English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In this issue of the Journal, an expert panel offers 7 recommendations on how population studies supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute contracts might be strategically transformed (Am J Epidemiol. 2015;181(6):363-368). The Institute and its external advisors seemingly established this panel of epidemiologists and nonepidemiologists primarily to find ways to save research costs. Although the working group's recommendations offer reasonable approaches, we believe that, even in tough fiscal times, the main drivers of cardiovascular epidemiologic research must remain 1) scientific questions that are important and 2) study designs to match these. Although cardiovascular epidemiology admittedly is often redundant and needs to be more efficient, undue focus on administrative efficiency and cost savings will not necessarily guarantee cutting-edge population research.

Invited Commentary: Future of Population Studies--Defining Research Priorities and Processes