Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
How worried should you be about coronavirus variants? A virologist explains his concerns
Paulo Verardi, Associate Professor of Virology and Vaccinology at UConn, was asked to lend his expertise and opinion to The Conversation about coronavirus variants and just how concerned Americans should be about the emergence of variants and the speed at which they are spreading across the country and the globe. Spring has sprung, and there is a sense of relief in the air. After one year of lockdowns and social distancing, more than 171 million COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered in the U.S. and about 19.4% of the population is fully vaccinated. But there is something else in the air: ominous SARS-CoV-2 variants. I am a virologist and vaccinologist, which means that I spend my days studying viruses and designing and testing vaccine strategies against viral diseases. In the case of SARS-CoV-2, this work has taken on greater urgency. We humans are in a race to become immune against this cagey virus, whose ability to mutate and adapt seems to be a step ahead of our capacity to gain herd immunity. Because of the variants that are emerging, it could be a race to the wire. April 08 - The Conversation Dr. Verardi discusses the the five SARS-CoV-2 variants we all need to be watching, the rates of transmission and the severity of symptoms, and why we all need to remain on guard and get vaccinated. It is a great article, and if you are a journalist looking to cover this topic, then let us help with your stories. Dr. Paulo Verardi is a virologist who specializes in vaccine research and development and is a member of the Center of Excellence for Vaccine Research. Dr. Verardi is available to speak with media regarding variants and COVID-19 – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
This year marks 100 years since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which eventually would establish Ireland as a republic, and Georgia Southern University undergraduate student Caitlyn Hudson is getting a first-hand look at some historical documents that chronicle U.S. efforts to help establish Ireland’s freedom from British rule. Hudson is researching a collection of documents called the Lawless papers, which follow Virginia-native and Irish descendant Joseph Thomas Lawless’ involvement in the southern leg of an extensive U.S. tour by Éamon de Valera, a prominent political leader in Ireland’s history. “My favorite part of working on the project has to be the physical work with the documents,” Hudson said. “It is fascinating to see primary documents in hand rather than online. It provides a unique form of analysis.” The collection, which was gifted in Fall 2020 to the Center for Irish Research and Teaching (CIRT) at Georgia Southern, includes letters, advertisements and more that document an important narrative in modern Irish-American history, according to Howard Keeley, Ph.D., director of CIRT. “These documents shed significant new light on how Ireland perceived Savannah and our region at a critical time in Irish history: that nation’s War of Independence from 1919 to 1921,” Keeley said. “The collection helps us understand the network that Éamonn de Valera and other future leaders of an independent Ireland sought to build in the American South, using as one anchor the sizable and active Irish-American community in Savannah.” All of the Lawless papers were either written or received by Lawless, the son of immigrants from County Galway, Ireland. Lawless was involved in arranging southern stops on de Valera’s tour, which included a stop at the Chatham Artillery Armory in April 1920, in an effort to raise funds for the self-proclaimed Republic of Ireland. Lawless, who would go on to become a lawyer and prominent political figure in Virginia, was also very devoted to Ireland and involved in several prominent Irish-American organizations, including the Friends of Irish Freedom (FOIF), which advocated for political independence for Ireland. “De Valera’s fundraising tour of the U.S. is among the most important episodes in modern Irish-American history,” said Keeley. “The collection sheds significant light on how FOIF used the tour to advance a southern strategy. Clearly, Judge Lawless was key to those efforts.” Keeley also pointed out that in time, de Valera would become prime minister, and then president, of an independent Ireland, dominating the country’s politics for decades. The collection was gifted to CIRT by direct descendants of Lawless and is now housed in the special collections section of the Zach S. Henderson Library. “We are honored to be granted stewardship of these documents,” said Autumn Johnson, special collections librarian at Zach S. Henderson Library. “Having increased opportunities for Georgia Southern students to examine rare, one-of-a-kind collections, such as the Lawless papers, enriches the learning experience, particularly for our undergraduates.” Hudson said her work on the project has allowed her to fully understand the various aspects of potential careers she can pursue, as well as narrow down specific goals for her graduate school journey and beyond. “This type of work is generally done by graduate students, and it is amazing to know that I am able to gain experience in a field while an undergraduate,” said Hudson. “It has allowed me to learn career-relevant material earlier on and in turn has allowed me to better prepare for graduate school and my overall future goals.” Keeley added a collection like the Lawless papers allows students and faculty to conduct research on high-value primary source documents. The collection will also help further CIRT’s ongoing mission to increase research productivity, particularly with respect to the history of the Irish in Savannah and the state of Georgia. “The Irish experience in the south is open to much more study than has thus far been attempted,” Keeley said. “The generous gift of the Lawless papers to the Center for Irish Research and Teaching significantly enhances our drive to conduct meaningful research. For undergraduate students, such as Caitlyn, the opportunity to uncover knowledge by analyzing primary-source documents brings new levels of rigor and satisfaction to the college experience. And for our program, this collaboration with the Special Collections unit of University Libraries is a powerful way to honor our donors’ trust in us and, in addition, celebrate Irish heritage, especially around St. Patrick’s Day.” If you're a journalist looking to learn more about his project of the historical significance the Irish had on Georgia - then let us help. Dr. Howard Keeley is available for interviews — simply reach out to Georgia Southern Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to set and time and date.
Learning online honestly. Is cheating becoming part of the ‘new normal’ in education?
The emergence of COVID-19 has seen almost every segment of society and traditional institution in America have to pivot drastically to sustain and carry on, especially the educational system. And as students across America had to log on and learn remotely in the last year, occurrences of cheating are trending upwards. It’s a phenomenon that is getting a lot of attention and University of Mary Washington Psychology Professor David Rettinger, an expert on academic integrity, is getting a lot of calls from media about it. Roughly a year after college campuses were evacuated due to the COVID-19 pandemic, academic integrity remains an issue for students and professors alike. With professors struggling to curb rampant cheating during online exams and students wrestling with the often confusing and stressful realities of online learning, the college classroom has never been more tense… Teen Vogue has spoken with academics and students to learn more about what kind of cheating is happening during remote learning, and what they think should be done about it. University battles with help sites have peaked during the COVID-19 crisis, but the root of the problem has been years in the making. “I call it a game of whack-a-mole,” says David Rettinger, president emeritus of the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) and director of academic integrity at the University of Mary Washington. New sites are constantly rising in popularity, he explains, making it harder for professors to prevent students from seeking answers online, especially now. March 04 – Teen Vogue And how even the most respected of institutions like West Point are handling these cases have also seen Rettinger’s expert perspective sought out to explain. “Expulsion flies in the face of everything we understand about the psychology of ethical and moral behavior,” Rettinger said. That’s partly because the section of the brain that makes you feel “icky” when you do something wrong isn’t fully developed until around age 23 to 26 — after college is over. Rettinger said rehabilitation seems in line with West Point’s mission — to instill the values of duty, honor and country. “That doesn't necessarily mean weeding people out who are imperfect, because we're all imperfect,” Rettinger said. “That means taking the best cadets we can and turning them into the best officers they can be, which means teaching them. And if there's no opportunity for redemption, what are we really teaching?” March 08 – NPR The concept of cheating and how schools are handling it is an emerging issue in America. And if you are a journalist looking to cover this subject, then let us help with your stories. Dr. David Rettinger is available to speak with media regarding this issue of cheating and academic integrity. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Ask the Expert: Vaccine myths and scientific facts
Now that there are authorized and recommended COVID-19 vaccines, it is critical people receive accurate information. Peter Gulick, professor of medicine at the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine and infectious disease expert, reviews some myths about the vaccine and counters these with scientific facts. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccines were developed in a rush, so their effectiveness and safety can’t be trusted. Fact: Studies found that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are both about 95% effective compared to the influenza vaccine, which ranges from being 50% to 60% effective each year. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is 85% effective at curbing serious or moderate illness. The most important statistic is that all three were 100% effective in stopping hospitalizations and death. As of March 9, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 93.7 million people have been vaccinated and all safety data collected from these doses show no red flags. There have been about 5 cases of anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction, per 1 million but this is no different than allergic reactions from other vaccines. There are many reasons why the COVID-19 vaccines could be developed so quickly and here are a few: The COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna were created with a messenger RNA technology that has been in development for years, so the companies could start the vaccine development process early in the pandemic. China isolated and shared genetic information about COVID-19 promptly so scientists could start working on vaccines. The vaccine developers didn’t skip any testing steps but conducted some of the steps on an overlapping schedule to gather data faster. The Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were created using messenger RNA, or mRNA, which allows a faster approach than the traditional way that vaccines are made. Because COVID-19 is so contagious and widespread, it did not take long to see if the vaccine worked for the vaccinated study volunteers. Companies began making vaccines early in the process — even before FDA authorization — so some supplies were ready when authorization occurred. They develop COVID-19 vaccines so quickly also due to years of previous research on the SARS COV-1, a related virus. Myth: The messenger RNA technology used to make the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is brand new. Fact: The messenger RNA technology behind these two vaccines has been studied and in development for almost two decades. Interest has grown in these vaccines because they can be developed in a laboratory using readily available materials, making vaccine development faster. mRNA vaccines have been studied before for flu, Zika and rabies. Myth: You only need one dose of J&J vaccine so it’s more effective. Fact: Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine uses a different strategy — a weakened cold virus that is reprogrammed to include the code for the spike protein. Once inside the body, the viral genes trigger a similar response against the virus. All three vaccines are considered overall effective and 100% effective in preventing hospitalizations and death. Myth: Vaccine efficacy and effectiveness mean the same thing. Fact: Efficacy and effectiveness do not mean the same thing. “Efficacy” refers to the results for how well a drug or vaccine works based on testing while “effectiveness” refers to how well these products work in the real world, in a much larger group of people. Most people, however, use them interchangeably even though they have different scientific meanings. Myth: The vaccines aren’t effective against new strains of the virus. Fact: Currently, we know both the U.K. strain as well as the South African variant have increased transmissibility of 30% to 50% over the natural strain. As far as an increase in causing more serious disease, it is not known yet. We have over 600 U.K. variants in Michigan and one case of the South African variant, and I just heard of 47 cases of the U.K. variant in Grand Ledge. We (Michigan) are second in the nation in variants, but that's likely because we test for them more. The most important information is that the vaccines, in general, are 100% effective in prevention of hospitalization and death. So, it is felt they all offer some protection against variants to prevent serious disease. As far as the Johnson & Johnson, it was used with variants and has efficacy overall of 72% in U.S., 66% in Latin America and 57% in South Africa (where the main strain is the South African variant). All companies are looking at modifying (their products) (the mRNA) to cover variants and either give a booster or a multivalent vaccine to cover all variants. Myth: There are severe side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines. Fact: The COVID-19 vaccine can have side effects, but the vast majority go away quickly and aren’t serious. The vaccine developers report that some people experience pain where they were injected; body aches; headaches or fever, lasting for a day or two. This is good and are signs that the vaccine is working to stimulate your immune system. If symptoms persist beyond two days, you should call your doctor. Myth: Getting the COVID-19 vaccine gives you COVID-19. Fact: The vaccine for COVID-19 cannot and will not give you COVID-19. The two authorized mRNA vaccines instruct your cells to reproduce a protein that is part of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which helps your body recognize and fight the virus, if it comes along. The COVID-19 vaccine does not contain the SARS-Co-2 virus, so you cannot get COVID-19 from the vaccine. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine was developed using adenovirus vector technology and also will not give you COVID-19. It shows your immune system a weakened, common cold virus “disguised” as the coronavirus instead. Adenovirus vaccines have been around for about two decades, the same as mRNA vaccines. Johnson & Johnson developed a vaccine for Ebola using this technology. Myth: The vaccines are ineffective against the virus variants. Fact: More time is needed to study the vaccines’ effectiveness against the variants. Studies are now being conducted to determine if a booster dose is needed to protect against the variants or if modifications to the vaccines are needed. Myth: I already had COVID-19 and I have recovered, so I don't need to get the vaccine. Fact: There is not enough information currently available to say if or for how long after getting COVID-19 someone is protected from getting it again. This is called natural immunity. Early evidence suggests natural immunity from COVID-19 may not last very long, but more studies are needed to better understand this. The CDC recommends getting the COVID-19 vaccine, even if you’ve had COVID-19 previously. However, those that had COVID-19 should delay getting the vaccination until about 90 days from diagnosis. People should not get vaccinated if in quarantine after exposure or if they have COVID-19 symptoms. Myth: I won't need to wear a mask after I get the vaccine. Fact: It may take time for everyone who wants a COVID-19 vaccination to get one. Also, while the vaccine may prevent you from getting sick, more research is needed, but early indications show that while the vaccine is effective in reducing transmission, it is possible for a vaccinated person to spread the virus. Until more is understood about how well the vaccine works, continuing with precautions such as mask-wearing and physical distancing will be important. Myth: COVID-19 vaccines will alter my DNA. Fact: The COVID-19 vaccines will not alter any human genome and cannot make any changes to your DNA. The vaccines contain all the instructions necessary to teach your cells to make SARS-CoV-2's signature spike protein, release it out into the body, and your immune system gets a practice round at fighting off COVID-19. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine can affect women’s fertility Fact: There is currently no evidence that antibodies formed from COVID-19 vaccination cause any problems with pregnancy, including the development of the placenta. In addition, there is no evidence suggesting that fertility problems are a side effect of any vaccine. People who are trying to become pregnant now or who plan to try in the future may receive the COVID-19 vaccine when it becomes available to them but it’s always prudent to consult with your doctor. Myth: The COVID-19 vaccine was developed to control the general population either through microchip tracking or "nanotransducers" in our brains. Fact: There is no vaccine microchip, and the vaccine cannot track people or gather personal information into a database. Myth: The vaccines were developed and produced using fetal tissue. Fact: The vaccines do not contain fetal cells nor were fetal cells used in the production the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Johnson & Johnson used human cell lines or also known as cell cultures to grow the harmless adenovirus but did not use fetal tissue. These same cell lines have been used for other vaccines including hepatitis, chickenpox and rabies and have been around for years. Peter Gulick is an associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, and serves as adjunct faculty in the College of Human Medicine and the College of Nursing. Dr. Gulick is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today. Peter Gulick is an associate professor of medicine at Michigan State University, College of Osteopathic Medicine, and serves as adjunct faculty in the College of Human Medicine and the College of Nursing. Dr. Gulick is available to speak with media - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Is This Bitcoin's Time to Shine?
Bitcoin was invented in 2008 and launched in 2009, but after years of skepticism, it's finally becoming a part of mainstream conversation. The cryptocurrency's value has continued to rise since 2017, but with the start of 2021, its price has surged and many more companies are looking for ways to get involved. Tesla and Square have invested. (You can even buy a Tesla with bitcoins.) Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan are exploring ways to meet customer demand for cryptocurrency investment. A National Football League player converted half of his salary into bitcoins. And Major League Baseball's Oakland Athletics are offering a suite for the 2021 season at the price of one bitcoin. So, if it's been around for so long, why are we only seeing this mainstream push now? "I think the Bitcoin ecosystem is developing to the point where people can start to think about using it as a currency," said John Sedunov, PhD, an associate professor of finance who studies Bitcoin. "However, the price still remains volatile, and it isn't clear that the currency can maintain its current $50,00-to-60,000 value." While there are companies adopting and investing now, this will still be a gradual process, Dr. Sedunov says. "As businesses become better able to accept the currency, and perhaps more importantly better able to withstand and manage the volatility of Bitcoin, then the currency will become more widespread in its use. The process would be expedited if the entire supply chain accepted Bitcoin, rather than just the retailer and the end of the chain. This would smooth the process and allow people to utilize the currency without as much concern for converting it." Additionally, Dr. Sedunov notes that there needs to be a continued evolution of the ability of firms to accept and manage the currency, in addition to a reduction in the volatility of the currency. Smaller businesses may be at much more of a risk than large corporations and banks if there is price instability. But the value of Bitcoin won't be this high forever. As the country and economy continue to deal with the impact of the pandemic, there are growing concerns that inflation could be next, pushing consumers to other options, like cryptocurrency. "When the pandemic ends and there is, perhaps, more economic stability, Bitcoin's value will wane a bit, but I don't think it will fade to nothing," Sedunov notes. "The big question mark, to me, is the U.S. Dollar and inflation. Inflation expectations are rising, and this only pushes people more toward alternatives. If this trend continues, then perhaps economic stability will be a bit lower, and more people will flock toward Bitcoin."
Villanova University Professor Breaks Down Wage Gaps as Equal Pay Day Approaches
March 24 marks Equal Pay Day, dedicated to public awareness of the difference in average earnings between men and women. This will be the 25th Equal Pay Day since it was created by the National Committee on Pay Equity. David Anderson, PhD, is an associate professor of analytics at the Villanova School of Business, whose academic research focuses on how companies can measure and address gender pay gaps. (Along with his doctoral advisor, Dr. Anderson also started PayAnalytics, which helps companies measure and close gender and racial pay gaps. They've worked with companies that have from 40 to 100,000 employees to help them close pay gaps.) He explains that there are two key numbers to consider regarding pay gaps: "The 'raw' or 'unadjusted' pay gap is the number when we say, 'women earn 77 cents on the dollar compared to men,'" said Dr. Anderson. "The second is the 'adjusted' pay gap, which is typically smaller, in the single digits of percentages. This is what equal pay for equal work laws usually target." Anderson notes that these divides are calculated differently: "The unadjusted pay gap is a society issue in terms of who has access to education and opportunity, who gets promoted and which types of work are paid more or less money. The adjusted pay gap is calculated within companies and measures how much less women are paid on average compared to men with similar qualifications doing similar work. These are driven by such things as access to overtime, but also this is where bias comes into play—both individual bias and systemic bias." The intersection of gender and sexuality poses additional influence on pay gaps (as well as other workplace discrepancies), and progress on addressing wage gaps is also changing due to our current world. "I think with COVID and the impact it has taken on women's careers, particularly on mothers, it is quite likely we are moving backwards right now," said Dr. Anderson. So how do we combat these gaps? Dr. Anderson believes one step is instituting company regulations. "There's a ton of work on the adjusted pay gap, but very little on the raw pay gap. This is understandable—no one company can fix the unadjusted pay gap by itself, but they can be expected to meet equal pay for equal work requirements. The adjusted pay gap is a company-level responsibility, so it is a really nice target for regulations, while the unadjusted pay gap requires broader social changes, e.g., more flexible parental leave and more access to managerial positions." For the future, Dr. Anderson predicts changes due to COVID: "I think on the domestic front the effects of COVID will definitely make things worse in the short-term. But I think equal pay is on the Biden administration's agenda, so there's probably going to be forward movement on that front on a national level as well as in states, such as California, Massachusetts and New York, that are passing and enforcing stricter laws which will start to have an impact as well," said Dr. Anderson.
It was hyped, promoted and delivered a ratings bonanza for CBS. Oprah Winfrey’s exclusive, no-holds barred interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, left many aghast by her revelations of mistreatment, constant abuse in the media and even Meghan's experience of racism when it came to the status, security and skin color of her then unborn son. Even the day after, Oprah, praised for her masterful interviewing skills, is still revealing excerpts that shine a brighter light on the situation. The Duchess of Sussex claimed the press team that would defend the royal family "when they know something's not true" failed to come to their defense. Winfrey asked Prince Harry if he hoped his family would ever acknowledge that the differences in treatment were over race. "It would make a huge difference," he said. "Like I said, there's a lot of people that have seen it for what it was… like it's talked about across the world." The people who do not want to see it, Harry claimed, "choose not to see it." March 08 – CBS News The interview has the public discussing racism and misogyny and how these are playing out in the Royal Family dynamics and the British press. And if you are a journalist looking to explore this issue, then let our experts help. Dr. Adria Goldman’s research explores the intersectionality of race, gender, culture and its connection to communication and media. She enjoys examining media’s impact on perceptions, construction of identity, social relationships and belief systems. Dr. Goldman is available to speak with media regarding Oprah Winfrey's interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry and what it means when it comes to race, royalty and what impact it may have on the couple and the Royal Family moving forward. If you are looking to arrange an interview, simply click on her icon now to book a time today.
With the topic of reparations under discussion and debate, Thomas Craemer -- an expert from the University of Connecticut -- had this to offer in a new essay for The Conversation: The cost of slavery and its legacy of systemic racism to generations of Black Americans has been clear over the past year – seen in both the racial disparities of the pandemic and widespread protests over police brutality. Yet whenever calls for reparations are made – as they are again now – opponents counter that it would be unfair to saddle a debt on those not personally responsible. In the words of then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, speaking on Juneteenth – the day Black Americans celebrate as marking emancipation – in 2019, “I don’t think reparations for something that happened 150 years ago for whom none of us currently living are responsible is a good idea.” As a professor of public policy who has studied reparations, I acknowledge that the figures involved are large – I conservatively estimate the losses from unpaid wages and lost inheritances to Black descendants of the enslaved at around US$20 trillion in 2021 dollars. But what often gets forgotten by those who oppose reparations is that payouts for slavery have been made before – numerous times, in fact. And few at the time complained that it was unfair to saddle generations of people with a debt for which they were not personally responsible. There is an important caveat in these cases of reparations though: The payments went to former slave owners and their descendants, not the enslaved or their legal heirs. Dr. Craemer discusses such aspects as the “Haitian Independence Debt,” British ‘reparations,’ and paying for freedom. Dr. Craemer is an expert on slavery reparations, racial bias, and the psychology of racism, and he is available to speak with media – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
The Power of Poetry in a Pandemic and Time of Social Injustice
Amanda Gorman captured hearts and imaginations across the nation when she performed her poem “The Hill We Climb” at the inauguration of President Joe Biden. While Jennifer Lopez’s stirring rendition of “This Land Is Our Land” and Garth Brooks’ “Amazing Grace” were performed to great acclaim, there was something special about the Inaugural Youth Poet Laureate’s recitation. Villanova University professor of Creative Writing and Luckow Family Chair in English, Lisa Sewell, PhD., talks about the cultural impact of poetry in times of turmoil, like the political and social uncertainty brought on by an attack on the US Capitol combined with a global pandemic. “Poetry is something people turn to in times of crisis -- and the pandemic and the ways it has made all of us face the grave inequities of our society has been an extended, seemingly endless crisis” said Dr. Sewell. “Amanda Gorman’s poem was powerful because she put a name to what so many people were feeling about the insurrection that occurred on January 6.” According to Dr. Sewell, poets like Alice Quinn, the former poetry editor of The New Yorker, have already edited a collection of “pandemic” poetry, demonstrating how artists take inspiration from and create art in reaction to what’s going on in their lives—to connect to others who may be experiencing the same complicated emotions. “In my poetry writing class, I talk to my students about how poets often try to say the impossible and write about experiences and ideas that are difficult to understand and difficult to put into words,” says Sewell. “What makes poetry powerful is the gesture, the effort to find the language that is adequate to the uncertainty and ambiguity of experience—and this seems true especially now.” The task of putting experiences into words that connect with a wide audience is not an easy one, especially with so much content competing for attention in 2021. So what it is about poetry in particular that makes it appropriate for this moment? Dr. Sewell suggests that the metaphorical language of poetry, as opposed to the certainty of prose or dialogue, hits home right now. She adds, “when the future is uncertain and the ‘before’ time seems hazier and hazier, poems are somehow both clear and direct with every word deliberately chosen, and also ambiguous and strange enough to speak to our sense of peril and uncertainty. Poems can both express our fears and also gesture towards the ways language is inadequate.” To speak with Dr. Lisa Sewell, email mediaexperts@villanova.edu
Survival analysis: Forecasting lifespans of patients and products
How long will you live? Should you spring for that AppleCare+ warranty for your iPhone? When will your buddy pay you back for that lunch? For centuries, soothsayers have striven to understand the lifespan of things – be they patient longevity, product lifecycles, or even time to loan default. Nowadays, scientists have turned away from reading tea leaves and toward survival analysis – a complex data science method for predicting not only whether an event will happen (the death of a patient, the failure of a product or machine, default on a payment, and so on) but when this event is likely to occur. But it’s problematic. Until now, the tools of survival analysis have only been applicable in certain settings. This is due to the inherent heterogeneity of what is being analyzed: differences in patient lifestyles, demographics, product usage patterns, and so on. New research by Goizueta Business School’s Donald Lee, associate professor of information systems and operations management and of biostatistics and bioinformatics, has yielded a new tool that greatly extends survival analysis to broader use cases. “Historically, scientists have used classic survival analysis tools to predict the lifespan of different things in different fields, from products to patients,” Lee said. “Since the 1950s, the Kaplan-Meier estimator has been the benchmark for analyzing lifetime data, particularly in clinical trials. The next breakthrough came in the 1970s when the Cox proportional hazards model was introduced, which allows researchers to incorporate variables that can affect the predictability of things like patient mortality.” The problem with the existing survival analysis tools, Lee said, is that they make certain assumptions that can skew the predictions if the assumptions are not met. “There are very few existing tools that can incorporate variables without imposing assumptions on how they affect survival, let alone when there are a lot of variables that can also change over time. For example, two iPhones will have different lifespans depending on the temperature at which they are stored, amongst many other factors. But it’s unlikely that storing your phone at 30 degrees will halve its lifespan compared to storing it at 60 degrees. This sort of linear relationship is commonly assumed by existing tools.” Lee’s team developed a new survival methodology based on something called gradient boosting: a machine learning technique that combines decision trees to yield predictions. The method, Lee said, is totally assumption-free (or nonparametric in technical parlance) and can deal with a large number of variables that can change continuously over time, making it significantly more general than existing methods. Nothing like it has been seen until now, he noted. “Calculating the survival rate of anything is super complex because of the variables. Say you want to create an app for a smart watch that monitors the wearer’s vitals and use this information to create a real-time warning indicator for stroke. Doing this accurately is difficult for two reasons,” Lee explained. “First, a large number of variables may be relevant to stroke risk, and the variables can interact in ways that break the assumptions central to existing survival analysis methods. And second, variables like blood pressure vary over time, and it is the recent measurements that are most informative. This introduces an additional time dimension that further complicates things.” The software implementation of Lee’s method, BoXHED, overcomes both issues and allows scientists to develop real-time predictive models for conditions like stroke. The trained model can then be ported to a watch app to tell its wearer if and when they’re likely to have a stroke, a process known as inferencing in machine learning lingo. The implications, Lee said, are huge. “BoXHED now opens the door for modern applications of survival analysis. In previous research, I have looked at the design of early warning mortality indicators for patients with advanced cancer and also for patients in the ICU. These use other methods to make predictions at fixed points in time, but now they can be transformed into real-time warning indicators using BoXHED.” He cited the case of end-stage cancer patients who are often better served by hospice care than by aggressive therapy. “Accurate predictions of survival are absolutely critical for care planning. In previous analyses, we have seen that using existing predictive models to inform end-of-life care planning can potentially avert $1.9 million in medical costs and 1,600 days of unnecessary inpatient care per 1,000 patient visits in the United States. BoXHED is likely to lead to even better results.” Lee’s research paper is forthcoming in the Annals of Statistics. He has also created an open-source software implementation of BoXHED, which can radically improve the accuracy of survival analysis across a breadth of applications. The paper describing BoXHED was published in the International Conference on Machine Learning, and the latest version of the BoXHED software can be found online. If you are a journalist or looking to speak with Donald Lee – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview or appointment today.
