Yeni bir bibliyografi haritası deniyorum:
research etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
research etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
30 Mayıs 2021 Pazar
9 Temmuz 2020 Perşembe
Research Idea 1
You can do this research starting from today, or read them in 6 years :)
Hypothesis:
- During the pandemic many patients have delayed their screening programs and this made some delayed diagnosis of tumors.
- There are claims that screening programs are not effective in catching some cancers (analogy to birds), and causing over-diagnosis on others (analogy to turtles). They are only effective in stepwise developing slowly growing neoplasms (analogy to rabbits).
Questions:
- Are the screening programs really delayed?
- Are there any decrease in cancer diagnosis?
- Are the peri-pandemic era cancer patients more likely to be diagnosed late?
- Does this delay caused decrease in overall and disease free survival?
Methods:
- Get data from centers.
- Check yearly cancer data.
- Follow-up them.
- Calculate survival and hazard status per cancer type.
30 Eylül 2019 Pazartesi
On the peer review
Last week thoughts on the academy games:
In so called blind manuscript review -where the reviewers do not know the name of the authors-, it is becoming hard to be blind. Since the experts know each other (they are peers at the end of the day) and follow their previous meeting abstracts, they know who the potential authors of the manuscript are.
For the sake of objectivity and unbiased attitude, I prefer the reviewer comments to be publicly available when the manuscript is published. This will prevent some reviewers bullying their colleagues anonymously.
I am also pro the opinion of sharing the reviewer comments among journals to decrease the workload of editors and reviewers. This will also prevent the reviewers and editors rejecting a manuscript in one journal but accepting in another.
In so called blind manuscript review -where the reviewers do not know the name of the authors-, it is becoming hard to be blind. Since the experts know each other (they are peers at the end of the day) and follow their previous meeting abstracts, they know who the potential authors of the manuscript are.
For the sake of objectivity and unbiased attitude, I prefer the reviewer comments to be publicly available when the manuscript is published. This will prevent some reviewers bullying their colleagues anonymously.
I am also pro the opinion of sharing the reviewer comments among journals to decrease the workload of editors and reviewers. This will also prevent the reviewers and editors rejecting a manuscript in one journal but accepting in another.
20 Eylül 2019 Cuma
abstract time
#USCAP #abstract preperation feelings 🥺 🤯😱😰
1) Folks in #rstats and #statistics community are talking about how to prepare or wrangle data for analysis. 😎 🤨🤔That is not the root cause.🧐 🔍We should focus on "how to enter data". ⌨️
2) Long time ago I have prepared a talk on this with an example on #pathology #research , that talk was cancelled (weird times). 🥳🤪🥴
3) I think I should present it as a video from social media.🤩
4) I should stop #procrastinating and focus on project.😳🤗
17 Ağustos 2019 Cumartesi
Akademiden ayrıldık ama
I am no longer a researcher; however, I still contribute to science. I changed how I contribute to science, as have many of my peers and colleagues who are not active researchers.
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/08/07/1909427116
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/08/07/1909427116
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)