Week 3 Assignment

Week 3 Assignment

Part One: Background Information from a Web Search
1.     Cognitive disorders and gum disease
2.     Carrot2.org
a.      There might be a link between gum disease and cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s.  Pereodontic bacteria might affect/exacerbate features of Alzheimer’s Disease.  Porphyromonas gingivalis bacteria is strongly involved in the onset and progression of periodontitis which may contribute to the onset and the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. 
b.     Porphyromonas gingivalis and other related periodontal bacteria.  Tau proteins and this bacterium.  Amino acids produced by Porphyromonas gingivalis.  Toxic proteases called gingipains.
c.      Do all oral bacteria contribute or have correlation?  What if you have an abscessed tooth but it’s not due to periodontal disease; is it the same bacteria or does that bacteria have a correlation as well?
d.     Porphyromonas gingivalis (related); Alzheimer’s Disease (broad); Tau proteins (narrow); gingipains (distinctive)

Part Two: Evaluating a Website
1.     https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-links-gum-disease-causing-bacteria-to-alzheimers/
2.     Cbsnews.com – commercial site evoking interest in articles they publish so that they can make money, most likely through paid advertisements.  Below the article, there were other unrelated articles on cbsnews.com, but also ads appearing to be news articles that redirected to outside sites appearing to sell products.
3.     Authority – CBSNews is not an authority in any area of research related to the topic.  There is an ‘about’ page that describes CBS as a mass media company that creates and distributes news content.  Ashley Welch wrote the news article.  When looking for her credentials (google, searching for bio on CBS, Facebook), I could not find anything about her beyond what is on her Twitter account which doesn’t state any degrees or credentials.
4.     Currency – The article was published and updated on January 24, 2019.  The links throughout the article reference information such as journal articles from 2016-2019, multiple linked news articles from 2017, and a study published in 2017.  I would say that the information is current.  A study published in 2017 is very recent.
5.     Accuracy – Interestingly, one of the journal articles linked within the news article is one that I found when searching on carrot2.org.  It provides data supporting the claim on the news article.  The research conducted in 2017 found that those exposed to chronic periodontitis, over 10 years, had just under 2% increase risk of developing AD.
6.     Purpose - They do not address conflicting opinions or data.  From what I can tell, they do not display any biases other than to publish new and exciting information to allure readers as evidenced by a lack of any ads or links to products related to oral health.

Part Three: Evaluating a Wikipedia Article
1.     Porphyromonas gingivalis
a.      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyromonas_gingivalis
b.     While the wiki article is not exceptionally long, it is well-structured.  One thing that stood out to me after reading the article is that it seems to me that there could be more information on or development of periodontal disease.  However, the article is about the bacteria and it does a great job explaining it as well as linking to various and relating sites/articles. 
c.       There are no warning messages at the top of the article
d.     All facts and claims appear to be referenced
e.      The article is clear and concise, however there are no illustrations
f.       There are 38 referenced articles, which seems appropriate.  The sources are published journal articles from a variety of journal sources.  There are multiple external links broken down into subcategories such as microbiology, dentistry, and infectious diseases.
2.     From the “Talk” page:
a.      WikiProjects: Medicine, Microbiology, and Women’s Health
b.     It is rated Start-Class on the Quality Scale for all three projects.
c.      This rating seems somewhat critical; however, the start-class says it is for articles that are in development and leave readers wanting more.  Since the projects are medicine and microbiology, I imagine people that are knowledgeable in that area might want to see more data and references.
d.     Nothing on the Talk page other than the projects and ratings.  I do not see any other communication from editors.
3.     View History page:
a.      I noticed that there weren’t any recent updates since June 2018 until recently there have been three updates.  I imagine that this is due to some of the research that appears to have come out very recently.

Part Four: Reflect
Having researched, read and written papers for my various classes over the past four years, I have always researched articles through EBSCO or PubMed.  I have stayed away from Wikipedia and other search engines, especially at this depth of research.  It was interesting to look at it from the angle of using Wikipedia as a source for information; albeit I wouldn’t use the data or information in writing a scholarly paper.  However, I did find that it might be a good place to start in the search for topics and information.  Also, Wikipedia might also lead me to some related scholarly articles to look up and use.

My Information Search Process

I found it interesting that there has been a process identified and explained as to how we process through identifying, gathering, organizing and presenting information through research.  Having not spent time thinking about this process for myself, it was eye-opening as to how, looking back at myself, I see I have gone through the stages explained by Kuhlthau. 

Using a recent experience in researching and presenting a review and presentation on age-related cognitive deterioration, I will go through each stage and elaborate on the stages in the Information Search Process (ISP) as described by Kuhlthau.  My assignment was to select a topic relating to neuropsychology to research, write a research review, and present a 2-minute presentation to the class. 

In stage one, initiation, I considered a few interests or topics I was interested in but knew little about.  I was uncertain as to what topic to choose, how I was going satisfy the assignment, and all the details in-between.

In stage two, selection, I didn’t know what topics to research and what articles to look for; I just knew I was interested in age-related cognitive decline.  I began to become curious; interested in selecting a topic as well as learning something about age-related cognition.

In stage three, exploration, based on the initial reading and searching through articles, my interest and curiosity increased, but doubt and anxiety increased as I became overwhelmed with the amount of data and information related to age-related cognition and how the brain works.  While I was overwhelmed, I was also curious.  I allowed my curiosity and interests to drive me through the amount of data; keeping my focus on the surface and not digging too deep on the intricate workings of the brain.

In stage four, formulation, I was able to narrow down my focus to how caffeine affects neurological changes in the brain and how they relate to age-related deficits.  I maintained my research or reading on the surface as to not overwhelm myself with data.  The assignment was, moreover, a short review and a two-minute presentation.

In stage five, collection, I continued reading through articles and focused primarily on age-related neurocognitive decline and how caffeine affects specific aspects of cognition, such as working memory.  As I read, I became more informed and even more curious.  However, I still did not understand everything.  I even reached out to an old friend who is a neuropsychologist and professor of neuroscience for some clarification.

In stage six, presentation, I was tasked with taking all of the collected data and information and present them in a short review (we were given a word-count max).  As I worked through my review, focusing on specific aspects of working memory, I found that it was easier to write my thoughts and findings in a way that was understandable.  Writing my own thoughts and presenting the data, were satisfying and brought feelings of accomplishment that I experience even today.

Reflecting on this process has helped me to understand that maintaining an approach of staying on the surface of my research until I have made a selection and have spent enough time considering ideas for my primary focus.  I believe that, given the depth of the assignment and topic, I would have maintained my feelings of being overwhelmed had I not focused on the surface of the research data.

I guess I'm a blogger now

So I had a surprise email from my school adviser today informing me that she overlooked that I was 1 upper division credit short.  So, here I am (luckily only week 2) in a class to learn more about conducting online research.
So, let's buckle up and get caught up!