PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Jing, Xia
AU  - Patel, Vimla L.
AU  - Cimino, James J.
AU  - Shubrook, Jay H.
AU  - Zhou, Yuchun
AU  - Liu, Chang
AU  - De Lacalle, Sonsoles
TI  - Scientific hypothesis generation process in clinical research: a secondary data analytic tool versus experience study protocol
AID  - 10.1101/2022.05.21.22275060
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.05.21.22275060
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/23/2022.05.21.22275060.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/05/23/2022.05.21.22275060.full
AB  - Background Scientific hypothesis generation is a critical step in scientific research that determines the direction and impact of any investigation. Despite its vital role, we have limited knowledge of the process itself, hindering our ability to address some critical questions.Objective To what extent can secondary data analytic tools facilitate scientific hypothesis generation during clinical research? Are the processes similar in developing clinical diagnoses during clinical practice and developing scientific hypotheses for clinical research projects? We explore the process of scientific hypothesis generation in the context of clinical research. The study is designed to compare the role of VIADS, our web-based interactive secondary data analysis tool, and the experience levels of study participants during their scientific hypothesis generation processes.Methods Inexperienced and experienced clinical researchers are recruited. In this 2×2 study design, all participants use the same data sets during scientific hypothesis-generation sessions, following pre-determined scripts. The inexperienced and experienced clinical researchers are randomly assigned into groups with and without using VIADS. The study sessions, screen activities, and audio recordings of participants are captured. Participants use the think-aloud protocol during the study sessions. After each study session, every participant is given a follow-up survey, with participants using VIADS completing an additional modified System Usability Scale (SUS) survey. A panel of clinical research experts will assess the scientific hypotheses generated based on pre-developed metrics. All data will be anonymized, transcribed, aggregated, and analyzed.Results This study is currently underway. Recruitment is ongoing via a brief online survey 1. The preliminary results show that study participants can generate a few to over a dozen scientific hypotheses during a 2-hour study session, regardless of whether they use VIADS or other analytic tools. A metric to assess scientific hypotheses within a clinical research context more accurately, comprehensively, and consistently has also been developed.Conclusion The scientific hypothesis-generation process is an advanced cognitive activity and a complex process. Clinical researchers can quickly generate initial scientific hypotheses based on data sets and prior experience based on our current results. However, refining these scientific hypotheses is much more time-consuming. To uncover the fundamental mechanisms of generating scientific hypotheses, we need breakthroughs that capture thinking processes more precisely.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialThis study is not a clinical trial per NIH definition.Funding StatementThe project is supported by a grant from the National Library of Medicine of the United States National Institutes of Health (R15LM012941) and partially supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (P20 GM121342). The content is solely the author's responsibility and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Clemson University (IRB2020-056).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis manuscript is the study protocol. After we analyze and publish the results, transcribed, aggregated, de-identified data can be requested from the authors.GOthe Gene OntologyICDthe International Classification of DiseasesICD9-CMInternational Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision-Clinical ModificationICD10-CMInternational Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision-Clinical ModificationIRBInstitutional Review BoardLOINCLogical Observation Identifiers Names and CodeMeSHMedical Subject HeadingsNAMCSNational Ambulatory Medical Care SurveySNOMED-CTSystematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical TermsSUSSystem Usability ScaleVIADSA visual interactive analysis tool for filtering and summarizing large data sets coded with hierarchical terminologies