Article by SciStarter: “Across the United States, 5.7 million people are living with Alzheimer’s disease, the seventh leading cause of death in America. But there is still no treatment or cure. Alzheimer’s hits close to home for many of us who have seen loved ones suffer and who feel hopeless in the face of this disease. With Stall Catchers, an online citizen science project, joining the fight against Alzheimer’s is as easy as playing an online computer game…
Scientists at Cornell University found a link between “stalled” blood vessels in the brain and the symptoms of Alzheimer’s. These stalled vessels limit blood flow to the brain by up to 30 percent. In experiments with laboratory mice, when the blood cells causing the stalls were removed, the mice performed better on memory tests.about:blankabout:blank
The researchers are working to develop Alzheimer’s treatments that remove the stalls in mice in the hope they can apply these methods to humans. But analyzing the brain images to find the stalled capillaries is hard and time consuming. It could take a trained laboratory technician six to 12 months to analyze each week’s worth of data collection.
So, Cornell researchers created Stall Catchers to make finding the stalled blood vessels into a game that anyone can play. The game relies on the power of the crowd — multiple confirmed answers — before determining whether a vessel is stalled or flowing…
Since its inception is 2016, he project has grown steadily, addressing various datasets and uncovering new insights about Alzheimer’s disease. Citizen scientists who play the game identify blood vessels as “flowing” or “stalled,” earning points for their classifications.
One way Stall Catchers makes this research fun is by allowing volunteers to form teams and engage in friendly competition…(More)”.
Report by Mark Boyd, Dr Milly Zimeta, Dr Jeni Tennison and Mahad Alassow: “Open and trusted health data systems can help Europe respond to the many urgent challenges facing its society and economy today. The global pandemic has already altered many of our societal and economic systems, and data has played a key role in enabling cross-border and cross-sector collaboration in public health responses.
Even before the pandemic, there was an urgent need to optimise healthcare systems and manage limited resources more effectively, to meet the needs of growing, and often ageing, populations. Now, there is a heightened need to develop early-diagnostic and health-surveillance systems, and more willingness to adopt digital healthcare solutions…
By reusing health data in different ways, we can increase the value of this data and help to enable these improvements. Clinical data, such as incidences of healthcare and clinical trials data, can be combined with data collected from other sources, such as sickness and insurance claims records, and from devices and wearable technologies. This data can then be anonymised and aggregated to generate new insights and optimise population health, improve patients’ health and experiences, create more efficient healthcare systems, and foster innovation.
This secondary use of health data can enable a wide range of benefits across the entire healthcare system. These include opportunities to optimise service, reduce health inequalities by better allocating resources, and enhance personalised healthcare –for example, by comparing treatments for people with similar characteristics. It can also help encourage innovation by extending research data to assess whether new therapies would work for a broader population….(More)”.
Editorial at Nature: “A few months into the COVID-19 pandemic, operations researcher Kimon Drakopoulos e-mailed both the Greek prime minister and the head of the country’s COVID-19 scientific task force to ask if they needed any extra advice.
Drakopoulos works in data science at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and is originally from Greece. To his surprise, he received a reply from Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis within hours. The European Union was asking member states, many of which had implemented widespread lockdowns in March, to allow non-essential travel to recommence from July 2020, and the Greek government needed help in deciding when and how to reopen borders.
Greece, like many other countries, lacked the capacity to test all travellers, particularly those not displaying symptoms. One option was to test a sample of visitors, but Greece opted to trial an approach rooted in artificial intelligence (AI).
Between August and November 2020 — with input from Drakopoulos and his colleagues — the authorities launched a system that uses a machine-learning algorithm to determine which travellers entering the country should be tested for COVID-19. The authors found machine learning to be more effective at identifying asymptomatic people than was random testing or testing based on a traveller’s country of origin. According to the researchers’ analysis, during the peak tourist season, the system detected two to four times more infected travellers than did random testing.
The machine-learning system, which is among the first of its kind, is called Eva and is described in Nature this week (H. Bastani et al. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04014-z; 2021). It’s an example of how data analysis can contribute to effective COVID-19 policies. But it also presents challenges, from ensuring that individuals’ privacy is protected to the need to independently verify its accuracy. Moreover, Eva is a reminder of why proposals for a pandemic treaty (see Nature594, 8; 2021) must consider rules and protocols on the proper use of AI and big data. These need to be drawn up in advance so that such analyses can be used quickly and safely in an emergency.
In many countries, travellers are chosen for COVID-19 testing at random or according to risk categories. For example, a person coming from a region with a high rate of infections might be prioritized for testing over someone travelling from a region with a lower rate.
By contrast, Eva collected not only travel history, but also demographic data such as age and sex from the passenger information forms required for entry to Greece. It then matched those characteristics with data from previously tested passengers and used the results to estimate an individual’s risk of infection. COVID-19 tests were targeted to travellers calculated to be at highest risk. The algorithm also issued tests to allow it to fill data gaps, ensuring that it remained up to date as the situation unfolded.
During the pandemic, there has been no shortage of ideas on how to deploy big data and AI to improve public health or assess the pandemic’s economic impact. However, relatively few of these ideas have made it into practice. This is partly because companies and governments that hold relevant data — such as mobile-phone records or details of financial transactions — need agreed systems to be in place before they can share the data with researchers. It’s also not clear how consent can be obtained to use such personal data, or how to ensure that these data are stored safely and securely…(More)”.
Article by Marie Patino: “…All of these dashboards were launched very early in the pandemic,” said Damir Ivankovic, a PhD student at the University of Amsterdam. “Some of them were developed literally overnight, or over three sleepless nights in certain countries.” With Ph.D. researcher Erica Barbazza, Ivankovic has been leading a set of studies about Covid-19 dashboards with a network of researchers. For an upcoming paper that’s still unpublished, the pair have talked to more than 30 government dashboard teams across Europe and Asia to better understand their dynamics and the political decisions at stake in their creation.
The dashboard craze can be traced back to Jan. 22, 2020, when graduate student Ensheng Dong, and Lauren Gardner, co-director of Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Systems Science and Engineering, launched the JHU interactive Covid dashboard. It would quickly achieve international fame, and screenshots of it started popping up in newspapers and on TV. The dashboard now racks up billions of daily hits. Soon after, cartography software company ESRI, through which the tool was made, spun off a variety of Covid resources and example dashboards, easy to customize and publish for those with a license. ESRI has provided about 5,000 organizations with a free license since the beginning of Covid.
That’s generated unprecedented traffic: The most-viewed public dashboards made using ESRI are all Covid-related, according to the company. The Johns Hopkins dash is number one. It made its data feed available for free, and now multiple other dashboards built by government and even news outlets, including Bloomberg, rely on Johns Hopkins to update their numbers.
Public Health England’s dashboard is designed and hand-coded from scratch. But because of the pandemic’s urgency, many government agencies that lacked expertise in data analysis and visualization turned to off-the-shelf business analytics software to build their dashboards. Among those is ESRI, but also Tableau and Microsoft Power BI.
The pros? They provide ready-to-use templates and modules, don’t necessitate programming knowledge, are fast and easy to publish and provide users with a technical lifeline. The cons? They don’t enable design, can look clunky and cluttered, provide little wiggle room in terms of explaining the data and are rarely mobile-friendly. Also, many don’t provide multi-language support or accessibility features, and some don’t enable users to access the raw data that powers the tool.
Report by the European Parliament Think Tank: “Regarding health data, its availability and comparability, the Covid-19 pandemic revealed that the EU has no clear health data architecture. The lack of harmonisation in these practices and the absence of an EU-level centre for data analysis and use to support a better response to public health crises is the focus of this study. Through extensive desk review, interviews with key actors, and enquiry into experiences from outside the EU/EEA area, this study highlights that the EU must have the capacity to use data very effectively in order to make data-supported public health policy proposals and inform political decisions. The possible functions and characteristics of an EU health data centre are outlined. The centre can only fulfil its mandate if it has the power and competency to influence Member State public-health-relevant data ecosystems and institutionally link with their national level actors. The institutional structure, its possible activities and in particular its usage of advanced technologies such as AI are examined in detail….(More)”.
Paper by Roger Koppl: “In a modern democracy, a public health system includes mechanisms for the provision of expert scientific advice to elected officials. The decisions of elected officials generally will be degraded by expert failure, that is, the provision of bad advice. The theory of expert failure suggests that competition among experts generally is the best safeguard against expert failure. Monopoly power of experts increases the chance of expert failure. The risk of expert failure also is greater when scientific advice is provided by only one or a few disciplines. A national government can simulate a competitive market for expert advice by structuring the scientific advice it receives to ensure the production of multiple perspectives from multiple disciplines. I apply these general principles to the United Kingdom’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE)….(More)”.
Essay by Geoff Mulgan: “Boris Johnson has announced a UK inquiry into COVID-19 to start in 2022, a parallel one is being planned in Scotland, and many more will emerge all over the world. But how should such inquiries be designed and run? What kind of inquiry can do most to mitigate or address the harms caused by the pandemic?
It’s highly likely that the most traditional models of inquiries will be adopted – just because that’s what people at the top are used to, or because they look politically expedient. But we think it would be good to look at the options and to encourage some creativity.
The pandemic has prompted extraordinary innovation; there is no reason why inquiries should be devoid of any. Moreover, the pandemic affected every sector of life – and was far more ‘systemic’ than the kinds of issue or event addressed by typical inquiries in the past. That should be reflected in how lessons are learned.
So here are some initial thoughts on what the defaults look like, why they are likely to be inadequate, and what some alternatives might be. This article proposes the idea of a ‘whole of society’ inquiry model which has a distributed rather than centralised structure, which focuses on learning more than blame, and which can connect the thousands of organisations that have had to make so many difficult decisions throughout the crisis, and also the lived experiences of public and frontline staff. We hope that it will prompt responses, including better ideas about what kinds of inquiry will serve us best…
There are many different options for inquiries, and this is a good moment to consider them. They range from ‘truth and reconciliation’ inquiries to no-fault compensation processes to the ways industries such as airlines deal with crashes, through to academic analyses of events like the 2007/08 financial crash. They can involve representative or random samples of the public (e.g. citizens’ assemblies and juries) or just experts and officials…
The idea of a distributed inquiry is not entirely new. Colombia, for example, attempted something along these lines as part of its peace process. Many health systems use methods such as ‘collaboratives’ to organise accelerated learning. Doubtless there is much to be learned from these and other examples. For the UK in particular, it is vital there are contextually appropriate designs for the four nations as well as individual cities and regions.
As already indicated, a key is to combine sensible inquiries focused on particular sectors (e.g. what did universities do, what worked…) and make connections between them. As IPPO’s work on COVID inequalities has highlighted, the patterns are very complex but involved a huge amount of harm – captured in our ‘inequalities matrix’, below.
So, while the inquiries need to dig deep on multiple fronts and to look more like a matrix than a single question, what might connect all the inquiries would be a commitment to some common elements which would be shared:
Facts: In each case, a precondition for learning is establishing the facts, as well as the evidence on what did or didn’t work well. This is a process closer to what evidence intermediary organisations – such as the UK’s What Works Network – do than a judicial process designed for binary judgments (guilty/not guilty). This would be helped by some systematic curation and organisation of the evidence in easily accessible forms, of the kind that IPPO is doing….(More)”
About: “Afyanet is a voluntary, non-profit network of National Health Institutes and Research Centers seeking to leverage crowdsourced health data for disease surveillance and forecasting. Participation in AfyaNet for countries is free.
We aim to use technology and digital solutions to radically enhance how traditional disease surveillance systems function and the ways we can model epidemics.
Our vision is to create a common framework to collect standardized real-time data from the general population, allowing countries to leapfrog existing hurdles in disease surveillance and information sharing.
Our solution is an Early Warning System for Health based on participatory data gathering. A common, real-time framework for disease collection will help countries identify and forecast outbreaks faster and more effectively.
Crowdsourced data is gathered directly from citizens, then aggregated, anonymized, and processed in a cloud-based data lake. Our high-performance computing architecture analyzes the data and creates valuable disease spread models, which in turn provide alerts and notifications to participating countries and helps public health authorities make evidence-based decisions….(More)”
Paper by Satchit Balsari, Mathew V. Kiang, and Caroline O. Buckee: “…In recent years, large-scale streams of digital data on medical needs, population vulnerabilities, physical and medical infrastructure, human mobility, and environmental conditions have become available in near-real time. Sophisticated analytic methods for combining them meaningfully are being developed and are rapidly evolving. However, the translation of these data and methods into improved disaster response faces substantial challenges. The data exist but are not readily accessible to hospitals and response agencies. The analytic pipelines to rapidly translate them into policy-relevant insights are lacking, and there is no clear designation of responsibility or mandate to integrate them into disaster-mitigation or disaster-response strategies. Building these integrated translational pipelines that use data rapidly and effectively to address the health effects of natural disasters will require substantial investments, and these investments will, in turn, rely on clear evidence of which approaches actually improve outcomes. Public health institutions face some ongoing barriers to achieving this goal, but promising solutions are available….(More)”
Press Release: “To better prepare and protect the world from global disease threats, H.E. German Federal Chancellor Dr Angela Merkel and Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, World Health Organization Director-General, will today inaugurate the new WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence, based in Berlin.
“The world needs to be able to detect new events with pandemic potential and to monitor disease control measures on a real-time basis to create effective pandemic and epidemic risk management,” said Dr Tedros. “This Hub will be key to that effort, leveraging innovations in data science for public health surveillance and response, and creating systems whereby we can share and expand expertise in this area globally.”
The WHO Hub, which is receiving an initial investment of US$ 100 million from the Federal Republic of Germany, will harness broad and diverse partnerships across many professional disciplines, and the latest technology, to link the data, tools and communities of practice so that actionable data and intelligence are shared for the common good.
The WHO Hub is part of WHO’s Health Emergencies Programme and will be a new collaboration of countries and partners worldwide, driving innovations to increase availability of key data; develop state of the art analytic tools and predictive models for risk analysis; and link communities of practice around the world. Critically, the WHO Hub will support the work of public health experts and policy-makers in all countries with the tools needed to forecast, detect and assess epidemic and pandemic risks so they can take rapid decisions to prevent and respond to future public health emergencies.
“Despite decades of investment, COVID-19 has revealed the great gaps that exist in the world’s ability to forecast, detect, assess and respond to outbreaks that threaten people worldwide,” said Dr Michael Ryan, Executive Director of WHO’s Health Emergency Programme. “The WHO Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence is designed to develop the data access, analytic tools and communities of practice to fill these very gaps, promote collaboration and sharing, and protect the world from such crises in the future.”
The Hub will work to:
Enhance methods for access to multiple data sources vital to generating signals and insights on disease emergence, evolution and impact;
Develop state of the art tools to process, analyze and model data for detection, assessment and response;
Provide WHO, our Member States, and partners with these tools to underpin better, faster decisions on how to address outbreak signals and events; and
Connect and catalyze institutions and networks developing disease outbreak solutions for the present and future.
Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu, currently Director-General of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control, has been appointed to lead the WHO Hub….(More)”
