First of all, I would like to express my profound gratitude to Interpol and the Government of Canada for organizing the workshop. I would like to convey my sincere appreciation to the organizing committee for the excellent arrangement. I would like also to thank the distinguished participants and the experts who were traveling far across the region from below home to acquire best experience and practice in order to create the effective mechanism to tackle terrorist activity in the Asian region. It is my honor to be at this important Interpol forensic workshop for Southeast Asia and the Pacific. That aim to support increased investigative resources, specialized forensics, capacity of capability, and to improve information sharing among law enforcement agencies in their field counter terrorism. In this effect, I would like to share with you Canada updated progress of projects expressed in this summary report of the Fourth Asian Plus Canada Senior Official Meeting on Transnational Crime Consultation that was held on 11 June 2015 in Siem Reap, Cambodia. The consultation was co-chair by Deputy Secretary International of Ministry of Home Affairs of the Republic of Singapore and Director of Capacity Building Program Department of Foreign Affairs Trade and Development of Canada. The senior official from all Asian member states and representatives from the Asian Secretariat also attend the consultation. At the outset, the representative of Canada highlights that the Asian-Canada relationship is a top foreign policy priority to Canada. She emphasized that Canada would continue to build on its security capacity building relationship with Asian. She highlights several initiatives that Canada counter terrorism and anti-crime capacity building programs are on the taking in collaboration with Asian and its member states. Project will be delivered with Canada regional implementing partners such as the Interpol, United Nations Office on Drug and Crime, an international organization for migration. At the consultation, Canada also highlighted the success of Operation Sunbird which was the final result of the project activity in year one and allow for the testing of skill and knowledge through a larger-scale regional exercise. Canada informed the consultation that the Singapore proposed project framework for capacity building against cybercrime in Asian setup of cybercrime foreign capability has begun since February 2015 and it will implement until March 2016 by Interpol. Canada briefed the meeting on their three new proposal projects namely one, improving border control to counter drug and precursor trafficking in high risk area within Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam which will be implemented by the UNODC. This project aims to enhance the capacity of border patrol and control officer in high risk vulnerable area. Two, strengthen criminal justice responses to terrorism in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam which will be implemented by the UNODC. This project aims at enhancing criminal justice preparedness of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam to counter terrorism and its financing in line with the objective and action plan set forth in the UN global counter terrorism strategy and relevant UN Security Council resolution and three pilot project to strengthen travel document security and facilitate cross border movement and combat people smuggling in ASEAN which will be implemented by the IOM. The proposed two year pilot project aims to contribute to border security and facilitate this movement at the border of Laos, Thailand and Campbell and Thailand border checkpoint. ASEAN member state expressed appreciation to Canada and Interpol for their support and assistance in training ASEAN law enforcement officer to enhance the investigation skill and hope that the activity could be expanded to cover wide range of issues including fraudulent passport, representative of Canada in her closing remarks, reiterated Canada commitment to a change views with some TC on various transnational crime issue in the region. She looked forward to continuing the dialogue with some TC and to implement Canada comprehensive program in the ASEAN region. Ladies and gentlemen, Southeast Asia is undergoing a process of rapid integration. The establishment of ASEAN community in 2015 will bring the region 630 million inhabitants together into one of the world larger economic community and a strong regional trade bloc. Crimes such as terrorism, drug trafficking and computer misuse have been rising faster than initiative of law enforcement. The success of ASEAN integration will be in part be determined by the creation of adequate safeguard against the accompanying new and evolving secure risk. Therefore, the right balance is needed on the national policy to eradicate complacency and corruption in the camp of law enforcement. Nevertheless, the today Interpol forensic workshop, the joint initiative of Canada and Interpol will support the following outcome, fingerprint analysis, DNA, facial recognition, disaster victim identification and digital forensic. Today, we ASEAN participants are actually witnessing Canada's deed, resource and commitment by bringing selected cyber forensic officers from Central Specialized Services to be trained in a one-week specialized course in conjunction with their regional counterpart to share their expertise and receive instruction from subject matter experts at Interpol, dedicated Interpol Digital Crime Center Directorate and Cyber Innovation and Outreach Directorate House at this Interpol Global Complex for Innovation. ASEAN highly commands the aforementioned initiative of Interpol and Canada to purposely improve the capacity of ASEAN law enforcement in the field of counterterrorism. Now we are aware what Interpol and Canada have offered to ASEAN, how ASEAN sustained the generosity of Interpol and Canada for their advantage to protect its incoming integrated community is the matter that we in this room have to devote the full responsibility and the law enforcement action with our illusion to timely neutralize the real threat of criminals before they do irreparable harm to the ASEAN region. I thank you for your attention.


Welcome back to why in the morning, if it's Tuesday, you know how you do, it's entrepreneurship Tuesday. At Y244 channel, Zojka Fender, so close all our social media handles at Michelle Lashira and Zojka family. Across all my social, in this particular session, we dive into an interview that looks at the children fashion industry. And in studio, I am joined by Irene Adiambo and she is the founder of Timeless Kid Wear. Thank you very much, Irene for creating time to be with us today. Thanks for having me. You look fabulous. Thank you. All right, so they say that one of the best ways to make a child happy is just be good to them, make them feel good and one of the ways is actually dress them well. Yes, and it also helps build their confidence from an early age. Oh, I see. Yes. Irene, your background is in account, you're an accountant by profession. Exactly. And here you are, diving into entrepreneurship. So how did that happen? First, starting out right after clearing university, jobs were a bit hard to come by. I got to work in a few places but didn't get an opportunity to practice accounting. And in 2014, I had my daughter and fortunately or fortunately, I lost my job then when going for the maternity leave. So I went back home, started doing part-time jobs, mainly online jobs, online writing, and then I also did casual jobs like cooking chapattis to get a little income to feed the baby because unfortunately, the dad had abandoned us. So I was the one to take care of the baby and people used to notice how I dressed my daughter. So I would always get compliments, someone asked, where did you buy this? And I saw that as an opportunity. Why not start it as a business to make income and be able to provide for myself and the baby? So that's how Timeless Kids Wear was born. Fantastic. Yes. How were you able to raise capital? Because at this particular time, you have guys, friends who are asking you, where can I get an outfit like how you dress in your child? How did you raise the capital? I would like to say, unfortunately, to have a very supportive family. My parents came through after we were abandoned. So my parents took me in and my dad sponsored part of my, when I was going to start out afresh, he sponsored part of the cash I used. He gave me some rent money and I took part of that rent money, 2K, 2,000, because I deal in second-hand kids' outfits. So in second-hand, you don't have to have a lot of cash to start. So I just did 2,000, went to the market, bought a few outfits and that's how I started off. Alright. So what is your value proposition when you look at the space that you're into? Sorry? Your value proposition. What is your niche in this market space? Mostly, I would say, my best part of it is the new bonds, mainly I drive so much in the new bond sector, though we also sell for other ages like up to 13 years, sometimes even upon request, we'll do to 15 years, but mostly we thrive in new bond outfits. Okay. And when guys head on to your online space, which is timeless, kids will ride across all social media handles? Yes, on Instagram and Facebook. Okay. So how do you guys, where do you outsource your outfits from? Our outfits from Korogosha Market and from Gikomba Market. Oh, but they're good quality, are they? Exactly. Good quality. Yes. How about the prices? Our prices are quite affordable, our lowest is 50 shillings and the highest is 900 for the outfits and I also deal in kids' shoes. So for kids' shoes, the maximum price is 1500, yes. So for how long have you guys been running the business? We started in 2016 June, so by June this year we'll be turning five. Okay. For someone who is watching this and they're interested in getting in this special kind of a business, what would be your couple of tips on how to go about getting into the thrift market space? First tip is you'd rather start small. The best advice I would give someone is start small because when starting out, you're not so sure what your clients want. You could just buy a few outfits, figure out which one moves faster, then maybe when restocking the next time, you'll now do it in bulk. And the other thing I would also say is push or stop the mentality of let me try and see how it goes. Once you want to start, just give it your all. Do it fully, not doing it to try and see how it goes. You're doing this full time? Yes, that's my full time job. Oh, someone who is watching this and they're wondering, when you're doing for someone who's watching this and they're wondering, when it comes to, you know, the place where you outsource it, do you go and just like pick specific things for yourself or do they come as a bulk? For me, I've always been picking specific. Yeah, that works for me for the online market. Yes. All right. And what are the most important consideration when it comes to children's clothing? Number one is the kind of fabric. Children, mostly cotton is the most favorable fabric for children, especially babies, cotton is the best. I'm sorry. And also to add colors, the brighter the colors, the better. Oh, yes, that's so true. And I've actually seen that for a couple of my nieces. And like when you put a put on, when they put on brighter colors, if they are so jovial and exactly, I don't know, does it's like it excites them, it's excites them. Yeah, the colors excite them. Your background is in accounts, right? And I would like to find out from that particular point of view, when is the right time to seek out a loan when it comes to just injecting into the business, because most people don't really understand when is the right time to put in to go for a loan actually. And yeah, probably can tell us more about that. If one must go for a loan for the business, I would advise go for a loan to boost the business, not going for a loan to start a business. Because you see, with boosting, you already know how to go about it. Once you're going for that loan, you know where you're going to put it into use, where exactly. But for someone who's starting, it's a whole, you might be shocked. You might think maybe I'll take this loan and be able to clear by six months, but maybe probably by six months, you shall not even have break even, broken even. So you might not be in a position to repay the loan in good time. The interest will accrue, will end up in even more and more debts, and you'll be unable to clear to pay for the loan. And you might also be unable to continue funding your business. I want to take you back. When starting the business back five years ago, almost five years ago. What a couple of mistakes that she did in this particular space. Because I'm sure even though you have a background in your in accounts, this is a new space you're getting into. And I would just find out, I would like to find out a couple of mistakes that you, the pitfalls that you go into for the sake of our viewers who want to get into the same space. There was a time I overstocked. You see, you go to the market, everything is just too cute. You overstock. You're overstocking, not considering what the clients want, not what you want, or rather not what you like. That was one of the mistakes I made in starting out, I would overstock. But nowadays, I introduce packages with packages, a client orders, and they give me the specific order of the outfits they want. So it's easier when I go to the market. I know once I pick this pair of jeans, I'll take it to Michelle. This other dress, I'll take it to so and so. So chances of overstocking are quite minimal. So it helps you move the stock quite fast and gives you, there's no room for lots of dead stock. So it also saves you cash. A lot of businesses actually had to go back to the drawing board, just restrategize the whole thing, especially due to COVID-19. How was 2020 for you as a company? 2020, we were also affected because if you can recall, at some point, there was a ban on importation of second-hand outfits. So it also affected us badly because on the other end, it led to the rising, the cost of the bills. So even outfits, we had to increase the prices. And we got affected since some of our clients had lost their jobs. So with the increased prices, the sales were a bit high. Low, because clients lost their jobs. And now here is a case where by the outfits, the bills have increased in prices. A difference of even 10,000 Kenyan shillings. So at the end of the day, you have to increase the price to so as to make some profit. So that you can cover it all. But thank God that things are slowly looking good right now. And what does it take to actually build a cloth, a children's clothing sort of kind of a brand? What does it take? We'll say number one, honesty. Especially for someone dealing in online. I'm talking mainly because of I'm in online business here. Honesty. And it also takes a lot of sacrifice. Oh, yeah. Yes. Because if you don't deliver, when you say you'll deliver credibility, that's the issue. That's the issue. A client gives an order from Malindi, maybe you don't deliver. Or here is a case whereby they are specific about the fabric because of the weather in that place, they want pure cotton material. And then you don't you're not open with them on the type of fabric. You see, once they get the outfit chances of them coming back for more are quite low because you are not honest enough. So I've done my best to be as transparent as possible. I just tell the client outright that this is cotton or this is not pure cotton. So it's upon the client to decide. And also you sacrifice because at the market to spend hours, since I don't buy the best I select at the market to spend hours selecting the best outfits, preparing for the packages. Also, you have to give it your best shot because for a newborn, for instance, for a newborn package, newborns are sensitive. So the mom wants the best for the baby. Yes. So you must get something that is as good as new. Yes. And it's actually from that you get referrals in a good quality, good service. So speaking about referrals and everything, what is your marketing strategy when it comes to this particular business that that is? Number one, I use kid models. Yes. You see, when someone sees an outfit on a kid, one of my outfits on a kid before they even buy, they have an idea of how cute the outfits are. And number two, I decided to offer convenience by doing the packages. So with the packages, once you order, you get everything all at once. You don't have to keep coming back and checking. OK, this time I buy jeans, next time I buy this. OK, couple of financial lessons that you have learned along the way. Number one, I learned you count the cash once you have it. With online, you only count it as sale has been made once you have the cash at hand because there are also as much as people complain of con buyers, con sellers. There are also con buyers out there. And number two, I've learned that it's good to save the little you make. Yes, for the rainy days, because like a case where we had Corona that time, when there were no bills completely, yeah, savings could savings came through. Yeah. And speaking about con, we call them con buyers. Yeah, there are people who have been saying online sellers are scammers. Yeah, they're not legit. Which is true, there are some who do that. So how do you deal with how do you curb the situation whereby when you're doing deliveries? So how do you curb that? Because you guys deliver a countrywide. So what is up to the to the point whereby you ensure this is a legit client? Since we are based in Nairobi, for any client outside Nairobi, you have to send cash full amount first plus for the parcel fee before we send out your outfit. And for a client in Nairobi, you pay cash on delivery. And if you want to reserve an outfit, you're also paying full to reserve an outfit. Oh, yes. Then trust is a real big thing here. Yeah, it's a really big thing. Because if you're not careful, you might end up, you lose the cash and also lose the clothes. So it's a double loss. OK. Yes. So how big is the children's clothing market? I would say quite, quite big. In fact, like my case, I've been there for four years plus, but I'm not able to cover everything or rather cover everyone. Yes, because number one, the kids outgrow their outfits quite fast. That's very true. Yes. They grow quite very fast. Yeah. All right. So let's look at a couple of challenges that you're facing in the business. The challenges number one is getting a first class first time client. Though nowadays, at least that one is it gets better with time. The more you are in the industry, the more people find you to be legit. Yes, getting someone to trust you for the first time, someone to send you cash for an outfit they've not seen. Yeah. And how do you build the aspect of credibility in your clients? Good. For me, I tell you outright, the fittings and everything. And then I also let you know about the fabric, the color. You know, at times the camera can distort the color of the outfit. So a client may not be sure. And I also allow room for exchange. Just in case we deliver an outfit, it doesn't fit your baby. As long as you inform us within 24 hours and it's not washed, we allow room for exchange. So that one also makes the client comfortable to come back for more because they know in case of anything or in case they don't find the outfit appealing to them as far as maybe the prints. They can always return even for those outside Nairobi. OK, yes, enough, enough. So let's look at the future. What is the vision like down? I don't want to give you a time frame. What's the future like looking for the, you know, timeless kids? In future, I would like to have like kids store at a kid's supermarket that mainly stocks the thrifted outfits in the major towns. Because at times online, we've experienced we've had a good time or rather we've had we've had some lessons along the way we've had. We created lots of customers. We have had lots of followers online, but also we love to have a physical shop or rather a major physical in major towns whereby someone can just work in at any time by the outfit immediately and go with it home immediately. So we're looking at opening stores. And I feel like that is so much possible. Yes, but still continue doing it online. Yes, for those who can't make it to the store. That's what I believe it's actually it can be done. Yes, can be done. So what would be your advice for people who are keen into getting into business? Number one, patience, business. You don't open a business today and become a millionaire by tomorrow evening. Patience is key because you find different types of clients. So you have to deal with them. You have to find a way to deal with them to tolerate some of them. Patience is all you need. And number two, also consistency, because consistency I would say is what has mainly kept me in business. I keep updating my stock or rather I keep I've always been restocking, posting new outfits every week. So with consistency, at least it builds the confidence of the clients that you are there in business to stay. Not someone will see you online today. And then after two weeks, you've disappeared again. You are so consistency, patience and working smart. And most importantly, God prayers. Yeah, as you always say, so do you work alone or do you have a team? I have a team. Yes, I have. I have a team of three. One of them is my dad. And then to support all the way. Yes, he helps with the deliveries. And then to two to two riders who help with the deliveries. Yes. Nice. So for someone who is watching us and they've been following up with this conversation and they would like to be part in this business, they might just want to ask a few questions to you, Irene. So how can they find you across all the social media handles? Even potential clients. On Facebook, we are Timeless Kidswear. On Instagram, it's at Timeless Kidswear. There, you'll find all our contacts and I'll be ready to answer. Oh, I thank you very much for creating time to be with us and speaking about, you know, the children's fashion, you understand what it's all about. And the market that that is there for young people to actually get into. Thank you for having me, too. And looking forward to many more. Absolutely. I'm looking forward to that supermarket, though. Yes. So that is Irene Aviamboshi is the founder of Timeless Kidswear. We were talking about the children's fashion industry and the market gap that is there that you as a young person can tap into and make good money in it. So I'd like to offer channels so you can find us across all our social media handles at Michelleashira, so you can find me across all my socials. So make sure you don't touch that dollar. Be right back with so much more online in the morning.


All right, so check this out and it looks very cool. It's so much better Great changes only two sections that I would change tweak And there's some areas timing wise are a bit fast, but then again, let's see how it is splined So that's all cool. I like all that. I'm not super sure about this Starts to get very very broken You start off almost through here and they just kind of bring down the rest I'm not sure acting wise what that means like what is he doing here and it was just slightly broken I'll kind of tweak that a bit. This is the thing. That's kind of weird. It's just this big bend Massive twist over and it's like he really needs to look here and his door is huge I mean in a way you just have to show I would stay in something like this where You know, he's slightly hunched over and he turns his head even if it's just profile Just like a slight look and it could be instead of this Quick look as if like like zombie arms come through and he's being attacked and I don't know what's going on here I would make it just a slower more Deliverance, he doesn't know what to do. Maybe looks at the door. Maybe I should just leave then he gets back to it But now he's really just I can almost take the jaw open like what's going on and again like snakes come in Or I know what's going on. So I would keep it more in the realm of Up here and just kind of turn over maybe lower the arms at that point Just profile a bit more so you can see you know, I'm taking you just castle here Right over there. It's just what it feels like Then that too feels more like a home It's a bit big But I think once you are in this section and then you go to this it'll feel a bit better You might even reduce that a bit more and watch out that pose between those arms just a big move You know for someone that's really contemplating things potentially life or death or you know some ailment of someone He knows it just feels a bit big That's cool though, but again It's like someone else dude take down your hat. Oh, yeah, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. It's fast but again Get to spline and then you know, we can really dive into proper time He's into now. It's just right now in the current step blocking. It's just too fast because like it's just really rushing to take that off That could be neat kind of cartoony. I like that could work again a tiny bit fast, but I think it should be okay Works really nicely and I like that. He takes down the hat. That's all cool and Then that's cool. I like this like this. I like this and then I'm confused Just like before like why does he look? Why is he looking his hands? There's nothing that tells us Anything about that moment and then it's only one hand on there Like I don't understand what's going on then this it's very confusing. I would really just go from here Then he puts the hat down.   So it would just be very very slow a slow transition into this So in your step blocking really really start looking into proper ease in the now It's what you want to convey, you know, is he in a rush? Is he freaked out here? Is he freaked out here? It's like oh, I saw a dead rat or something Oh, I need to quickly take my hat down or or boom I want to hit my head so many moments that Acting wise just I don't think that's what you intended to do unless you did and then I would think that's kind of weird Not that you're weird, but the choice. Why would you want to bang his head? I don't understand on this end. So that to me is weird, but I think it's just the nature of step mode that you are Transitioning between those oppositions and you just need more breakdowns that you haven't put in yet That's my assumption. That's what I'm guessing Let me know if not if I'm totally wrong totally off totally rude. Let me know Other than that, it's a great great update. It's definitely so much better than before and maybe as a side note Keep that cross in there. Yeah, no That's exactly where he is. I mean, we still get it, but maybe I know I'm rambling that is it All right, there's an email you can sign up you can start whenever you want you can submit whatever you want You get 16 submissions either way like and subscribe would be awesome. All right. Thank you


Hey, what's going on guys? Patriot Prime here once again with another Generation 1 Transformers review. And I'm coming to you after surviving 6 days of the flu. Yes, I get a flu shot and still get the flu. Just my luck. But as I'm lying in bed, snotting, sniffing, coughing my head off and wishing I was dead, I get inspired for a new video series. Since I had the bug, let's review some bugs. So for February, I'm going to go over the Generation 1 Insecticons. And the first one we're going to go over is 1985's Deluxe Insecticon Venom. Now Venom and the other three Deluxe Insecticons came from the company Bandai, which is there on his back, if you can see that. So due to copyright issues, I don't know the full details, it wasn't as grand as jetfires, the Deluxe Insecticons were never featured in any American media. There is no commercial for them. There is no mention of them in the Generation 1 comic book, nor do they appear in the Generation 1 cartoon. So I really don't have any history to go over with these guys. So without further ado, let's take a look at 1985's Venom. I wonder how many people are going to watch this video because they punch in the name Venom expecting that Spider-Man symbiote. Venom's insect mode is a very colorful cicada, and he is an awesome looking cicada at that. He's got some gray collars, some nice markings, those are painted details there on top. Of course, Sticker Decepticon logo. He's got translucent wings, one of mine's a little loose. Plus he's got those red beady eyes that cicadas are known for. A lot of nice sticker details. See some there along with thorax and on the side. He's got his rub symbol there. Very very nice looking insect mode. The only articulation he has in this mode are the legs, and they're connected right at the back of the figure so they can just move around like so. Now, the only issue with this mode is cicadas are not venomous, and of course his name is Venom. Now what I do like about this also is he is a Decepticon, so as he flies in as a nice innocent looking cicada, his head can transform into that of a mosquito and he can lay into you and inject Venom. So there you go guys, there is Venom in his cicada mode. Now let's get him transformed into robot mode. The first thing we're going to do is rotate these wings up and out of the way. Now you want to be careful with the wings, they are translucent plastic. You don't want to just grab them by the tip and move them around, especially if this part's tight. I've seen a lot of these figures with the wings snapped off right there. The next thing is here on the side, get your thumb nail up and under here and pull out. These will release the arms. Now the arms are spring loaded, so they'll pop right into place. You go ahead and do that on the other side. This one's a little tight, so I kind of give him a little help. Now you're going to take the wings, move them further up out of the way, so you can manipulate the thorax here, which becomes the legs, and how you do that is just simply pull them out.  Then up and under here is the foot you want to flip out, so there you have one leg. So we'll go ahead and do the other side. Well first, make sure you pull the hip out. Mine is a little tight, so you've got to manipulate that out a little bit and make sure that hip is fully extended, giving the other leg clearance to maneuver. So get this out, spun around, like I said, mine is very tight, get the knee in the right place, flip the foot out, and work that hip out. Some might not be as tight as mine, but there we go, hips out, arms out, and we have him all stood up. Now let me adjust my camera accordingly. From this position right here, you just kind of maneuver the wings out of the way yet again, get the arms forward, rotate the head up, and now you're going to take these wings and shift them back, rotate up, and you're going to get them in between the insect legs, the upper two. So he's going to look like that. Then you can kind of use the legs to hold the wings in place, and then you can take the lower legs and just push straight down, and there you have Venom in robot mode. Venom does come with two accessories. He comes with a green blaster and a handheld axe melee weapon. All of the collars from Venom's cicada mode carry over very well into his robot mode, if not better. I love that combination of orange, green, and white, especially those little details there on the chest. And check out that head sculpt. That looks so evil. Now Venom, for a G1 figure, has some great articulation. The legs can go up and down, there is a thigh rotation, he has a knee bend, I mean that is great for G1. The arms have great articulation as well, but therein lies the problem with this figure. They can't maneuver because of the wings. Now another option you can do for the wings that I've seen, is let's say move these legs down at the back, and then rotate the wings down, let's say you got to be careful, rotate them down and back, like so, which kind of makes it look like he's wearing an old school tuxedo with tails. But this will allow you to give the arms their full rotation, where they can go up and down, all the way around, and in and out a little bit thanks to transformation. So there is another option for you. Venom has another issue where he's very top heavy, and he doesn't have any heel spurs. He's hollow back there, so getting him in the right position without dropping his weaponry can be a little bit tricky to get him to stand. Now for a quick size comparison, here is Generation 1 Venom with Generation 1 Optimus Prime. And there you go guys, 1985's Deluxe Insecticon Venom. So does a Generation 1 Venom belong in your collection? Without a doubt, this guy is fantastic. I love his collars. He really stands out on the shelf and he's just a really cool looking bot. Be wary though looking for him because it's his weapons that will cost you the most and pay special attention to those wings. You can usually find him for maybe around 50 or 60 bucks on eBay unless you luck out. Guys I want to appreciate you watching, thanks for stopping by, checking out my video. Don't forget to like and don't forget to subscribe. I've got a lot more insecticons to go over this month. I also plan on reviewing Transformers the Movie from 1986. I've got new Toy Hacks decal sheets coming in for Siege Optimus Prime, Siege Hound and Siege Skytread. Guys this is Patriot Prime, signing out. Ho-wah! Hey I really appreciate you guys stopping by my channel. Don't forget to like and don't forget to subscribe. Also check out some of my other videos that I've done on Generation 1 Transformers, Modern Era Transformers and Toy Hacks Reprolabel sets. Once again, this is Patriot Prime, Ho-wah!


JAXA generated a global DEM slash DSM and ORI using archived data from Prism on Allows, which had a spatial resolution of 2.5M in the nadir-looking radiometer and achieved global coverage. The agency conducted calibration to improve accuracies and validate high-level products such as DSM and ORI. Data processing strategies were developed for hardware and software to achieve project aims, and an automatic DSM slash ORI processing software was introduced with test results. This article was authored by T. Tadono, H. Ishida, Afoda, and others.


One in eight children in the United States will experience severe and persistent child maltreatment. When we think about our own population in Kaiser Permanente, we care for 776,000 children under the age of 18. Approximately 96,000 of those children are likely to experience severe child abuse or maltreatment. When these kids will act out in school and so instead of being perceived as this is a child who's being abused, it's this is a bad child who needs to be controlled or expelled. We have robust studies that show that child maltreatment and other adverse experiences in childhood can have profound effects into adulthood. It can lead to depression, anxiety disorders, aggressive disorders, higher incidents of chronic disease like heart disease, higher incidents of suicide attempts. There are studies that indicate that a large proportion of people in prisons were abused as children so the impact on communities is profound. There are many, many stories of children coming to our doorsteps for care and really needing to have a physician recognize that they're in an unsafe situation. The health care system is a vital player in the prevention, recognition, and response to child abuse and neglect. We created the Child Abuse Services and Prevention Program which is also called CAS. CAS has increased the awareness of child abuse and has also equipped our providers with the tools needed to recognize injuries. Not only are we bringing our medical expertise to the evaluation of individual children in collaboration with law enforcement and Child Protective Services, but our investment in the advocacy organizations in the identification and support of teachers in the schools, of the other community agencies that help support vulnerable families. The Child Abuse Prevention Center cannot applaud Kaiser Permanente enough. Abuse isn't something that only happens to children and nor is it something that only happens to, you know, elderly. It really ranges across the span. The way to help people get an abuse is to recognize it and to offer them help. What we do now for our children will have such long-term benefits for them, their lives, and their children and grandchildren.


Hello, this is Dr. Guru Prasad, but I am an optical consultant in pulmonology in Manipala Hospital, Bangalore. I want to talk about Asthma, particularly on the World Asthma Day. Just to describe the disease, as you are all aware, Asthma is quite a common disease. It is a disease where people get symptoms of chest tightness, breathlessness, wheezing and they end up requiring a lot of medications. Some of them who are severe enough require hospitalizations. So, all of this can be treated and we can avoid hospitalizations, admissions and mutations can lead an entirely normal life with the good quality of life if they follow the adoptive advice. To summarize, the precipitating factors for these Asthma attacks can be things like environmental factors, viral infections, bacterial infections, which generally are more during environmental changes or seasonal changes and infections as well. Of course, household dust, pollution, grass pollen, tree pollen and of course the patient induced factors such as smoking can all precipitate Asthma attacks. Symptoms of Asthma are mainly breathlessness, wheezing and chest tightness. This may be accompanied by infection symptoms such as fever, cough, productive sputum. The main treatment for Asthma or rather the prevention of Asthma is using inhalers on a regular basis. Whenever there is an Asthma attack, the patients have to make sure they see their immunologist and take medicines accordingly. The patients may need additional medicines including antibiotics or increase in the dose of the inhalers. They will need tests such as breathing tests which is spirometry and tests such as X-rays and blood tests to look at infection, allergies and treatment accordingly. Treatment wise, as I said earlier, inhalers are the main line of treatment but when one becomes very unwell, they would need tablets or injections of other medications. Taking inhalers and medications regularly and seeing the doctors or immunologists regularly will help to prevent these hospitalization or attacks from happening. That would explain the treatment aspect. Coming to prevention of long-term management, apart from taking inhalers, patients with Asthma should also take flu and pneumonia vaccines to prevent these infections. They have to treat any associated diseases such as diabetes or heart disease which can contribute to these Asthma attacks. Finally, if I have to summarize the whole thing, people with Asthma should realize that it is completely controllable and treatable disease. The quality of life can be quite good and the patients can survive as good as any non-asthmatic person. However, this can only happen if inhalers are taken on a regular basis as advised by the doctors and appropriate measures are taken like vaccinations and regular visits to the outpatients to see the immunologist to make sure that the Asthma is under good control.


Hi, everyone. Welcome to this lightning talk session. My name is Zach Lumis. I am a project coordinator at the Center for open science and your moderator for this session. A few housekeeping or logistical notes before we get started. Each presenter will have eight minutes to present. And I'll keeping time and so presenters reminder I will step in if you start to exceed your time. And during those talks, please feel free as the audience to submit any questions to the Q&A. We don't have any dedicated time to answer those live but the speakers will be able to answer them via text. And if we have any time at the end we may try to fit some in live. So without further ado, I will get us started. The first talk is going to be by Nick Fox, giving a review of the metascience 2019 lottery grant. Just setting up here. Can you all see that okay? Zach, you can see that okay? Yep. Let's see, like that. Okay, great. So thank you very much everyone for coming. I hope you've been enjoying the conference so far. I have definitely. My name is Nick. I'm a research scientist at the Center for Open Science. I just want to give a really quick review of a really cool kind of pilot program that kind of stemmed out of the first metascience conference metascience 2019. Let's see if I can. There we go. Okay, so background. Metascience 2019 was a conference in 2019. And there, Carl Bergstrom, who's a professor at the University of Washington, gave a really interesting talk, the videos online, you can go watch it. On the inherent inefficiency of the grant proposal kind of system as we know it, the competition to award and win grants. And in that talk, he modeled how public and private research interests, so both advancing science as well as advancing personal careers, coupled with the grant review process and kind of the inefficiency or, you know, lack of perfect ability of reviewers to assign quality to grant proposals, how it affects research output. And what he found was the low paylines that are involved in many grants, coupled with the high cost of writing competitive grants, can actually generate a negative return on investment where it actually be a better time for say the NIH or another grant offering institution to just put the money in a bin and burn it. That's his words not mine. So if you don't believe me here's a very meta conference for you. This is white man, giving a conference talk about a white man giving a conference talk. And here's just one of the slides about the benefits of a potential lottery system so instead of doing current grant writing system as we know it, what if there was a lottery involved in how scientists received the grant funding. The talk is really great. So the feds are Franklin fund, who was one of the funders of the medicine is 2019 conference said you know, but maybe there's something to this can we can we do a pilot kind of study this and look at it. And so, with their support, there was a modified lottery pilot study done and there's a link to the summary, be able to share these slides hopefully. The background the grant proposals were one page, and they were capped at $20,000 budget so the budget range was five to $20,000. The authors and their institutions were blinded from their review pool. The emphasis on those grants were on innovation and not likelihood of success necessarily. And so we had to review peer process where all proposals that met the funding threshold were put into a lottery, and really it was, is the proposed work feasible, given the constraints of time and budget. So there were 90 proposals that were received and 71 of those met the threshold and were entered into the lottery, and from those 71 32 proposals were funded. And as part of this there were three survey waves to kind of better understand people's beliefs and opinions about kind of grant process in general, as well as their feelings towards the field of medicines. So, we asked before awards were given after awards were given and a year after the words were given to all people who submitted so the 90 people who submitted about what percent of their research time in the last year has been devoted to and while there is changes in both directions are small for those that didn't meet the funding threshold there was a small decline in the amount of time spent working on medicines projects same with those who entered the lottery but were not awarded. Though for those who were awarded in the lottery. There was slight increase or at least sustained interest in doing medicines over that 12 month period, which is interesting that these small dollar grants may propose may sustain interest. When we ask about what their beliefs are in terms of how much time should be spent working towards receiving grant funds. This is kind of a match and I'll try to walk through this. So the top row is how much time do you believe should be spent in applying for funding. The middle row is how much time do you believe should be spent conducting research and the bottom row is how much time do you believe should be in writing up research reports. The first two columns is looking at personal use of time. So before the award participants said they spent about 14% of their time in applying for funding and one year post it's about 12%. And that breaks down to 53 5632 so it's kind of stable across a year. Their personal preference would be spending about 8% of their time applying for funding so kind of half or a little more than half with over 60% of their time conducting their research and about 30% of their time writing it up. And then we asked about what what do you believe the kind of preference through the field is it matches pretty much the same 8% applying to do research about 65% conducting the research about 2526% in writing the research. And this is kind of my final data slide. So, when we asked participants you know how how should one go about kind of reviewing the merit and goodness of proposals. There were kind of a few different relationships I just want to point out. So grant allocation based on for the proposed work was the merit of the work being proposed with or without lottery was preferred to hear positive values are more favorable zeros neutral negative values less favorable grant allocation based on the Proposer. So just on the merit of the proposer that's a 10 year faculty or a graduate student or what have you. That was seen as pretty neutral. A purely blind lottery, where it was just random blind to the proposer and to the work was not seen favorably. And when we compare short proposals to long shorter proposal was preferred to a long proposal. The project scope was supposed to be a year, but that that conference was in the end of 2019. And as we all know coven 19 has happened and is happening. So these timelines have been extended to the projects that have been funded are currently still ongoing. So the main takeaways is that there's continued interest in partial lottery programs like the one piloted participants continue to believe that the current system of grantsmanship takes an increased amount of time away from doing research and writing and also this is also a model in more detailed Carl's talk. And the merit of proposed work should be considered for awards, not solely the proposer, the mix of both the merit of the work and the proposer was seen as as slightly favorable as well. And that's it. Thank you so much. If you have any questions drop me in the Q amp a and I look forward to talking all later. Thanks. Thank you, Nick. While you wrap up, I will introduce our next speaker who is Dominic Russia, who will be presenting the quality of open data sets shared by researchers in ecology and evolution is moderately repeatable and slow to improve. Dominic the floor is yours. Great. Thanks very much. Let me just try to share this. Is that working can everyone see my screen. Great. So thanks a lot. And thanks everyone for attending the session. So I've actually had to change the title of my talk, because it was too long for the interest slide that we were given. So this title is a bit bolder than the original one, but I think I think given the data that I have to show today. In fact, I'm able to paint a fairly good picture about the state of open data in ecology and evolution. Okay, so let me start by saying that in biology and probably also in lots of other disciplines. There's pretty solid evidence so far that mandatory open data policies have had a really positive effect on data sharing. So essentially when journals require researchers to share data, they deposit more data into repositories. And this is obviously a good thing. The important question is, does more data also mean better data. And that's particularly important I think because we know that most journals and also data repositories don't necessarily have the resources and sometimes also the will to look at the check the quality of the data that's being shared by researchers. So we're looking into this question with some colleagues back in 2015. And we want to figure out what is the quality of the data that's being shared by people in our field. So in ecology and evolution. And bear in mind that this was done before the fair sharing principles came about. So this study is a bit dated now but it's important I think because it sets the stage for the new data that I want to present today. So bear with me for just a minute, while I explain the methods that we used back then. So to do this study, we assessed 100 non molecular studies in ecology and evolution that were published in journals that have a mandatory open data policy. We looked at 50 studies in 2012 and 50 studies in 2013 that were published in the seven journals. And all of the data sets that we looked at were shared in the repository dry out which is a very common repository in my field. So we assess the quality of these data based on two different criteria. The first one was completeness. So are all the data necessary to reproduce the results in theory available in the archive data set. That's what's required by the journals policy. But we also looked at reusability, which is something that's not required by journals but obviously still very important. And this has to do with whether there's metadata to understand the data set, whether the data are shared in a format that facilitates reuse. So, I'll show you how we kind of coded these things you don't have to worry about the details here but we essentially developed a scheme basically a scoring scheme to assess completeness and reusability. So here a score of four or five meant that the data sets complied with the journals open data policy whereas a score of three or less meant that it failed to comply with the journals policy. And the same thing for data reusability, except that, as I said it's not a requirement so we basically gave the studies a pass for good reusability practices versus fail for reusability. And so what did we find at the time for these studies in 2012 and 2013. Our results showed that over half of the studies didn't meet the minimum requirement of their journals open data policy. And the results for data reusability were even more stark. We found that 64%. So almost two thirds of the studies were archived in a way that either partially or entirely prevented the reuse of the data. So now this year, I decided it was a good time to check whether anything had changed and whether the quality of the data that we're sharing in ecology and evolution is improving over time. So we use the exact same methods I just described, and we check 25 studies per year again in journals that require data sharing as a condition of publication. And what we found isn't really what we had hoped for. There is absolutely no change in both the completeness and the reusability of these data sets over time. So clearly, these data are a bit depressing, but they're also very interesting, I think, because even though the trends are really flat, there's a ton of variation around in the data. So some data sets are pretty average. Some are really bad, but a lot of them are also very good. And then a logical question to ask when you see this these data is what what explains this variation. And to answer that, I teamed up with some students and some colleagues here in Canada, and we collected a different data set. We did that by identifying all of the profs in ecology and evolution in Canada's top 20 ranked universities. There were 351 of them. And then we checked what percentage of their papers have open data after the year 2013. And we found that of about 4000 or so papers that we assessed manually about 20% of them have associated open data. And then we assess the quality of these open data sets for sample of these papers so 362 of them that had been shared by 100 profs or PIs. So important to note here that there are multiple papers per individual PI. And lastly, we found that 45% of the data sets were incomplete, and just around 50% of them were not reusable. So the data are slightly better than the ones I showed you earlier, but still about in the same ballpark. And so to answer our initial question, what explains the variation, we ran a multivariate mixed effects model to look at what factors affect the completeness and the reusability of these open data sets. We selected five independent variables a priori. All of this study was pre registered on the OSF. And so we looked at the year of an author's first publication as an indication of their seniority. We looked at the year that the paper was published, the gender of the PI, the open data policy of the journal where the study was published, and whether the corresponding author was sorry, whether the PI was the corresponding on the paper, the corresponding author on the paper, in addition to also being the first or the senior author. And again, what we found here is a little bit underwhelming. Nothing really seems to be particularly important in predicting the quality of open data sets, including a journal's policy. So there's some indication here, those black dots that more recent studies have slightly more reusable data than older ones, and that more junior researchers share more reusable data than senior researchers but there's really nothing to go to town on. So this would have all been quite disappointed but we did actually find something else that's quite neat. I'll show you this while wrapping up. So these graphs here show the data completeness and reusability scores for each one of the hundred PIs included in our study. So the PIs are ordered based on their mean completeness and reusability scores from lowest to highest. And that pattern becomes important when I'll explain this graph. So here, I've blown up the graph for data completeness so you can see it a bit better, and also because the patterns for data completeness and data reusability are essentially the same. And so like I said, because we have repeated measurements for each one of our PIs, we are able to decompose the variance in the response variables to look at among and within individual differences. What we find here is that there's quite noticeable inter-individual differences. In fact, PI identity explained the largest proportion of the variance in data completeness and data reusability. So what this means visually is that some authors consistently share incomplete data, regardless of the year when they published their career stage and the journal's data policy. And that might just be an indication that these people never want to share, right. When you look at the other end of the graph, we have PIs that do very much the opposite and consistently share high quality data regardless of whether they are asked to do so. And then we have everyone else that sits right in the middle here in this red box. So these people are all over the place. Sometimes they share well, and sometimes they don't. And I think this cloud of data points here is really encouraging because it means that these PIs are clearly capable of sharing well. They're just very inconsistent. This is my last slide. So maybe that's just because they struggle when data sets are complex, or it could also be that not all their students are properly trained in data management. And regardless of the reason this is all really positive because to me what these data suggests is that for these people who are actually the majority of the people, proper data sharing is not really a matter of will, it's a matter of competency. And so my takeaway from these data is that if we provide these PIs in the red box with the right incentives and the right training in data management, then I'm ready to bet anything that will be able to move them from the bottom of this graph to the very top. Thanks very much. Thank you so much, Dominic. So moving into the next talk will be by Kevin Joyel Demeray, and I will be sharing my screen as he's provided a prerecorded talk, but as you can see he is available to answer any questions that you might have. A project that evaluates how well covariates can reduce sampling biases in the context of convenience based samples. Sampling bias occurs when a study is conducted in such a way that different individuals within a population have unequal chances of participating. This can occur for many reasons. One way is that certain sampling strategies disproportionately reach certain populations and may also be more versus less successful and encouraging participation. For example, a well-paid large-scale web panel may lead to high participation rates, whereas a convenience-based sample of unpaid volunteers may suffer from lower rates. Participant characteristics can also factor in. For instance, we found that women are more likely to volunteer for research than men, and people may be more likely to participate in research if they have positive attitudes towards the topic on this study. For example, research on vaccination may attract more individuals with positive vaccine attitudes. Now the problem is that because we only have responses from those that actually participate, this will commonly induce various associations between the factors that influence participation itself through well-documented processes such as collider and selection-based biases. Now in this scenario, a convenient sample will overestimate vaccine attitudes, and we may observe that women show more negative attitudes than men towards vaccines even if no such association exists at the population level. So one strategy to eliminate or reduce bias is to adjust analyses for covariates in an attempt to disrupt various associations. Ideally, theory can gag which covariate to select, but most theories are not specific enough for this task yet. Consequently, researchers will often default to heuristics or norms such as controlling for demographic variables like age, education, or ethnicity, and different researchers will often choose different covariates to adjust for. So given this reality, the goal of the current project was to answer the following question. What is the general success rate of adjusting analyses for demographic covariates for attenuating sampling bias? To answer this question, we examined the degree to which covariates can help align results between convenience and more representative samples. We used data from the ICARE study, a pandemic-related survey that has been ongoing since early last year. In Canada, ICARE has recruited both convenient samples and more representative samples using web panels constructed using probability-based sampling. We used data collected through both methods at three time points. This allowed us to compare the degree to which the two sampling methods led to discrepant estimates across 33 different outcome variables. We operationalized sampling bias as the difference in means on each outcome variable when comparing the convenient samples to the web panels. For example, relative to the web panels, the convenient samples consistently overestimated people's vaccine intentions. In unadjusted analyses, we found that 73% of outcomes differed between the two sample types. We then examined how nine commonly used demographic covariates, such as age, gender, income, and race, altered estimated discrepancies between the two samples. With nine covariates, we could specify 512 combinations from adjusting for one covariate at a time to adjusting for all nine and everything in between. In total, we computed close to 17,000 models to evaluate the impact of these covariate combinations. We operationalized success as covariate combinations that decreased discrepancies between the two sample types compared to unadjusted models. What did we find? Overall, covariates decreased discrepancies 55% of the time and increased discrepancies 45% of the time. Additionally, we did not find any evidence that specific combinations of covariates performed well consistently. Most covariates showed fairly high chances of both increasing or decreasing discrepancies depending on outcomes. For 27% of outcomes evaluated, the vast majority of covariate combinations were successful at reducing discrepancies. Here we see a caterpillar plot for the degree to which participants in the two types of samples differed in the extent to which they avoided social gatherings. Each dot represents an estimate for a specific model that controlled each of the 512 combinations of covariates. 95% confidence intervals are shown around them. The solid black line indicates a sampling discrepancy of zero, which we operationalize as unbiased. In this plot, models on the left show smaller discrepancies between the samples and models on the right show larger discrepancies. The unadjusted model is indicated by the dashed line. In this case, 93% of models adjusting for covariates reduced the estimated discrepancy between the samples. So the inclusion of covariates was typically successful regardless of the covariate that was in the model. For 39% of outcomes, however, adjusted models were roughly just as likely to decrease or increase discrepancies. In this case, here is a plot of discrepancies for people's vaccine intentions. 50% of adjusted models led to decreased discrepancies and 50% led to increased discrepancies. For many of these models, most combinations of covariates did little to change the original significance level of the unadjusted estimate. In this case, the convenient sample overestimated vaccine intentions regardless of the combination of covariates being adjusted for. Lastly, for 33% of outcomes, only a small minority of adjusted models reduced discrepancies. The majority of adjustments instead increased discrepancies. For instance, an unadjusted model, the convenient sample, rated COVID-19 prevention measures as more important than participants in the web panel sample. Although this initial estimate was not significant. And 87% of adjusted models, everything above this dashed line, the discrepancy was increased. And often it became significant. So to conclude, we found little evidence that adjusting analyses for demographic variables in an unstructured, that is non-theory driven way would reliably reduce sampling biases. With reductions in bias occurring only 55% of the time across nearly 17,000 models. This is barely above chance level. I hope you enjoyed this presentation. And thank you for listening. Thank you for that, Kevin. And so, like I mentioned, Kevin is here if you all have any questions, please feel free to submit them during the end to the Q&A feature. Moving on to the next talk is another pre-recorded one from Joshua Wallach. And so I will get that started. Hello everyone, my name is Joshua Wallach and I'm faculty within the Yale School of Public Health. And today my lightning talk will be about the dissemination of clinical and health science research as preprints. In particular, I'm going to be focusing on the question of, should we be concerned about pre-printing clinical research. Now before moving on, I want to quickly, you know, say thank you to the funders and organizers of this conference. It's a great conference and community. And I'm honored to join the discussion today. So this may not be necessary, but just as a background, your preprints are preliminary reports of studies that have not been peer reviewed or published in peer reviewed journals. And there's a long history or a reasonably long history of pre-printing in other fields with the pre-print servers archive and bio archive allowing for studies in the fields of physics and biology and life science. And the uptake and use of pre-prints in clinical research has been a little bit slower. In particular, there have been concerns about the dissemination of clinical findings prior to peer review and the impact that non-peer review findings could have on the decisions that individuals make. However, in 2019, Met Archive was launched and this is the pre-print server for health sciences. You know, since that time, a number of these concerns about pre-printing and clinical research have been discussed and have been brought up. And one of these is that high impact clinical journals will view pre-prints as prior publications so that in clinical research, and especially in high impact journals, pre-printing will prevent publishing in the journals. And, you know, here I have an example of a journal policy from a journal with an impact factor of greater than 10 that says manuscripts that have not been posted on a pre-print server will not be considered by the journal. So again, there's these, these are some of the concerns that clinical researchers have. So in order to try to understand the validity of these concerns, we conducted a study looking at the pre-print policies in the highest ranked clinical journals so focusing on the top 100 highest impact factor clinical journals. What we found in this study published in JAMA Network Open was that the vast majority of high impact journals actually allow pre-prints. And, you know, the, you know, there's 13 or so percent that have a case by case determination process which don't outright prevent or forbid pre-printing of manuscripts. There was only one journal that prohibited pre-printing and that's actually the example that I showed on the previous slide. Another concern that has been raised is that clinical pre-prints are harmful and more likely to be withdrawn from the literature. So again that in clinical research, the dissemination of, you know, questionable findings are harmful and that, you know, there's going to be a large proportion of pre-printed studies that are eventually withdrawn from pre-print servers. And a number of high profile editorials have raised questions about why this is really an important issue for clinical research, findings from trials of interventions or observational studies that could have consequences to patient populations. And, you know, these editorials have called for additional research or empirical research to try to understand the both the benefits and harms of using pre-prints and clinical research. The team behind Metarchive looked at all of the submissions of pre-prints in the first year of Metarchive. And what they found was that only 0.002% of studies have been withdrawn. So 0.002% of studies had been removed from the Metarchive platform. And there's just some reassurance that there's not a large number of studies that are being withdrawn from Metarchive. And one of the, one of the third main concerns that are often discussed when it comes to pre-printing and clinical research is that the conclusions and interpretations of pre-prints are likely to change once they're published. The manuscript is posted on Metarchive. Once it's published in the journal, peer review and editorial changes are likely to have impacted what actually is reported and the findings are likely to be different. And, you know, these concerns have been raised again in a high profile editorials. Here's another one in JAMA talking about how in the JAMA journals, the conclusions and interpretations of research articles are likely to change substantially after they are submitted. And that this is a result of peer review, editorial assessment, post acceptance editing, etc. So to try to understand this, this question of whether or not pre-prints are likely to change, we conducted a study looking at the concordance between pre-prints and peer reviewed versions of the same manuscripts that eventually are published in the highest impact factor journals to see whether or not the conclusions and findings are likely to change. And among our sample, we found that pre-prints and peer reviewed versions of manuscripts were highly concordant in terms of primary endpoint. So we weren't observing a large number of primary endpoints that were being changed between the pre-printed version and the peer reviewed version. You know, although we found that only 53% of the results were concordant between primary endpoints. So the findings themselves. So worth noting that 21% of the pre-print publication pairs could not actually be compared because they reported non inferential findings or non numerical findings. So, although it's a it's a lower proportion of studies with concordant primary findings. You know this is a little bit more skewed because of the inability to actually compare pre-print and publication findings due to non numerical results. We're looking to see that when we were looking at the concordance and study interpretation so what the authors actually conclude based upon their results. The vast majority of pre-print and publication pairs had concordant study interpretations. 96 had very similar or identical study conclusions. I want to note that Med Archive is focused on transparently reporting some of the limitations related to pre-printing clinical research. In particular, the homepage of Med Archive said, says that there's, you know, caution needed when it comes to evaluating research, especially health related behaviors and clinical practice that have not been peer reviewed. The manuscript pages themselves say that articles are pre printed and haven't been peer reviewed, and they should not be used to guide clinical practice. So far the empirical studies related to evaluating concerns related to pre prints have suggested that one, many high impact factor journals actually do not prohibit pre printing prior to publication. So the number of manuscripts that are withdrawn from Med Archive is very low, and three, there's high concordance between pre prints and peer reviewed versions of manuscripts that are published in high impact journals. And although additional research is necessary to determine how concerned we should be about pre printing and clinical research, in particular to think about how the media talks about pre printed study results, and how concordance study findings are in the long run. The findings provide some initial reassurance about the use of pre prints in clinical research. Thanks for the opportunity to talk about this and I'm looking forward to discussions on Slack and outside of the conference about the use of pre prints in biomedicine. Alright, thank you to Josh for sending that in. I will now go ahead and move us on to our next speaker, which is a Pranajan Pathmandra, who will be discussing wrongly identified reagents in original research papers published in high impact factor cancer journals. Pranajan, the floor is yours. Just getting this slide so sorry. Can everyone see the slides. Yep, looks great. So my name is Pranajan Pathmandra and I am a fourth year undergraduate student at the University of Sydney. I'm here today to present some preliminary findings on my honors project on the presence of wrongly identified reagents in original research papers published across a particularly high impact factor cancer research journal. So in 2015, Friedman and colleagues estimated up to 50% of the funding in pre clinical research to be associated with data that was irreproducible. One of the main reasons being the presence of faulty or misreported biological reagents in reference materials that did not explain the described results. And so science which fact checks these biological reagents is very important in maintaining good standards of biomedical research integrity. One of the main class of biological reagents is the nucleotide sequence reagents which as you can see our strings of DNA or RNA sequence that are used across many different type of experiments. These sequences are like barcodes and their identity cannot be just cannot be read by just looking at them. So we in so in ideal publications, we have text descriptors that accompany these nucleotide sequences, telling us what their function is. However, given this difficulty of configuring sequence identity errors in these reagents can easily go unnoticed. The current fact checking process behind looking at reagent ISE nucleotide sequence reagent identities is to really take the sequence and input it into a search algorithm such as blast and or blast, which maps the sequence against a well annotated human sequence database and configures a verified identity on the basis of similarity. Ideally this verified identity should match the originally text claimed identity, but a mismatch means we have a wrongly identified sequence reagents. The commonly identified sequence reagents are associated with unreliable and often implausible results as the described methods containing these problematic reagents does not explain the observed results, making the results themselves questionable and potentially irreproducible. These reagents could also be reduced across future studies and thus these incorrect reagents could be propagated to downstream research, ultimately leading to a massive waste of resources and time. And ultimately this could also reduce the public trust in the scientific method and community, hence highlighting the need for practices of fact checking these biological reagents as essential to maintaining biomedical research integrity. Given this, Bernan colleagues looked at two cohorts of problematic papers and as you can see here in clearly in group one, the most of the papers were published across journals of lower impact factor. But in group two they identified at least one publication that contain these wrongly identified sequence reagents, and thus potentially concerning results to be published in a very high impact factor journal. And so really taking this forward, that was the aim of my current project, which was really our papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents also published in high impact factor journals. To answer this we chose to look at the journal molecular cancer which is a part of spring and nature, and it displayed and it was it had an impact factor above 27 in 2020. We chose to analyze all original papers published across 2014 1618 and 20, meaning that we had to look at 500 papers that were published in that in that journal. Across the four years we analyzed of the 500 articles 68% that is 341 articles included nucleotide sequence reagents and thus was subject to fact checking. These 341 papers presented over 6500 individual sequence reagents of which fact checking revealed only 7% so that is 460 sequences were wrongly identified. However, these 460 problematic sequence reagents, or wrongly identified sequence reagents were distributed across a large proportion of the papers we analyze that is 41% of the 341 papers that we analyzed in molecular cancer across these four years, described wrongly identified sequences, and thus potentially questionable results when mapping these error rates back to as a proportion of all original papers published per year. We see that 28% of the 500 original papers published across these four years in molecular cancer, describe wrongly identified sequences, and thus could hold potentially questionable results, particularly what is most striking is 2020 in a year in which the impact factor was really high above 27, yet we see that 44% of all the original articles published in that year in molecular cancer contained on wrongly identified reagents and thus questionable results. The presence of such incorrect reagents is thus a concurring problem that affects research as recent as last year. In summary, we find that original research papers with wrongly identified sequence reagents are clearly not restricted to just low impact factor journals. As we as we found here in our preliminary results 28% of all original molecular cancer papers included wrongly identified sequences and thus question and poses very much a lot of questions to the observed results. This is a very highly unexpected and concerning result. And to prove and to examine this phenomenon further we will continue to analyze other high impact factor journals, but nevertheless what is clear is that the presence of problematic reagents is an alarming threat to biomedical research integrity. I'd like to end the talk by thanking my supervisors and their respective funding agencies. Thank you for listening.