreatment.

Medical disinformation and the unviable nature of COVID-19 conspiracy theories.

The coronavirus pandemic has seen a marked rise in medical disinformation across social media. A variety of claims have garnered considerable traction, including the assertion that COVID is a hoax or deliberately manufactured, that 5G frequency radiation causes coronavirus, and that the pandemic is a ruse by big pharmaceutical companies to profiteer off a vaccine. An estimated 30% of some populations subscribe some form of COVID medico-scientific conspiracy narratives, with detrimental impacts for themselves and others. Consequently, exposing the lack of veracity of these claims is of considerable importance. Previous work has demonstrated that historical medical and scientific conspiracies are highly unlikely to be sustainable. In this article, an expanded model for a hypothetical en masse COVID conspiracy is derived. Analysis suggests that even under ideal circumstances for conspirators, commonly encountered conspiratorial claims are highly unlikely to endure, and would quickly be exposed. This work also explores the spectrum of medico-scientific acceptance, motivations behind propagation of falsehoods, and the urgent need for the medical and scientific community to anticipate and counter the emergence of falsehoods.

Health disinformation & social media: The crucial role of information hygiene in mitigating conspiracy theory and infodemics.

Social media has been an effective vector for spreading disinformation about medicine and science. Informational hygiene can reduce the severity of falsehoods about health.

Evidence for hypoxia increasing the tempo of evolution in glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Tumour hypoxia is associated with metastatic disease, and while there have been many mechanisms proposed for why tumour hypoxia is associated with metastatic disease, it remains unclear whether one precise mechanism is the key reason or several in concert. Somatic evolution drives cancer progression and treatment resistance, fuelled not only by genetic and epigenetic mutation but also by selection from interactions between tumour cells, normal cells and physical micro-environment. Ecological habitats influence evolutionary dynamics, but the impact on tempo of evolution is less clear. METHODS: We explored this complex dialogue with a combined clinical-theoretical approach by simulating a proliferative hierarchy under heterogeneous oxygen availability with an agent-based model. Predictions were compared against histology samples taken from glioblastoma patients, stained to elucidate areas of necrosis and TP53 expression heterogeneity. RESULTS: Results indicate that cell division in hypoxic environments is effectively upregulated, with low-oxygen niches providing avenues for tumour cells to spread. Analysis of human data indicates that cell division is not decreased under hypoxia, consistent with our results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that hypoxia could be a crucible that effectively warps evolutionary velocity, making key mutations more likely. Thus, key tumour ecological niches such as hypoxic regions may alter the evolutionary tempo, driving mutations fuelling tumour heterogeneity.

Establishing a taxonomy of potential hazards associated with communicating medical science in the age of disinformation.

OBJECTIVES: Disinformation on medical matters has become an increasing public health concern. Public engagement by scientists, clinicians and patient advocates can contribute towards public understanding of medicine. However, depth of feeling on many issues (notably vaccination and cancer) can lead to adverse reactions for those communicating medical science, including vexatious interactions and targeted campaigns. Our objective in this work is to establish a taxonomy of common negative experiences encountered by those communicating medical science, and suggest guidelines so that they may be circumvented. DESIGN: We establish a taxonomy of the common negative experiences reported by those communicating medical science, informed by surveying medical science communicators with public platforms. PARTICIPANTS: 142 prominent medical science communicators (defined as having >1000 Twitter followers and experience communicating medical science on social and traditional media platforms) were invited to take part in a survey, with 101 responses. RESULTS: 101 responses were analysed. Most participants experienced abusive behaviour (91.9%), including persistent harassment (69.3%) and physical violence and intimidation (5.9%). A substantial number (38.6%) received vexatious complaints to their employers, professional bodies or legal intimidation. The majority (62.4%) reported negative mental health sequelae due to public outreach, including depression, anxiety and stress. A significant minority (19.8%) were obligated to seek police advice or legal counsel due to actions associated with their outreach work. While the majority targeted with vexatious complaints felt supported by their employer/professional body, 32.4% reported neutral, poor or non-existent support. CONCLUSIONS: Those engaging in public outreach of medical science are vulnerable to negative repercussions, and we suggest guidelines for professional bodies and organisations to remedy some of these impacts on front-line members.