Details Important Dates Weight 30% of course grade 15% - Presentation ● 15% - Final Report Journal Article Selection The selected article must be primary literature (not a review paper)

and published within the last five years (2019 or later). The paper must also be from a reputable journal within the field and is subject to instructor approval. Objectives Presentation Guideline Length: Presentations are to be between 8 and 10 minutes in length, with an additional 2 minutes for questions. ● HSC 301 - Principles of Epidemiology Term Project Details All presentations must include the following: Introduction to the topic, and why it is of importance. Be sure to include an evaluation of the complexity of the issue, as well as relevant statistics, rates, and other pertinent data (prevalence, incidence, mortality, financial costs, examples of any stratification of the topic/field). ● ● Develop skills in reading, critiquing, and presenting primary epidemiological research Enhance oral and written communication skills ● Brief discussion of methods Description of study population Presentation of data for key outcomes and corresponding authors' conclusions Brief overview of where this study and its findings sit within the literature Next steps to further research Positioning of this topic within a Christian perspective Presentation Grading Criteria Organization and coverage of content 45 marks Physical presence 5 marks Below Average (≤45%) Does not meet requirements for what should be included in the presentation Time is not used well; the whole presentation, or several parts of it, are too short or too long Does not have an introduction and/or conclusion Does not look at audience; reads notes or slides Posture does not show confidence (e.g., fidgets, slouches) Clothes are not appropriate for the occasion Average (46-60%) Meets most requirements for what should be included in the presentation Some parts feel too short or too long; too much or too little time is spent on one topic, slide, or idea Has an introduction and conclusion, but they are not clear or interesting Makes some eye contact or scans the room quickly, but reads notes or slides most of the time Posture shows some confidence, with only a litt fidgeting or nervous movement Some attempt to wear appropriate clothing for the occasion Good (61-80%) Meets all requirements for what should be included in the presentation States main idea and moves from one idea to the next clearly, in an order that makes sense Time is well spent; no part feels too short or too long Has a clear and interesting introduction and conclusion Keeps eye contact with audience most of the time; only reads notes or slides sometimes Confident posture Clothes are appropriate for the occasion Excellent (>80%) In addition to Good criteria: Has a memorable introduction and conclusion Connects introduction and conclusion Keeps eye contact all the time, slowly scanning all of the audience Does not read notes or slides Uses gestures smoothly, naturally to emphasize or illustrate points; moves with purpose Criteria Speaking 5 marks Slide quality and creativity 20 marks Use of videos, diagrams, graphics, items to facilitate audience participation Participation 25 marks Response to questions from the audience and asking questions during other presentations 100 marks total Below Average (≤45%) ● ● Speaks too fast or slow Speaks too softly to be heard Frequently uses "filler" words (e.g., uh, um, so, and, like) Does not use aids (e.g., pictures, drawings, objects, posters, maps, recordings, slides, other electronic media) Does not address the audience's questions; says little or goes off the topic Doesn't ask any questions to other presenters Average (46-60%) Speaks clearly some of the time Speaks loudly enough for some of the audience to hear May speak in a monotone voice Slides are difficult to read Uses aids but they do not add much to, and may distract from, the presentation Aids are hard to read or hear, or are messy (writing or graphics are not neat or sound is not clear) May answer some of the audience's questions, but not clearly and/or completely Good (61-80%) Speaks clearly Speaks loudly enough for everyone to hear Changes tone to maintain interest Slides are clear and easy to read Aids add to the presentation Aids are easy to see and/or hear, and are neat Answers audience's questions clearly and completely Asks insightful questions of others Excellent (>80%) In addition to Good criteria: Adds variety to speaking style (lower or higher volume, change of pace) Uses pauses for dramatic effect or to let ideas sink in In addition to Good criteria: Some text, supplemented by information shared verbally Aids are especially creative and/or powerful Shows skill in creating aids and/or using technology In addition to Good criteria: Answers questions in a way that adds details, examples, or new points to the presentation • Smoothly handles difficult questions Final Report Guideline The report will be structured as answers to a set of questions (see below). Through answering the questions in these ten areas you will critically analyze and interpret your selected journal article. By way of background, this assignment imitates a task that public health professionals and researchers frequently undertake: to analyze and evaluate a research study in order to understand, judge, and interpret what it has found (or not found). A research study typically has a small number of primary research objectives. Common research objectives are to estimate a quantity (e.g., the percentage of a population that uses seatbelts), to describe a phenomenon (e.g., what symptoms characterize illnesses resulting from the pandemic strain of H1N1), or to test a hypothesis (e.g., does passive smoke exposure increase risk of preterm birth). Research studies often require a lot of work and resources, so the researcher needs to make a case for the study. The study “rationale” is the reasoning that establishes the importance of the study's objectives and approach. The rationale is a key component of the study, since besides persuading reviewers and editors, the rationale provides the scientific or public health underpinning for all the decisions made in carrying out the study – and for judging how well it has been carried out. So, when you critique an article, you evaluate each aspect in respect to the authors' research objective(s) and rationale. A research study builds on what is known and seeks to advance or add to that knowledge. So, the investigators should demonstrate that they are aware of what is known, tell us what their study will contribute, and explain how their findings modify or reinforce the knowledge base. Thus, studies are judged in relation to where the field is when they were designed and conducted. Report Structure Below is the list of 10 areas that will provide the framework for the evaluation of your chosen epidemiologic study: 1. Research objective and study rationale: [250-word maximum] What is the primary research objective of this study? What is the rationale for this objective (i.e., the reason(s) that it is important to achieve the objective(s) or to answer the research question(s))? O In terms of public health importance and contribution to knowledge, how strong is the rationale for this study and how well is it presented by the authors (e.g., conceptual framework, supporting evidence, logic)? O How well grounded is the rationale in the published literature (e.g., biological, epidemiological)? 2. Study design and study population: [250-word maximum] o Identify the important design features of the study, such as its basic design structure (e.g., case-control, cohort, cross-sectional, experimental) and how the o Compared to other reasonable choices, what are the advantages and disadvantages of this study design and its features for the specific objective(s) or question(s)? What is the study population for this investigation? O O O 3. Key variables, measures, and data collection methods: [250-word maximum] What are the key variables and what are their roles (e.g., primary outcome or dependent variable, “exposure" or independent variable, potential confounders and other covariables)? How are these variables defined and measured? What are the major modes by which data are being collected (e.g., self- administered questionnaire, interviewer-administered questionnaire, medical record review, biological specimens)? How suited are these variables, their definitions, their measurement methods, and the data collection modes for the objective(s) and rationale of this study? Would other methods have been better for meeting the objectives? If yes, which methods and why? O design was implemented (e.g., incident vs. prevalent cases, randomization by group, whether data are collected multiple times, whether follow-up is involved and how it is carried out, etc.). O What are the major eligibility criteria (inclusion and exclusion criteria)? How suited is this choice of study population, including eligibility criteria, for the objectives of the study? 4. Study conduct and quality control: [250-word maximum] O O How has the study population been recruited (e.g., patients in a clinic, volunteers from advertisements, random digit dialing, area sampling of households)? If different groups of participants are recruited through different mechanisms (e.g., cases and controls, exposed and unexposed), provide this information for each primary group). What steps were taken to minimize non-participation and selective factors in recruitment? In retention? How effective were these steps? ■ O How successful, overall, was the data collection? What major steps were taken to improve and document the accuracy of the data collected? 5. Data analysis: [250-word maximum] O What are the key questions the analysis sought to answer? What was the analytic strategy? What was estimated; what was compared? What considerations did these estimates/comparisons involve? What are the primary statistical analysis techniques used (e.g., contingency tables, comparison of means, stratified analysis, regression modeling, graphical analysis)? O What were the primary statistical measures estimated (e.g., mean, prevalence, incidence, incidence rate ratios, odds ratios)? O How well suited were these approaches and choices to the objectives of the study and study design? Do you think other approaches or techniques should have been used instead or in addition?/n 28/02/2024, 01:13 Epidemiology and nomogram of pediatric and young adulthood osteosarcoma patients with synchronous lu... An official website of the United States government Here's how you know FULL TEXT LINKS OPEN ACCESS TO FULL TEXT PLOS ONE Randomized Controlled Trial doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288492. eCollection 2023. PLoS One. 2023 Jul 12;18(7):e0288492. Epidemiology and nomogram of pediatric and young adulthood osteosarcoma patients with synchronous lung metastasis: A SEER analysis Tao Liu ¹, Lin Cui 2, Zongyun He 1, Zhe Chen 1, Haibing Tao 1, Jin Yang 1 Affiliations PMID: 37437020 PMCID: PMC10337906 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288492 Free PMC article Abstract Background: Patients with osteosarcoma and synchronous lung metastasis (SLM) have poor survival. This study aimed to explore the epidemiology data and construct a predictive nomogram to identify cases at risk of SLM occurrence among pediatric and young adulthood osteosarcoma patients. Methods: All data were extracted from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 17 registries. The age-standardized incidence rate (ASIR) and annual percentage change was evaluated, and reported for the overall population and by age, gender, race, and primary site. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify risk factors associated with SLM occurrence, then significant factors were used to develop the nomogram. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration curve were used to evaluated the predictive power of the nomogram. Survival analysis was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. Multivariate Cox analysis was used to determine the prognostic factors. Results: A total of 278 out of 1965 patients (14.1%) presented with SLM at diagnosis. The ASIR increased significant from 0.46 to 0.66 per 1,000,000 person-years from year 2010 to 2019, with an annual percentage change of 3.5, mainly in patients with age 10-19 years, male and appendicular location. All patients were randomly assigned into train cohort and validation cohort with a spilt of 7:3. In the train cohort, higher tumor grade, bigger tumor size, positive lymph nodes and other site- specific metastases (SSM) were identified as significant risk factors associated with SLM occurrence. Then a nomogram was developed based on the four factors. The AUC and calibration curve in both train and validation cohorts demonstrated that the nomogram had moderate predictive power. The median cancer-specific survival was 25 months. Patients with age 20-39 years, male, positive lymph nodes, other SSM were adverse prognostic factors, while surgery was protective factor. Conclusions: This study performed a comprehensive analysis regarding pediatric and young adulthood osteosarcoma patients had SLM. A visual, clinically operable, and easy-to-interpret nomogram model was developed for predicting the risk of SLM, which could be used in clinic and help clinicians make better decisions. Copyright: © 2023 Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PubMed Disclaimer Figures https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37437020/ 1/2 28/02/2024, 01:13 Fig 1. Age-standardized incidence rate of pediatric... Zh پر پر Fig 4. Receiver operating characteristics curves MedGen Epidemiology and nomogram of pediatric and young adulthood osteosarcoma patients with synchronous lu... Related information Full Text Sources Europe PubMed Central PubMed Central Public Library of Science Fig 2. Age-standardized incidence rate of pediatric... LinkOut more resources Medical Genetic Alliance MedlinePlus Health Information Fig 5. Survival plot for pediatric and... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37437020/ Fig 3. A nomogram for predicting the... 2/2