About

Sheila C. Murphy is a theorist and historian of computers and the Internet, serving as an associate professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Film, Television, and Media at the University of Michigan. She has been teaching at the university since 2002 and is also affiliated with the University of Michigan Digital Studies Institute. Murphy holds an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of California, Irvine, and a B.A. from the University of Rochester. Her scholarship spans traditional and new media platforms and industries, including the history of art, Atari, television, video games, online representations of animals and animality, surveillance technologies, the history of Polaroid, and the rise of the world wide web. She is the author of 'How Television Invented New Media' (Rutgers University Press, 2011) and has contributed essays to various collections such as The Routledge Companion to Media Technology and Obsolescence, The Video Game Theory Reader 2.0, and Moving Images: From Edison to the Webcam. Her current book project, 'Terms of Service: Silicon Valley and the Digital Imaginary,' examines the history of innovation in Silicon Valley. Murphy’s courses analyze how digital technologies have historically emerged in relation to everyday life, popular culture, and the history of visuality, emphasizing the development of critical literacies around digital media technologies.

Research topics

• Medicine
• Political Science
• Geography
• Pediatrics
• Internal medicine
• Virology
• Pathology
• Family medicine

Selected publications

• 201 Using a large language model to identify behavioral and social science research at the University of Michigan

  Journal of Clinical and Translational Science · 2026-04-01

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Objectives/Goals: To tailor support for behavioral and social science research (BSSR), it is helpful to understand this broad category. As a first step to characterizing BSSR at University of Michigan (UM), our goal is to use a large language model (LLM) to identify health-related BSSR from a database of funded studies. Methods/Study Population: We are using a private, secure version of Open AI ChatGPT-4.1 LLM to evaluate whether studies are health-related BSSR or not based on the study team’s (1) abstract, (2) objectives, and (3) key words entered into UM’s internal research proposal system for all studies funded over the last 10 years (i.e., 2014 – 2024). The model included a prompt with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) definition of BSSR and was instructed to categorize the research as being BSSR, not BSSR, or possibly BSSR. Results from the LLM were compared for consistency with assessments made by human-made decision rules. Results/Anticipated Results: Preliminary results from a pilot sample of 150 studies funded in 2024 (~5%) reviewed by ChatGPT for BSSR status revealed: 6 false positives, 128 true negatives, 14 true positives, and 2 false negatives. Accuracy = 95%, precision = 70%, recall (sensitivity) = 88%, specificity = 96%, and F1 Score = 0.78. ChatGPT and human-based decisions differed primarily on cognition and vehicle technology studies and studies for which information was sparse. Further refinements to the prompt are being made and applied to the remaining studies funded in 2024 before expanding to the entire sample of studies from the last 10 years. Discussion/Significance of Impact: It is time and cost prohibitive for a human to review and classify all funded studies at UM as BSSR or not. Using LLMs offers the potential to make this classification work feasible with limited resources, which is a necessary step toward understanding the state of BSSR.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Examining the Impact of Perceived and Objective Cognitive Function on Social Participation in Individuals With Multiple Sclerosis

  Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2026-04-01

  article
  PublisherDOI

• Moderating Effects of Clinical and Social Factors on Fatigue Improvement After an Online Peer-Led Fatigue Self-management Intervention in People With Systemic Sclerosis: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

  Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2025-05-16 · 1 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• The methodological quality is insufficient in clinical practice guidelines in the context of COVID-19: systematic review

  UNC Libraries · 2025-05-13

  articleOpen access
  PublisherDOI

• “We Have a Ways to Go, but I Think You’ve Taken the Steps to Get Us There”: Engaging Community Partners in Qualitative Analysis Using the RADaR Technique

  International Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2025-03-31 · 2 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Community-engaged research is an approach that helps foster partnerships between community members and researchers by incorporating community members across multiple stages of the research study. In doing so, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the insider perspective. One area that has received limited attention is the process of engaging community members in qualitative data analysis. To overcome this limitation, we outline how we implemented and adapted the Rigorous and Accelerated Data Reduction (RADaR) technique to explore learners' perceptions and experiences of a tailored research best practices training for Community Health Workers and Promotoras. We reflect on the strengths and challenges of using the RADaR technique in community-engaged research and provide a list of considerations for researchers engaging in a similar process. We also incorporate the community partner's perspectives on engaging in qualitative data analysis. This article provides a step-by-step approach for engaging community partners in the qualitative data analysis process, particularly using the RADaR technique, as a strategy for enhancing research quality and mitigating the power imbalance between researchers and communities.

  PublisherDOI

• Prevalence and Correlates of Poor Sleep Quality in a Sample of Minoritized Older Adults with Chronic Pain

  Journal of Pain · 2025-04-01

  article
  PublisherDOI

• “Our work is recognized and we are prepared:” A qualitative evaluation of a peer-led research best practices training for community health workers and promotoras

  Journal of Clinical and Translational Science · 2025-01-01 · 1 citations

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Introduction: To overcome the dearth of high-quality, evidence-based, role-specific training for community health workers and promotoras (CHW/Ps) working with research teams, we developed and evaluated a peer-led research best practices training for CHW/Ps. This article qualitatively explores the training experiences from the perspectives of CHW/Ps. Methods: CHW/Ps were recruited from communities and partners affiliated with study sites in Michigan, Florida, and California to participate in peer facilitated trainings in English and Spanish. A purposeful sample of CHW/Ps completed interviews from July to December 2023 about their perceptions of the training. Three coders analyzed the interviews using a combination of the rigorous and accelerated data reduction (RADaR) technique and thematic text analysis. Results: = 7 in Spanish). The mean age was 43.7 ± 14.5 years, most were female (59%), and 47% identified as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. We identified three primary themes, each with resulting subthemes: (1) CHW/Ps' Perceptions of the Training, (2) Factors Influencing Receipt of the Training, and (3) CHW/Ps' Recommendations for Future Trainings. Despite offering some opportunities for improvement in various areas, CHW/P learners found the training further clarified their role as CHW/Ps, enhanced their knowledge and skills, and provided a beneficial foundation for CHW/Ps working in community-engaged research. Conclusion: A peer-led research best practices training for CHW/Ps is an effective strategy for enhancing CHW/Ps' knowledge and skills. Training CHW/Ps in research best practices is a strategy for enhancing the capacity and capability of this community-engaged research workforce.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• POS0266 DEVELOPMENT OF AN ARTICULAR SCORE IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS (ASSESS): IDENTIFICATION OF CORE INSTRUMENTS TO ASSESS DISEASE ACTIVITY

  Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · 2025-06-01

  articleOpen access

  <h2>Abstract</h2><h3>Background:</h3> Inflammatory joint and tendon involvement resulting in pain and reduced joint function affects up to 30% of patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) and represents a major burden on patient quality of life. The lack of standardized outcome measurements for assessing articular involvement in SSc not only limits the development of evidence-based therapies, but also results in incomplete clinical picture of joint involvement in SSc. <h3>Objectives:</h3> We aimed at identifying core instruments for the development of a consensus-based multi-outcome domain: the Articular Score in SystEmic ScleroSis (ASSESS) to assess articular activity among SSc patients for use in both clinical practice and trials. <h3>Methods:</h3> A steering committee comprising of 12 rheumatologists, 1 epidemiologist, 1 occupational therapist, and 3 patient research partners, was convened. The articular score was developed through a stepwise iterative process (Figure 1). First, a dedicated scoping review was conducted in PubMed/Medline (January 1960 to April 2023), where two reviewers independently identified eligible studies assessing joint and tendon involvement in SSc and extracted the instruments used to assess outcomes. After expert opinion discussion, instruments were selected if they were considered both feasible and valid by at least 70% of the steering committee. Selected instruments were further assessed by two independent reviewers using OMERACT filters. The results were presented to the steering committee and after a 2-step online Delphi survey, final core instruments to assess articular activity in SSc patients were defined. <h3>Results:</h3> Among a total of 770 identified references, 658 were excluded based on their title and/or abstract resulting in 112 articles being examined based on the full text (Figure 1). Overall, 82 studies were included, of which 43 instruments that were used for assessing articular activity in at least two studies were identified. Based on domain match and feasibility, 9 clinical, 1 laboratory, 3 clinico-biological and 3 patient-reported outcomes (Table 1) were selected for consideration in the articular activity score. Based on the measurement property analysis according to OMERACT guidelines, the steering committee voted and selected the 6 instruments to be included in the composite score to assess joint and tendon activity in SSc patients. The ASSESS score will comprise: clinical (tender and swollen joint count, standard 28 joints with the addition of distal interphalangeal joints; the presence of tendon friction rubs), serological (CRP), and patient and physician reported outcome measurements (VAS activity pain patient, VAS activity doctor) instruments. <h3>Conclusion:</h3> The steering committee identified 6 meaningful core instruments to assess articular activity in SSc patients. This represents the foundation for further development of a composite score for joint and tendon involvement in SSc for use in both clinical practice and trials. In the subsequent steps, we plan to obtain weight for individual instruments within longitudinal SSc cohorts using the presence of activity in ultrasound and a patient-reported questionnaire (Likert scale 1-5) as anchors. Figure 1Scoping review search strategy. <h3>REFERENCES:</h3> <b>NIL</b>. Table 1Identified core instruments for assessing disease articular activity in SSc patients.ClinicalSerologyClinico-biological scorePatient reported outcomes○ Ritchie articular index○ Number of tender joints○ Number of swollen joints○ Number of synovitis○ Presence of tendon friction rubs○ Number of tendon frictions rubs○ CRP○ DAS28-ESR○ DAS28-CRP○ SDAI○ Visual analogic scale for articular pain (patient)○ Visual analogic scale for disease activity (patient)○ Visual analogic scale for disease activity (physician) <h3>Acknowledgements:</h3> <b>NIL</b>. <h3>Disclosure of Interests:</h3> Blaž Burja: <b>None declared</b>, Paco M.J. Welsing: <b>None declared</b>, Alain Lescoat: <b>None declared</b>, Andreas Eisenring: <b>None declared</b>, Anna-Maria Hoffmann-Vold Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis and Roche, AbbVie, ARXX, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pliant Therapeutics, Roche and Werfen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Claire Leroy David: <b>None declared</b>, Dinesh Khanna: <b>None declared</b>, Francesco Del Galdo: <b>None declared</b>, Michele Iudici: <b>None declared</b>, Janet Pope: <b>None declared</b>, Julia Spierings: <b>None declared</b>, Madelon Vonk: <b>None declared</b>, Marie-Elise Truchetet AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, and UCB, Martine Clergeau: <b>None declared</b>, Michael Hughes: <b>None declared</b>, Susan L Murphy: <b>None declared</b>, Tracy Frech: <b>None declared</b>, Oliver Distler 4P-Pharma, Abbvie, Acceleron, Acepodia Biotech, Aera, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Anaveon AG, Argenx, AstraZeneca, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calluna (Arxx), Cantargia AB, Catalyze Capital, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, Horizon, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, MSD Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nkarta Inc., Novartis, Orion, Pilan, Prometheus, Quell, Redxpharma, Roivant, EMD Serono, Topadur and UCB, Co-founder of CITUS AG, 4P-Pharma, Abbvie, Acceleron, Acepodia Biotech, Aera, Alcimed, Altavant, Amgen, AnaMar, Anaveon AG, Argenx, AstraZeneca, Blade, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Calluna (Arxx), Cantargia AB, Catalyze Capital, Corbus, CSL Behring, Galderma, Galapagos, Glenmark, Gossamer, Horizon, Janssen, Kymera, Lupin, Medscape, MSD Merck, Miltenyi Biotec, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Nkarta Inc., Novartis, Orion, Pilan, Prometheus, Quell, Redxpharma, Roivant, EMD Serono, Topadur and UCB, BI, Kymera, Mitsubishi Tanabe, UCB, Muriel Elhai Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Novartis Foundation for Bio-Medical Research. © The Authors 2025. This abstract is an open access article published in Annals of Rheumatic Diseases under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Neither EULAR nor the publisher make any representation as to the accuracy of the content. The authors are solely responsible for the content in their abstract including accuracy of the facts, statements, results, conclusion, citing resources etc.

  PublisherDOI

• Development and Testing of the Protocol Quality Rating Tool (<scp>PQRT</scp>) to Evaluate Clinical Trial Protocol Document Quality

  Clinical and Translational Science · 2025-04-28

  articleOpen access

  A high-quality protocol document is essential for the successful and efficient implementation of clinical trials, but there is no consensus on how clinical trial protocol document quality should be evaluated. We used a modified Delphi approach and cognitive interviews to develop a new protocol document quality assessment tool, the Protocol Quality Rating Tool (PQRT). We compiled a checklist of elements that should be included in a high-quality trial protocol document and asked experts to rate the importance of each element. We developed the PQRT by describing the expected content of each element and identified essential vs. additional (bonus) content to differentiate high- versus low-quality protocol documents and then organized the elements into 18 sections. We revised the PQRT based on feedback from and cognitive interviews with our protocol quality rating team. We then tested the PQRT using ten protocol documents previously approved by the Institutional Review Board. All the protocol quality raters found the tool easy to use and their scores were highly concordant for eight of ten protocol documents. We have developed and tested a simple tool to measure clinical trial protocol document quality and encourage other researchers to evaluate and validate it.

  PublisherDOI

• 157 Development of a skills assessment for the formative evaluation of clinical research professionals working in behavioral and social science research contexts

  Journal of Clinical and Translational Science · 2025-03-25

  articleOpen accessSenior author

  Objectives/Goals: To support the growing number of clinical research professionals (CRP) working in behavioral and social science contexts, relevant formative assessments of research skills are needed. This study examines the development of an objective formative assessment designed to assess skills relevant to conducting social and behavioral research. Methods/Study Population: A multidisciplinary group at the University of Michigan was convened to develop the assessment. Case studies depicting clinical and translational research conducted in behavioral and social science contexts were used to measure proficiency in seven of the eight ECRPTQ competencies: Scientific Concepts &amp; Research Design, Ethical &amp; Participant Safety Concerns, Clinical Trial Operations (Good Clinical Practice), Study &amp; Site Management, Data Management &amp; Informatics, Leadership &amp; Professionalism, Communication, and Teamwork &amp; Team Science. Three difficulty levels of questions were developed: basic, intermediate, and advanced. To reinforce knowledge and skill development, the assessment was designed to give respondents formative feedback after responding to each question. Results/Anticipated Results: A preliminary “pre-pilot” test was conducted with three postdoctoral scholars to ensure that the assessment items were understandable. The assessment was then pilot tested with a larger group of 40 clinical research professionals (CRP) to test for the clarity and difficulty level of the items. A smaller group of 20 of these CRPs agreed to participate in focus groups to obtain feedback on their user experience. Data regarding years of experience as a CRP, types of studies engaged with, and information regarding professional certification were collected and used in the analyses. Demographic data collected were not connected to user responses. Results of the pilot test and focus groups were used to revise the questions on the final version of the assessment. Discussion/Significance of Impact: To our knowledge, this is the first objective assessment of research skills for CRP working in behavioral and social science contexts. We will discuss how other institutions can use this instrument to evaluate the training needs of their social and behavioral research workforce.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

Recent grants

• NIH Grant K01HD045293

  NIH · $500k · 2009

• NIH Grant F32AG005909

  NIH · $89k

• Effectiveness Of Tailored Activity Pacing For Symptomatic Osteoarthritis

  NIH · 2010–2013

Frequent coauthors

• Alain Lescoat

  Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes

  109 shared

• Dinesh Khanna

  68 shared

• Yen T. Chen

  Scleroderma Foundation

  67 shared

• Anna L. Kratz

  Michigan Medicine

  64 shared

• Maya H Buch

  University of Leeds

  34 shared

• Stacey L. Schepens Niemiec

  University of Southern California

  27 shared

• Mary R. Janevic

  26 shared

• Angela J. Woodiwiss

  University of the Witwatersrand

  23 shared