Search

Self-regulated learning (SRL) is the process of utilizing effective strategies to acquire knowledge or skills and is influenced by motivation, metacognitive processing, and study-related behaviors. We hypothesized that by using survey tools that allow reflection on and refinement of students' study strategies, we could nurture metacognitive skill development, encourage positive motivation and study-related behaviors, and hence promote academic success. Undergraduate students in a semester-long, second-year biology course were provided with resources to promote SRL and three survey instruments that encouraged them to create study plans and reflect on the effectiveness of their study strategies. Using a student-partnered approach, we sought to investigate the role of metacognition, motivation, and study-related behaviors on academic performance by (i) identifying the self-regulated learning strategies most utilized by students, (ii) investigating the role of reflection in enhancing metacognitive processing and academic performance, and (iii) understanding whether students created and/or modified their study strategies as an outcome of self-regulation. Survey responses allowed us to understand the repertoire of study strategies used by students. Our analyses suggest that students demonstrated metacognitive skill development through the use of the resources and reflection instruments, as they accurately reported on the effectiveness of their study strategies and indicated future plans to shift study-related behaviors from passive to active reviewing techniques. Students across the grade spectrum perceived the reflection instruments as beneficial in identifying areas of improvement and developing long-term study habits, suggesting that these instruments were effective in promoting metacognitive skill development for a variety of student learners. We conclude that supporting students with resources that promote SRL and providing opportunities for timely reflection can promote metacognitive skill development, a key feature of academic success.

Immersive research opportunities allow students to take ownership of their learning, explore based on curiosity, and engage in the scientific process while developing confidence and skills. However, research positions for biology undergraduates are limited, and conventional teaching labs are often restricted to pre-designed experiments without opportunities for curiosity-driven research. Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are discovery-based research experiences that provide students with accessible avenues to explore research. Here we describe a unique student-partnered approach to the design of a foundation-level CURE in biological sciences (BIOCURE). As student partners, we were mentored by faculty as we designed CURE projects that considered the interests and abilities of our peers to create a course structured around student-driven scientific exploration. We anticipate that this case study of our approach and experiences as the student partners of the CURE design team will serve as a helpful resource for other departments and institutions.

Peyronies disease (PD) is a debilitating pathology which is associated with penile curvature and erectile dysfunction due to the formation of fibrotic plaques in the penile tunica albuginea. In the present study, we developed a novel rabbit model of PD via subtunical injection of recombinant transforming growth factor (TGF)-β1 protein and characterized erectile function and histopathological endpoints following plaque formation. Ten adult male, New Zealand white rabbits were randomized into 3 experimental groups including nonsurgical controls (NSC, N = 3) and those receiving subtunical injections of vehicle (N = 3) or TGF-β1 protein (0.5 µg/50 µl; N = 4). Following 1 month post-op, focal fibrous plaques composed of disorganized collagen type I and III bundles as well as fragmented elastin fibers at TGF-β1 injection sites were observed in contrast to control groups. Cavernosometric and cavernosographic evaluations revealed no significant differences in maximum intracorporal pressures or substantial curvature during papaverine-induced erection in either the vehicle or TGF-β1 cohorts. Immunohistochemical and histomorphometric analyses demonstrated significant increases in elastase 2B expression in TGF-β1-induced plaques as well as significant declines in matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2 and -9 expression relative to control levels. Our results demonstrate that PD-like fibrotic plaques can be created in the rabbit penile tunica albuginea following TGF-β1 injection.

BACKGROUNDCOVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) virus-specific antibody levels that translate into recipient posttransfusion antibody levels sufficient to prevent disease progression are not defined.METHODSThis secondary analysis correlated donor and recipient antibody levels to hospitalization risk among unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients within the outpatient, double-blind, randomized clinical trial that compared CCP to control plasma. The majority of COVID-19 CCP arm hospitalizations (15/17, 88%) occurred in this unvaccinated, seronegative subgroup. A functional cutoff to delineate recipient high versus low posttransfusion antibody levels was established by 2 methods: (i) analyzing virus neutralization-equivalent anti-Spike receptor-binding domain immunoglobulin G (anti-S-RBD IgG) responses in donors or (ii) receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.RESULTSSARS-CoV-2 anti-S-RBD IgG antibody was volume diluted 21.3-fold into posttransfusion seronegative recipients from matched donor units. Virus-specific antibody delivered was approximately 1.2 mg. The high-antibody recipients transfused early (symptom onset within 5 days) had no hospitalizations. A CCP-recipient analysis for antibody thresholds correlated to reduced hospitalizations found a statistical significant association between early transfusion and high antibodies versus all other CCP recipients (or control plasma), with antibody cutoffs established by both methods-donor-based virus neutralization cutoffs in posttransfusion recipients (0/85 [0%] versus 15/276 [5.6%]; P = 0.03) or ROC-based cutoff (0/94 [0%] versus 15/267 [5.4%]; P = 0.01).CONCLUSIONIn unvaccinated, seronegative CCP recipients, early transfusion of plasma units in the upper 30% of study donors antibody levels reduced outpatient hospitalizations. High antibody level plasma units, given early, should be reserved for therapeutic use.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04373460.FUNDINGDepartment of Defense (W911QY2090012); Defense Health Agency; Bloomberg Philanthropies; the State of Maryland; NIH (3R01AI152078-01S1, U24TR001609-S3, 1K23HL151826NIH); the Mental Wellness Foundation; the Moriah Fund; Octapharma; the Healthnetwork Foundation; the Shear Family Foundation; the NorthShore Research Institute; and the Rice Foundation.

This study examined the role that cytokines may have played in the beneficial outcomes found when outpatient individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 were transfused with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) early in their infection. We found that the pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-6 decreased significantly faster in patients treated early with CCP. Participants with COVID-19 treated with CCP later in the infection did not have the same effect. This decrease in IL-6 levels after early CCP treatment suggests a possible role of inflammation in COVID-19 progression. The evidence of IL-6 involvement brings insight into the possible mechanisms involved in CCP treatment mitigating SARS-CoV-2 severity.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we rapidly implemented a plasma coordination center, within two months, to support transfusion for two outpatient randomized controlled trials. The center design was based on an investigational drug services model and a Food and Drug Administration-compliant database to manage blood product inventory and trial safety. METHODS: A core investigational team adapted a cloud-based platform to randomize patient assignments and track inventory distribution of control plasma and high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma of different blood groups from 29 donor collection centers directly to blood banks serving 26 transfusion sites. RESULTS: We performed 1,351 transfusions in 16 months. The transparency of the digital inventory at each site was critical to facilitate qualification, randomization, and overnight shipments of blood group-compatible plasma for transfusions into trial participants. While inventory challenges were heightened with COVID-19 convalescent plasma, the cloud-based system, and the flexible approach of the plasma coordination center staff across the blood bank network enabled decentralized procurement and distribution of investigational products to maintain inventory thresholds and overcome local supply chain restraints at the sites. CONCLUSION: The rapid creation of a plasma coordination center for outpatient transfusions is infrequent in the academic setting. Distributing more than 3,100 plasma units to blood banks charged with managing investigational inventory across the U.S. in a decentralized manner posed operational and regulatory challenges while providing opportunities for the plasma coordination center to contribute to research of global importance. This program can serve as a template in subsequent public health emergencies.

Anomaly Editorial Note

Disparate impact rules are formally neutral but indirectly discriminate against protected groups (i.e., by targeting a characteristic that is more prevalent in a given group). Because these rules are not obviously malicious, they have been widely enacted to circumvent policies against explicit discrimination. In a series of four experiments, we show that adults and children are sensitive to the moral implications of disparate impact rules. However, we also find that they are more accepting of these rules when strong justification is provided, compared to rules with no justification. Crucially, demographic differences also impact people's judgments of disparate impact rules and their creators. We find that conservatives and those from groups not directly affected by the rule tend to be more accepting of it. By studying people's reasoning about disparate impact rules, this work aims to identify the mechanisms by which these rules may evade detection. Finally, we discuss how these insights may inform the development of interventions that highlight the problematic effects of indirectly discriminatory policies.

Although well-intentioned diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives aim to increase minority representation in elite groups, they can sometimes backfire by causing candidates to question whether they were selected for merit. Prior work in social psychology suggests that this effect is driven mainly by stereotype threat. Here, we propose a novel cognitive framework: DEI initiatives backfire due to causal inference. Specifically, when candidates hear that they were selected based on a DEI initiative and/or enter a group where they are a minority, they may hypothesize that their selection was based more on their identity and less on their merit. Across two pre-registered experiments manipulating selection messages (DEI vs. merit) and statistical gender representation (represented or under-represented in the selected group), we find evidence in favor of our hypothesis. DEI messages and under-representation independently caused successful candidates to attribute their selection more to their identity and less to their merit but did not directly impact perceptions of competence. A third pre-registered experiment revealed that women selectively rated themselves as less competent in DEI contexts when selection tasks were more difficult. Taken together, this work shows that people make different causal hypotheses about their selection into elite groups based on DEI messages and group composition in conjunction with selection task difficulty and their social identity. Importantly, this work paves the way for designing DEI-based initiatives that license more helpful causal inferences about success to ensure that minority candidates thrive in their positions.

Disparate impact rules are formally neutral but indirectly discriminate against protected groups (i.e., by targeting a characteristic that is more prevalent in a given group). Because these rules are not obviously malicious, they have been widely enacted to circumvent policies against explicit discrimination. In a series of four experiments, we show that adults and children are sensitive to the moral implications of disparate impact rules. However, we also find that they are more accepting of these rules when strong justification is provided, compared to rules with no justification. Crucially, demographic differences also impact people's judgments of disparate impact rules and their creators. We find that conservatives and those from groups not directly affected by the rule tend to be more accepting of it. By studying people's reasoning about disparate impact rules, this work aims to identify the mechanisms by which these rules may evade detection. Finally, we discuss how these insights may inform the development of interventions that highlight the problematic effects of indirectly discriminatory policies.