The Healthy Nevada Project: rapid recruitment for population health study

Grzymski, J. J.; Coppes, M. J.; Metcalf, J.; Galanopoulos, C.; Rowan, C.; Henderson, M.; Read, R. W.; Reed, H.; Lipp, B.; Miceli, D.; Rybarski, S.; Slonim, A.

doi:10.1101/250274

bioRxiv · 10.1101/250274

The Healthy Nevada Project: rapid recruitment for population health study

Grzymski, J. J.·Coppes, M. J.·Metcalf, J.·Galanopoulos, C.·Rowan, C.·Henderson, M.·Read, R. W.·Reed, H.·Lipp, B.·Miceli, D.·Rybarski, S.·Slonim, A.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

BackgroundNevada ranks in the bottom half of overall health rankings in the United States. The majority of residents of Northern Nevada live in Washoe County, which is confounded with high age-adjusted death rates for heart disease, cancer and chronic lower respiratory disease.\n\nMethodsSaliva as a source of DNA was collected from adults in Northern Nevada as the first phase of a much larger (100,000 participants) effort to contribute to comprehensive population health studies in Nevada. The personal genetics company 23andMe was used to genotype the first 10,250 participants and deliver their custom ancestry, traits, wellness, and carrier status reports.\n\nResultsThe study was announced by Governor Brian Sandoval on September 15, 2016 and within two days the registration of 9,700 volunteers for an appointment was complete. Processing of 9,344 participants was achieved in 3 months, with a no-show rate of just over 11%. The participant population was skewed to female and was less racially diverse than the population.\n\nConclusionDNA genotyping was administered free-of-charge and the patient population was representative of the socio-economic diversity in northern Nevada - indicating that free genetic testing is of interest to a broad swath of the population and a powerful motivator for comprehensive population health study research.

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and education Preprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Grzymski, J. J., Coppes, M. J., Metcalf, J., Galanopoulos, C., Rowan, C., Henderson, M., Read, R. W., Reed, H., Lipp, B., Miceli, D., Rybarski, S., Slonim, A.. 2018-01-19. The Healthy Nevada Project: rapid recruitment for population health study. https://doi.org/10.1101/250274

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

From Problems to Solutions: How Self-Questions Drive Strong Scientific Reasoning

Metacognition, or awareness and control of thinking, is essential for problem solving because it helps solvers select strategies for learning and decide when to enact them (planning), check their understanding in the moment (monitoring), and assess effectiveness of solutions and learning strategies (evaluating). Most studies that examine metacognition do so retrospectively, leaving a critical gap in how metacognition is used in-the-moment for problem solving. In this study, we utilized a think-aloud interview approach to capture and characterize the metacognitive skills that senior undergraduate life science students at three institution types in the United States used spontaneously while solving challenging biology problems. We found that the students (n = 39) displayed a wide variety and quantity of monitoring, some evaluating, and nearly no planning skills while creating a solution backed with high-quality reasoning. Students frequently used self-questions to monitor and evaluate their thinking. We found that self-questioning is a critical skill for generating solutions, but it only moves problem solving forward if the student asks and correctly answers the self-question out loud. This study illustrates how self-questioning and other metacognitive regulation skills provide links to bridge the gap between a student's prior knowledge and specific features of a challenging problem. Based on our student data, we conceptualized a model of metacognitive phases during problem solving with high-quality reasoning. Finally, we present a self-question scaffold to facilitate the proposed phases (planning, monitoring, reasoning, and evaluating) so educators can equip students with metacognitive and scientific reasoning tools for effective problem solving.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2026

Preprint solicitation as a natural experiment in scholarly publishing

Preprinting is a growing and increasingly recognized mechanism for scientific communication and productivity and a way to facilitate global access to science. The interplay of preprinting practices with formal peer-reviewed publication is an open question that is now tractable to targeted analysis. Here, we take advantage of nearly a decade of preprint solicitation at Proceedings B to address this question, which offers a quasi-experimental setting for comparing outcomes for solicited preprints and traditionally submitted manuscripts. We used submission records from 15,368 manuscripts from 2018-2024 to assess whether preprint solicitation affects acceptance rates, journal scope, author geographic diversity, and post-publication uptake. Solicited manuscripts were accepted at nearly twice the rate of traditional submissions and received more downloads and citations after publication. Submission topics were broadly similar between the two routes, though solicited manuscripts showed marginally greater subject diversity. Geographic disparities favoring the Global North persisted, but acceptance rates for solicited manuscripts converged across regions, narrowing the gap seen in traditional submissions. These findings extend earlier work on this initiative and indicate that editor-driven solicitation can identify high-quality preprints, broaden geographic representation, and increase research visibility, offering a replicable model for journals seeking to diversify authorship while maintaining editorial standards.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2026

Biology Undergraduates Use of AI-Enabled Feedback to Revise Scientific Writing: Recipience and Barriers

Background: Instructors and education researchers are increasingly developing feedback with the assistance of generative AI, which we refer to as AI-enabled feedback, yet we do not know whether established understandings of feedback uptake and effectiveness apply similarly in AI-mediated contexts. This makes the recipience of AI-enabled feedback a central concern to understanding how to best support students in developing their scientific writing skills. This study examined how two teams of undergraduate biology students used AI-enabled feedback to revise their scientific writing, and the extent to which their revisions addressed that feedback. The teams revised their research proposal drafts after receiving AI-enabled feedback developed by their instructor with the aid of a custom AI tool. Results: Our findings show that AI-enabled feedback prompted actionable revision across both teams. Each team addressed approximately half of the feedback comments, indicating comparable levels of uptake despite their differing approaches to revision. We observed that both teams were inconsistent in providing the additional information and reasoning requested in the feedback, and they struggled to address comments requiring self-evaluation. Taken together, we see that students often addressed the more easily actionable parts of AI-enabled feedback while omitting more demanding revisions. Conclusions: These findings provide behavioral evidence of how students used AI-enabled feedback to revise their scientific writing. The observed patterns suggest that the content of AI-enabled feedback supported meaningful revision, while limitations in students agency, strategies, and volition likely shaped their implementation of comments. Although the degree of uptake observed in this study is encouraging, it is unlikely that a single application of generative AI within the feedback process will resolve all the challenges associated with feedback uptake.

scientific communication and education↗