Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Awareness and Impact of Hydroxychloroquine / Chloroquine prophylaxis among the Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An observational study.

Abstract Background Various modalities are under study for prevention and treatment of novel coronavirus. One such modality is use of Hydroxychloroquine/Choloroquine. The objective of survey was to understand the awareness and impact of HCQ/CQ prophylaxis among the health care workers (HCWs) including surgeons and anaesthetists.Methods A web-based, cross-sectional survey was conducted for HCWs globally. Participation was voluntary and confidentiality was maintained by making participants' information anonymous. The questionnaire consisted of 28 items. Data were tabulated in excel, and descriptive statistics were performed. Results Survey was taken by 344 HCWs from all over the world. 98% participants heard about the use of HCQ/CQ prophylaxis against COVID 19 infection. 301 HCWs knew about the side effects of HCQ/CQ. 54 1% participants agree there is not adequate research done. 122 participants took HCQ/CQ prophylaxis. Out of 29 5% participants who received the medicine from hospital under hospital protocol, 66 7% were given medication without baseline investigations and 30 5% HCWs were not even briefed about the drug and its side effects by the hospitals. 36 2% participants developed side effects. 8 7% HCWs were tested for COVID19 out of 344 participants.Conclusion The drug taken by HCWs was without adequate evidence, prior investigations, supervision and follow-up. Most of the participants self prescribed the drug. No separate guidelines were stated for people who had co-morbid conditions. Hospitals neither conducted baseline investigations and nor briefed HCWs about HCQ/CQ. These are some serious concerns we are looking into as who will be answerable in case of adverse events.</jats:p

Anaesthesia for fixation of repeated pathological fractures in a patient with multiple myeloma

The introduction of new chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) has improved the life expectancy and quality of life for these patients in the last decade. Therefore, more patients with MM are being treated for repeated pathological fractures. The anaesthesiologist should continue the optimum supportive care received by these patients in the perioperative period also, by understanding the pathophysiology of the disease, the adverse effects of the chemotherapeutic agents and the guidelines for their supportive care. We report the perioperative management of a patient with MM and discuss the perioperative anaesthetic considerations