Xia Hua

Publications by Chinese researchers in scientific journals have dramatically increased over the past decade; however, academic misconduct also becomes more prevalent in the country. The aim of this prospective study was to understand the perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct and the trend from 2010 to 2015. A questionnaire comprising 10 questions was designed and then validated by ten biomedical researchers in China. In the years 2010 and 2015, respectively, the questionnaire was sent as a survey to biomedical researchers at teaching hospitals, universities, and medical institutes in mainland China. Data were analyzed by the Chi squared test, one-way analysis of variance with the Tukey post hoc test, or Spearman’s rank correlation method, where appropriate. The overall response rates in 2010 and 2015 were 4.5% and 5.5%, respectively. Data from 15 participants in 2010 were invalid, and analysis was thus performed for 1263 participants. Among the participants, 54.7% thought that academic misconduct was serious-to-extremely serious, and 71.2% believed that the Chinese authorities paid no or little attention to the academic misconduct. Moreover, 70.2 and 65.2% of participants considered that the punishment for academic misconduct at the authority and institution levels, respectively, was not appropriate or severe enough. Inappropriate authorship and plagiarism were the most common forms of academic misconduct. The most important factor underlying academic misconduct was the academic assessment system, as judged by 50.7% of the participants. Participants estimated that 40.1% of published scientific articles were associated with some form of academic misconduct. Their perceptions towards academic misconduct had not significantly changed over the 5 years. Reform of the academic assessment system should be the fundamental approach to tackling this problem in China.

© 2015 The Authors. The goal of this work was to assess statistical power to detect treatment effects in Alzheimer's disease clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging -derived brain biomarkers. We used unbiased tensor-based morphometry to analyze n = 5,738 scans, from Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative 2 participants scanned with both accelerated and nonaccelerated T1-weighted MRI at 3T. The study cohort included 198 healthy controls, 111 participants with significant memory complaint, 182 with early mild cognitive impairment and 177 late mild cognitive impairment, and 155 AD patients, scanned at screening and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The statistical power to track brain change in TBM-based imaging biomarkers depends on the interscan interval, disease stage, and methods used to extract numerical summaries. To achieve reasonable sample size estimates for potential clinical trials, the minimal scan interval was 6 months for LMCI and AD and 12 months for EMCI. TBM-based imaging biomarkers were not sensitive to MRI scan acceleration, which gave results comparable with nonaccelerated sequences. ApoE status and baseline amyloid-beta positron emission tomography data improved statistical power. Among healthy, EMCI, and LMCI participants, sample size requirements were significantly lower in the amyloid+/ApoE4+ group than for the amyloid-/ApoE4- group. ApoE4 strongly predicted atrophy rates across brain regions most affected by AD, but the remaining 9 of the top 10 AD risk genes offered no added predictive value in this cohort.