Search

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) onset before 40 years of age has a magnified lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease. Diastolic dysfunction is its earliest cardiac manifestation. Low energy diets incorporating meal replacement products can induce diabetes remission, but do not lead to improved diastolic function, unlike supervised exercise interventions. We are examining the impact of a combined low energy diet and supervised exercise intervention on T2DM remission, with peak early diastolic strain rate, a sensitive MRI-based measure, as a key secondary outcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective, randomised, two-arm, open-label, blinded-endpoint efficacy trial is being conducted in Montreal, Edmonton and Leicester. We are enrolling 100 persons 18-45 years of age within 6 years' T2DM diagnosis, not on insulin therapy, and with obesity. During the intensive phase (12 weeks), active intervention participants adopt an 800-900 kcal/day low energy diet combining meal replacement products with some food, and receive supervised exercise training (aerobic and resistance), three times weekly. The maintenance phase (12 weeks) focuses on sustaining any weight loss and exercise practices achieved during the intensive phase; products and exercise supervision are tapered but reinstituted, as applicable, with weight regain and/or exercise reduction. The control arm receives standard care. The primary outcome is T2DM remission, (haemoglobin A1c of less than 6.5% at 24 weeks, without use of glucose-lowering medications during maintenance). Analysis of remission will be by intention to treat with stratified Fisher's exact test statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial is approved in Leicester (East Midlands - Nottingham Research Ethics Committee (21/EM/0026)), Montreal (McGill University Health Centre Research Ethics Board (RESET for remission/2021-7148)) and Edmonton (University of Alberta Health Research Ethics Board (Pro00101088). Findings will be shared wi

Optimizing research on the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) involves implementing initiatives maximizing the use of the available cohort study data; achieving sufficient statistical power to support subgroup analysis; and using participant data presenting adequate follow-up and exposure heterogeneity. It also involves being able to undertake comparison, cross-validation, or replication across data sets. To answer these requirements, cohort study data need to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR), and more particularly, it often needs to be harmonized. Harmonization is required to achieve or improve comparability of the putatively equivalent measures collected by different studies on different individuals. Although the characteristics of the research initiatives generating and using harmonized data vary extensively, all are confronted by similar issues. Having to collate, understand, process, host, and co-analyze data from individual cohort studies is particularly challenging. The scientific success and timely management of projects can be facilitated by an ensemble of factors. The current document provides an overview of the ‘life course’ of research projects requiring harmonization of existing data and highlights key elements to be considered from the inception to the end of the project.

Background: The MINDMAP project implemented a multinational data infrastructure to investigate the direct and interactive effects of urban environments and individual determinants of mental well-being and cognitive function in ageing populations. Using a rigorous process involving multiple teams of experts, longitudinal data from six cohort studies were harmonised to serve MINDMAP objectives. This article documents the retrospective data harmonisation process achieved based on the Maelstrom Research approach and provides a descriptive analysis of the harmonised data generated. Methods: A list of core variables (the DataSchema) to be generated across cohorts was first defined, and the potential for cohort-specific data sets to generate the DataSchema variables was assessed. Where relevant, algorithms were developed to process cohort-specific data into DataSchema format, and information to be provided to data users was documented. Procedures and harmonisation decisions were thoroughly documented. Results: The MINDMAP DataSchema (v2.0, April 2020)

Background The lack of accessible and structured documentation creates major barriers for investigators interested in understanding, properly interpreting and analyzing cohort data and biological samples. Providing the scientific community with open information is essential to optimize usage of these resources. A cataloguing toolkit is proposed by Maelstrom Research to answer these needs and support the creation of comprehensive and user-friendly study- and network-specific web-based metadata catalogues. Methods Development of the Maelstrom Research cataloguing toolkit was initiated in 2004. It was supported by the exploration

Background: While studying the etiology of multiple sclerosis (MS) in children has several methodological advantages over studying etiology in adults, studies are limited by small sample sizes. Objective: Using a rigorous methodological process, we developed the Pediatric MS Tool-Kit, a measurement framework that includes a minimal set of core variables to assess etiological risk factors. Methods: We solicited input from the International Pediatric MS Study Group to select three risk factors: environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure, sun exposure, and vitamin D intake. To develop the Tool-Kit, we used a Delphi study involving a working group of epidemiologists, neurologists, and content experts from North America and Europe. Results: The Tool-Kit includes six core variables to measure ETS, six to measure sun exposure, and six to measure vitamin D intake. The Tool-Kit can be accessed online (www.maelstrom-research.org/mica/ network/tool-kit). Conclusion: The goals of the Tool-Kit are to enhance exposure measurement in newly designed pediatric MS studies and comparability of results across studies, and in the longer term to facilitate harmonization of studies, a methodological approach that can be used to circumvent issues of small sample sizes. We believe the Tool-Kit will prove to be a valuable resource to guide pediatric MS researchers in developing study-specific questionnaire.

Background: Urbanization and ageing have important implications for public mental health and well-being. Cities pose major challenges for older citizens, but also offer opportunities to develop, test, and implement policies, services, infrastructure, and interventions that promote mental well-being. The MINDMAP project aims to identify the opportunities and challenges posed by urban environmental characteristics for the promotion and management of ment

Background: It is widely accepted and acknowledged that data harmonization is crucial: in its absence, the co-analysis of major tranches of high quality extant data is liable to inefficiency or error. However, despite its widespread practice, no formalized/systematic guidelines exist to ensure high quality retrospective data harmonization. Methods: To better understand real-world harmonization practices and facilitate development of formal guidelines, three interrelated initiatives were undertaken between 2006 and 2015. They included a phone survey with 34 major international research initiatives, a series of workshops with experts, and case studies applying the proposed guidelines. Results: A wide range of projects use retrospective harmonization to support their research activities but even when appropriate approaches are used, the terminologies, procedures, technologies and methods adopted vary markedly. The generic guidelines outlined in this article delineate the essentials required and describe an interdependent step-by-step approach to harmonization: 0) define the research question, objectives and protocol; 1) assemble pre-existing knowledge and select studies; 2) define targeted variables and evaluate harmonization potential; 3) process data; 4) estimate quality of the harmonized dataset(s) generated; and 5) disseminate and preserve final harmonization products. Conclusions: This manuscript provides guidelines aiming to encourage rigorous and effective approaches to harmonization which are comprehensively and transparently documented and straightforward to interpret and implement. This can be seen as a key step towards implementing guiding principles analogous to those that are well recognised as being essential in securing the foundational underpinning of systematic reviews and the meta-analysis of clinical trials.

Biobanks can have a pivotal role in elucidating disease etiology, translation, and advancing public health. However, meeting these challenges hinges on a critical shift in the way science is conducted and requires biobank harmonization. There is growing recognition that a common strategy is imperative to develop biobanking globally and effectively. To help guide this strategy, we articulate key principles, goals, and priorities underpinning a roadmap for global biobanking to accelerate health science, patient care, and public health. The need to manage and share very large amounts of data has driven innovations on many fronts. Although technological solutions are allowing biobanks to reach new levels of integration, increasingly powerful data-collection tools, analytical techniques, and the results they generate raise new ethical and legal issues and challenges, necessitating a reconsideration of previous policies, practices, and ethical norms. These manifold advances and the investments that support them are also fueling opportunities for biobanks to ultimately become integral parts of health-care systems in many countries. International harmonization to increase interoperability and sustainability are two strategic priorities for biobanking. Tackling these issues requires an environment favorably inclined toward scientific funding and equipped to address socio-ethical challenges. Cooperation and collaboration must extend beyond systems to enable the exchange of data and samples to strategic alliances between many organizations, including governmental bodies, funding agencies, public and private science enterprises, and other stakeholders, including patients. A common vision is required and we articulate the essential basis of such a vision herein.

The rapid and continuing progress in gene discovery for complex diseases is fuelling interest in the potential application of genetic risk models for clinical and public health practice. The number of studies assessing the predictive ability is steadily increasing, but they vary widely in completeness of reporting and apparent quality. Transparent reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these studies is important to facilitate the accumulation of evidence on genetic risk prediction. A multidisciplinary workshop sponsored by the Human Genome Epidemiology Network developed a checklist of 25 items recommended for strengthening the reporting of Genetic RIsk Prediction Studies (GRIPS), building on the principles established by prior reporting guidelines. These recommendations aim to enhance the transparency, quality and completeness of study reporting, and thereby to improve the synthesis and application of information from multiple studies that might differ in design, conduct or analysis.

Background: Vast sample sizes are often essential in the quest to disentangle the complex interplay of the genetic, lifestyle, environmental and social factors that determine the aetiology and progression of chronic diseases. The pooling of information between studies is therefore of central importance to contemporary bioscience. However, there are many technical, ethico-legal and scientific challenges to be overcome if an effective, valid, pooled analysis is to be achieved. Perhaps most critically, any data that are to be analysed in this way must be adequately 'harmonized'. This implies that the collection and recording of information and data must be done in a manner that is sufficiently similar in the different studies to allow valid synthesis to take place. Methods: This conceptual article describes the origins, purpose and scientific foundations of the DataSHaPER (DataSchema and Harmonization Platform for Epidemiological Research; http://www.datashaper.org), which has been created by a multidisciplinary consortium of experts that was pulled together and coordinated by three international organizations: P3G (Public Population Project in Genomics), PHOEBE (Promoting Harmonization of Epidemiological Biobanks in Europe) and CPT (Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow Project). Results: The DataSHaPER provides a flexible, structured approach to the harmonization and pooling of information between studies. Its two primary components, the 'DataSchema' and 'Harmonization Platforms', together support the preparation of effective data-collection protocols and provide a central reference to facilitate harmonization. The DataSHaPER supports both 'prospective' and 'retrospective' harmonization. Conclusion: It is hoped that this article will encourage readers to investigate the project further: the more the research groups and studies are actively involved, the more effective the DataSHaPER programme will ultimately be. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Inter

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed, but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct or analysis.

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modelling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.