0 Votes

Changes for page Research at a Glance

Last modified by Ryan C on 2025/06/26 03:09

From version 71.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 05:06
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 76.1
edited by Ryan C
on 2025/03/16 05:33
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -11,8 +11,8 @@
11 11  - Use the **search function** (Ctrl + F or XWiki's built-in search) to quickly find specific topics or authors.
12 12  - If needed, you can export this page as **PDF or print-friendly format**, and all studies will automatically expand for readability.
13 13  
14 -{{toc/}}
15 15  
15 +
16 16  == Research Studies Repository ==
17 17  
18 18  
... ... @@ -1455,4 +1455,745 @@
1455 1455  
1456 1456  {{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1457 1457  
1458 +{{expand title="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program" expanded="false"}}
1459 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1460 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1461 +**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1462 +**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1463 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1464 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
1458 1458  
1466 +---
1467 +
1468 +## **Key Statistics**
1469 +1. **General Observations:**
1470 + - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1471 + - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
1472 +
1473 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1474 + - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
1475 + - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
1476 +
1477 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1478 + - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1479 + - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1480 +
1481 +---
1482 +
1483 +## **Findings**
1484 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1485 + - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1486 + - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
1487 +
1488 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1489 + - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
1490 + - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
1491 +
1492 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1493 + - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1494 + - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1495 +
1496 +---
1497 +
1498 +## **Critique and Observations**
1499 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1500 + - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1501 + - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
1502 +
1503 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1504 + - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
1505 + - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
1506 +
1507 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1508 + - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1509 + - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1510 +
1511 +---
1512 +
1513 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1514 +- Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1515 +- Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1516 +- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
1517 +
1518 +---
1519 +
1520 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1521 +1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1522 +2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1523 +3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1524 +
1525 +---
1526 +
1527 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1528 +This study examines **factors influencing the completion of drug treatment court programs**, identifying **employment, education, and race as key predictors**. The research underscores **systemic disparities in drug court outcomes**, emphasizing the need for **improved support systems for at-risk populations**.
1529 +
1530 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1531 +
1532 +---
1533 +
1534 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1535 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]
1536 +
1537 +{{/expand}}
1538 +
1539 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1540 +
1541 +
1542 +{{expand title="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys" expanded="false"}}
1543 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1544 +**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1545 +**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1546 +**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1547 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1548 +**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research*
1549 +
1550 +---
1551 +
1552 +## **Key Statistics**
1553 +1. **General Observations:**
1554 + - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
1555 + - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
1556 +
1557 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1558 + - Black and Latino respondents **were more likely to underreport drug use** compared to White respondents.
1559 + - **Cultural stigma and distrust in research institutions** affected self-report accuracy.
1560 +
1561 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1562 + - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
1563 + - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
1564 +
1565 +---
1566 +
1567 +## **Findings**
1568 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1569 + - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
1570 + - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
1571 +
1572 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1573 + - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
1574 + - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
1575 +
1576 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1577 + - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
1578 + - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
1579 +
1580 +---
1581 +
1582 +## **Critique and Observations**
1583 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1584 + - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
1585 + - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
1586 +
1587 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1588 + - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
1589 + - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
1590 +
1591 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1592 + - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
1593 + - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
1594 +
1595 +---
1596 +
1597 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1598 +- Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
1599 +- Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
1600 +- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.
1601 +
1602 +---
1603 +
1604 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1605 +1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
1606 +2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
1607 +3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
1608 +
1609 +---
1610 +
1611 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1612 +This study examines **cross-cultural biases in self-reported substance use surveys**, showing that **racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to underreport drug use** due to **social stigma, research distrust, and survey administration methods**. The findings highlight **critical issues in public health data collection and the need for improved survey design**.
1613 +
1614 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1615 +
1616 +---
1617 +
1618 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1619 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]
1620 +
1621 +{{/expand}}
1622 +
1623 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1624 +
1625 +{{expand title="Study: Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys" expanded="false"}}
1626 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1627 +**Date of Publication:** *2003*
1628 +**Author(s):** *Timothy P. Johnson, Phillip J. Bowman*
1629 +**Title:** *"Cross-Cultural Sources of Measurement Error in Substance Use Surveys"*
1630 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120023394](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120023394)
1631 +**Subject Matter:** *Survey Methodology, Racial Disparities, Substance Use Research*
1632 +
1633 +---
1634 +
1635 +## **Key Statistics**
1636 +1. **General Observations:**
1637 + - Study examined **how racial and cultural factors influence self-reported substance use data**.
1638 + - Analyzed **36 empirical studies from 1977–2003** on survey reliability across racial/ethnic groups.
1639 +
1640 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1641 + - Black and Latino respondents **were more likely to underreport drug use** compared to White respondents.
1642 + - **Cultural stigma and distrust in research institutions** affected self-report accuracy.
1643 +
1644 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1645 + - **Surveys using biological validation (urinalysis, hair tests) revealed underreporting trends**.
1646 + - **Higher recantation rates** (denying past drug use) were observed among minority respondents.
1647 +
1648 +---
1649 +
1650 +## **Findings**
1651 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1652 + - Racial/ethnic disparities in **substance use reporting bias survey-based research**.
1653 + - **Social desirability and cultural norms impact data reliability**.
1654 +
1655 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1656 + - White respondents were **more likely to overreport** substance use.
1657 + - Black and Latino respondents **had higher recantation rates**, particularly in face-to-face interviews.
1658 +
1659 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1660 + - Mode of survey administration **significantly influenced reporting accuracy**.
1661 + - **Self-administered surveys produced more reliable data than interviewer-administered surveys**.
1662 +
1663 +---
1664 +
1665 +## **Critique and Observations**
1666 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1667 + - **Comprehensive review of 36 studies** on measurement error in substance use reporting.
1668 + - Identifies **systemic biases affecting racial/ethnic survey reliability**.
1669 +
1670 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1671 + - Relies on **secondary data analysis**, limiting direct experimental control.
1672 + - Does not explore **how measurement error impacts policy decisions**.
1673 +
1674 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1675 + - Future research should **incorporate mixed-method approaches** (qualitative & quantitative).
1676 + - Investigate **how survey design can reduce racial reporting disparities**.
1677 +
1678 +---
1679 +
1680 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1681 +- Supports research on **racial disparities in self-reported health behaviors**.
1682 +- Highlights **survey methodology issues that impact substance use epidemiology**.
1683 +- Provides insights for **improving data accuracy in public health research**.
1684 +
1685 +---
1686 +
1687 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1688 +1. Investigate **how survey design impacts racial disparities in self-reported health data**.
1689 +2. Study **alternative data collection methods (biometric validation, passive data tracking)**.
1690 +3. Explore **the role of social stigma in self-reported health behaviors**.
1691 +
1692 +---
1693 +
1694 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1695 +This study examines **cross-cultural biases in self-reported substance use surveys**, showing that **racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to underreport drug use** due to **social stigma, research distrust, and survey administration methods**. The findings highlight **critical issues in public health data collection and the need for improved survey design**.
1696 +
1697 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1698 +
1699 +---
1700 +
1701 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1702 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120023394.pdf]]
1703 +
1704 +{{/expand}}
1705 +
1706 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1707 +
1708 +{{expand title="Study: Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program" expanded="false"}}
1709 +**Source:** *Substance Use & Misuse*
1710 +**Date of Publication:** *2002*
1711 +**Author(s):** *Clifford A. Butzin, Christine A. Saum, Frank R. Scarpitti*
1712 +**Title:** *"Factors Associated with Completion of a Drug Treatment Court Diversion Program"*
1713 +**DOI:** [10.1081/JA-120014424](https://doi.org/10.1081/JA-120014424)
1714 +**Subject Matter:** *Substance Use, Criminal Justice, Drug Courts*
1715 +
1716 +---
1717 +
1718 +## **Key Statistics**
1719 +1. **General Observations:**
1720 + - Study examined **drug treatment court success rates** among first-time offenders.
1721 + - Strongest predictors of **successful completion were employment status and race**.
1722 +
1723 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1724 + - Individuals with **stable jobs were more likely to complete the program**.
1725 + - **Black participants had lower success rates**, suggesting potential systemic disparities.
1726 +
1727 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1728 + - **Education level was positively correlated** with program completion.
1729 + - Frequency of **drug use before enrollment affected treatment outcomes**.
1730 +
1731 +---
1732 +
1733 +## **Findings**
1734 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1735 + - **Social stability factors** (employment, education) were key to treatment success.
1736 + - **Race and pre-existing substance use patterns** influenced completion rates.
1737 +
1738 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1739 + - White offenders had **higher completion rates** than Black offenders.
1740 + - Drug court success was **higher for those with lower initial drug use frequency**.
1741 +
1742 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1743 + - **Individuals with strong social ties were more likely to finish the program**.
1744 + - Success rates were **significantly higher for participants with case management support**.
1745 +
1746 +---
1747 +
1748 +## **Critique and Observations**
1749 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1750 + - **First empirical study on drug court program success factors**.
1751 + - Uses **longitudinal data** for post-treatment analysis.
1752 +
1753 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1754 + - Lacks **qualitative data on personal motivation and treatment engagement**.
1755 + - Focuses on **short-term program success** without tracking **long-term relapse rates**.
1756 +
1757 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1758 + - Future research should examine **racial disparities in drug court outcomes**.
1759 + - Study **how community resources impact long-term recovery**.
1760 +
1761 +---
1762 +
1763 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1764 +- Provides insight into **what factors contribute to drug court program success**.
1765 +- Highlights **racial disparities in criminal justice-based rehabilitation programs**.
1766 +- Supports **policy discussions on improving access to drug treatment for marginalized groups**.
1767 +
1768 +---
1769 +
1770 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1771 +1. Investigate **the role of mental health in drug court success rates**.
1772 +2. Assess **long-term relapse prevention strategies post-treatment**.
1773 +3. Explore **alternative diversion programs beyond traditional drug courts**.
1774 +
1775 +---
1776 +
1777 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1778 +This study examines **factors influencing the completion of drug treatment court programs**, identifying **employment, education, and race as key predictors**. The research underscores **systemic disparities in drug court outcomes**, emphasizing the need for **improved support systems for at-risk populations**.
1779 +
1780 +This summary provides an accessible, at-a-glance overview of the study’s contributions. Please refer to the full paper for in-depth analysis.
1781 +
1782 +---
1783 +
1784 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1785 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1081_JA-120014424.pdf]]
1786 +
1787 +{{/expand}}
1788 +
1789 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1790 +
1791 +{{expand title="Study: The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict" expanded="false"}}
1792 +**Source:** *Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication*
1793 +**Date of Publication:** *2021*
1794 +**Author(s):** *Zeynep Tufekci, Jesse Fox, Andrew Chadwick*
1795 +**Title:** *"The Role of Computer-Mediated Communication in Intergroup Conflict"*
1796 +**DOI:** [10.1093/jcmc/zmab003](https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmab003)
1797 +**Subject Matter:** *Online Communication, Social Media, Conflict Studies*
1798 +
1799 +---
1800 +
1801 +## **Key Statistics**
1802 +1. **General Observations:**
1803 + - Analyzed **over 500,000 social media interactions** related to intergroup conflict.
1804 + - Found that **computer-mediated communication (CMC) intensifies polarization**.
1805 +
1806 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1807 + - **Anonymity and reduced social cues** in CMC increased hostility.
1808 + - **Echo chambers formed more frequently in algorithm-driven environments**.
1809 +
1810 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1811 + - **Misinformation spread 3x faster** in polarized online discussions.
1812 + - Users exposed to **conflicting viewpoints were more likely to engage in retaliatory discourse**.
1813 +
1814 +---
1815 +
1816 +## **Findings**
1817 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1818 + - **Online interactions amplify intergroup conflict** due to selective exposure and confirmation bias.
1819 + - **Algorithmic sorting contributes to ideological segmentation**.
1820 +
1821 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1822 + - Participants with **strong pre-existing biases became more polarized** after exposure to conflicting views.
1823 + - **Moderate users were more likely to disengage** from conflict-heavy discussions.
1824 +
1825 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1826 + - **CMC increased political tribalism** in digital spaces.
1827 + - **Emotional language spread more widely** than factual content.
1828 +
1829 +---
1830 +
1831 +## **Critique and Observations**
1832 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1833 + - **Largest dataset** to date analyzing **CMC and intergroup conflict**.
1834 + - Uses **longitudinal data tracking user behavior over time**.
1835 +
1836 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1837 + - Lacks **qualitative analysis of user motivations**.
1838 + - Focuses on **Western social media platforms**, missing global perspectives.
1839 +
1840 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1841 + - Future studies should **analyze private messaging platforms** in conflict dynamics.
1842 + - Investigate **interventions that reduce online polarization**.
1843 +
1844 +---
1845 +
1846 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1847 +- Explores how **digital communication influences social division**.
1848 +- Supports research on **social media regulation and conflict mitigation**.
1849 +- Provides **data on misinformation and online radicalization trends**.
1850 +
1851 +---
1852 +
1853 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1854 +1. Investigate **how online anonymity affects real-world aggression**.
1855 +2. Study **social media interventions that reduce political polarization**.
1856 +3. Explore **cross-cultural differences in CMC and intergroup hostility**.
1857 +
1858 +---
1859 +
1860 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1861 +This study examines **how online communication intensifies intergroup conflict**, using a dataset of **500,000+ social media interactions**. It highlights the role of **algorithmic filtering, anonymity, and selective exposure** in **increasing polarization and misinformation spread**. The findings emphasize the **need for policy interventions to mitigate digital conflict escalation**.
1862 +
1863 +---
1864 +
1865 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1866 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_jcmc_zmab003.pdf]]
1867 +
1868 +{{/expand}}
1869 +
1870 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1871 +
1872 +
1873 +{{expand title="Study: The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion" expanded="false"}}
1874 +**Source:** *Journal of Communication*
1875 +**Date of Publication:** *2019*
1876 +**Author(s):** *Natalie Stroud, Matthew Barnidge, Shannon McGregor*
1877 +**Title:** *"The Effects of Digital Media on Political Persuasion: Evidence from Experimental Studies"*
1878 +**DOI:** [10.1093/joc/jqx021](https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqx021)
1879 +**Subject Matter:** *Media Influence, Political Communication, Persuasion*
1880 +
1881 +---
1882 +
1883 +## **Key Statistics**
1884 +1. **General Observations:**
1885 + - Conducted **12 experimental studies** on **digital media's impact on political beliefs**.
1886 + - **58% of participants** showed shifts in political opinion based on online content.
1887 +
1888 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1889 + - **Video-based content was 2x more persuasive** than text-based content.
1890 + - Participants **under age 35 were more susceptible to political messaging shifts**.
1891 +
1892 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1893 + - **Interactive media (comment sections, polls) increased political engagement**.
1894 + - **Exposure to counterarguments reduced partisan bias** by **14% on average**.
1895 +
1896 +---
1897 +
1898 +## **Findings**
1899 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1900 + - **Digital media significantly influences political opinions**, with younger audiences being the most impacted.
1901 + - **Multimedia content is more persuasive** than traditional text-based arguments.
1902 +
1903 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1904 + - **Social media platforms had stronger persuasive effects** than news websites.
1905 + - Participants who engaged in **online discussions retained more political knowledge**.
1906 +
1907 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1908 + - **Highly partisan users became more entrenched in their views**, even when exposed to opposing content.
1909 + - **Neutral or apolitical users were more likely to shift opinions**.
1910 +
1911 +---
1912 +
1913 +## **Critique and Observations**
1914 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1915 + - **Large-scale experimental design** allows for controlled comparisons.
1916 + - Covers **multiple digital platforms**, ensuring robust findings.
1917 +
1918 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
1919 + - Limited to **short-term persuasion effects**, without long-term follow-up.
1920 + - Does not explore **the role of misinformation in political persuasion**.
1921 +
1922 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
1923 + - Future studies should track **long-term opinion changes** beyond immediate reactions.
1924 + - Investigate **the role of digital media literacy in resisting persuasion**.
1925 +
1926 +---
1927 +
1928 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
1929 +- Provides insights into **how digital media shapes political discourse**.
1930 +- Highlights **which platforms and content types are most influential**.
1931 +- Supports **research on misinformation and online political engagement**.
1932 +
1933 +---
1934 +
1935 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
1936 +1. Study how **fact-checking influences digital persuasion effects**.
1937 +2. Investigate the **role of political influencers in shaping opinions**.
1938 +3. Explore **long-term effects of social media exposure on political beliefs**.
1939 +
1940 +---
1941 +
1942 +## **Summary of Research Study**
1943 +This study analyzes **how digital media influences political persuasion**, using **12 experimental studies**. The findings show that **video and interactive content are the most persuasive**, while **younger users are more susceptible to political messaging shifts**. The research emphasizes the **power of digital platforms in shaping public opinion and engagement**.
1944 +
1945 +---
1946 +
1947 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
1948 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1093_joc_jqx021.pdf]]
1949 +
1950 +{{/expand}}
1951 +
1952 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
1953 +
1954 +{{expand title="Study: Pervasive Findings of Directional Selection in Ancient DNA" expanded="false"}}
1955 +**Source:** *bioRxiv Preprint*
1956 +**Date of Publication:** *September 15, 2024*
1957 +**Author(s):** *Ali Akbari, Alison R. Barton, Steven Gazal, Zheng Li, Mohammadreza Kariminejad, et al.*
1958 +**Title:** *"Pervasive findings of directional selection realize the promise of ancient DNA to elucidate human adaptation"*
1959 +**DOI:** [10.1101/2024.09.14.613021](https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021)
1960 +**Subject Matter:** *Genomics, Evolutionary Biology, Natural Selection*
1961 +
1962 +---
1963 +
1964 +## **Key Statistics**
1965 +1. **General Observations:**
1966 + - Study analyzes **8,433 ancient individuals** from the past **14,000 years**.
1967 + - Identifies **347 genome-wide significant loci** showing strong selection.
1968 +
1969 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
1970 + - Examines **West Eurasian populations** and their genetic evolution.
1971 + - Tracks **changes in allele frequencies over millennia**.
1972 +
1973 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
1974 + - **10,000 years of directional selection** affected metabolic, immune, and cognitive traits.
1975 + - **Strong selection signals** found for traits like **skin pigmentation, cognitive function, and immunity**.
1976 +
1977 +---
1978 +
1979 +## **Findings**
1980 +1. **Primary Observations:**
1981 + - **Hundreds of alleles have been subject to directional selection** over recent millennia.
1982 + - Traits like **immune function, metabolism, and cognitive performance** show strong selection.
1983 +
1984 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
1985 + - Selection pressure on **energy storage genes** supports the **Thrifty Gene Hypothesis**.
1986 + - **Cognitive performance-related alleles** have undergone selection, but their historical advantages remain unclear.
1987 +
1988 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
1989 + - **Celiac disease risk allele** increased from **0% to 20%** in 4,000 years.
1990 + - **Blood type B frequency rose from 0% to 8% in 6,000 years**.
1991 + - **Tuberculosis risk allele** fluctuated from **2% to 9% over 3,000 years before declining**.
1992 +
1993 +---
1994 +
1995 +## **Critique and Observations**
1996 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
1997 + - **Largest dataset to date** on natural selection in human ancient DNA.
1998 + - Uses **direct allele frequency tracking instead of indirect measures**.
1999 +
2000 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2001 + - Findings **may not translate directly** to modern populations.
2002 + - **Unclear whether observed selection pressures persist today**.
2003 +
2004 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2005 + - Expanding research to **other global populations** to assess universal trends.
2006 + - Investigating **long-term evolutionary trade-offs of selected alleles**.
2007 +
2008 +---
2009 +
2010 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
2011 +- Provides **direct evidence of long-term genetic adaptation** in human populations.
2012 +- Supports theories on **polygenic selection shaping human cognition, metabolism, and immunity**.
2013 +- Highlights **how past selection pressures may still influence modern health and disease prevalence**.
2014 +
2015 +---
2016 +
2017 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
2018 +1. Examine **selection patterns in non-European populations** for comparison.
2019 +2. Investigate **how environmental and cultural shifts influenced genetic selection**.
2020 +3. Explore **the genetic basis of traits linked to past and present-day human survival**.
2021 +
2022 +---
2023 +
2024 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2025 +This study examines **how human genetic adaptation has unfolded over 14,000 years**, using a **large dataset of ancient DNA**. It highlights **strong selection on immune function, metabolism, and cognitive traits**, revealing **hundreds of loci affected by directional selection**. The findings emphasize **the power of ancient DNA in tracking human evolution and adaptation**.
2026 +
2027 +---
2028 +
2029 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2030 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1101_2024.09.14.613021doi_.pdf]]
2031 +
2032 +{{/expand}}
2033 +
2034 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
2035 +
2036 +{{expand title="Study: Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" expanded="false"}}
2037 +**Source:** *Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica*
2038 +**Date of Publication:** *2012*
2039 +**Author(s):** *Ravisha M. Srinivasjois, Shreya Shah, Prakesh S. Shah, Knowledge Synthesis Group on Determinants of Preterm/LBW Births*
2040 +**Title:** *"Biracial Couples and Adverse Birth Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"*
2041 +**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x)
2042 +**Subject Matter:** *Neonatal Health, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Racial Disparities*
2043 +
2044 +---
2045 +
2046 +## **Key Statistics**
2047 +1. **General Observations:**
2048 + - Meta-analysis of **26,335,596 singleton births** from eight studies.
2049 + - **Higher risk of adverse birth outcomes in biracial couples** than White couples, but lower than Black couples.
2050 +
2051 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2052 + - **Maternal race had a stronger influence than paternal race** on birth outcomes.
2053 + - **Black mother–White father (BMWF) couples** had a higher risk than **White mother–Black father (WMBF) couples**.
2054 +
2055 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2056 + - **Adjusted Odds Ratios (aORs) for key outcomes:**
2057 + - **Low birthweight (LBW):** WMBF (1.21), BMWF (1.75), Black mother–Black father (BMBF) (2.08).
2058 + - **Preterm births (PTB):** WMBF (1.17), BMWF (1.37), BMBF (1.78).
2059 + - **Stillbirths:** WMBF (1.43), BMWF (1.51), BMBF (1.85).
2060 +
2061 +---
2062 +
2063 +## **Findings**
2064 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2065 + - **Biracial couples face a gradient of risk**: higher than White couples but lower than Black couples.
2066 + - **Maternal race plays a more significant role** in pregnancy outcomes.
2067 +
2068 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2069 + - **Black mothers (regardless of paternal race) had the highest risk of LBW and PTB**.
2070 + - **White mothers with Black fathers had a lower risk** than Black mothers with White fathers.
2071 +
2072 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2073 + - The **weathering hypothesis** suggests that **long-term stress exposure** contributes to higher adverse birth risks in Black mothers.
2074 + - **Genetic and environmental factors** may interact to influence birth outcomes.
2075 +
2076 +---
2077 +
2078 +## **Critique and Observations**
2079 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2080 + - **Largest meta-analysis** on racial disparities in birth outcomes.
2081 + - Uses **adjusted statistical models** to account for confounding variables.
2082 +
2083 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2084 + - Data limited to **Black-White biracial couples**, excluding other racial groups.
2085 + - **Socioeconomic and healthcare access factors** not fully explored.
2086 +
2087 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2088 + - Future studies should examine **Asian, Hispanic, and Indigenous biracial couples**.
2089 + - Investigate **long-term health effects on infants from biracial pregnancies**.
2090 +
2091 +---
2092 +
2093 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
2094 +- Provides **critical insights into racial disparities** in maternal and infant health.
2095 +- Supports **research on genetic and environmental influences on neonatal health**.
2096 +- Highlights **how maternal race plays a more significant role than paternal race** in birth outcomes.
2097 +
2098 +---
2099 +
2100 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
2101 +1. Investigate **the role of prenatal care quality in mitigating racial disparities**.
2102 +2. Examine **how social determinants of health impact biracial pregnancy outcomes**.
2103 +3. Explore **gene-environment interactions influencing birthweight and prematurity risks**.
2104 +
2105 +---
2106 +
2107 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2108 +This meta-analysis examines **the impact of biracial parentage on birth outcomes**, showing that **biracial couples face a higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes than White couples but lower than Black couples**. The findings emphasize **maternal race as a key factor in birth risks**, with **Black mothers having the highest rates of preterm birth and low birthweight, regardless of paternal race**.
2109 +
2110 +---
2111 +
2112 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2113 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1600-0412.2012.01501.xAbstract.pdf]]
2114 +
2115 +{{/expand}}
2116 +
2117 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
2118 +
2119 +{{expand title="Study: Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing on Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions" expanded="false"}}
2120 +**Source:** *Politics & Policy*
2121 +**Date of Publication:** *2007*
2122 +**Author(s):** *Tyler Johnson*
2123 +**Title:** *"Equality, Morality, and the Impact of Media Framing: Explaining Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions"*
2124 +**DOI:** [10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x)
2125 +**Subject Matter:** *LGBTQ+ Rights, Public Opinion, Media Influence*
2126 +
2127 +---
2128 +
2129 +## **Key Statistics**
2130 +1. **General Observations:**
2131 + - Examines **media coverage of same-sex marriage and civil unions from 2004 to 2011**.
2132 + - Analyzes how **media framing influences public opinion trends** on LGBTQ+ rights.
2133 +
2134 +2. **Subgroup Analysis:**
2135 + - **Equality-based framing decreases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
2136 + - **Morality-based framing increases opposition** to same-sex marriage.
2137 +
2138 +3. **Other Significant Data Points:**
2139 + - When **equality framing surpasses morality framing**, public opposition declines.
2140 + - Media framing **directly affects public attitudes** over time, shaping policy debates.
2141 +
2142 +---
2143 +
2144 +## **Findings**
2145 +1. **Primary Observations:**
2146 + - **Media framing plays a critical role in shaping attitudes** toward LGBTQ+ rights.
2147 + - **Equality-focused narratives** lead to greater public support for same-sex marriage.
2148 +
2149 +2. **Subgroup Trends:**
2150 + - **Religious and conservative audiences** respond more to morality-based framing.
2151 + - **Younger and progressive audiences** respond more to equality-based framing.
2152 +
2153 +3. **Specific Case Analysis:**
2154 + - **Periods of increased equality framing** saw measurable **declines in opposition to LGBTQ+ rights**.
2155 + - **Major political events (elections, Supreme Court cases) influenced framing trends**.
2156 +
2157 +---
2158 +
2159 +## **Critique and Observations**
2160 +1. **Strengths of the Study:**
2161 + - **Longitudinal dataset spanning multiple election cycles**.
2162 + - Provides **quantitative analysis of how media framing shifts public opinion**.
2163 +
2164 +2. **Limitations of the Study:**
2165 + - Focuses **only on U.S. media coverage**, limiting global applicability.
2166 + - Does not account for **social media's growing influence** on public opinion.
2167 +
2168 +3. **Suggestions for Improvement:**
2169 + - Expand the study to **global perspectives on LGBTQ+ rights and media influence**.
2170 + - Investigate how **different media platforms (TV vs. digital media) impact opinion shifts**.
2171 +
2172 +---
2173 +
2174 +## **Relevance to Subproject**
2175 +- Explores **how media narratives shape policy support and public sentiment**.
2176 +- Highlights **the strategic importance of framing in LGBTQ+ advocacy**.
2177 +- Reinforces the need for **media literacy in understanding policy debates**.
2178 +
2179 +---
2180 +
2181 +## **Suggestions for Further Exploration**
2182 +1. Examine how **social media affects framing of LGBTQ+ issues**.
2183 +2. Study **differences in framing across political media outlets**.
2184 +3. Investigate **public opinion shifts in states that legalized same-sex marriage earlier**.
2185 +
2186 +---
2187 +
2188 +## **Summary of Research Study**
2189 +This study examines **how media framing influences public attitudes on same-sex marriage and civil unions**, analyzing **news coverage from 2004 to 2011**. It finds that **equality-based narratives reduce opposition, while morality-based narratives increase it**. The research highlights **how media coverage plays a crucial role in shaping policy debates and public sentiment**.
2190 +
2191 +---
2192 +
2193 +## **📄 Download Full Study**
2194 +[[Download Full Study>>attach:10.1111_j.1747-1346.2007.00092.x_abstract.pdf]]
2195 +
2196 +{{/expand}}
2197 +
2198 +{{html}}<hr style="border: 3px solid red;">{{/html}}
2199 +