--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NIQC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to niqc+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ni...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/45d5c076-b8fb-403b-97d4-53fac5478c9d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Thank you for those who responded this survey already - once you are done, let us know your experience in answering it, how long it took and how to improve it etc..
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM Pradeep Reddy Raamana <praa...@research.baycrest.org> wrote:
--For the new group members and others who may not have looked at it yet, here is the link to the high-level survey :I've now 1) improved the questions and added more info/examples, and 2) combined them all into a single page, so respondents can now skip to submission after answering mandatory questions.To finalize this - make it easy and quick to respond to - I'd like to request you all to try respond to it using one of your regular QC tasks in the next 2 weeks or so. I request you to time them, so we get a sense of effort it takes, so we can consider which questions can be reworded or combined or removed altogether.I am in favour of receiving fewer responses to some questions, than not asking them at all in the first place. I'd like to believe those who care about QC will respond, and I'm not a fan of worrying too much about others who are not willing to spend about 15-30 mins to respond to this survey.Have a quality weekend first ;)PS: Let me know if you want to edit the form, I can add you as a collaborator.Thanks,Pradeep
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NIQC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to niqc+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ni...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/45d5c076-b8fb-403b-97d4-53fac5478c9d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Awesome to see more responses coming in - thank you! :).. At the risk of repeating myself, let me mention that this is anonymous survey without built-in time-tracking, so I need your help to understand how long it took for you, and what you think would improve the survey to maximize its response rate (when distributed broadly to a much larger community). Thanks!
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 11:14:51 AM UTC-4, Pradeep Reddy Raamana wrote:
Thank you for those who responded this survey already - once you are done, let us know your experience in answering it, how long it took and how to improve it etc..
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 10:44 AM Pradeep Reddy Raamana <praa...@research.baycrest.org> wrote:
--For the new group members and others who may not have looked at it yet, here is the link to the high-level survey :I've now 1) improved the questions and added more info/examples, and 2) combined them all into a single page, so respondents can now skip to submission after answering mandatory questions.To finalize this - make it easy and quick to respond to - I'd like to request you all to try respond to it using one of your regular QC tasks in the next 2 weeks or so. I request you to time them, so we get a sense of effort it takes, so we can consider which questions can be reworded or combined or removed altogether.I am in favour of receiving fewer responses to some questions, than not asking them at all in the first place. I'd like to believe those who care about QC will respond, and I'm not a fan of worrying too much about others who are not willing to spend about 15-30 mins to respond to this survey.Have a quality weekend first ;)PS: Let me know if you want to edit the form, I can add you as a collaborator.Thanks,Pradeep
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NIQC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to niqc+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ni...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/45d5c076-b8fb-403b-97d4-53fac5478c9d%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--Postdoctoral fellow
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NIQC" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to niqc+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ni...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/f416de6d-dae7-4273-b6ab-729a2d8332e7%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CADPHwxDMQ6Xr9jzrKpmzDhDs78FWy-2aQp7dHHmJjmb2mVEw_A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CAKYYBvpu0N8hqO6%2BvtvexPUomONbSxjPKRD5idh96GHVDN0Y9w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CAKYYBvpu0N8hqO6%2BvtvexPUomONbSxjPKRD5idh96GHVDN0Y9w%40mail.gmail.com.
Ethics is a good question - I personally [with very limited experience] don’t see a need for it, but the elders can weigh in on this!
Thanks for the suggestions, will correct/improve them.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:48 AM JB Poline <jbpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CAKYYBvp%2BgtqBmw_5Z3b4Vf7knrU0Y%2BjeveU9yxuTbuuT%2B7ZMNg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CAKYYBvqgAogcH%3D9eQHy5%3Dw0LujjQ_mM_iJAPBWFrTXu1xsb6MA%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CAB4yuceh8rceuM6MdYEUu-rXycNW%3DiyOAyQsEBZtmnEM0uqa-w%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
I will also check with my institute Ethics department and receive their approval.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CAB4yucfETTKSpz83k%3DvoxdevX0uEL8KNNHO1pb8XEAUCfEWuig%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To reduce e-mail overload follow the e-mail charter of Chris Anderson: http://emailcharter.org/. Stephen Strother, PhD Senior Scientist, Rotman Research Institute, Baycrest Professor of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto E-mail: sstr...@research.baycrest.org Tel. Office: 416-785-2500 x2956 Fax: 426-785-2862
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CAKYYBvpGTwxKmY1_AreMd4%2BuDtBTZ-PDZdnFH7qQ-E1Y3oJyGA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CAKYYBvoUv6A7JTiskstfjLcP5E5_offPaqgALzyCevRRo%2BaDPQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/CAKYYBvpmUog5RsCKaRs94ER8hGntqM0d%3DiRjAneKRtXpPVkjkw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To reduce e-mail overload follow the e-mail charter of Chris Anderson: http://emailcharter.org/. Stephen Strother, PhD Senior Scientist, Rotman Research Institute, Baycrest Professor of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto E-mail: sstr...@research.baycrest.org
Pradeep - My comments on the form are below. I recognise this was realtively easy to put together but as a result sorting out any useful inputs will be much, much harder, if not close to impossible given that there is no attempt at even a small predefined vocabulary and limiting types of responses. Using a more structured form with drop down lists and defined options/categories, would of course take longer and be harder to put together but would be likely to yield much more useful data in my view. I know there has already been some discussion on this so I am not expecting you to necessarily adopt my view, but I am stating it as you asked.
1. You probably should define what you mean by QC. My first question was do I include QA procedures like the fBIRN phantom, but in my set of definitions this is not QC, it is QA. If you want it all use QA/QC.
2. Are you asking for a new form for each context/pipeline/modality
, etc, or a list of all of these on one form, which must then track through the form’s answers?
I would prefer one form per context and then I would just choose a few primary contexts to fill in a few sets of forms. The whole exercise seems daunting otherwise where I would have to write a lot of text in some of the questions.
Parsing and sorting this out across perhaps 100s of forms will be a very big, nightmarish task. Who is going to do it?
Free text is a really bad way to manage primary survey inputs. I think a much better form would attempt a list of all the contexts you can think of that people can select from + an other line where they can still write whatever they want.
This will be much easier to manage later, but much harder to put together. In my view you will end up doing even more total work with the current form structure.
3. Questions like below seem to assume one process/context per form.
Do you think it's possible to harmonize this process across labs/world?
You can use the Other option to note down your thoughts and provide more details.
Yes
No
Other:
4. My answer to below would probably be maybe with a set of caveats that would stand in the way of adoption. You don’t allow for this.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/niqc/580bc06b-8b03-e7ef-5d43-ae2aa2ca486f%40research.baycrest.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Thanks Stephen - see below for quoted responses:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:58 PM Stephen Strother <sstr...@research.baycrest.org> wrote:
Pradeep - My comments on the form are below. I recognise this was realtively easy to put together but as a result sorting out any useful inputs will be much, much harder, if not close to impossible given that there is no attempt at even a small predefined vocabulary and limiting types of responses. Using a more structured form with drop down lists and defined options/categories, would of course take longer and be harder to put together but would be likely to yield much more useful data in my view. I know there has already been some discussion on this so I am not expecting you to necessarily adopt my view, but I am stating it as you asked.
This was the first and most common feedback we received so far. You're right in observations, but the purpose of this first-of-more-to-come surveys is to simply scan and review the landscape, not to develop an implementable protocol. This survey would help us compile and categorize the usecases, and summarize the existing work (in various aspects). As this is an uncharted landscape (to the best of my knowledge at least), it is best to keep this "survey" not restricted to few categories we have already seen, and keep it open for discovery. Some of the niQC members have already proposed specialized drafts towards the usecases they are involved in, and we can pick up on them anytime.
Positive outcomes in the best case scenario : we all learn something new ( in terms of usecases, what is done, how it is justified etc), and would help develop a protocol that is building on what is already known in the community.
Worst cases scenario: no surprises and we do not learn anything new, and simply delayed us getting into the protocol work.
Perhaps I am naive, but I believe this would teach us all something new, and even otherwise nobody can blame us for not including their usecase or considering their work into the protocol development.
Soon after we compiled this survey (likely end of January or mid-February), we can get started on the specific protocols.
1. You probably should define what you mean by QC. My first question was do I include QA procedures like the fBIRN phantom, but in my set of definitions this is not QC, it is QA. If you want it all use QA/QC.
Good point - I will refer to them QC/QA everywhere.
2. Are you asking for a new form for each context/pipeline/modality
Yes - this is our atomic "unit" for protocols.
, etc, or a list of all of these on one form, which must then track through the form’s answers?
Yes!I would prefer one form per context and then I would just choose a few primary contexts to fill in a few sets of forms. The whole exercise seems daunting otherwise where I would have to write a lot of text in some of the questions.
Can you give me an example here?