Present: Marianne Burke, Abby Crocker, Kairn Kelley, Amanda
Kennedy, Ben Littenberg, Connie van Eeghen
Guest: Molly Schmidt
1.
Start Up: Mollie
Schmidt has a PhD in School Psychology and is certified in Clinical
Psychology. She is visiting from Rome,
Maine and trying to figure out what an Assistant Professor does with all her
time (that would be her daughter, Connie).
She was warmly welcomed.
2.
Presentation: Kairn
Kelley – F31
a. Kairn
has a goal of submitting her F31 proposal in April, and has her foot hard on
the accelerator. She shared the
significance and specific aims. She
wants feedback on whether her story makes sense and what measures she should
use to capture her results.
i.
The reason for the study is well-defined: the problem
is common, morbid, and treatable but the diagnostic tests are not
well-supported. The issue Kairn is
addressing the diagnostic value of the tests and which tests to use, and how to
evaluate the results.
ii.
Set the stage: we don’t know these tests, even at the
level of dichotic and non-dichotic tests.
iii.
The message, which has to be readable by looking at the
first sentence of each paragraph, is something like: “The tests are mysterious,
we’ll fix the tests, and patient care will be better.” Use subheadings to lead the reader through
the story: Scope of the Problem (what do you want to fix), Tools (how to
diagnose the condition is based on tests not subjected to rigorous evaluation
of the psychometric properties (or text characteristics or reliability) to date. Dichotic tests (describe) in particular, have
not been well…
iv.
In addition, the Overview section needs to be shorter
and less dense, even though the advice is also to add more detail. (Good luck with this.)
b. Audience:
Institute on Deafness and Hearing Disorders, with a high proportion of
applications accepted. The study section
is unique to F proposals; it is helpful to identify them to help plan how to
write the story. Know what their
priorities are in research and be ready to focus definitions on their likely
level of understanding. Study section
titles include: Brain Disorders and Language Communications; Behavioral
Neuroscience; Sensory Motor Science Cognition and Perception; and Neuro-Degeneration. Be clear about what you are going to
accomplish.
i.
The study section for Brain Disorders includes radiologists,
critical care specialists, psychologists, neurologists, pharmacologist… no
audiologists.
ii.
Sensory motor science: has fMRI studies; list is not
available.
iii.
Contact the Project Officer – find out if these are the
right study sections and if one can request a study section.
c. Specific
Aims: this is the most commonly read page across the entire study section.
i.
Should it include the training and mentoring plan? Per the Project Officer, everything should
demonstrate how it fits into your training plan with the result that you will
be an “independent, successful investigator and author of RO1s”
ii.
Look at previous F applications (narratives and aims). Gabe’s was strictly focused on the research
study, not the training plan. Consider
stating the broad goal: lay the foundation of diagnostic testing and improve
accuracy. Specifically for this project,
the focus is test/retest reliability. We
will achieve this by meeting the following specific aims…
iii.
Start the story here: children are being harmed due to
lack of accurate testing and follow up.
Consider using the “Objectives” as the Aims statement; move the
specificity of the Aims to the Approach section. Create an elevator speech with the four
essential sentences: relevance, question, action, future.
iv.
The third Aim is expressed as a hypothesis test; do
this formally with an H0 and a null.
Otherwise, remove the language. If
so, use “compare” or “evaluate” and avoid being boxed into an assumption of the
reader’s. Leave “registry” for the
future work planned or deliverables.
d. Measures:
i.
Subjects: originally 7-10 yr. old, due to guidelines
(for <7) and consent requirements (>10). Recommendation: go as high as
clinically relevant to improve power calculations (up to 14 yrs.). Training effectiveness is highest from
7-12. Check clinical guidelines.
ii.
Inclusion: clinical practice guideline eligibility and
other subject characteristics. Parents
will be asked if children have received special services but these children
will be included.
iii.
Exclude: febrile, coughing, otitis media, and other
acute problems (pain, rash,…). IQ is not
an exclusion criteria
iv.
Goal: 125 complete analyzable cases
e. Limitations:
one practice, one location; clinical relevance required small, focused sample;
conducted under field conditions.
f. Good
luck! Not that Kairn will need luck, but
at least may Good Fortune go with all emerging PhD students – and this would
include Abby and her upcoming dissertation defense (see below).
a.
Mar 28: Abby: Dissertation Defense Dry Run (will start
at 2p, on schedule – new location?) in HSRF 300
b.
April 4:
c.
April 11:
d.
April 18:
e.
April 25:
f.
May 2:
g.
May 9: Charlie: Exploration of analytical plan for
Natural History of Acute Opiate Use (and perhaps more)
h. Future
agenda to consider:
i.
Christina Cruz, 3rd year FM resident with
questionnaire for mild serotonin withdrawal syndrome?
ii.
Peter Callas or other faculty on multi-level modeling
iii.
Charlie MacLean: demonstration of Tableau
iv.
Journal article: Gomes, 2013, Opioid Dose and MVA in
Canada (Charlie)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.