Recent years have witnessed some rapid and tremendous progress in natural language processing (NLP) techniques that are used to analyse text data. This study endeavours to offer an up-to-date review of NLP applications by examining their use in counselling and psychotherapy from 1990 to 2021. The purpose of this scoping review is to identify trends, advancements, challenges and limitations of these applications. Among the 41 papers included in this review, 4 primary study purposes were identified: (1) developing automated coding; (2) predicting outcomes; (3) monitoring counselling sessions; and (4) investigating language patterns. Our findings showed a growing trend in the number of papers utilizing advanced machine learning methods, particularly neural networks. Unfortunately, only a third of the articles addressed the issues of bias and generalizability. Our findings provided a timely systematic update, shedding light on concerns related to bias, generalizability and validity in the context of NLP applications in counselling and psychotherapy.

The Alzheimer\'s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) aims to improve Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) clinical trials. Since 2006, ADNI has shared clinical, neuroimaging, and cognitive data, and biofluid samples. We used conventional search methods to identify 1459 publications from 2021 to 2022 using ADNI data/samples and reviewed 291 impactful studies. This review details how ADNI studies improved disease progression understanding and clinical trial efficiency. Advances in subject selection, detection of treatment effects, harmonization, and modeling improved clinical trials and plasma biomarkers like phosphorylated tau showed promise for clinical use. Biomarkers of amyloid beta, tau, neurodegeneration, inflammation, and others were prognostic with individualized prediction algorithms available online. Studies supported the amyloid cascade, emphasized the importance of neuroinflammation, and detailed widespread heterogeneity in disease, linked to genetic and vascular risk, co-pathologies, sex, and resilience. Biological subtypes were consistently observed. Generalizability of ADNI results is limited by lack of cohort diversity, an issue ADNI-4 aims to address by enrolling a diverse cohort.

BACKGROUND: Having a representative population in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) improves external validity and generalizability of trial results. There are limited data examining differences between RCT-enrolled and real-world populations in bloodstream infections (BSI).
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a scoping review aiming to review studies assessing generalizability of BSI RCT populations, to identify sub-groups that have been systematically under-represented and to explore approaches to improve external validity of future RCTs.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for terms related to external validity or generalizability, BSI, and clinical trials in papers published up to 1 August 2023. Studies comparing enrolled versus nonenrolled patients, or papers discussing external validity or generalizability in the context of BSI RCTs were included.
BACKGROUND: Sixteen papers were included in the final review. Five compared RCT-enrolled and nonenrolled participants from the same source population. There were significant differences between the two groups in all studies, with nonenrolled patients having a greater comorbidity burden and consistently worse outcomes including mortality. We identified several barriers to improving generalizability of RCT populations and outlined potential approaches to reduce these barriers, such as alternative/simplified consent processes, streamlining eligibility criteria and follow-up procedures, quota-based sampling techniques, and ensuring diversity in site and study team selection.
CONCLUSIONS: Study cohorts in BSI RCTs are not representative of the general BSI patient population. As we increasingly adopt large pragmatic trials in infectious diseases, it is important to recognize the importance of maximizing generalizability to ensure that our research findings are of direct relevance to our patients.

Critical voices within and beyond the scientific community have pointed to a grave matter of concern regarding who is included in research and who is not. Subsequent investigations have revealed an extensive form of sampling bias across a broad range of disciplines that conduct human subjects research called \"WEIRD\": Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic. Recent work has indicated that this pattern exists within human-computer interaction (HCI) research, as well. How then does human-robot interaction (HRI) fare? And could there be other patterns of sampling bias at play, perhaps those especially relevant to this field of study? We conducted a systematic review of the premier ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (2006-2022) to discover whether and how WEIRD HRI research is. Importantly, we expanded our purview to other factors of representation highlighted by critical work on inclusion and intersectionality as potentially underreported, overlooked, and even marginalized factors of human diversity. Findings from 827 studies across 749 papers confirm that participants in HRI research also tend to be drawn from WEIRD populations. Moreover, we find evidence of limited, obscured, and possible misrepresentation in participant sampling and reporting along key axes of diversity: sex and gender, race and ethnicity, age, sexuality and family configuration, disability, body type, ideology, and domain expertise. We discuss methodological and ethical implications for recruitment, analysis, and reporting, as well as the significance for HRI as a base of knowledge.

Background Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) might not be representative of the real-world population because of unreasonable exclusion criteria. We sought to determine which groups of patients are excluded from RCTs that included lipid-lowering therapy. Methods and Results We retrieved all trials from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration and systematically searched for large (≥1000 participants) lipid-lowering therapy RCTs, defined as statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibitors. We predefined groups: older adults (>70 or >75 years), women, non-Whites, chronic kidney failure, heart failure, immunosuppression, cancer, dementia, treated thyroid disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, mental illness, atrial fibrillation, multimorbidity (≥2 chronic diseases), and polypharmacy. We counted the number of RCTs excluding patients of the predefined groups and meta-analyzed the prevalence of included patients to obtain pooled estimates with a random-effects model. We included 42 RCTs (298 605 patients). Eighty-one percent of trials excluded patients with severe and 76% those with moderate kidney failure. Seventy-one percent of trials excluded groups of women, 64% excluded patients with moderate to severe heart failure, 64% those with immunosuppressant conditions, 48% those with cancer, 29% those with dementia, and 29% of trials excluded older adults. The pooled prevalence for patients >70 years of age was 25% (95% CI, 0%-49%), 11% (3%-18%) for >75 years of age, and 51% (38%-63%) for multimorbidity. Conclusions The majority of lipid-lowering therapy trials excluded patients with common diseases, such as moderate-to-severe kidney disease or heart failure or with immunosuppression. Underrepresenting certain populations, including women and older adults, might lead to limited transportability of study results and uncertainty on possible side-effects and efficacy in these groups. Future trials should promote diversity in the recruitment strategies and improve equity in cardiovascular research. Registration URL: ClinicalTrials.gov; Unique Identifier: CRD42021253909.

The ability of clinical trials to inform the care of chronic pain may be limited if only an unrepresentative subset of patients are allowed to enroll. We summarize and report new insights on published studies that report on how trial exclusions affect the generalizability of their results. We conducted a PubMed search on the following terms: ((\"eligibility criteria\" AND generalizability) OR (\"exclusion criteria\" AND generalizability) OR \"exclusion criteria\"[ti] OR \"eligibility criteria\"[ti]) AND pain. We only considered studies relevant if they analyzed data on (1) the prevalence and nature of exclusion criteria or (2) the impact of exclusion criteria on sample representativeness or study results. The 4 articles that were identified reported differences in patients who were included and excluded in different clinical trials: excluded patients were older, less likely to have a paid job, had more functional limitations at baseline, and used strong opioids more often. The clinical significance of these differences remains unclear. The pain medicine literature has very few published studies on the prevalence and impact of exclusion criteria, and the outcomes of excluded patients are rarely tracked. The frequent use of psychosocial exclusions is especially compromising to generalizability because chronic pain commonly co-occurs with psychiatric comorbidities. Inclusion of more representative patients in research samples can reduce recruitment barriers and broaden the generalizability of findings in patients with chronic pain. We also call for more studies that examine the use of exclusion criteria in chronic pain trials to better understand their implications.

We aim to assess the reporting of key patient-level demographic and clinical characteristics among COVID-19 related randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
We queried English-language articles from PubMed, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, and the CDC library of gray literature databases using keywords of \"coronavirus,\" \"covid,\" \"clinical trial\" and \"randomized controlled trial\" from January 2020 to June 2021. From the search, we conducted an initial review to rule-out duplicate entries, identify those that met inclusion criteria (i.e., had results), and exclude those that did not meet the definition of an RCT. Lastly, we abstracted the demographic and clinical characteristics reported on within each RCT.
From the initial 43 627 manuscripts, our final eligible manuscripts consisted of 149 RCTs described in 137 articles. Most of the RCTs (113/149) studied potential treatments, while fewer studied vaccines (29), prophylaxis strategies (5), and interventions to prevent transmission among those infected (2). Study populations ranged from 10 to 38 206 participants (median = 100, IQR: 60-300). All 149 RCTs reported on age, 147 on sex, 50 on race, and 110 on the prevalence of at least one comorbidity. No RCTs reported on income, urban versus rural residence, or other indicators of socioeconomic status (SES).
Limited reporting on race and other markers of SES make it difficult to draw conclusions about specific external target populations without making strong assumptions that treatment effects are homogenous. These findings highlight the need for more robust reporting on the clinical and demographic profiles of patients enrolled in COVID-19 related RCTs.

Internal and external validity are the most relevant components when critically appraising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. However, there is no gold standard to assess external validity. This might be related to the heterogeneity of the terminology as well as to unclear evidence of the measurement properties of available tools. The aim of this review was to identify tools to assess the external validity of RCTs. It was further, to evaluate the quality of identified tools and to recommend the use of individual tools to assess the external validity of RCTs in future systematic reviews.
A two-phase systematic literature search was performed in four databases: PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO via OVID, and CINAHL via EBSCO. First, tools to assess the external validity of RCTs were identified. Second, studies investigating the measurement properties of these tools were selected. The measurement properties of each included tool were appraised using an adapted version of the COnsensus based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines.
38 publications reporting on the development or validation of 28 included tools were included. For 61% (17/28) of the included tools, there was no evidence for measurement properties. For the remaining tools, reliability was the most frequently assessed property. Reliability was judged as \"sufficient\" for three tools (very low certainty of evidence). Content validity was rated as \"sufficient\" for one tool (moderate certainty of evidence).
Based on these results, no available tool can be fully recommended to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews. Several steps are required to overcome the identified difficulties to either adapt and validate available tools or to develop a better suitable tool.
Prospective registration at Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PTG4D .

OBJECTIVE: Scientific literature debates on the economic affordability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in order to give a useful support to decision makers aiming at establishing a reimbursement scheme for TAVI. For this reason, it is important to assess the quality and the generalizability of the existing economic evidences.
METHODS: The first step was to run a literature search according to a predefined population, intervention, comparator, and outcome on the cost and effectiveness of the TAVI procedure in comparison to medical therapy and traditional surgery. Second, a manual search was carried out on the Web sites of the main HTA agencies. Third, the checklist developed by Augustovski et al. was applied in order to assess the quality and the generalizability of the articles resulting from the selection process.
RESULTS: Overall, 106 articles were obtained. Of these, sixty-five articles were excluded since the title was not consistent with the objective. Further selection took place after abstract and full-text reading. In the end, thirty-one documents were included for the review. According to the checklist, none of the articles was considered generalizable and only one was considered transferable which compares the TAVI procedure with Medical Management in inoperable patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the overall quality of the selected studies was considered good, there is still a lack of evidence on whether evidences generated in different contexts can be considered generalizable. Further research on resource consumption and preferences is needed in order to provide decision makers with more robust evidences.

HIV is experienced across diverse populations, with gender and racial/ethnic minority populations bearing a significant proportion of disease. With National Institutes of Health (NIH) placing a priority on the enrollment of women and racial/ethnic minorities into studies, it is important to understand the diversity of participants in research. We sought to characterize how HIV cure research studies report data on diversity. A sampling frame of publications with funding provided by the Martin Delaney Collaboratories for HIV Research in 2019 was reviewed for reporting of demographic data. Of 55 publications that included research on humans/human specimens, only 51% provided any demographic description. There often is insufficient consideration of diversity of populations in HIV cure research. Ameliorating gaps in this regard will require recruitment of diverse populations/specimens and specifications to report demographic data in articles. This will ensure inclusion of diverse participants in HIV cure research from earliest laboratory to eventual phase III studies.