J Christoph1, C Knell1, A Bosserhoff2, E Naschberger3, M Stürzl3, M Rübner4, H Seuss5, M Ruh6, H-U Prokosch1, B Sedlmayr1. 1. Department of Medical Informatics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 2. Institute of Biochemistry (Emil-Fischer-Center), Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Division of Molecular and Experimental Surgery, Department of Surgery, Translational Research Center Erlangen, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 4. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-EMN, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 5. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 6. Department of Experimental Medicine 1, Nikolaus-Fiebiger-Center for Molecular Medicine, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platforms like tranSMART assist researchers in analyzing clinical and corresponding omics data. Usability is an important, yet often overlooked, factor affecting the adoption and meaningful use. Analyses on the specific needs of translational researchers and considerations about the application of such platforms for education are rare. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test whether tranSMART can be used in education and how well medical students and professional researchers can handle it; to identify which kind of translational researchers-in terms of skills, experienced limitations, and available data-can take advantage of tranSMART; and to evaluate the usability and to generate recommendations for improvements. METHODS: An online-based test has been done by medical students (N = 109) and researchers (N = 26). The test comprised 13 tasks in the context of four typical research scenarios based on experimental and clinical data. A web questionnaire was provided to identify both the needs and the conditions of research as well as to evaluate the system's usability based on the "System Usability Scale" (SUS). RESULTS: Students and researchers were able to handle tranSMART well and coped with most scenarios: cohort identification, data exploration, hypothesis generation, and hypothesis validation were answered with a rate of correctness between 82 and 100%. Of the total, 72.2% of the teaching researchers considered tranSMART suitable for their lessons and 84.6% of the researchers considered the platform useful for their daily work; 65.4% of the researchers named the nonavailability of a platform like tranSMART as a restriction on their research. The usability was rated "acceptable" with a SUS of 70.8. CONCLUSION: tranSMART is potentially suitable for education purposes and fits most of the needs of translational researchers. Improvements are needed on the presentation of analysis results and on the guidance of users through the analysis, especially to ensure the compliance of the analysis with the requirements of statistical testing. Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart.
BACKGROUND: Platforms like tranSMART assist researchers in analyzing clinical and corresponding omics data. Usability is an important, yet often overlooked, factor affecting the adoption and meaningful use. Analyses on the specific needs of translational researchers and considerations about the application of such platforms for education are rare. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test whether tranSMART can be used in education and how well medical students and professional researchers can handle it; to identify which kind of translational researchers-in terms of skills, experienced limitations, and available data-can take advantage of tranSMART; and to evaluate the usability and to generate recommendations for improvements. METHODS: An online-based test has been done by medical students (N = 109) and researchers (N = 26). The test comprised 13 tasks in the context of four typical research scenarios based on experimental and clinical data. A web questionnaire was provided to identify both the needs and the conditions of research as well as to evaluate the system's usability based on the "System Usability Scale" (SUS). RESULTS: Students and researchers were able to handle tranSMART well and coped with most scenarios: cohort identification, data exploration, hypothesis generation, and hypothesis validation were answered with a rate of correctness between 82 and 100%. Of the total, 72.2% of the teaching researchers considered tranSMART suitable for their lessons and 84.6% of the researchers considered the platform useful for their daily work; 65.4% of the researchers named the nonavailability of a platform like tranSMART as a restriction on their research. The usability was rated "acceptable" with a SUS of 70.8. CONCLUSION: tranSMART is potentially suitable for education purposes and fits most of the needs of translational researchers. Improvements are needed on the presentation of analysis results and on the guidance of users through the analysis, especially to ensure the compliance of the analysis with the requirements of statistical testing. Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart.
Authors: Aravind Subramanian; Pablo Tamayo; Vamsi K Mootha; Sayan Mukherjee; Benjamin L Ebert; Michael A Gillette; Amanda Paulovich; Scott L Pomeroy; Todd R Golub; Eric S Lander; Jill P Mesirov Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-09-30 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Tanya Barrett; Dennis B Troup; Stephen E Wilhite; Pierre Ledoux; Dmitry Rudnev; Carlos Evangelista; Irene F Kim; Alexandra Soboleva; Maxim Tomashevsky; Kimberly A Marshall; Katherine H Phillippy; Patti M Sherman; Rolf N Muertter; Ron Edgar Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2008-10-21 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Craig E Wheelock; Victoria M Goss; David Balgoma; Ben Nicholas; Joost Brandsma; Paul J Skipp; Stuart Snowden; Dominic Burg; Arnaldo D'Amico; Ildiko Horvath; Amphun Chaiboonchoe; Hassan Ahmed; Stéphane Ballereau; Christos Rossios; Kian Fan Chung; Paolo Montuschi; Stephen J Fowler; Ian M Adcock; Anthony D Postle; Sven-Erik Dahlén; Anthony Rowe; Peter J Sterk; Charles Auffray; Ratko Djukanovic Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Christian R Bauer; Carolin Knecht; Christoph Fretter; Benjamin Baum; Sandra Jendrossek; Malte Rühlemann; Femke-Anouska Heinsen; Nadine Umbach; Bodo Grimbacher; Andre Franke; Wolfgang Lieb; Michael Krawczak; Marc-Thorsten Hütt; Ulrich Sax Journal: Brief Bioinform Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 11.622
Authors: Hans-Ulrich Prokosch; Till Acker; Johannes Bernarding; Harald Binder; Martin Boeker; Melanie Boerries; Philipp Daumke; Thomas Ganslandt; Jürgen Hesser; Gunther Höning; Michael Neumaier; Kurt Marquardt; Harald Renz; Hermann-Josef Rothkötter; Carmen Schade-Brittinger; Paul Schmücker; Jürgen Schüttler; Martin Sedlmayr; Hubert Serve; Keywan Sohrabi; Holger Storf Journal: Methods Inf Med Date: 2018-07-17 Impact factor: 2.176