RESUMEN

Hypothesis generation is an early and critical step in any hypothesis-driven clinical research project. Because it is not yet a well-understood cognitive process, the need to improve the process goes unrecognized. Without an impactful hypothesis, the significance of any research project can be questionable, regardless of the rigor or diligence applied in other steps of the study, e.g., study design, data collection, and result analysis. In this perspective article, the authors provide a literature review on the following topics first: scientific thinking, reasoning, medical reasoning, literature-based discovery, and a field study to explore scientific thinking and discovery. Over the years, scientific thinking has shown excellent progress in cognitive science and its applied areas: education, medicine, and biomedical research. However, a review of the literature reveals the lack of original studies on hypothesis generation in clinical research. The authors then summarize their first human participant study exploring data-driven hypothesis generation by clinical researchers in a simulated setting. The results indicate that a secondary data analytical tool, VIADS-a visual interactive analytic tool for filtering, summarizing, and visualizing large health data sets coded with hierarchical terminologies, can shorten the time participants need, on average, to generate a hypothesis and also requires fewer cognitive events to generate each hypothesis. As a counterpoint, this exploration also indicates that the quality ratings of the hypotheses thus generated carry significantly lower ratings for feasibility when applying VIADS. Despite its small scale, the study confirmed the feasibility of conducting a human participant study directly to explore the hypothesis generation process in clinical research. This study provides supporting evidence to conduct a larger-scale study with a specifically designed tool to facilitate the hypothesis-generation process among inexperienced clinical researchers. A larger study could provide generalizable evidence, which in turn can potentially improve clinical research productivity and overall clinical research enterprise.

RESUMEN

Objectives: We invited inexperienced clinical researchers to analyze coded health datasets and develop hypotheses. We recorded and analyzed their hypothesis generation process. All the hypotheses generated in the process were rated by the same group of seven experts by using the same metrics. This case study examines the higher quality (i.e., higher ratings) and lower quality of hypotheses and participants who generated them. We characterized the contextual factors associated with the quality of hypotheses. Methods: All participants (i.e., clinical researchers) completed a 2-hour study session to analyze data and generate scientific hypotheses using the think-aloud method. Participants' screen activity and audio were recorded and transcribed. These transcriptions were used to measure the time used to generate each hypothesis and to code cognitive events (i.e., cognitive activities used when generating hypotheses, for example, "Seeking for Connection" describes an attempt to draw connections between data points). The hypothesis ratings by the expert panel were used as the quality of the hypotheses during the analysis. We analyzed the factors associated with (1) the five highest and (2) five lowest rated hypotheses and (3) the participants who generated them, including the number of hypotheses per participant, the validity of those hypotheses, the number of cognitive events used for each hypothesis, as well as the participant's research experience and basic demographics. Results: Participants who generated the five highest-rated hypotheses used similar lengths of time (difference 3:03), whereas those who generated the five lowest-rated hypotheses used more varying lengths of time (difference 7:13). Participants who generated the five highest-rated hypotheses also utilized slightly fewer cognitive events on average compared to the five lowest-rated hypotheses (4 per hypothesis vs. 4.8 per hypothesis). When we examine the participants (who generated the five highest and five lowest hypotheses) and their total hypotheses generated during the 2-hour study sessions, the participants with the five highest-rated hypotheses again had a shorter range of time per hypothesis on average (0:03:34 vs. 0:07:17). They (with the five highest ratings) used fewer cognitive events per hypothesis (3.498 vs. 4.626). They (with the five highest ratings) also had a higher percentage of valid rate (75.51% vs. 63.63%) and generally had more experience with clinical research. Conclusion: The quality of the hypotheses was shown to be associated with the time taken to generate them, where too long or too short time to generate hypotheses appears to be negatively associated with the hypotheses' quality ratings. Also, having more experience seems to positively correlate with higher ratings of hypotheses and higher valid rates. Validity is a quality dimension used by the expert panel during rating. However, we acknowledge that our results are anecdotal. The effect may not be simply linear, and future research is necessary. These results underscore the multi-factor nature of hypothesis generation.

RESUMEN

Objectives: To compare how clinical researchers generate data-driven hypotheses with a visual interactive analytic tool (VIADS, a visual interactive analysis tool for filtering and summarizing large datasets coded with hierarchical terminologies) or other tools. Methods: We recruited clinical researchers and separated them into "experienced" and "inexperienced" groups. Participants were randomly assigned to a VIADS or control group within the groups. Each participant conducted a remote 2-hour study session for hypothesis generation with the same study facilitator on the same datasets by following a think-aloud protocol. Screen activities and audio were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Hypotheses were evaluated by seven experts on their validity, significance, and feasibility. We conducted multilevel random effect modeling for statistical tests. Results: Eighteen participants generated 227 hypotheses, of which 147 (65%) were valid. The VIADS and control groups generated a similar number of hypotheses. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate one hypothesis (e.g., among inexperienced clinical researchers, 258 s versus 379 s, p = 0.046, power = 0.437, ICC = 0.15). The VIADS group received significantly lower ratings than the control group on feasibility and the combination rating of validity, significance, and feasibility. Conclusion: The role of VIADS in hypothesis generation seems inconclusive. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate each hypothesis. However, the combined validity, significance, and feasibility ratings of their hypotheses were significantly lower. Further characterization of hypotheses, including specifics on how they might be improved, could guide future tool development.

RESUMEN

Objectives: This study aims to identify the cognitive events related to information use (e.g., "Analyze data", "Seek connection") during hypothesis generation among clinical researchers. Specifically, we describe hypothesis generation using cognitive event counts and compare them between groups. Methods: The participants used the same datasets, followed the same scripts, used VIADS (a visual interactive analysis tool for filtering and summarizing large data sets coded with hierarchical terminologies) or other analytical tools (as control) to analyze the datasets, and came up with hypotheses while following the think-aloud protocol. Their screen activities and audio were recorded and then transcribed and coded for cognitive events. Results: The VIADS group exhibited the lowest mean number of cognitive events per hypothesis and the smallest standard deviation. The experienced clinical researchers had approximately 10% more valid hypotheses than the inexperienced group. The VIADS users among the inexperienced clinical researchers exhibit a similar trend as the experienced clinical researchers in terms of the number of cognitive events and their respective percentages out of all the cognitive events. The highest percentages of cognitive events in hypothesis generation were "Using analysis results" (30%) and "Seeking connections" (23%). Conclusion: VIADS helped inexperienced clinical researchers use fewer cognitive events to generate hypotheses than the control group. This suggests that VIADS may guide participants to be more structured during hypothesis generation compared with the control group. The results provide evidence to explain the shorter average time needed by the VIADS group in generating each hypothesis.

RESUMEN

Objectives: To compare how clinical researchers generate data-driven hypotheses with a visual interactive analytic tool (VIADS, a visual interactive analysis tool for filtering and summarizing large data sets coded with hierarchical terminologies) or other tools. Methods: We recruited clinical researchers and separated them into "experienced" and "inexperienced" groups. Participants were randomly assigned to a VIADS or control group within the groups. Each participant conducted a remote 2-hour study session for hypothesis generation with the same study facilitator on the same datasets by following a think-aloud protocol. Screen activities and audio were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed. Hypotheses were evaluated by seven experts on their validity, significance, and feasibility. We conducted multilevel random effect modeling for statistical tests. Results: Eighteen participants generated 227 hypotheses, of which 147 (65%) were valid. The VIADS and control groups generated a similar number of hypotheses. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate one hypothesis (e.g., among inexperienced clinical researchers, 258 seconds versus 379 seconds, p = 0.046, power = 0.437, ICC = 0.15). The VIADS group received significantly lower ratings than the control group on feasibility and the combination rating of validity, significance, and feasibility. Conclusion: The role of VIADS in hypothesis generation seems inconclusive. The VIADS group took a significantly shorter time to generate each hypothesis. However, the combined validity, significance, and feasibility ratings of their hypotheses were significantly lower. Further characterization of hypotheses, including specifics on how they might be improved, could guide future tool development.

RESUMEN

Objectives: Metrics and instruments can provide guidance for clinical researchers to assess their potential research projects at an early stage before significant investment. Furthermore, metrics can also provide structured criteria for peer reviewers to assess others' clinical research manuscripts or grant proposals. This study aimed to develop, test, validate, and use evaluation metrics and instruments to accurately, consistently, and conveniently assess the quality of scientific hypotheses for clinical research projects. Materials and Methods: Metrics development went through iterative stages, including literature review, metrics and instrument development, internal and external testing and validation, and continuous revisions in each stage based on feedback. Furthermore, two experiments were conducted to determine brief and comprehensive versions of the instrument. Results: The brief version of the instrument contained three dimensions: validity, significance, and feasibility. The comprehensive version of metrics included novelty, clinical relevance, potential benefits and risks, ethicality, testability, clarity, interestingness, and the three dimensions of the brief version. Each evaluation dimension included 2 to 5 subitems to evaluate the specific aspects of each dimension. For example, validity included clinical validity and scientific validity. The brief and comprehensive versions of the instruments included 12 and 39 subitems, respectively. Each subitem used a 5-point Likert scale. Conclusion: The validated brief and comprehensive versions of metrics can provide standardized, consistent, and generic measurements for clinical research hypotheses, allow clinical researchers to prioritize their research ideas systematically, objectively, and consistently, and can be used as a tool for quality assessment during the peer review process.

RESUMEN

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, thus hindering our ability to address some critical questions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to answer the following questions: To what extent can secondary data analytics tools facilitate the generation of scientific hypotheses during clinical research? Are the processes similar in developing clinical diagnoses during clinical practice and developing scientific hypotheses for clinical research projects? Furthermore, this study explores the process of scientific hypothesis generation in the context of clinical research. It was designed to compare the role of VIADS, a visual interactive analysis tool for filtering and summarizing large data sets coded with hierarchical terminologies, and the experience levels of study participants during the scientific hypothesis generation process. METHODS: This manuscript introduces a study design. Experienced and inexperienced clinical researchers are being recruited since July 2021 to take part in this 2×2 factorial study, in which all participants use the same data sets during scientific hypothesis-generation sessions and follow predetermined scripts. The clinical researchers are separated into experienced or inexperienced groups based on predetermined criteria and are then randomly assigned into groups that use and do not use VIADS via block randomization. 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 survey. A panel of clinical research experts will assess the scientific hypotheses generated by participants based on predeveloped metrics. All data will be anonymized, transcribed, aggregated, and analyzed. RESULTS: Data collection for this study began in July 2021. Recruitment uses a brief online survey. The preliminary results showed that study participants can generate a few to over a dozen scientific hypotheses during a 2-hour study session, regardless of whether they used VIADS or other analytics tools. A metric to more accurately, comprehensively, and consistently assess scientific hypotheses within a clinical research context has been developed. CONCLUSIONS: The scientific hypothesis-generation process is an advanced cognitive activity and a complex process. Our results so far show that clinical researchers can quickly generate initial scientific hypotheses based on data sets and prior experience. However, refining these scientific hypotheses is a much more time-consuming activity. To uncover the fundamental mechanisms underlying the generation of scientific hypotheses, we need breakthroughs that can capture thinking processes more precisely. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/39414.

RESUMEN

This review proposes that plants make smart decision and encourages scientists to formulate and test hypotheses about plant's decisions as an option to investigate complex phenomena that are hardly explained through the predominant mechanistic approach. Three physiological processes (seed germination and seedling emergence, abortion of reproductive structures, and regulation of photosynthesis) are discussed to illustrate the plant's ability to make decisions from three different perspectives. It is proposed that plant scientists could access a rich pool of information by formulating and testing hypothesis on plant's decisions, even when it is not possible elucidating the full mechanism underpinning the decision. Decisions with a strategic component are discussed for seed germination and seedling emergence, in which the plant depends on limited information for making early decisions that will influence its survival and potential growth. Decisions consistent with an analysis of benefit/cost are illustrated with observations from abortion of reproductive structures. Decisions that search the optimization of complex processes are exemplified with the regulation of photosynthesis. For each type of decision, some draft experiments are suggested as exercise on how this framework could be applied. It is proposed that scientists could make experiments with plant's decisions adapting methods that were developed for other disciplines.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Around the core issue how to evaluate and test hypothesis, starting from the concept of hypothesis and scientific hypothesis, learning form recent progress and understanding at home and abroad, we have analyzed the type of scientific hypothesis, test methods and pre-mortem and post-mortem evaluation criteria in depth, established scientific vision and discipline ruler, explored the awareness level of the Chinese medicine hypothesis, pointed out the problems and gaps. Whereby, we have analyzed and demonstrated brain regulating five internal organs concept of wholism scientific hypothesis, and proven it belongs to the scientific hypothesis. We were confident that these works mentioned above would lead the theoretical reform changing Chinese medicine hypothesis from traditional description to the nature clarification.

RESUMEN

Se realizó un estudio acerca del impacto negativo que puede existir sobre los aspectos metodológicos y epistemológicos cuando las hipótesis científicas y empíricas se les superponen o son sustituidas por las hipótesis estadísticas. Tales superposiciones o sustituciones tienden a confundir a investigadores y estudiantes de pregrado y postgrado en relación con el potencial cognoscitivo de la hipótesis en general y en particular y se discuten las fuentes que pueden producir este tipo de errores en el proceso de la investigación científica...

A study was done about the negative impact that could be between methodological and epistemological facts, when scientific and empirical hipótesis are overlapped or substituted by statistical hypothesis. Such overlaps or substitution tend to confuse to researchers and pre and post grade student related with the potencial cognitive of hypothesis in both, general and specific way. Moreover, the sources that may result this kind of mistakes in scientific research process are discused...

Asunto(s)