An implementation framework to improve the transparency and reproducibility of computational models of infectious diseases.

Computational models of infectious diseases have become valuable tools for research and the public health response against epidemic threats. The reproducibility of computational models has been limited, undermining the scientific process and possibly trust in modeling results and related response strategies, such as vaccination. We translated published reproducibility guidelines from a wide range of scientific disciplines into an implementation framework for improving reproducibility of infectious disease computational models. The framework comprises 22 elements that should be described, grouped into 6 categories: computational environment, analytical software, model description, model implementation, data, and experimental protocol. The framework can be used by scientific communities to develop actionable tools for sharing computational models in a reproducible way.

Inter-rater reliability of the infectious disease modeling reproducibility checklist (IDMRC) as applied to COVID-19 computational modeling research.

BACKGROUND: Infectious disease computational modeling studies have been widely published during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet they have limited reproducibility. Developed through an iterative testing process with multiple reviewers, the Infectious Disease Modeling Reproducibility Checklist (IDMRC) enumerates the minimal elements necessary to support reproducible infectious disease computational modeling publications. The primary objective of this study was to assess the reliability of the IDMRC and to identify which reproducibility elements were unreported in a sample of COVID-19 computational modeling publications. METHODS: Four reviewers used the IDMRC to assess 46 preprint and peer reviewed COVID-19 modeling studies published between March 13th, 2020, and July 30th, 2020. The inter-rater reliability was evaluated by mean percent agreement and Fleiss' kappa coefficients (κ). Papers were ranked based on the average number of reported reproducibility elements, and average proportion of papers that reported each checklist item were tabulated. RESULTS: Questions related to the computational environment (mean κ = 0.90, range = 0.90-0.90), analytical software (mean κ = 0.74, range = 0.68-0.82), model description (mean κ = 0.71, range = 0.58-0.84), model implementation (mean κ = 0.68, range = 0.39-0.86), and experimental protocol (mean κ = 0.63, range = 0.58-0.69) had moderate or greater (κ > 0.41) inter-rater reliability. Questions related to data had the lowest values (mean κ = 0.37, range = 0.23-0.59). Reviewers ranked similar papers in the upper and lower quartiles based on the proportion of reproducibility elements each paper reported. While over 70% of the publications provided data used in their models, less than 30% provided the model implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The IDMRC is the first comprehensive, quality-assessed tool for guiding researchers in reporting reproducible infectious disease computational modeling studies. The inter-rater reliability assessment found that most scores were characterized by moderate or greater agreement. These results suggest that the IDMRC might be used to provide reliable assessments of the potential for reproducibility of published infectious disease modeling publications. Results of this evaluation identified opportunities for improvement to the model implementation and data questions that can further improve the reliability of the checklist.

3-D jobs and health disparities: The health implications of Latino chicken catchers' working conditions.

OBJECTIVES: This study uses qualitative data to describe the tasks performed by chicken catchers, their organization of work, and possible health and safety hazards encountered. METHODS: Twenty-one Latino immigrant chicken catchers for North Carolina poultry-processing plants were interviewed to obtain their perceptions of the job and its hazards. Interviews were recorded and transcribed (n = 10) or detailed notes recorded (n = 11). Transcripts and notes were subjected to qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Chicken catching takes place in a highly contaminated and hazardous work environment. The fast pace of work, low level of control over work intensity, and piece rate compensation all result in high potential for work-related injury and illness, including trauma, electrical shock, respiratory effects, musculoskeletal injuries, and drug use. Workers receive little safety or job training. CONCLUSIONS: Chicken catching is characterized by a work environment and organization of work that promote injury and illness.

Head Injuries Among Children Treated in US Emergency Departments, 2015-2019.

This study evaluates the epidemiology of nonfatal head injuries among children aged 1 to 4 years associated with consumer products and identifies the specific consumer products associated with these injuries. Data for children aged 1 to 4 years who presented to emergency departments (EDs) from 2015 to 2019 for a nonfatal head injury were extracted from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. An estimated 1 032 429 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 675 822-1 389 063) children presented to US EDs for head injuries, averaging 566 injuries daily. The average rate of head injury did not change over the 5-year study period (slope = -0.003; P = .852); it was highest among children aged 1 year (2.06 per 100 children aged 1 year), which was nearly 3 times that of children aged 4 years (rate ratio = 2.75; 95% CI: 2.73-2.77). Most injuries occurred at home (80.4%) and occurred from interacting with home furnishings (45.1%). This study underscores the need for increased head injury mitigation efforts among young children.

Inter-rater reliability of the Infectious Disease Modeling Reproducibility Checklist (IDMRC) as applied to COVID-19 computational modeling research.

Background: Infectious disease computational modeling studies have been widely published during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet they have limited reproducibility. Developed through an iterative testing process with multiple reviewers, the Infectious Disease Modeling Reproducibility Checklist (IDMRC) enumerates the minimal elements necessary to support reproducible infectious disease computational modeling publications. The primary objective of this study was to assess the reliability of the IDMRC and to identify which reproducibility elements were unreported in a sample of COVID-19 computational modeling publications. Methods: Four reviewers used the IDMRC to assess 46 preprint and peer reviewed COVID-19 modeling studies published between March 13th, 2020, and July 31st, 2020. The inter-rater reliability was evaluated by mean percent agreement and Fleiss' kappa coefficients (κ). Papers were ranked based on the average number of reported reproducibility elements, and average proportion of papers that reported each checklist item were tabulated. Results: Questions related to the computational environment (mean κ = 0.90, range = 0.90-0.90), analytical software (mean κ = 0.74, range = 0.68-0.82), model description (mean κ = 0.71, range = 0.58-0.84), model implementation (mean κ = 0.68, range = 0.39-0.86), and experimental protocol (mean κ = 0.63, range = 0.58-0.69) had moderate or greater (κ > 0.41) inter-rater reliability. Questions related to data had the lowest values (mean κ = 0.37, range = 0.23-0.59). Reviewers ranked similar papers in the upper and lower quartiles based on the proportion of reproducibility elements each paper reported. While over 70% of the publications provided data used in their models, less than 30% provided the model implementation. Conclusions: The IDMRC is the first comprehensive, quality-assessed tool for guiding researchers in reporting reproducible infectious disease computational modeling studies. The inter-rater reliability assessment found that most scores were characterized by moderate or greater agreement. These results suggests that the IDMRC might be used to provide reliable assessments of the potential for reproducibility of published infectious disease modeling publications. Results of this evaluation identified opportunities for improvement to the model implementation and data questions that can further improve the reliability of the checklist.

Hazardous materials on golf courses: experience and knowledge of golf course superintendents and grounds maintenance workers from seven states.

BACKGROUND: The golf course industry has a growing Latino work force. Little occupational health research has addressed this work force. This article examines golf course superintendents' and Latino grounds maintenance workers' pesticide knowledge, beliefs, and safety training. In particular, it focuses on knowledge of and adherence to OSHA Right-to-Know regulations. METHODS: In person, in-depth interviews were conducted with 10 golf course superintendents in five states and with 16 Latino grounds maintenance workers in four states. RESULTS: Few superintendents were in compliance with Right-to-Know regulations or did pesticide safety training with all of their workers. Few workers had any pesticide safety knowledge. Most safety training on golf courses was rudimentary and focused on machine safety, and was usually conducted in the off-season or on rainy days, not before workers were assigned tasks. CONCLUSIONS: More Right-to-Know training is necessary for superintendents and grounds maintenance workers. Culturally and linguistically appropriate Spanish language materials need to be developed or made more widely available to train workers. Better enforcement of safety and training regulations is necessary.

Identification and biological evaluation of a novel and potent small molecule radiation sensitizer via an unbiased screen of a chemical library.

For patients with solid tumors, the tolerance of surrounding tissues often limits the dose of radiation that can be delivered. Thus, agents that preferentially increase the cytotoxic effects of radiation toward tumor cells would significantly alter the therapeutic ratio and improve patient survival. Using a high-throughput, unbiased screening approach, we have identified 4'-bromo-3'-nitropropiophenone (NS-123) as a radiosensitizer of human glioma cells in vitro and in vivo. NS-123 radiosensitized U251 glioma cells in a dose-dependent and time-dependent manner, with dose enhancement ratios ranging from 1.3 to 2.0. HT-29 colorectal carcinoma and A549 lung adenocarcinoma cells were also radiosensitized by NS-123 in vitro, whereas NS-123 did not increase the radiation sensitivity of normal human astrocytes or developmental abnormalities or lethality of irradiated Zebrafish embryos. In a novel xenograft model of U251 cells implanted into Zebrafish embryos, NS-123 enhanced the tumor growth-inhibitory effects of ionizing radiation (IR) with no apparent effect on embryo development. Similar results were obtained using a mouse tumor xenograft model in which NS-123 sensitized U251 tumors to IR while exhibiting no overt toxicity. In vitro pretreatment with NS-123 resulted in accumulation of unrepaired IR-induced DNA strand breaks and prolonged phosphorylation of the surrogate markers of DNA damage H2AX, ataxia telangiectasia mutated protein, DNA-dependent protein kinase, and CHK2 after IR, suggesting that NS-123 inhibits a critical step in the DNA repair pathway. These results show the potential of this cell-based, high-throughput screening method to identify novel radiosensitizers and suggest that NS-123 and similar nitrophenol compounds may be effective in antiglioma modalities.

Risk factors for positive depression screening across a shipboard deployment cycle.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a leading cause of healthcare use and risk for suicide among US military personnel. Depression is not well characterised over the shipboard deployment cycle, and personnel undergo less screening than with land-based deployments, making early identification less likely. AIMS: To determine the demographic and behavioural risk factors associated with screening positive for risk of depression (ROD) across the shipboard deployment cycle. METHOD: Active-duty ship assigned personnel completed an anonymous assessment using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in the year prior to deployment, during deployment and in the months following deployment. Longitudinal models were used to determine risk factors. RESULTS: In total, 598 people were included in the analysis. Over 50% of the study population screened positive for ROD (CES-D score ≥16) and over 25% screened positive for risk of major depressive disorder (CES-D score ≥22) at all time points. Lower age, female gender, alcohol use, stress and prior mental health diagnoses were all associated with greater odds of screening positive for ROD in multivariable models. CONCLUSIONS: Although the risk factors associated with screening positive for ROD are similar to those in other military and civilian populations, the proportion screening positive exceeds previously reported prevalence. This suggests that shipboard deployment or factors associated with shipboard deployment may present particular stressors or increase the likelihood of depressive symptoms. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: The authors are military service members (or employees of the US Government). This work was prepared as part of the authors' official duties. Title 17, U.S.C. §105 provides the 'Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government.' Title 17, USC, §101 defines a US Government work as work prepared by a military service member or employee of the US Government as part of that person's official duties. The views expressed in this research are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of the Army, Department of the Air Force, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, or the US Government. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. Material has been reviewed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. There is no objection to its presentation and/or publication. The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors, and are not to be construed as official, or as reflecting true views of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense.