Thanks for the talk.
I had a question about the characteristics
of trustworthy researchers.
I think it was Wilkins. Yes.
I was just curious.
Do you know how they determine what those characteristics are?
Or do you know how, like, researchers
might do that in general?
Like, was it just sort of
they had a bunch of data and they
and they tried to notice certain patterns.
Or do they have a particular method
they used to find them?
Great.
I do not know right offhand.
And but,
I actually have it printed out some of
the other kind of conceptual models.
A lot of people have done focus groups with community
members.
Some things have been surveys about like what people
perceive as like what would be like
a trustworthy researcher or institution,
and then, a what is it?
And this is this for me, this anecdotally
going to a lot of conferences about this.
A lot of this is informed by like principles of community
based
participatory research and like principles
of community engaged research,
which, does come from the community,
but it's also a lot of community
minded researchers saying, in an ideal world, this
is,
you know, how we can do, like, research better.
Go ahead. Brittany.
I have a question about research match.org.
I'm wondering how they have been publicizing
that.
So 100,000 people signed up.
Sounds like a lot but not compared to the
population size.
It's like 120 now and it's kind of the same.
I've given this talk over like I know like a couple of
years ago.
It's like at 93,000.
I'm not exactly sure.
I know they were trying to, get the word out
through some of the, academic partners
that are involved.
So I think there's like,
I don't know, close to over a thousand
or maybe close to 1500 institutions, but,
I haven't really seen it, like on billboards and things.
So it's, I think one of those things
that if you're not probably
like looking for it, you may not have seen it, but,
yeah.
And it's been, it's been around, I think for at least a decade
now.
So maybe there were more efforts at the beginning or more obvious
efforts.
I know, like, for all of us, I don't see a ton for all of us
either.
But I do feel like when all of us
first came out,
especially through academic medical
centers, it was like a big, big thing.
And I see like billboards being like NIH.
So I would expect to see like things
for all of us.
But I don't really know how what their marketing plan is
right now.
And then my other question is, is it largely for healthy
volunteers
or is it condition specific, like when you
go in and say, I have type one diet or.
Yeah, it's both.
You can actually you can actually query.
I think it's either like the About Us
section, but you can see percentages.
I can't I did sign up for it, but I can't remember all the
conditions.
But I do know like there's information
about people with diabetes, hypertension,
maybe like
15 or 20 different conditions and people who are healthy
volunteers.
And I think, also,
like health care, like surrogates
who would also be interested
in, like settings for children.
So it's a mix of healthy volunteers and
people who have self-reported conditions.
And, it's a registry where people
like proactively sign up for it.
But you don't have to
you have to be signed up to get the like, alerts every so
often.
But anyone in the world
kind of like clinicaltrials.gov can also go on research matched
at work.
Who doesn't want to sign up officially
and also see, 2000 are available.
So it's a mix of both.
Thank you. Right.
That's a good point.
So there's hundreds of thousands of people have
registered.
But if tomorrow I wanted to look at cancer
trials
in Bethesda, I don't have to register.
I can just use it as a search engine.
And another just because I'm, like, nerdy
like that.
The engine behind Research Match is actually
clinicaltrials.gov,
so it just it looks nicer in my opinion.
It's more user friendly
to see it through the research match glove interface interface.
But people who are like just searching
who haven't registered
what speeding that is actually clinical
trials in the background
are clinicaltrials.gov, but it just looks
a little bit more user friendly.
Good to know. Right.
So they learned a lesson perhaps like
people aren't flocking to clinical trials.
Dot gov.
Because that sounds technical and goals and
so. Interesting.
And it's useful for research.
I mean I play around with it a lot
but it's research not scores.
It's really the purpose is to be a public listing of
trials.
I it's not always the most user friendly,
because you have to put in a lot of words
and how it comes up
and just it's functional, but I don't
I think it could be more user friendly.
So yeah, well thank you.