CME activity	Activity 2	Activity 3

Sample size	n=1237	n=611

Responses to: Practitioners are asked to report drug adverse events:

A. To MedWatch

B. Only when the adverse event is not specified on the drug label

C. Within 30 days of occurrence, as required by law.

D. Voluntarily, if observed within 30 days of the first dose

Correct (A)	698 (56%)	237 (39%)

Incorrect (B)	85 (7%)	53 (9%)

Incorrect (C)	203 (10%)	174 (29%)

Incorrect (D)	243 (20%)	146 (24%)

Correct vs. Predicted	−14%	−31%

CME activity

Sample size

Responses to: Practitioners are asked to report drug adverse events:

A. To MedWatch

B. Only when the adverse event is not specified on the drug label

C. Within 30 days of occurrence, as required by law.

D. Voluntarily, if observed within 30 days of the first dose

Correct (A)

Incorrect (B)

Incorrect (C)

Incorrect (D)

Correct vs. Predicted

Activity 2	Activity 3

n=1237	n=611

Responses to: Practitioners are asked to report drug adverse events:

A. To MedWatch

B. Only when the adverse event is not specified on the drug label

C. Within 30 days of occurrence, as required by law.

D. Voluntarily, if observed within 30 days of the first dose

698 (56%)	237 (39%)

85 (7%)	53 (9%)

203 (10%)	174 (29%)

243 (20%)	146 (24%)

−14%	−31%


Presyn	Postsyn	Type	Conv	Div	# Synapses

MF	Glom	Excitatory	1	20	5000

Glom	GR	Excitatory	4	53	262,400

Glom	GO	Excitatory	40	0.77	4000

GO	GR	Inhibitory	3.23	2120	212,000

GR	GO	Excitatory	2000	3	200,000

GR	PC	Excitatory	65,600	400	26,240,000

IO	PC	Teaching	1	10	400

PC	DCN	Inhibitory	40	5	2,000

DCN (30%)	IO	Inhibitory	0.34	1	14

IO	DCN	Excitatory	1	1,41	50

MF	DCN	Excitatory	12	2.4	600

Total number of synapses	26,926,464


Transporters	Organism	Cells/Tissue	Cargo (proteins) specific to each importin or exportin	Reference

Importin α1	Human	ROS 17/2.8, UMR-106, MC3T3-E1, and SaOS-2	Type 1 parathyroid hormone receptor	[62]

Importin α2	Human	HuT-78 cells	GATA-3	[63]

Importin α3	Human	A5A9 lung cells, human Bronchial smooth muscle cells	NF-κB p50/p65	[25, 50]

Importin α3	Mouse	Mouse lung tissue	NF-κB p65	[11]

Importin α4	Human	A5A9 lung cells	NF-κB p50/p65	[25]

Importin α5	Human	COS-1HepG2HuH7 hepatoma cells	STAT3 STAT1-STAT2	[45] [43]

Importin β1	Human	HEK293HUVECC58CO57HeLa	PRPF31NF-κBCREBPTHrPSRY/SOX-9Cyclin B1NFAT	[64–69][33][68]

Importin β1	Mouse	Sf9	NFAT	[69]

Importin β2	Human	HeLa	HPV16E6 oncoprotein	[70]

Importin β3	Human	HeLa	c-JunRibosomal proteins	[71, 72]

Importin 4	Human	HeLa	Vitamin D receptorHIF1-α	[73, 74]

Importin 5	Human	HeLa	c-Jun	[70]

Importin 7	Human	HeLa	c-JunHistone H1CREBSMAD3Glucocorticoid receptor	[71][75, 76][33][48][55]

Importin 8	Human	HaCaTCOS-1	SMADsSignal recognition particle protein 19	[76, 77]

Importin 9	Human	HeLa	c-JunPP2A (PR65)	[71][78]

Importin 11	Human	BHK	L12UbcM2	[79, 80]

Importin 13	Human	HeLaAirway epithelial cells	c-JunGlucocorticoid receptor	[71] [57]

Importin α/β	Human	HTCMCF-7	HIV-1 integraseP53	[81, 82]

Exportin 1	Human	NIH-3H3HeLa	Cyclin D1IκBNFAT	[14, 26, 83, 84]

Exportin 4	Mouse	HeLa	elF-5A	[15]

Exportin 5	Human	BHK	Staufen2	[85]

Exportin 6	Human	 	Actin	[86]

Exportin 7	Human	HeLaBHK	P50RhoGAP	[87]

Exportin t	Human	HeLa	tRNA	[72, 88]


		Total (N = 2,984)	Healthcare care utilization in the past 12 months (n = 1,978)	Any marital violence in the past 12 months (n = 834)

		%a	Prevalence %b	Χ2 (DF)	p value	Prevalence %b	Χ2 (DF)	p value

Health care	Utilized	66.3				29.3	5.10 (1)	0.024*

Not utilized	33.7				25.4

Marital violence	Any	28.0	69.4	5.10 (1)	0.024*


Maternal Infection Status

No malaria

No hookworm

Hookworm

Had malaria

No hookworm

Hookworm

Pinteraction = .23c

No malaria

No Mansonella perstans

M. perstans

Had malaria

No M. perstans

M. perstans

Pinteraction = .32c

No malaria

No Schistosoma mansoni

S. mansoni

Had malaria

No S. mansoni

S. mansoni

Pinteraction = .50c


Metric	Target Performance

HC	Communication latency and energy consumption reduction (indirectly)

ETX	Reduction of required frame retransmissions

RE	Expansion of network lifetime

PFI	Reduction of network-layer losses

ETT	Assignment of weights to the individual links

WCETT	Focus on fixed nodes of local networks


Variable	Perc. difference (with - without OB)	Difference (with - without OB)	t-stats

Hourly Revenue (Eur)	15.4	6.9	2.76

Waiting time (Min)	3.66	6.2	0.34

Idle time (Min)	−1.42	−9.1	−1.33

Overtime (Min)	4.05	10	0.3

Number of days with OB	112

of days without OB	62

Variable	Perc. difference (with - without OB)	Difference (with - without OB)	t-stats

Hourly Revenue (Eur)	15.4	6.9	2.76

Waiting time (Min)	3.66	6.2	0.34

Idle 	−1.		−1.33

time (Min)	42	−9.1

Overtime (Min)	4.05	10	0.3

Number of days with OB	112

of days without OB	62


Task	Search	Share	Read	Repeat	Comp man	Comp auto	Query	Analyse	Browse	Populate

Importance	Low	Med	Med	High	Low	High	Low	Low	Low	Med

Task	Search	Share	Read	Repeat	Comp man	Comp auto	Query	Analyse	Browse	Populate

Impor	Lo	M	Me	Hi	Low	Hig		Lo	Lo	Me


 	Proteinuria negative (n = 13)	Proteinuria positive (n = 67)	p value

 	Median	(min–max)	IQR	Median	(min–max)	IQR

*Systolic blood pressure	117	103–136	20	126	95–184	16	0,11

*Diastolic blood pressure	77	64–94	10	74	57–98	10	0,13

*Pulse pressure 	41	26–51	9	52	32–78	13	0,01

*Mean aortic pressure	100	73–120	13,5	100	70–133	17	0,24

Aortic distensibility	2,93	1,56–14,40	3,70	2,44	0,32–11,20	1,98	0,14

Aortic systolic diameter (mm)	30,61	26,55–38,31	5,60	33,11	25,81–48,16	6,30	0,01

Aortic diastolic diameter (mm)	29,18	26,10–37,71	5,84	32,78	25,46–47,06	6,62	0,008

	Proteinuria negative (n = 13)	Proteinuria positive (n = 67)	p value

	Median	(min–max)	IQR	Median	(min–max)	IQR

Aortic distensibility	2,93	1,56–14,40	3,70	2,44	0,32–11,20	1,98	0,14

Aortic systolic diameter (mm)	30,61	26,55–38,31	5,60	33,11	25,81–48,16	6,30	0,01

Aortic diastolic diameter (mm)	29,18	26,10–37,71	5,84	32,78	25,46–47,06	6,62	0,008


Feeding model*	Time of measurement	Reference

	2 h	4, 5, or 6 h	24 h

MCH-INDUCED HYPERPHAGIA IN RAT

Male Sprague-Dawley		−90%		Takekawa et al. (2002)

Male Sprague-Dawley	−72%			Moriya et al. (2009)

Male Sprague-Dawley	−75%	−75%		Nagasaki et al. (2009)

Male Wistar	−70%			Borowsky et al. (2002)

FASTING-INDUCED FEEDING

Male Wistar rats	−35%	−30%	−25%	Huang et al. (2005)

Mice (strain and gender unknown)	−80%	−40%		Balavoine et al. (2007)

DIO male C57BL/6NCrl:BR mice	−35%	−32%	−22%	McBriar et al. (2006)

DIO mice (strain and gender unknown)		−17%	−14%	Palani et al. (2005)

DIO mice (strain and gender unknown)	−12%	−20%	−9%	Sasikumar et al. (2006)

SPONTANEOUS FEEDING

Male Sprague-Dawley rats			−30%	Kamata et al. (2011)

Female KKAy mice	−63%			Kamata et al. (2011)

DIO C57BL/6J mice (gender unknown)			−19%	Haga et al. (2011)

DIO mice (strain and gender unknown)			−21%	Xu et al. (2006)

DIO male F344/Jcl rats			−30%	Kasai et al. (2012)

DIO male F344/Jcl rats		−28%		Kasai et al. (2011)

DIO male Sprague-Dawley rats			−31%	Kowalski and Sasikumar (2007)

Male Sprague-Dawley rats, ingestion of condensed milk#	−45%			Borowsky et al. (2002)


	50–59 yrs	60-69 yrs	≥70 yrs

Patients	1310	1180	726

Cases of vertebral fracture


	Number of ACT	% first-line treatment

Benin	95	83.2

DRC	131	67.9

Madagascar	83	76.9

Nigeria	171	88.1

Uganda	360	100.0

Zambia	380	99.5

	Number of ACT	% first-line treatment

DRC	131	67.9

Madagascar	83	76.9

Nigeria	171	88.1

Uganda	360	100.0

Zambia	380	99.5


	Bone 1	Bone 2	Bone 3	Bone 4	Bone 5	Bone 6	Bone 7

Bone 1	-	NS	NS	NS	S	NS	NS

Bone 2	NS	-	NS	NS	S	NS	NS

Bone 3	NS	NS	-	NS	S	NS	NS

Bone 4	NS	NS	NS	-	NS	NS	NS

Bone 5	S	S	S	NS	-	S	NS

Bone 6	NS	NS	NS	NS	S	-	NS

Bone 7	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS	-


Variables	UC (N = 181)

Sex

 Male	107 (59.1%)

Age at UC diagnosis (years), median (IQR)	35.8 (26.1–47.8)

Age at FC level measurement (years), median (IQR)	40.5 (29.2–53.8)

Disease duration before FC level measurement (months), median (IQR)	18.4 (1.9–59.5)

Maximum extent of UC

 Proctitis	33 (18.2%)

 Left-sided colitis	47 (26.0%)

 Extensive colitis	101 (55.8%)

Disease severity of UC

 Clinical remission (Mayo score 0-2)	17 (9.4%)

 Mild activity (Mayo score 3-5)	48 (26.5%)

 Moderate activity (Mayo score 6-10)	98 (54.1%)

 Severe activity (Mayo score 11-12)	18 (10.0%)

Smoking status at UC diagnosis

 Never smoker	100 (55.2%)

 Former smoker	47 (26.0%)

 Current smoker	34 (18.8%)

Family history of IBD

 No family history	171 (94.5%)

 First-degree relative	9 (5.0%)

 Second-degree relative	1 (0.5%)

History of medication use at FC level measurement

 Oral 5-ASA	154 (85.1%)

 Topical 5-ASA	116 (64.1%)

 Topical steroids	32 (17.7%)

 Systemic corticosteroids	124 (68.5%)

 Thiopurines	58 (32.0%)

 Cyclosporine	4 (2.2%)

 Anti-TNF agents	30 (16.6%)

FC level (mg/kg), median (IQR)	1518.0 (360.0–4205.0)

Hematocrit value (%), median (IQR)	37.7 (32.8–42.0)

Serum albumin level (g/dL), median (IQR)	3.7 (2.9–4.0)

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mm/h), median (IQR)	26.0 (11.5–44.5)

White blood cell count (×103 /uL), median (IQR)	7.1 (5.6–9.5)

Platelet count (×103 /uL), median (IQR)	300.0 (242.0–379.0)

C-reactive protein level (mg/L), median (IQR)	0.41 (0.10–2.37)

Partial Mayo score, median (IQR)	5 (2–6.5)

Mayo endoscopic subscore, median (IQR)	3 (2–3)

Mayo score, median (IQR)	6 (3–8)

UCEIS, median (IQR)	4 (3–6)

Variables	UC (N = 181)

Proctitis	33 (18.2%)

Left-sided colitis	47 (26.0%)

Extensive colitis	101 (55.8%)

Disease severity of UC

Clinical remission (Mayo score 0-2)	17 (9.4%)

Mild activity (Mayo score 3-5)	48 (26.5%)

Moderate activity (Mayo score 6-10)	98 (54.1%)

Severe activity (Mayo score 11-12)	18 (10.0%)

Smoking status at UC diagnosis

Never smoker	100 (55.2%)

Former smoker	47 (26.0%)

Current smoker	34 (18.8%)

Family history of IBD

No family history	171 (94.5%)

First-degree relative	9 (5.0%)

Second-degree relative	1 (0.5%)

History of medication use at FC level measurement

Oral 5-ASA	154 (85.1%)

Topical 5-ASA	116 (64.1%)

Topical steroids	32 (17.7%)

Systemic corticosteroids	124 (68.5%)

Thiopurines	58 (32.0%)

Cyclosporine	4 (2.2%)

Anti-TNF agents	30 (16.6%)

FC level (mg/kg), median (IQR)	1518.0 (360.0–4205.0)

Hematocrit value (%), median (IQR)	37.7 (32.8–42.0)

Serum albumin level (g/dL), median (IQR)	3.7 (2.9–4.0)

Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (mm/h), median (IQR)	26.0 (11.5–44.5)

White blood cell count (×103 /uL), median (IQR)	7.1 (5.6–9.5)

Platelet count (×103 /uL), median (IQR)	300.0 (242.0–379.0)

C-reactive protein level (mg/L), median (IQR)	0.41 (0.10–2.37)

Partial Mayo score, median (IQR)	5 (2–6.5)

Mayo endoscopic subscore, median (IQR)	3 (2–3)

Mayo score, median (IQR)	6 (3–8)

UCEIS, median (IQR)	4 (3–6)


Authors (year), country	Participants	Tool (cut-off if provided)	Results

Burch et al. (2008) [63], South AfricaRisk of bias: High	790	MEWS	Hospital admissionMEWS 0–2 (ref)MEWS 3–4: RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.6)MEWS ≥5: RR 1.7 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0)In-hospital mortalityMEWS 0–2 (ref)MEWS 3–4: RR 2.8 (95% CI 1.7 to 4.8)MEWS ≥5: RR 4.6 (95% CI 2.7 to 7.8)

Correia et al. (2014) [55], PortugalRisk of bias: Unclear	65	EWS	Length of hospital stay & MortalityScore at 24 h and 12 h seemed to predict both length of stay and mortality (p < 0.05). The EWS would have increased early medical attention by 40% if a threshold of ≥3 was used.

Dundar et al. (2015) [41], TurkeyRisk of bias: Low	671	MEWSVIEWS	HospitalisationMEWS (≥3): AUROC 0.73 (95% CI 0.69–0.77)VIEWS (≥6): AUROC 0.76 (95% CI 0.72–0.79)In-hospital mortalityMEWS (≥4): AUROC 0.89 (95% CI 0.84–0.94)VIEWS (≥8): AUROC 0.90 (95% CI 0.86–0.94)

Eick et al. (2015) [42], GermanyRisk of bias: Low	5730	MEWS	In-hospital mortalityAUROC: 0.71 (0.67–0.75; p < 0.001)

Graham et al. (2007) [56], Hong KongRisk of bias: Unclear (Conference abstract)	413	MEWS (>4)	In-hospital mortalityOR 8.3 (95% CI 1.1–60.4), p = 0.013ED re-attendance within 48 hOR 45.2 (95% CI 3.4–568.9), p < 0.0001

Heitz et al. (2010) [43], USARisk of bias: Low	280	MEWS Max (≥4)MEWS plus	Need for higher level of care or mortality within 24 hMEWS Max: AUROC 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66–0.79)MEWS Plus: AUROC 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69–0.82)

Junhasavasdiku et al. (2012) [58], ThailandRisk of bias: Unclear	381	MEWS	MortalityMEWS at ED was associated with mortality (p < 0.001)

Naidoo et al. (2014) [62], South AfricaRisk of bias: High	265	TEWS	Discharge within 24 h of admission, admission to a ward, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), and death in hospital.TEWS <7: 53.7% discharged; no admitted to ICU; none died.TEWS ≥7: 18.7% discharged; 3 admitted to ICU; 4 died

Olsson et al. (2003) [33], SwedenRisk of bias: Low	1027	APACHE IIRAPSREMS	MortalityREMS: AUROC: 0.91 ± 0.02RAPS: AUROC: 0.87 ± 0.02APACHE II: AUROC: 0.90 ± 0.02

Olsson et al. (2004) [34], SwedenRisk of bias: Low	11,751	RAPSREMS	MortalityRAPS: AUROC: 0.65 ± 0.02REMS: AUROC: 0.85 ± 0.01

Subbe et al. (2006) [50], UKRisk of bias: Low	(a) 53 unselected; (b): 49 ICU admission; (c): 49 ED admission, transferred to ward then ICU	MEWS (>2)ASSIST (>3)MET (=1)MTS (orange or red)	Patients identified as critically ill (at risk of deterioration)MTS: Sensitivity: (a) 15%; (b) 96%; (c) 65%MEWS: Sensitivity (a): 8%; (b) 77%; (c) 55%ASSIST: Sensitivity (a): 0%; (b) 22%; (c) 16%MET: Sensitivity (a) 0%; (b) 2%; (c) 7%

Wang et al. (2016) [60], TaiwanRisk of bias: Unclear	99	CCIMEWS	Survival to dischargeCCI: Adjusted OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.38–0.84); p = 0.005Peri-arrest MEWS: Adjusted OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.60–0.97); p = 0.028

Authors (year), country	Participants	Tool (cut-off if provided)

Burch et al. (2008) [63], South AfricaRisk of bias: High	790	MEWS

Correia et al. (2014) [55], PortugalRisk of bias: Unclear	65	EWS

Dundar et al. (2015) [41], TurkeyRisk of bias: Low	671	MEWSVIEWS

Eick et al. (2015) [42], GermanyRisk of bias: Low	5730	MEWS

Graham et al. (2007) [56], Hong KongRisk of bias: Unclear (Conference abstract)	413	MEWS (>4)

Heitz et al. (2010) [43], USARisk of bias: Low	280	MEWS Max (≥4)MEWS plus

Junhasavasdiku et al. (2012) [58], ThailandRisk of bias: Unclear	381	MEWS

Naidoo et al. (2014) [62], South AfricaRisk of bias: High	265	TEWS

Olsson et al. (2003) [33], SwedenRisk of bias: Low	1027	APACHE IIRAPSREMS

Olsson et al. (2004) [34], SwedenRisk of bias: Low	11,751	RAPSREMS

Subbe et al. (2006) [50], UKRisk of bias: Low	(a) 53 unselected; (b): 49 ICU admission; (c): 49 ED admission, transferred to ward then ICU	MEWS (>2)ASSIST (>3)MET (=1)MTS (orange or red)

Wang et al. (2016) [60], TaiwanRisk of bias: Unclear	99	CCIMEWS

Results

Hospital admissionMEWS 0–2 (ref)MEWS 3–4: RR 1.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.6)MEWS ≥5: RR 1.7 (95% CI 1.5 to 2.0)In-hospital mortalityMEWS 0–2 (ref)MEWS 3–4: RR 2.8 (95% CI 1.7 to 4.8)MEWS ≥5: RR 4.6 (95% CI 2.7 to 7.8)

Length of hospital stay & MortalityScore at 24 h and 12 h seemed to predict both length of stay and mortality (p < 0.05). The EWS would have increased early medical attention by 40% if a threshold of ≥3 was used.

HospitalisationMEWS (≥3): AUROC 0.73 (95% CI 0.69–0.77)VIEWS (≥6): AUROC 0.76 (95% CI 0.72–0.79)In-hospital mortalityMEWS (≥4): AUROC 0.89 (95% CI 0.84–0.94)VIEWS (≥8): AUROC 0.90 (95% CI 0.86–0.94)

In-hospital mortalityAUROC: 0.71 (0.67–0.75; p < 0.001)

In-hospital mortalityOR 8.3 (95% CI 1.1–60.4), p = 0.013ED re-attendance within 48 hOR 45.2 (95% CI 3.4–568.9), p < 0.0001

Need for higher level of care or mortality within 24 hMEWS Max: AUROC 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66–0.79)MEWS Plus: AUROC 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69–0.82)

MortalityMEWS at ED was associated with mortality (p < 0.001)

Discharge within 24 h of admission, admission to a ward, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), and death in hospital.TEWS <7: 53.7% discharged; no admitted to ICU; none died.TEWS ≥7: 18.7% discharged; 3 admitted to ICU; 4 died

MortalityREMS: AUROC: 0.91 ± 0.02RAPS: AUROC: 0.87 ± 0.02APACHE II: AUROC: 0.90 ± 0.02

MortalityRAPS: AUROC: 0.65 ± 0.02REMS: AUROC: 0.85 ± 0.01

Patients identified as critically ill (at risk of deterioration)MTS: Sensitivity: (a) 15%; (b) 96%; (c) 65%MEWS: Sensitivity (a): 8%; (b) 77%; (c) 55%ASSIST: Sensitivity (a): 0%; (b) 22%; (c) 16%MET: Sensitivity (a) 0%; (b) 2%; (c) 7%

Survival to dischargeCCI: Adjusted OR 0.57 (95% CI 0.38–0.84); p = 0.005Peri-arrest MEWS: Adjusted OR 0.77 (95% CI 0.60–0.97); p = 0.028


Models (Prevent/Treatment)	Antioxidant/Plants	Effects	Dose (Dose-Effect)	Bioactive Compounds	References

Diabetic rats fed on a high fat thermolyzed diet (Prevent)	Omega 3-polyunsaturated fatty acids	↑ SOD, CAT; ↓ triglycerides, non-esterified fatty acid, lipoperoxidation	3.0% in diet	Omega 3-polyunsaturated fatty acids	[108]

Mice fed with high-fat diet (Prevent and treatment)	Moringa oleifera leaves; haw pectic oligosaccharide; Thymbra spicata	↑ GSH; ↓ ALT, AST, ALP, lipid peroxidation	50, 150 and 300 mg/kg b.w. (No dose–effect)	Haw pectic oligosaccharide	[109,110,111]

Liver damage in diet-induced atherosclerotic rats (Prevent)	Tulbaghia violacea rhizomes	↓ LDH, AST, ALT, ALP, bilirubin antioxidation	100 mg/kg b.w.		[112]

Rabbits with high-fat diet (Prevent)	Apolipoprotein A–I	↑ SOD, GSH-Px; ↓ iNOS, MDA	15 mg/kg b.w.		[113]

WeRats fed a high-fat diet (Prevent)	Black cabbage sprout	↑ SOD, CAT, NADPH, GSH-Px, GRD GST	250 and 500 mg/kg b.w. (Dose–effect)		[114]

Models (Prevent/Treatment)	Antioxidant/Plants	Effects	Dose (Dose-Effect)	Bioactive Compounds	References

Diabetic rats fed on a high fat 	Omega 3-polyunsaturated fa	↑ SOD, CAT; ↓ triglycerides, non		Omega 3-polyunsaturated f	[1

Models (Prevent/Treatment)	Antioxidant/Plants	Effects	Dose (Dose-Effect)	Bioactive Compounds	References

thermolyzed diet (Prevent)	tty acids	-esterified fatty acid, lipoperoxidation	3.0% in diet	atty acids	08]

Mice fed with high-fat diet (Prevent and treatment)	Moringa oleifera leaves; haw pectic oligosaccharide; Thymbra spicata	↑ GSH; ↓ ALT, AST, ALP, lipid peroxidation	50, 150 and 300 mg/kg b.w. (No dose–effect)	Haw pectic oligosaccharide	[109,110,111]

Liver damage in diet-induced atherosclerotic rats (Prevent)	Tulbaghia violacea rhizomes	↓ LDH, AST, ALT, ALP, bilirubin antioxidation	100 mg/kg b.w.		[112]

Rabbits with high-fat diet (Prevent)	Apolipoprotein A–I	↑ SOD, GSH-Px; ↓ iNOS, MDA	15 mg/kg b.w.		[113]

WeRats fed a high-fat diet (Prevent)	Black cabbage sprout	↑ SOD, CAT, NADPH, GSH-Px, GRD GST	250 and 500 mg/kg b.w. (Dose–effect)		[114]


	Before The Establishment of Trauma Team	After The Establishment of Trauma Team

	n	Average	SD	n	Average	SD	t	p

ICU stay	47	7.81	7.96	76	8.74	8.98	−.581	0.562

LOS	63	22.16	14.80	131	19.63	15.58	1.074	0.284


Questions for nurse practitioners	Questions for senior doctors and nurses

1. How would you describe your role?	1. What is your understanding of the role of the NP?

2. How is the role of a Nurse Practitioner (NP) different from that of doctors and other nurses?	2. What do you perceive is the impact of the NP role on the delivery of care?

− What is the impact of the NP on the delivery of care?	3. How do you think the role of the NP influences the roles of doctors and nurses?

3. Do you think that the roles of existing Emergency Department (ED) clinicians have changed as a result of the NP role?	4. What are the mechanisms that determine the role of the NP?

4. Do you think the roles of NPs would differ at other sites?	5. What is your view on the overlap between NP roles and those of doctors?

− Why do you think they would differ? (e.g. due to ICT, casemix, culture etc.)

− What are the mechanisms which determine the role of the NP? For example, what factors lead to these differences across sites?

5. What is your view on the overlap between NP roles and those of doctors?


Demographic characteristics	Consented to biobanking (n = 2,100)	Refused or withdrew (n = 75)	p-Value

Father’s age; mean (SD)	39.1 (38.8–39.5)	41.3 (39.6–42.9)	0.034

Mother’s age; mean (SD)	33.1 (32.9–33.5)	34.8 (33.1–36.5)	0.056

Mother’s level of education

Before or finished primary school	468 (22.3%)	7 (9.3%)	0.0001

Finished preparatory, secondary, or technical school	912 (43.4%)	23 (30.7%)

Education higher than high school	720 (34.3%)	45 (60%)

Father’s level of education

Before or finished primary school	411 (19.6%)	5 (6.8%)	0.001

Finished preparatory, secondary, or technical school	948 (4.1%)	24 (32.9%)

Education higher than high school	741 (35.3%)	44 (60.3%)

Residency

Metropolitan Cairo	818 (39%)	35 (46.7%)	0.5

Lower Egypt and Delta (except coastal governorates)	598 (28.5%)	18 (24%)

Coastal governorates	289 (13.8%)	11 (14.7%)

Upper Egypt	255 (12.1%)	5 (6.7%)

Suez Canal	78 (3.7%)	4 (5.3%)

Outside Egypt	62 (3%)	2 (4.3%)

Population distribution

Rural	817 (38.9%)	22 (27.7%)	0.077

Urban	1,283 (61.1%)	53 (70.7%)

Demographic characteristics	Consented to biobanking (n = 2,100)	Refused or withdrew (n = 75)	p-Value

Mother’s age; mean (SD)	33.1 (32.9–33.5)	34.8 (33.1–36.5)	0.056

Mother’s level of education

Before or finished primary school	468 (22.3%)	7 (9.3%)	0.0001

Finished preparatory, secondary, or technical school	912 (43.4%)	23 (30.7%)

Education higher than high school	720 (34.3%)	45 (60%)

Father’s level of education

Before or finished primary school	411 (19.6%)	5 (6.8%)	0.001

Finished preparatory, secondary, or technical school	948 (4.1%)	24 (32.9%)

Education higher than high school	741 (35.3%)	44 (60.3%)

Residency

Metropolitan Cairo	818 (39%)	35 (46.7%)	0.5

Lower Egypt and Delta (except coastal governorates)	598 (28.5%)	18 (24%)

Coastal governorates	289 (13.8%)	11 (14.7%)

Upper Egypt	255 (12.1%)	5 (6.7%)

Suez Canal	78 (3.7%)	4 (5.3%)

Outside Egypt	62 (3%)	2 (4.3%)

Population distribution

Rural	817 (38.9%)	22 (27.7%)	0.077

Urban	1,283 (61.1%)	53 (70.7%)


	Splenic aspirate parasitologic result	Total

Negative	Positive

rK39 ICT strip test

 Negative	5	7	12

 Positive	13	37	50

Total	18	44	62

	Splenic aspirate parasitologic result	Total

Negative	Positive

Positive	13	37	50

Total	18	44	62


var gene typea	Genome	Geographic origin	Binding phenotype	No. of potential thrombin cleavage sites byb:	No. of potential thrombin cleavage sites with sequenceb:	Presence ofc:	Thrombin cleavage

CIDR1	Other	Prosper	Peptide Cutter	PR	PRXXR	DBLδ1	KPRGPA	GLGRSL

IT4var06 (DC8)	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	EPCR	?	0	11	7	1d	Yes	No	No	NDe

IT4var19 (DC8)	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	EPCR	?	0	0	7	1d	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

IT4var20 (DC8)	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	EPCR	?	0	1	7	0	Yes	No	No	ND

IT4var32b (DC8)	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	EPCR	?	0	0	7	1d	Yes	Yes	Yes	ND

DD2var47 (DC8)	DD2	Southeast Asia	EPCR	?	0	1	6	0	Yes	No	No	ND

IGHvar19 (DC8)	IGH	India	EPCR	?	0	0	6	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

RAJ116var08 (DC8)	RAJ116	India	EPCR	?	0	0	4	0	No	No	No	ND

PFCLINvar30 (DC8)	PFCLIN	Africa	EPCR	?	0	0	4	0	No	No	No	ND

PFD0020c (DC8)	3D7	Unknown	EPCR	?	0	2	10	2 (1d)	Yes	No	No	ND

PF08_0140 (DC8)	3D7	Unknown	EPCR	?	1	1	7	0	Yes	No	No	ND

RAJ116var11 (DC8)	RAJ116	India	EPCR	?	0	0	6	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

PFCLINvar31 (DC8)	PFCLIN	Africa	EPCR	?	2	1	6	1	No	No	No	ND

MAL6P1.316 (DC8)	3D7	Unknown	EPCR	?	0	1	6	0	No	No	No	ND

IT4var01	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36	ICAM-1	0	1	3	0	No	No	No	No

IT4var11	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36	?	0	0	3	1d	Yes	No	No	Yes

IT4var14	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36	ICAM-1	0	0	7	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

IT4var16	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36	ICAM-1	1	2	4	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

IT4var31	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36	ICAM-1	0	0	3	1	No	No	No	ND

IT4var33	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36	?	1	1	2	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

IT4var39	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36	?	0	0	3	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

IT4var44	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36	?	0	0	4	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

IT4var07	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	EPCR	ICAM-1	0	3	3	1d	Yes	No	Yes	Yes

HB3var03	HB3	Central America	EPCR	ICAM-1	0	0	5	1	No	No	No	No

PFD1235wD4	3D7	Unknown	EPCR	ICAM-1	1	1	8	2 (1d)	Yes	No	No	ND

IT4var02	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	?	PECAM-1	0	0	8	1	No	No	No	ND

PF11_0008	3D7	Unknown	?	PECAM-1	0	0	8	1	No	No	No	ND

PF13_0003	3D7	Unknown	?	Rosette	1	0	10	1	No	No	No	ND

HB3var06	HB3	Central America	?	Rosette	0	0	6	0	No	No	No	ND

IT4var09	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	EPCR	Rosette	0	0	4	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

IT4var60	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	?	Rosette	1	0	6	0	No	No	No	ND

Total (n = 30)					8	26	170	23	18	2	3	3/5

var gene typea	Genome	Geographic origin	Binding phenotype

CIDR1

IT4var06 (DC8)	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	EPCR

IT4var19 (DC8)	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	EPCR

IT4var20 (DC8)	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	EPCR

IT4var32b (DC8)	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	EPCR

DD2var47 (DC8)	DD2	Southeast Asia	EPCR

IGHvar19 (DC8)	IGH	India	EPCR

RAJ116var08 (DC8)	RAJ116	India	EPCR

PFCLINvar30 (DC8)	PFCLIN	Africa	EPCR

PFD0020c (DC8)	3D7	Unknown	EPCR

PF08_0140 (DC8)	3D7	Unknown	EPCR

RAJ116var11 (DC8)	RAJ116	India	EPCR

PFCLINvar31 (DC8)	PFCLIN	Africa	EPCR

MAL6P1.316 (DC8)	3D7	Unknown	EPCR

IT4var01	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36

IT4var11	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36

IT4var14	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36

IT4var16	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36

IT4var31	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36

IT4var33	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36

IT4var39	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36

IT4var44	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	CD36

IT4var07	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	EPCR

HB3var03	HB3	Central America	EPCR

PFD1235wD4	3D7	Unknown	EPCR

IT4var02	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	?

PF11_0008	3D7	Unknown	?

PF13_0003	3D7	Unknown	?

HB3var06	HB3	Central America	?

IT4var09	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	EPCR

IT4var60	IT4/FCR3	Southeast Asia	?

Total (n = 30)

Binding phenotype	No. of potential thrombin cleavage sites byb:	No. of potential thrombin cleavage sites with sequenceb:	Presence ofc:	Thrombin cleavage

Other	Prosper	Peptide Cutter	PR	PRXXR	DBLδ1	KPRGPA	GLGRSL

?	0	11	7	1d	Yes	No	No	NDe

?	0	0	7	1d	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

?	0	1	7	0	Yes	No	No	ND

?	0	0	7	1d	Yes	Yes	Yes	ND

?	0	1	6	0	Yes	No	No	ND

?	0	0	6	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

?	0	0	4	0	No	No	No	ND

?	0	0	4	0	No	No	No	ND

?	0	2	10	2 (1d)	Yes	No	No	ND

?	1	1	7	0	Yes	No	No	ND

?	0	0	6	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

?	2	1	6	1	No	No	No	ND

?	0	1	6	0	No	No	No	ND

ICAM-1	0	1	3	0	No	No	No	No

?	0	0	3	1d	Yes	No	No	Yes

ICAM-1	0	0	7	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

ICAM-1	1	2	4	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

ICAM-1	0	0	3	1	No	No	No	ND

?	1	1	2	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

?	0	0	3	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

?	0	0	4	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

ICAM-1	0	3	3	1d	Yes	No	Yes	Yes

ICAM-1	0	0	5	1	No	No	No	No

ICAM-1	1	1	8	2 (1d)	Yes	No	No	ND

PECAM-1	0	0	8	1	No	No	No	ND

PECAM-1	0	0	8	1	No	No	No	ND

Rosette	1	0	10	1	No	No	No	ND

Rosette	0	0	6	0	No	No	No	ND

Rosette	0	0	4	1d	Yes	No	No	ND

Rosette	1	0	6	0	No	No	No	ND

	8	26	170	23	18	2	3	3/5


Reference material (Certified or recommended values)	Matrix	Recovery rate

NIST 1643e (60.45±0.72 ppb)	Water	93 to 102%

NIST 1568a (290±30 ppb)	Poultry feed/Excreta	91 to 99%

Arsenic standard (20 ppb)	Egg	89 to 97%

Reference material (Certified or recommended values)	Matrix	Recovery rate

NIST 1568a (290±30 ppb)	Poultry feed/Excreta	91 to 99%

Arsenic standard (20 ppb)	Egg	89 to 97%


 	Conventional group	Cocktail group	P

Mean dosage (mg) a	 	 	N/A

- Meperidine	58.33 ± 24.46	25

- Midazolam	6.81 ± 2.12	2.5

- Propofol	0	172.08 ± 92.15

Dosage (mg/kg/hr) a	 	 	N/A

- Meperidine	2.42 ± 2.58	1.06 ± 0.60

- Midazolam	0.29 ± 0.36	0.11 ± 0.06

- Propofol	0	6.18 ± 3.0

Indications for ERCP	 	 	0.621

- CBD stone	51 (50.0%)	53 (51.5%)

- Benign biliary stricture	7 (6.9%)	10 (9.7%)

- Malignant biliary stricture	28 (27.4%)	20 (19.4%)

- Pancreatic therapy	5 (4.9%)	8 (7.8%)

- Others	11 (10.8%)	12 (11.6)

Time to intubation (min) a	3.10 ± 1.86	3.68 ± 2.38	0.053

Duration (min) a	31.60 ± 17.56	27.88 ±14.38	0.099

	Conventional group

Mean dosage (mg) a

- Meperidine	58.33 ± 24.46

- Midazolam	6.81 ± 2.12

- Propofol	0

Dosage (mg/kg/hr) a

- Meperidine	2.42 ± 2.58

- Midazolam	0.29 ± 0.36

- Propofol	0

Indications for ERCP

- CBD stone	51 (50.0%)

- Benign biliary stricture	7 (6.9%)

- Malignant biliary stricture	28 (27.4%)

- Pancreatic therapy	5 (4.9%)

- Others	11 (10.8%)

Time to intubation (min) a	3.10 ± 1.86

Duration (min) a	31.60 ± 17.56


Construct	[NaCl]

	mm

N-domain	0

	20

C-domain	0

	20

R186H	0

	20

E403R	0

	20

R522Q	0

	20

R522K	0

	20


Characteristics	Whole cohort (n = 5685)

Women (%)	2782 (50.6)

Age (years)	43.7 ± 0.4

Race/ethnicity (%)

 Non-Hispanic whites	2898 (73.5)

 Non-Hispanic blacks	1085 (9.4)

 Mexican Americans	1021 (7.8)

 Others	681 (9.3)

Education categories (%)

 Below high school	1409 (16.1)

 High school	1391 (24.3)

 Above high school	2885 (59.5)

Smoking (%)

 Never smoker	3045 (52.9)

 Former smoker	1284 (22.9)

 Current smoker	1356 (24.2)

Current drinker (%)	4056 (76.3)

Moderate physical activity (%)	2741 (54.9)

Body mass index (%)

 Normal weight	1869 (35.2)

 Overweight	2036 (34.6)

 Obese	1780 (30.1)

Depression (%)	348 (5.0)

Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg)	119.7 ± 0.3

C-reactive protein (mg/dL)	0.358 ± 0.011

Total cholesterol (mg/dL)	200.74 ± 0.78

Prediabetes (%)	2058 (31.3)


In vitro	Percentage of CD4+IL-10+ (%)	MFI CD4+IL-10+	iMFI CD4+IL-10+

BALB/c	14·2 ± 1·2	125·0 ± 11·2	1775·0 ± 121·9

CBA	3·3 ± 0·2	82·1 ± 4·6	270·9 ± 15·6

In vitro	Percentage of CD4+IL-10+ (%)	MFI CD4+IL-10+	iMFI CD4+IL-10+

CBA	3·3 ± 0·2	82·1 ± 4·6	270·9 ± 15·6


Name	Forward and Revers Primers	Product Size	Comment

Bo 5S IGS	F: ACTAGGATGGGTGACCTCCCG;	484	5S-IGS product size

R: CGCTTAACTGCGGAGTTCTGA

Bo ITS1 and 2	F: CGCGAGAAGTCCACTAAACC;	823	Identify sequence differences

R: ACGTCCGATTTTCAAGCTGG

Bo 45S IGS	F: ATTCAGCCCTTTGTCGCTAA;	variable	45S-IGS product size

R: ATGACTACTGGCAGGATCAACCAG

IGS inter-D	ATCGTGTAGGACCGAGAAGT		D type intergenic

IGS inter-CEF	GGTAGGCACAAAAGGAATGC		C, E and F type intergenic

Bo 45S IGS	R: ATGACTACTGGCAGGATCAACCAG	variable	45S-IGS product size

IGS inter-D	ATCGTGTAGGACCGAGAAGT		D type intergenic

IGS inter-CEF	GGTAGGCACAAAAGGAATGC		C, E and F type intergenic


Variable of Interest		n	Mean	Standard Deviation	Notes

Age (years)		344	61.8	7.6

Age of menarche (years)		335	13.3	1.7	9 could not recall the age of menarche

Age of menopause (years)		327	49.9	5.8	17 had not reached menopause

Years since menopause (years)		327	11.9	9.4

Weight (kg)		344	60.5	11.3

Height (cm)		344	153.7	5.7

BMI (kg/m2)		344	25.7	4.7

Body fat percentage (%)		344	36.2	7.0

Speed of sound (m/s)		344	1536.0	28.6

Broadband attenuation of sound (dB/MHz)		344	112.4	11.7

Stiffness index		344	84.8	14.5

T-score		344	−0.7	1.4

Total MET		344	2922.0	2046.8

Number of children (n)		344	2.9	1.8

		n	%

Ethnicity	Chinese 	119	34.6

Malay 	197	57.3

Indian	28	8.1

Menopause status	Natural menopause	274	79.7

Menopause due to surgery	41	11.9

Menopause due to drugs	12	3.5

Perimenopausal	17	5

Education level	No formal education	17	4.9

Primary school	60	17.4

Secondary school	168	48.8

Certificate	31	9

Diploma	37	10.8

Degree	23	6.7

Postgraduate	8	2.3

Cigarette smoking status	Non-smoker	335	97.4

Current smoker	8	2.3

Ex-smoker	1	0.3

Alcohol drinking 	Non-drinker	336	97.7

Current drinker	7	2.0

Ex-drinker	1	0.3

Milk drinking	Non-drinker	173	50.3

Drinker	171	49.7

Coffee drinking 	Non-drinker	146	42.4

Current drinker	197	57.3

Ex-drinker	1	0.3

Physical activity status 	Inactive	15	4.4

Minimally active	193	56.1

HEPA active	136	39.5

Cigarette smoking status	Current smoker	8	2.3

Ex-smoker	1	0.3

Alcohol drinking	Non-drinker	336	97.7

Current drinker	7	2.0

Ex-drinker	1	0.3

Milk drinking	Non-drinker	173	50.3

Drinker	171	49.7

Coffee drinking	Non-drinker	146	42.4

Current drinker	197	57.3

Ex-drinker	1	0.3

Physical activity status	Inactive	15	4.4

Minimally active	193	56.1

HEPA active	136	39.5


SPARQL Query	Note

SELECT DISTINCT ?label ?definitionContent ?ontologyId ?termId	To extract the definition and its metadata for a specific ICD category, A19 – Miliary tuberculosis

 { GRAPH <http://who.int/icd>

{ <http://who.int/icd#A19> <http://who.int/icd#definitionPrefilled> ?prefilledDefinition .

<http://who.int/icd#A19> rdfs:label ?label .

?prefilledDefinition <http://who.int/icd#label> ?definitionContent;

<http://who.int/icd#ontologyId> ?ontologyId;

<http://who.int/icd#termId> ?termId;

}}

SPARQL Query	Note

<http://who.int/icd#termId> ?termId;	To extract the definition and its metadata for a specific ICD category, A19 – Miliary tuberculosis

}}


Disease	Protein Defect	iNKT Cells	Type II NKT Cells	iNKT Cell Subsets

Gaucher	β-glucosidase (Glucocerebrosidase)	= [13]	↑ (glucosylsphingosine-specific) [13]	ND

Fabry	α-galactosidase A	= [71]	ND	↓ CD4+ iNKT cells [71]

NPC	NPC1	= [70]	ND	No alterations in CD4+ iNKT cells [70]

Protein Defect	iNKT Cells	Type II NKT Cells	iNKT Cell Subsets

β-glucosidase (Glucocerebrosidase)	= [13]	↑ (glucosylsphingosine-specific) [13]	ND

α-galactosidase A	= [71]	ND	↓ CD4+ iNKT cells [71]

NPC1	= [70]	ND	No alterations in CD4+ iNKT cells [70]


Covariate	P value	Hazard radio	95% Confidence interval


Properties	Rejuvenator A	Rejuvenator B	Test Method

Form	Liquid	Liquid

Color	pink	Brown

pH	4.8	5.6	pH test paper

Viscosity (25 °C), SFS	40	15	ASTM D-244

Solute component [wt %]	65	60	ASTM D-244

Regeneration component [wt %]	8	8	ASTM D-2006-70

Asphaltene component [wt %]	0.4	0.75


CT and MRI Metrics	ILD	Non ILD

AUC	p value	AUC	p value

CT

Main PA Diameter	0.873	<0.001	0.835	<0.001

PA/AA	0.799	0.003	0.794	<0.001

PA Index	0.595	0.347	0.836	<0.001

CT and MRI Metrics	ILD	Non ILD

AUC	p value	AUC	p value

Right PA Diameter	0.753	0.012	0.757	<0.001

Left PA Diameter	0.729	0.023	0.754	<0.001

MRI

Systolic PA area	0.887	<0.001	0.824	<0.001

Diastolic PA area	0.897	<0.001	0.857	<0.001

PA relative area change	0.388	0.266	0.365	<0.001


Phage density	Bacterial density	Implication

High	High	Low adsorption rate or partial bacterial refuge, poor control of bacteria. Gives insight to failure

High	Low	Not sustainable – a possible transitory step following successful control of bacteria, before phage densities have equilibrated

Low	High	Phage unable to replicate adequately; possible genetic resistance of bacteria or inaccessible refuge

Low	Low	Treatment success


 	Sango and Daiya

 	Within reach	Out of reach	χ2(1)

Robin and Daiya

Within reach	32	62	0.92

Out of reach	114	174

Koyuki and Daiya

Within reach	32	30	6.12*

Out of reach	101	189

Cherry and Daiya

Within reach	9	26	2.84

Out of reach	120	177

Chelsea and Daiya

Within reach	7	45	16.39**

Out of reach	107	139

Judy and Daiya

Within reach	13	19	0.16

Out of reach	117	199

	Sango and Daiya

	Within reach

Robin and Daiya

Within reach	32

Out of reach	114

Koyuki and Daiya

Within reach	32

Out of reach	101

Cherry and Daiya

Within reach	9

Out of reach	120

Chelsea and Daiya

Within reach	7

Out of reach	107

Judy and Daiya

Within reach	13

Out of reach	117


	Proportion of recurrence	Proportion of death

	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4

Group 1	-	0.175	<0.0001	<0.0001	-	0.031	<0.0001	<0.0001

Group 2	-	-	<0.0001	<0.0001	-	-	0.013	<0.0001

Gr					-		-	0.

	Proportion of recurrence	Proportion of death

	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4

oup 3	-	-	-	0.080		-		057

Group 4	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-


Scale	Cronbach’s alpha

Male	Female	Single	Married

Energy	0.87	0.87	0.76	0.81

Family role	0.77	0.72	0.39	0.79

Language	0.94	0.93	0.93	0.93

Self-care	0.93	0.92	0.94	0.92

Social ro	0.			0


Bands analyzed	Proteins detected	Database accession number	MOWSE score	Number of unique peptide identified	Sequence coverage, %	emPAI value

1	HoxF NAD-reducing hydrogenase diaphorase moiety large subunit [R. eutropha H16]	gi|38637753	4562	142	81	61.43

2	HoxH NAD-reducing hydrogenase moiety large subunit [R. eutropha H16]	gi|38637756	3401	112	71	48.36

3	HoxU NAD-reducing hydrogenase diaphorase moiety small subunit [R. eutropha H16]	gi|38637754	1692	61	87	194.61

4	HoxY NAD-reducing hydrogenase moiety small subunit [R. eutropha H16]	gi|32527093	474	18	61	7.91

5	HoxI [R. eutropha H16]	gi|38637758	2876	96	73	346.06


Study Outcome and Factors	2 Years n (%)	3.5 Years n (%)	p

Child outdoor playtime			0.126

<2 h/day	181 (37)	135 (33)

≥2 h/day	305 (63)	379 (67)

Good neighbourhood to bring up child			0.418

No	99 (20)	74 (18)

Yes	395 (80)	339 (82)

Safe neighbourhood			0.875

No	48 (10)	39 (9)

Yes	443 (90)	373 (91)

Safe outdoor play			<0.0001

No	125 (26)	174 (42)

Yes	358 (74)	236 (58)

Good parks or playgrounds			0.939

No	83 (17)	68 (17)

Yes	413 (83)	343 (83)

Traffic in neighbourhood			0.014

Heavy traffic	95 (19)	108 (26)

Not heavy traffic	398 (81)	306 (74)

Walk score			0.563

≤49 (car-dependent)	237 (55)	197 (57)

Study Outcome and Factors	2 Years n (%)	3.5 Years n (%)	p

>50 (walkable)	195 (45)	149 (43)

Population density			0.135

<18/hatch (mean)	232 (50)	204 (55)

≥18/hatch (mean)	234 (50)	167 (45)

Accommodation type			0.083

Unit/townhouse	118 (24)	79 (19)

Free standing house	377 (76)	335 (81)

Number of vehicles in use			0.0002

0 to 1 car	228 (47)	142 (35)

≥2 cars	260 (53)	269 (65)


Subcategories of DRPs	Number of DRPs	%	resolved

Doctors (N = 272)

 Unnecessary therapy/No clinical indication	13	92.3%	(12/13)

 Untreated indication	162	71.6%	(116/162)

Non reconciled medications	146	72.6%	(106/146)

 Inappropriate duration	4	75.0%	(3/4)

 Inappropriate dose schedule	11	54.5%	(6/11)

 Dose too high	3	33.3%	(1/3)

 Dose too low	1	0.0%	(0/1)

 Drug-drug interactions	3	100.0%	(3/3)

 Inappropriate/inadequate monitoring	1	0.0%	(0/1)

 Prescription error	18	100.0%	(18/18)

 Manifest side effect, no other cause	7	85.7%	(6/7)

 More cost-effective drug available	3	66.7%	(2/3)

 Deterioration/improvement of disease state	3	66.7%	(2/3)

 Synergistic/preventive drug required and not given	19	63.2%	(12/19)

 Duplication of therapy	10	90.0%	(9/10)

 Prescribed drug not available	4	75.0%	(3/4)

 Avoid contraindications	10	70.0%	(7/10)

Nurses (N = 2)

 Charting error	2	100.0%	(2/2)

Subcategories of DRPs	Number of DRPs	%	resolved

Charting error	2	100.0%	(2/2)


	Group V	Group I

	UAI		Univariate	Multivariate OR	UAI		Univariate	Multivariate OR

	Row%	(n)	OR	(95%CI)	Row%	(n)	OR	(95%CI)

<underline>Socio-demographics</underline>

Age groups

 18-29	37.5	(72)	1.00	1.00	54.3	(69)	1.00	---

 ≥30	25.0	(20)	0.56*	0.54(0.29,0.98)*	50.9	(28)	0.87

Number of items showing perceived discrimination against MSM (to the above 3 items)

 0 - 2 discrimination responses	30.1	(63)	1.00	1.00	60.8	(45)	1.00	---

 3 discrimination responses	46.0	(29)	1.98*	2.33(1.28,4.26)**	48.1	(52)	0.60

Best friends supporting their sexual orientation

 No/unaware of one's sexual orientation	25.0	(20)	1.00	1.00	42.5	(34)	1.00	1.00

 Yes	37.5	(72)	1.80*	1.97 (1.07, 3.62)*	61.8	(63)	2.19*	1.94(1.05,3.57)*

Number of friends having MSM behaviors

 A few or none	34.7	(43)	1.00	---	47.9	(67)	1.00	1.00

 All or most of them	33.3	(49)	0.94		71.4	(30)	2.72**	2.38(1.11,5.11)*

Socio-demographics

Age groups

18-29

≥30

Number of items showing perceived discrimination against MSM (to the above 3 items)

0 - 2 discrimination responses

3 discrimination responses

Best friends supporting their sexual orientation

No/unaware of one's sexual orientation

Yes

Number of friends having MSM behaviors

A few or none

All or most of them


Compared organisms	CCMP1545	CCMP1545	RCC299	CCMP1545	O. lucimarinus

(pairs)	RCC299	CCMP2099	CCMP2099	O. lucimarinus	O. RCC809

ID (%)	60	57	57	54	73

Coverage (%)	78	74	77	83	93

Gene fraction (%)	83	62	65	76	88

Ortholog count	8141	5859	6160	5534	6449

Compared organisms	CCMP1545	CCMP1545	RCC299	CCMP1545	O. lucimarinus

ID (%)	60	57	57	54	73

Coverage (%)	78	74	77	83	93

Gene fraction (%)	83	62	65	76	88

Ortholog count	8141	5859	6160	5534	6449


	Hbase and Phoenix	Cassandra and Presto

Query 1	Query 2	Query 3	Query 4	Query 1	Query 2	Query 3	Query 4

3 nodes processing speed (s)	48.5	2.32	80.2	78.5	40.1	2	25	13

5 nodes processing speed (s)	27.9	1.79	58	50.5	34.3	1.85	20	10

	Hbase and Phoenix	Cassandra and Presto

Query	Query	Quer		Que	Query 2	Query 	Query 4


Pellet	kVp	mAs	Filter	iDose4 level	No MoM THA baseline	MoM THA O-MAR off	MoM THA O-MAR on

CNR	CNR	CNR

L0	120	150	A	5	33.06	13.02	12.99

L5	120	150	A	5	22.74	13.01	19.24

L6	120	150	A	5	16.75	1.37	18.16


Comparison	Pearson’s Correlation coefficient	R-squared value

NBME (raw) version V1 EM M4	0.51	0.26

NBME (scaled) version V1 EM M4	0.42	0.18

NBME (raw) version V2 EM M4	0.58	0.30

NBME (scaled) version V2 EM M4	0.41	0.13

Comparison	Pearson’s Correlation coefficient	R-squared value

NBME (raw) version V2 EM M4	0.58	0.30

NBME (scaled) version V2 EM M4	0.41	0.13


Cluster name	Voxels	p	Z-MAX	MNI coordinates (mm)	Anatomical regions

rIPS	2163	1.19E-06	3.82	32, − 72, 40	Right lateral occipital cortex

lIPS	1149	0.0011	3.53	-33, − 42, 41	Left superior parietal lobule, left angular gyrus

rFEF	1117	0.00141	3.52	30, − 2, 62	Right superior frontal gyrus

rSPL	735	0.031	3.28	14, − 71, 55	Right precuneus cortex, right superior parietal lobule


Medical care

Advice by a physician to undergo screening

Score for perceived accessibility of colonoscopy centres (1 to 5)

Family

Index patient sex: female

Index patient age at time of diagnosis

≤ 45 years old

> 45 years old

Number of cases of colorectal cancer declared in first-degree relatives

0

1

≥ 2 *

Discussion about screening with all brothers and sisters

Social network

Belonging to a social group

Number of contacts with friends or relatives per month

≤ 2

3 to 11

≥ 12

Structural support score (0 to 4)

Emotional support score (0 to 4)

Material support


Treatment or procedure	Number of patients	Proportion of patients

Laboratory examinations such as blood samples, urine stick test and cultivation	96	67.6%

Electrocardiography	64	45.1%

Diagnostic radiology procedures	42	29.6%

Medicine administered per orally, suppository or as an ointment	41	28.9%

Intravenous medicine or liquid	38	26.8%

Urinary catheterization	16	11.3%

Telemetry	11	7.7%

None	10	7.1%

Oxygen supplement	6	4.2%

Medicine administered subcutaneously, intramuscular or as an inhalation	6	4.2%

Other	5	3.5%

Invasive procedures	4	2.8%

Treatment or procedure	Number of patients	Proportion of patients

Electrocardiography	64	45.1%

Diagnostic radiology procedures	42	29.6%

Medicine administered per orally, suppository or as an ointment	41	28.9%

Intravenous medicine or liquid	38	26.8%

Urinary catheterization	16	11.3%

Telemetry	11	7.7%

None	10	7.1%

Oxygen supplement	6	4.2%

Medicine administered subcutaneously, intramuscular or as an inhalation	6	4.2%

Other	5	3.5%

Invasive procedures	4	2.8%


Surgeon pair	Kappa values

Trial 1	Trial 2	Mean

Right hip


Strains

C57BL/6J vs. DBA/2J

C57BL/6J vs. 129S1/SvImJ

C57BL/6J vs. A/J


Step

1.	X μL 125I is added to wobbling reaction vial

2.	250 μL phosphate buffer (0.5 M, pH 7.4) is added

3.	50 μL BoNT-A/ phosphate buffer (=50 μg BoNT-A) is addeda

4.	115-X μL phosphate buffer (0.1 M, pH 6.8) is added to adjust the reaction volume to 215 μL

5.	17.5 μL freshly prepared IODOGEN/acetonitrile solution (2.5 μg/35 μL) is added into the reaction mixture (start of reaction, t = 0)

6.	At t = 45 s, another 17.5 μL IODOGEN/acetonitrile solution (2.5 μg/35 μL) is added

7.	At t = 90 s, 100 μL ascorbic acid solution (25 mg/mL, pH 5.0) is added to stop the reaction and to reduce any formed S-Cl bonds

8.	At t = 4.30 min, 10 μL BSA (50 mg/mL) is addedb

9.	At t = 5.30 min, samples are taken for ITLC for determination of the labelling efficiency

10.	At t = 10 min, 360 μL reaction mixture is transferred to a syringe connected to a filterc

11.	The reaction vial is rinsed by 640 μL phosphate buffer (0.1M, pH 6.8) and also transferred to the syringe connected to the filterc

12.	The combined solution in the syringe is filtered and purified on a PD10 column with ascorbic acid solution (5 mg/mL, pH 5.0) as eluent, collected fractions were 0.5 mL

13.	Fractions with highest amount of 125I-BoNT-A and the highest radiochemical purity are pooled

14.	Samples of the pooled 125I-BoNT-A (fractions 6, 7, 8) are taken for ITLC

15.	Final product is diluted by BSA (1 mg/mL) till a concentration of 1 μg/100 μL and stored at 20°C

Step

8.	At t = 4.30 min, 10 μL BSA (50 mg/mL) is addedb

9.	At t = 5.30 min, samples are taken for ITLC for determination of the labelling efficiency

10.	At t = 10 min, 360 μL reaction mixture is transferred to a syringe connected to a filterc

11.	The reaction vial is rinsed by 640 μL phosphate buffer (0.1M, pH 6.8) and also transferred to the syringe connected to the filterc

12.	The combined solution in the syringe is filtered and purified on a PD10 column with ascorbic acid solution (5 mg/mL, pH 5.0) as eluent, collected fractions were 0.5 mL

13.	Fractions with highest amount of 125I-BoNT-A and the highest radiochemical purity are pooled

14.	Samples of the pooled 125I-BoNT-A (fractions 6, 7, 8) are taken for ITLC

15.	Final product is diluted by BSA (1 mg/mL) till a concentration of 1 μg/100 μL and stored at 20°C


Patient	Sex/Age of onset	Mutations (exon)	Phenotype	Kayser-Freicher rings	Serum ceruloplasmin	Serum free copper	24 h urinary copper	AST	ALT	PT

Normal				–	20–35 mg/dL	<15 μg/dL	<60–100 μg	<40 IU/L	<40 IU/L	>70%

Patient 1	Male/8	p.Phe1026Tyr (exon 14),c.2866-2A > G(intron 12)	Hepatic, Neurologic	+	0.0032 mg/dL	49 μg/dL	580 μg	26.82 IU/L	20.1 IU/L	49%

Patient 2	Female/8	p.His251Alafs*19(exon 2),p.Ser105*(exon 2)	Hepatic	+	0.0190 mg/dL	low	150 μg	139.1 IU/L	116.9 IU/L	22%

Patient 3	Male/10	p.Pro868Profs*5(exon 11),p.Ser105*(exon 2)	Hepatic	+	0.0920 mg/dL	low	3639 μg	129.0 IU/L	55.7 IU/L	17%


Variables	Number	Percent

Gravida (number of pregnancies)	1	78	24.4

2–4	183	57.2

> = 5	59	18.4

Parity (number of deliveries)	0	78	24.4

1	171	31.5

2–4	116	53.4

> = 5	25	7.8

Birth order	1	179	55.9

2–4	116	36.3

> = 5	25	7.8

Pregnancy Trimester during interview	Second trimester	115	35.9

Third trimester	205	64.1

Gestational Age where ANC started	Before 16 weeks	154	48.1

At or After 16 weeks	166	51.9

Number of ANC visits	2–3	232	72.5

≥ 4	88	27.5

Receiving information about the importance of IFA supplementation	No	139	43.4

Yes	181	56.6

Medical illness	No	288	90.0

Yes	32	10.0

Morning sickness	No	255	79.7

Yes	65	20.3

Side effects	No	234	83.1

Yes	86	26.9

Birth order	2–4	116	36.3

> = 5	25	7.8

Pregnancy Trimester during interview	Second trimester	115	35.9

Third trimester	205	64.1

Gestational Age where ANC started	Before 16 weeks	154	48.1

At or After 16 weeks	166	51.9

Number of ANC visits	2–3	232	72.5

≥ 4	88	27.5

Receiving information about the importance of IFA supplementation	No	139	43.4

Yes	181	56.6

Medical illness	No	288	90.0

Yes	32	10.0

Morning sickness	No	255	79.7

Yes	65	20.3

Side effects	No	234	83.1

Yes	86	26.9


System	Complications

Neurologic	Cord compression syndrome

 	Intracranial hypertension/hydrocephalus

Thoracic	Superior vena cava syndrome

 	Pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade

Pleural effusion

Pulmonary thromboembolism

Massive hemoptysis

Abdominal	Intenstinal obstruction

 	Inflammatory intestinal changes

Biliary obstruction

Urinary tract obstruction

Bleeding complications

Complications

Cord compression syndrome

Intracranial hypertension/hydrocephalus

Superior vena cava syndrome

Pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade

Pleural effusion

Pulmonary thromboembolism

Massive hemoptysis

Intenstinal obstruction

Inflammatory intestinal changes

Biliary obstruction

Urinary tract obstruction

Bleeding complications


Category	No. (%)

Infection	331 (59.1)

 Respiratory tract	166 (51.2)

 Urinary tract	99 (30.6)

 Intra-abdominal	39 (12.1)

 Skin and soft tissue	18 (3.2)

 Primary bacteremia/fungemia	10 (3.1)

 Central nervous system	2 (0.6)

 Bone & joint	2 (0.6)

 Other	2 (0.6)

Non-infection	179 (32.0)

 Drug fever	101 (56.4)

 Post-procedure	24 (13.4)

 Cancer fever	23 (12.8)

 Transfusion related	7 (3.9)

 Dehydration related	3 (1.7)

 ICH related central fevera	2 (1.1)

Other	19 (10.6)

Unknown	50 (8.9)


Parameters	Mutants	Salt concentrations

		R	P-value

Early PCD	Col-0	0.869**	0.00

			0.00


	Audio	Visual	Sim. dual	Seq. dual

Mean accuracy rate ± s.e.m. (%)	95.2 ± 1.6	97.3 ± 1.2	89.9 ± 1.9	94.9 ± 1.1

	udio	al	. dual	eq. dual

Mean accuracy rate ± s.e.m. (%)	95.2 ± 1.6	97.3 ± 1.2	89.9 ± 1.9	94.9 ± 1.1


Histomorphometry1	Sham control	Vehicle control	CAPT	P 31.25	P 62.5	P125	LOSA


Dataset	No.of Training(class1/class2)	No.of Testing(class1/class2)

Leukaemia	50(32 ALL/18 AML)	22 (15 ALL/7 AML)

Prostate	71(35 ALL/36 AML)	31(15 ALL/16 AML)

Colon	42(14 Normal/28 Tumor)	20(8 Normal/12 Tumor)

DLBCL	60(45 DLBCL/15FL)	17(13 DLBCL/4 FL)


Disinfectants	Neutralizing agents

Classification	Active ingredients	Recommended concentration	Recommended contact time	Optimal application	Active ingredients	Concentration

Aldehydes	Glutaraldehyde	4%	20 min	Equipment, goods	Glycine	2%

Halogens	Sodium hypochlorite	2 g/L	20 min	Biological material, smooth surface	Sodium thiosulfate	0.2%

Trichloroisocyanuric acid	4 g/L	30 min	Lab environment, Medical supplies	Sodium thiosulfate	0.4%

Quaternary ammonium compound	Benzalkonium chloride	0.2 g/L	/	Skin, mucous membranes	Tween-80 + Phosphatidylcholine	0.5% + 1%

Phenolic	Lysol	10 g/L	30 min	Object surface	Tween-80	1%

Alkaline	Sodium hydroxide	10 g/L	/	Field, animal housing	Hydrochloric acid	10%

Disinfectants	Neutralizing agents

Classification	Active ingredients	Recommended concentration	Recommended contact time	Optimal application	Active ingredients	Concentration

Aldehyd	Glutaralde	4	20 min	Eq	Glycin	2%

es	hyde	%		uipment, goods	e

Halogens	Sodium hypochlorite	2 g/L	20 min	Biological material, smooth surface	Sodium thiosulfate	0.2%

Trichloroisocyanuric acid	4 g/L	30 min	Lab environment, Medical supplies	Sodium thiosulfate	0.4%

Quaternary ammonium compound	Benzalkonium chloride	0.2 g/L	/	Skin, mucous membranes	Tween-80 + Phosphatidylcholine	0.5% + 1%

Phenolic	Lysol	10 g/L	30 min	Object surface	Tween-80	1%

Alkaline	Sodium hydroxide	10 g/L	/	Field, animal housing	Hydrochloric acid	10%


Code	Features	Preparation room use

A	No Intubation	NO

B	General Anesthesia and Intubation	NO

C	B + One Procedure	NO / YES

D	B + More Than One Procedure	NO / YES

Features	Preparation room use

No Intubation	NO

General Anesthesia and Intubation	NO

B + One Procedure	NO / YES

B + More Than One Procedure	NO / YES


Categorical variables	N* (n = 199)	%	Crude	p value**

Continuous variables#	 	Mean(SD)	OR

Home ownership

 Own home (fully owned or mortgaged)	162	4.9%	1	0.027

 Rented, gifted or invaded	37	16.2%	3.726

Electric power supply

 Lacking	22	22.7%	1	0.011 '

 Present	177	5.1%	0.182

Wealth index

 Richer half	104	1.9%	1	0.004 '

 Poorer half	95	12.6%	7.373

Mother schooling (years)

 Did not go to school	8	37.5%	1	< 0.001

 1 to 4 years	27	7.4%	0.013

 Above 4 years	81	1.2%	0.002

 p linear tendency	 	 	 	0.003

Maternal height (cm)#	186	158.5 (5.29)	0.855	0.01

Number of pregnancies#	113	2.63 (2.21)	1.35	0.018

Anaemia diagnosis

 No	69	49.64%	1	0.176

 Yes	70	50.36%	3.09

Categorical variables	N* (n = 199)	%	Crude	p value**

Continuous variables#		Mean(SD)	OR

Wealth index

Richer half	104	1.9%	1	0.004 '

Poorer half	95	12.6%	7.373

Mother schooling (years)

Did not go to school	8	37.5%	1	< 0.001

1 to 4 years	27	7.4%	0.013

Above 4 years	81	1.2%	0.002

p linear tendency				0.003

Maternal height (cm)#	186	158.5 (5.29)	0.855	0.01

Number of pregnancies#	113	2.63 (2.21)	1.35	0.018

Anaemia diagnosis

No	69	49.64%	1	0.176

Yes	70	50.36%	3.09


Country	Maize	Other major crops

Bangladesh	No	Eggplant

India	No	Cotton, soybean

Iran	No	Rice

Myanmar	No	Cotton

Pakistan	No	Cotton

Australia	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, potato, rice, soybean, wheat

China	Yes	Canola, cotton, maize, rice, soybean

Indonesia	Yes	Soybean, sugarcane

Japan	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, potato, soybean

Malaysia	Yes	Soybean

New Zealand	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, potato, rice, soybean, wheat

Philippines	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, potato, rice, soybean

Singapore	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, maize, soybean

South Korea	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, potato, soybean

Thailand	Yes	Soybean

Turkey	Yes	Soybean

Vietnam	Yes	None

Country	Maize	Other major crops

South Korea	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, potato, soybean

Thailand	Yes	Soybean

Turkey	Yes	Soybean

Vietnam	Yes	None


48 hours

Intermediates(mg/L)

L-dopa

7.4 ± 0.2

14.2 ± 1.7

-

-

75.3 ± 13.6


Chromosome (potato)	Tomato	Citation1

2	2 L inversion	a

3	Translocation	b

5	5S inversion	a, c, d, e, f

6	6S inversion	a, g

9	9S inversion	a, c, d, f

10	10 L inversion	a, c, d, f

11	11S inversion	a, c, f

12	12S inversion	a, c, f

Chromosome (potato)

2

3

5

6

9

10

11

12

Tomato	Citation1

2 L inversion	a

Translocation	b

5S inversion	a, c, d, e, f

6S inversion	a, g

9S inversion	a, c, d, f

10 L inversion	a, c, d, f

11S inversion	a, c, f

12S inversion	a, c, f


Buffer Radius (m)	Number of children within buffer zone	Comparison measures

	Parcels	Street	Parcels yes/Street yes	Parcels yes/Street no	Parcel no/Street yes	Parcel no/Street no	Sensitivity (%)1	Specificity (%)2	Odds Ratio (95% CI)3


		Model I	Model II

Variable	Category	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI

Fixed effects

Rate of change

Agec (Int)	Centred at 67 years	0.93	0.90-0.97	0.98	0.96-1.012

Agec*cohortc		1.017	1.011-1.024	1.009	1.006-1.011

Agec-squared		1.005	1.001-1.010	1.005	1.001-1.010

Initial status

Cohortc	Centred at 1924	0.98	0.95-1.02	1.02	1.00-1.05

Cohortc-squared		1.008	1.005-1.012	1.005	1.003-1.006

Educational level	Low-middle			1

High			1.23	0.96-1.58

BMI (kg/m2)	Centred at 23			0.93	0.91-0.96

Smoking	Never			1

Former			1.01	0.78-1.30

Daily			0.48	0.35-0.65

Self-reported health status	Good			2.57	2.08-3.19

Poor			1

Random effects (unstructured)

Var (constant)	1.51	1.01-2.23	1.05	0.66-1.69

		Model I	Model II

Variable	Category	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI

Smoking	Never			1

Former			1.01	0.78-1.30

Daily			0.48	0.35-0.65

Self-reported health status	Good			2.57	2.08-3.19

Poor			1

Random effects (unstructured)

Var (constant)	1.51	1.01-2.23	1.05	0.66-1.69


	Assay 1(Quantitect, 2 min A&E)Primer Pairs	Assay 2(Quantifast, 1 min A&E)Primer Pairs

Tree number (genotype)	T1-C2	G1-A2	G1-C2	T1-C2	G1-A2	G1-C2

Tree-14 (G-T/G-G)	1100	16000	18000	17000	53000	47000

Tree-17 (G-T/G-G)	1400	23000	29000	22000	54000	31000


Exon	Mutation	Base change	Amino acid change	Mutated samples	%

BRAF

15	V600E	1799	Val to Glu	347	92.3

T > A

15	V600K	1798-99 GT > AA	Val to Lys	20	5.3

15	V600D	1799-1800	Val to Asp	6	1.6

TG > AT

15	V600R	1798-99	Val to Arg	2	0.5

GT > AG

15	L597R	1790	Leu to Arg	1	0.3

T > G

NRAS

3	Q61R	182	Gln to Arg	47	58.8

A > G

3	Q61L	182	Gln to Leu	23	28.7

A > T

3	Q61K	181	Gln to Lys	10	12.5

C > A

Exon	Mutation	Base change	Amino acid change	Mutated samples	%

BRAF

15	V600E	1799	Val to Glu	347	92.3

T > A

15	V600K	1798-99 GT > AA	Val to Lys	20	5.3

	V6	1799-1800	Val to As		1.6

TG

Exon	Mutation	Base change	Amino acid change	Mutated samples	%

15	00D	> AT	p	6

15	V600R	1798-99	Val to Arg	2	0.5

GT > AG

15	L597R	1790	Leu to Arg	1	0.3

T > G

NRAS

3	Q61R	182	Gln to Arg	47	58.8

A > G

3	Q61L	182	Gln to Leu	23	28.7

A > T

3	Q61K	181	Gln to Lys	10	12.5

C > A


	January	February	March	April	May	June	July	August	September	October	November	December

 Number of sirocco days	0	0	0	3	26	59	111	53	11	0	0	0


Biochemical parameters	Control groups	Treated groups

absolute	relative	Day 1	Day 7	Day 14


Movement of Households	Wealth index (PCA)	Consumption Expenditure

Proportion of households ranked in the same tercile	60.99	42.64

Proportion of households moving by one tercile	32.18	34.93

Proportion of households moving by two terciles	6.83	22.43

Kappa statistic	0.373***	0.122***


InterPro entry	Signatures	Analysis method

IPR000043 (Family)	TIGR00936 (ahcY)	HMMTigr

PF05221 (AdoHcyase)	HMMPfam

PTHR23420 (Ad_hcy_hydrolase)	HMMPanther

PIRSF001109 (Ad_hcy_hydrolase)	HMMPIR

IPR015878 (Domain)	PF00670 (AdoHcyase_NAD)	HMMPfam

IPR020082 (Site)	PS00738 (ADOHCYASE_1)	PatternScan

PS00739 (ADOHCYASE_2)	PatternScan

IPR000043 (Family)	PF05221 (AdoHcyase)	HMMPfam

PTHR23420 (Ad_hcy_hydrolase)	HMMPanther

PIRSF001109 (Ad_hcy_hydrolase)	HMMPIR

IPR015878 (Domain)	PF00670 (AdoHcyase_NAD)	HMMPfam

IPR020082 (Site)	PS00738 (ADOHCYASE_1)	PatternScan

PS00739 (ADOHCYASE_2)	PatternScan


Exposure	Mean difference in gestational age acceleration (days)

Mean difference	95% CI	p

Female	− 0.8	− 1.4, − 0.1	0.024

High/non-manual parental social class	0.1	− 0.9, 1.0	0.91

Maternal education

 Degree	(Ref)		0.72

 A level	0.8	− 0.1, 1.8

 O level	− 0.1	− 1.0, 0.8

 Less than O level	− 0.3	− 1.4, 0.8

Paternal education

 Degree	(Ref)		0.51

 A level	− 0.8	− 1.6, 0.1

 O level	− 0.2	− 1.2, 0.7

 Less than O level	0.3	− 0.7, 1.2

Housing tenure

 Owned/mortgaged	(Ref)		0.42

 Rented (private)	0.7	− 1.1, 2.5

 Rented (council/HA)	0.2	− 1.1, 1.5

Financial difficulties

 None	(Ref)		0.55

 Some	− 0.1	− 0.8, 0.6

 Many	− 0.4	− 1.3, 0.6

Exposure	Mean difference in gestational age acceleration (days)

Mean difference	95% CI	p

Female	− 0.8	− 1.4, − 0.1	0.024

High/non-manual parental social class	0.1	− 0.9, 1.0	0.91

Maternal education

Degree	(Ref)		0.72

A level	0.8	− 0.1, 1.8

O level	− 0.1	− 1.0, 0.8

Less than O level	− 0.3	− 1.4, 0.8

Paternal education

Degree	(Ref)		0.51

A level	− 0.8	− 1.6, 0.1

O level	− 0.2	− 1.2, 0.7

Less than O level	0.3	− 0.7, 1.2

Housing tenure

Owned/mortgaged	(Ref)		0.42

Rented (private)	0.7	− 1.1, 2.5

Ren		− 1.1, 1.

Exposure	Mean difference in gestational age acceleration (days)

Mean difference	95% CI	p

ted (council/HA)	0.2	5

Financial difficulties

None	(Ref)		0.55

Some	− 0.1	− 0.8, 0.6

Many	− 0.4	− 1.3, 0.6


Component Label	Component	Subsystem function	Enjoyment of negative emotion example

1. Appraisal	Cognitive component	Evaluation of objects and events	Context detection/knowledge (music, aesthetic)

2. Bodily symptoms	Neurophysiological component	System regulation	Bodily symptoms of the negative emotion

3. Action tendencies	Motivational component	Preparation and direction of action	Inhibition of aversion/hostility tendencies

4. Facial and vocal expression	Motor expression component	Communication of reaction and behavioral intention	Facial symptoms of the negative emotion

5. Emotional experience	Subjective feeling component	Monitoring or internal state and organism-environment interaction	Subjective feeling of the negative emotion (fully fledged, real negative emotion)

Component Label	Component	Subsystem function	Enjoyment of negative emotion example

2. Bodily symptoms	Neurophysiological component	System regulation	Bodily symptoms of the negative emotion

3. Action tendencies	Motivational component	Preparation and direction of action	Inhibition of aversion/hostility tendencies

4. Facial and vocal expression	Motor expression component	Communication of reaction and behavioral intention	Facial symptoms of the negative emotion

5. Emotional experience	Subjective feeling component	Monitoring or internal state and organism-environment interaction	Subjective feeling of the negative emotion (fully fledged, real negative emotion)


 Domains	 Average (± standard deviation)

 HAT-QoL (n= 201)

	 Overall function	 79.39 (20.9)

	 Life satisfaction	 71.9 (24.4)

	 Health worries	 83.2 (22.9)

	 Financial worries	 55.6 (37.5)

	 Medication worries	 88.7 (17.3)

	 HIV mastery	 77.8 (33.6)

	 Disclosure worries	 39.0 (27.3)

	 Provider trust	 72.2 (30.7)

	 Sexual function	 45.9 (43.5)

 ASKAS

	 Knowledge 	 31.7 (6.7)

	 Attitude	 14.8 (6.8)

Domains	Average (± standard deviation)

	Health worries	83.2 (22.9)

	Financial worries	55.6 (37.5)

	Medication worries	88.7 (17.3)

	HIV mastery	77.8 (33.6)

	Disclosure worries	39.0 (27.3)

	Provider trust	72.2 (30.7)

	Sexual function	45.9 (43.5)

ASKAS

	Knowledge	31.7 (6.7)

	Attitude	14.8 (6.8)


Gene	GenBank	Forward primer	Reverse primer	Amplicon

Name	Accession	5′ → 3′	5′ → 3′	Size (bp)

CD25	NM_174358	AGATGTCCTGGCTTGAAC	TGGATATAGACCTGCTAATACC	134

CCNA1	XM_005687507	CGCCACATTTACAGGCTATTCATT	GTACTTCTCCCTGATTGCTTGCTG	112

CCNB1	XM_005694606	TTGATGGAACTGACTATGCTGGACT	CAGGTAATGCTGTAGAGTTGGTGTC	132

CCND1	XM_005700049	AGGAGGTGAGGGTGGAAGTGTG	GAAGTCATCGGTAGCAGCGAATAA	100

GAPDH	DQ152956	CCTGGAGAAACCTGCCAAGT	GCCAAATTCATTGTCGTACCA	200


Software	Normal	Truncated	Solo-LTR	Complex	Nested	Total

LTRtype	59	200	172	7	182	438

REannotate	64	401	115	0	230	580

TEnest	49	281	119	0	427	449

Software	Normal	Truncated	Solo-LTR	Complex	Nested	Total

LTRtype		20	1		18	4


Serotype	Fatal outcome	Any risk factor	Pneumonia	Meningitis

	No (%)	No (%)	No (%)	No (%)

All serotypes	37 (26.8%)	107 (77.5%)	64 (47.1%)	36 (26.5%)


Operational challenge	Description

High workload	- One of the major concerns was that the increased utilisation has put so much pressure on the limited medical staff in the facilities. There is large health worker-patient ratio and this affects the provision of responsive care.

 	- Inadequate numbers of health staff was mentioned as a key cause of long waiting hours.

 	- The absence of people with professional knowledge of claims processing and management.

Logistics/equipment	- Lack of ambulance for referrals especially on emergency cases.

 	- Lack of sophisticated surgical equipments to reduce referrals of cases to the regional hospitals.

 	- Inadequate medical equipments.

 	- The absence of operating theatres in the facilities to cope with new and emerging diseases.

Medication	- Many of the complaints related to the fact that the Essential Drug List (EDL) does not adequately cover a wide range of drugs. It is therefore difficult for patients to comprehend why they are not entitled to unlimited drugs under the scheme.

Networking	- Networking is a problem. As a result, some patients present expired ID cards with valid dates on them for treatment.

 	- The absence of effective networking system makes activities of hospitals more difficult.

 	- Because the system is not properly networked, there were instances when unregistered members scan their passport size pictures on ID cards of active members in order to receive medical care.

Description

- Because the system is not properly networked, there were instances when unregistered members scan their passport size pictures on ID cards of active members in order to receive medical care.


Wound dressing material	Mean value ± standard error of the mean

(number of vessels per high-power field)

The 7th postoperative day	The 10th postoperative day

Human amniotic membrane	0.90 ± 0.18	1.05 ± 0.14

Polyurethane foil	1.80 ± 0.16	4.70 ± 0.47

Wound dressing material	Mean value ± standard error of the mean

(number of vessels per high-power field)

The 7th postoperative day

Human amniotic membrane	0.90 ± 0.18

Polyurethane foil	1.80 ± 0.16

Mean value ± standard error of the mean

(number of vessels per high-power field)

The 10th postoperative day

1.05 ± 0.14

4.70 ± 0.47


Property	Description	Encoding

TF_Class	Encoded 2–3 top levels of five digit code based on TFClass classification; i.e. superclass followed by class (see text)	A 47-dimensional vector where ith position (superclass) and jth position (class) are 1, other positions are 0

PD	TF has a frequent Pfam domain (yes/no)	1/0

DBD	TF has a DNA-binding domain (DBD) (yes/no)	1/0

N_DBD	Number of DBDs (see text)	11/10/00

PPI	TF has a protein-protein interaction (PPI) (yes/no)	1/0

N_PPI	Number of PPIs (see text)	11/10/00

N_PhS	Number of Phosphorylation sites (see text)	11/10/00

PTM	TF has a post-translational modification (PTM) (yes/no)	1/0

Ind_PTM	TF has a specific PTM (yes/no)	An ordered 6-dimensional vector where position i corresponding to PTM i is 1/0

N_ZFD	Number of the zinc finger domains (see text)	11/10/00


Gender	 	n (%)

 	Female	20 (43.5)

 	Male	26 (56.5)

Age	 	Years (range)

 	Mean	32 (18–37)

HSCT	 	n (%)

 	Allogeneic	31 (67.4)

 	Autologous	15 (32.6)

Underlying disease	 	n (%)

 	Chronic myelogenous leukemia	26 (56.5)

 	Acute myelogenous leukemia	8 (17.4)

 	Multiple myeloma	6 (13.1)

 	Hodgkin’s lymphoma	3 (6.5)

 	Severe aplastic anemia	3 (6.5)

Immunosuppressive conditioning regimen	 	n (%)

 	Busulfan and melphalan	30 (65.2)

 	Busulfan and cyclophosphamide	4 (8.7)

 	Total body irradiation and melphalan	3 (6.5)

 	Total body irradiation and cyclophosphamide	3 (6.5)

 	Other	6 (13.1)


	Modality	Figurativeness

	Motion metaphor/Auditory metaphor	Motion literal/Auditory literal	Motion literal/Motion metaphor	Auditory literal/Auditory metaphor

	t	Sig.	t	Sig.	t	Sig.	t	Sig.

Sentence

Cloze probability		ns		ns		ns		ns

Familiarity		ns		ns	5.66	<0.001	6.91	<0.001

Imageability		ns	4.74	<0.001	10.13	<0.001	5.63	<0.001

Figurativeness		ns		ns	−20.95	<0.001	−21.98	<0.001

Valence		ns	2.4	0.02		ns		ns

Valence RT		ns	3.1	0.003		ns	1.99	0.05

Pilot accuracy	1.95	0.055		ns	2.92	0.004	4.59	<0.001

Pilot RT		ns		ns	−3.14	0.002	−2.81	0.006

# characters		ns		ns		ns		ns

# words		ns		ns		ns		ns

# content words		ns		ns		ns		ns

KF frequency		ns		ns		ns		ns

BN frequency		ns		ns		ns		ns

Concreteness		ns		ns		ns		ns

Target word

#characters		ns		ns		n/a		n/a

KF frequency		ns		ns		n/a		n/a

BN frequency		ns		ns		n/a		n/a

Concreteness		ns		ns		n/a		n/a

	Modality	Figurativeness

	Motion metaphor/Auditory metaphor	Motion literal/Auditory literal	Motion literal/Motion metaphor	Auditory literal/Auditory metaphor

	t	Sig.	t	Sig.	t	Sig.	t	Sig.

Concreteness		ns		ns		ns		ns

Target word

#characters		ns		ns		n/a		n/a

KF frequency		ns		ns		n/a		n/a

BN frequency		ns		ns		n/a		n/a

Concreteness		ns		ns		n/a		n/a


	Cluster I	Cluster II	Cluster III

Cluster I	0	1.76	1.72

Cluster II	0.14230	0	2.80

Cluster III	0.14540	0.08917	0


Sample sources	TYLCV positive No./tomato sample No.	TYLCV positive No./whiltefly No.

Henan Province	6,6,6/9a	7,7 /22 b

Shandong Province	30,30,30/56	11,11/20

Zhejiang Province	195,195,197 /422	21,21/68

Total	231, 231,233 /487	39,39/110

Sample sources

Henan Province

Shandong Province

Zhejiang Province

Total


GBB-24 scale and sub-scales	m / Me(95%CI)	P-valuesa

	Financial problems	The problems disappeared

	Yes	No	Yes	No


 No. of teeth	 Oral impacts	 Sn	Sp	 PPV	NPV

Cutoff	With	Without	Total

≤24	 73	 93	 166	0.69	0.70	 0.87	0.44

≥25	 31	 208	 239

Total	 104	 301	405

No. of teeth	Oral impacts

Cutoff	With

≤24	73

≥25	31

Total	104

Oral impacts	Sn	Sp	PPV	NPV

Without	Total

93	166	0.69	0.70	0.87	0.44

208	239

301	405


Outcome

s-PlI T0 (transformed)

T0

T1

T2

s-GI T0 (transformed)

T0

T1

T2


Treatment	Superfused bath	Static bath	Significance (Student’s t test)

n	Released ATP*	n	Released ATP*

Control (Ringer’s)	89 puncta, 3 slices	65 ± 1%	80 puncta, 3 slices	66 ± 2%	p = 0.61

PPADS	75 puncta, 2 slices	62 ± 3%	82 puncta, 2 slices	64 ± 1%	p = 0.41

αβMeATP	144 puncta, 4 slices	73 ± 1%	29 puncta, 1 slice	70 ± 1%	p = 0.09


Media Volume (mL)	Biomass (mg)	RGR 1(mg·mg−1·d−1)	Dry Weight per mL(mg·mL−1)	CA Content 2(μg·gDW−1)	CA Production 3(μg·mL−1)

15	23	0.378 ± 0.002	1.580 ± 0.05 a	898.2	1.421 ± 0.228 a


Cluster size	Hemisphere	Brain region	BA	MNI coordinates	Peak T-value

POSITIVE RSFCs: PRE > POST

117	Right	Insula/inferior frontal gyrus	13/45/44	63, 18, 3	6.60

74	Right	Middle frontal gyrus/superior frontal gyrus	6	33, −3, 66	5.14

64	Left	Insula	13	−39, 6, 3	5.74

NEGATIVE RSFCs: POST > PRE

119	Bilateral	Medial frontal gyrus/superior frontal gyrus	8	12, 51, 48	5.38


Aim	Average-measure reliability G(q,k)

Domain	Searching for research	Research obtained	Relevance appraisal	Quality appraisal	Generating new research	Interacting with researchers	Conceptual research use	Instrumental research use	Tactical research use	Imposed research use

(A) Reliability between the two independent coders; q = 0, k = 2	0.85	0.88	0.74	0.88	0.93	0.84	0.76	0.77	0.85	0.87

(B) Reliability between the nine experts; q = 0.23, k = 3	0.77	0.83	0.46	0.74	0.66	0.65	0.58	0.49	0.71	0.89

Aim	Average-measure reliability G(q,k)

Domain	Searching for research	Research obtained	Relevance appraisal	Quality appraisal	Generating new research	Interacting with researchers	Conceptual research use	Instrumental research use	Tactical research use	Imposed research use

(A) Reliability bet	0.	0		0	0	0	0.76	0	0.8	0.8

Aim	Average-measure reliability G(q,k)

Domain	Searching for research	Research obtained	Relevance appraisal	Quality appraisal	Generating new research	Interacting with researchers	Conceptual research use	Instrumental research use	Tactical research use	Imposed research use

ween the two independent coders; q = 0, k = 2	85	.88	0.74	.88	.93	.84		.77	5	7

(B) Reliability between the nine experts; q = 0.23, k = 3	0.77	0.83	0.46	0.74	0.66	0.65	0.58	0.49	0.71	0.89


Items	Days to flowering	Days to maturity	Plant height	Branch per plant	Pods per plant	Seeds per pod	100-seed wt (gm)	Yield perplant


Question – Recommender’s method	Automation	Fast enough	Accuracy

Which ontologies offer the maximum coverage for my data? – (CR – score)	Yes	Yes	Yes

Which ontologies are reference ontologies for my data? – (CR+M – score)	Yes	No	Yes

Which small ontologies are specialized for my data? – (CR – normalized score)	Yes	Yes	Not enough


Complication	Number of patients (n)	Treatment

Reflux +/− heartburn	21	Medical +/− endoscopy +/− pH 24 h esophageal pH monitoring

Vomiting	5	Diet modifications

Hemorrhage 	7	4 surgical, 3 transfusion

Fistula 	4	2 surgical, 1 prosthesis 1 surgical + endoscopic

Fistula + PE	1	Surgical

Abscess 	3	ATB

Tachycardia	1	CT scan within normal findings

Dysphagia to meat	1	Diet modification

Dehydration	1	Rehospitalisation

LL sensory disorder	1	—

Cholelithiasis	1	Cholecystectomy

Failure to lose weight	2	—

Hypotension ± malaise ± hypoglycemia	2	Rest + NS IV infusion

Swelling of left internal jugular vein	1	—

Total	51

Complication	Number of patients (n)	Treatment

Reflux +/− heartburn	21	Medical +/− endoscopy +/− pH 24 h esophageal pH monitoring

Vomiting	5	Diet modifications

Hemorrhage	7	4 surgical, 3 transfusion

Fistula	4	2 surgical, 1 prosthesis 1 surgical + endoscopic

Fistula + PE	1	Surgical

Abscess	3	ATB

Tachycardia	1	CT scan within normal findings

Dysphagia to meat	1	Diet modification

Dehydration	1	Rehospitalisation

LL sensory disorder	1	—

Cholelithiasis	1	Cholecystectomy

Failure to lose weight	2	—

Hypotension ± malaise ± hypoglycemia	2	Rest + NS IV infusion

Swelling of left internal jugula		—


Maternal	Neonatal	Process/intervention

Gestational weight gain	Body composition, anthropometry	Visit attendance

Preeclampsia*	Preterm delivery	Adherence to probiotic/placebo regimen

Induction of labor	Shoulder dystocia

Cesarean delivery	Hypoglycemia

 Elective	Treatment with supplementary fluids/feeds

 Emergency

Change in prevalence of L. rhamnosus and B. lactis in gut microbiome	Nerve palsy

Change in lipids and inflammatory profile	Admission to neonatal intensive care unit

Change in dietary indices and physical activity levels between baseline and 28 weeks gestation	Jaundice requiring phototherapy

 	Bone fracture

 	Death: stillbirth or neonatal death


Sample	Total Polyphenol Contents (μg Gallic Acid/mL)

LJ	2.084 ± 0.01 (1)

HF	3.215 ± 0.08

Total Polyphenol Contents (μg Gallic Acid/mL)

2.084 ± 0.01 (1)

3.215 ± 0.08


Variables	All cases	miRNA-506 expression	χ2	p*

High (n = 60)	Low (n = 60)

Age (years)

≥60	88	42	46

<60	32	18	14	0.289	0.409

Gendar

Male	81	36	45

Female	39	24	15	0.010	0.079

Tumor size (cm)

<5	35	23	12

≥5	85	37	48	0.001	0.027

Depth of invasiona

m/sm/mp	49	29	20

ss/se/si	71	31	40	0.014	0.095

Tumor differentiation

Well	21	12	9

Moderate	30	18	12

Poor and others	69	30	39	0.565	0.246

Lymph node invasion

Absent	37	25	12

Present	83	35	48	0.000	0.010

TNM stage

I–II	41	26	15

III–IV	79	34	45	0.002	0.034

Metastasis

Yes	45	16	29

No	75	44	31	0.000	0.014

Variables	All cases	miRNA-506 expression

High (n = 60)

Age (years)

≥60	88	42

<60	32	18

Gendar

Male	81	36

Female	39	24

Tumor size (cm)

<5	35	23

≥5	85	37

Depth of invasiona

m/sm/mp	49	29

ss/se/si	71	31

Tumor differentiation

Well	21	12

Moderate	30	18

Poor and others	69	30

Lymph node invasion

Absent	37	25

Present	83	35

TNM stage

I–II	41	26

III–IV	79	34

Metastasis

Yes	45	16

No	75	44


Participant	Theme	Quote

Female, age 22	Mitigation	“Been getting more hypermobile in the last few days, which shows in the results”

Male, age 41	Response	“Feedback is good, I push harder”

	Mitigation/pain	“I changed how I was bracing myself and used a cushion on the scales for the glute exercise so it hurts less”

Female, age 21	Mitigation	“Get a cold, feeling weak but the exercises are fine”

Male, age 42	Mitigation	“A bit weaker over the last couple of days because of flu”

Male, age 29	Pain	“I had an injury while climbing...it’s painful”


SF-MPQ Present Pain Intensity	3.55	1.26	3.26	1.18	0.40


Variable	Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever (n = 280)	Dengue Shock Syndrome (n = 11)

	P-value OR (95% CI)

Presence of bleeding	0.00070.7 (38.4–129.9)	0.000608.2 (33.9–1008.9)

Alanine aminotranferase level	0.0011.9 (0.97–2.99)	0.0041.04 (1.015–1.080)

Aspartate aminotransferase level	NS	0.0101.05 (1.012–1.088)

Urinary Proteins	0.0431.1 (0.191–1.974)	NS

Urinary Red blood cells	0.0271.4 (0.179–1.900)	NS

Platelet count on admsission less than 50,000 × 109/L	NS	0.0140.16 (0.13–0.19)


Study day	Date	Physical examination	Collar	Blood	Skin	Bone marrow

Preliminary Screening	March-April 2012	+	-	+	-	-

Inclusion (D0)	April-May 2012	+	Application	+	+	+

I Follow-up (D90 ± 10)	July-August 2012	+	-	+	-	-

II Follow-up (D180 ± 10)	October-November 2012	+	-	+	-	-

III Follow-up (D210 ± 10)	November-December 2012	+	Removal	+	+	-

IV Follow-up (D300 ± 10)	February-March 2013	+	-	+	+	+


No.	Age (years)	Sex	Employment	Period of Residence (years)	Health Status	Health Effects

1	31	F	unemployed	> 15	A	not declared

2	39	F	commerce	> 5	D	gastrointestinal disease, skin hyperpigmentation

3	40	F	unemployed	> 5	R	gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases

4	41	F	commerce	> 15	R	skin hyperpigmentation

5	41	F	services	> 5	R	gastrointestinal disease

6	47	F	unemployed	< 5	R	gastrointestinal disease

7	49	F	unemployed	> 15	D	gastrointestinal disease, skin hyperpigmentation

8	51	F	unemployed	> 15	R	gastrointestinal and vascular diseases

9	54	F	farming/commerce	> 15	R	gastrointestinal disease

10	56	F	farming	> 15	A	not declared

11	57	F	commerce	> 15	R	gastrointestinal disease

12	62	F	unemployed	> 5	R	nutritionaldisease (obesity)

13	64	F	unemployed	> 15	D	vascular disease

14	73	F	farming	> 15	D	skin hyperpigmentation, tumor

15	76	F	unemployed	> 15	A	not declared

16	46	M	mining	> 15	R	respiratory and vascular diseases

17	52	M	commerce	> 5	A	not declared

18	52	M	commerce	> 5	A	not declared

19	58	M	farming	> 15	D	gastrointestinal disease, skin hyperpigmentation

20	68	M	mining	> 15	A	not declared

No.	Age (years)	Sex	Employment	Period of Residence (years)

1	31	F	unemployed	> 15

2	39	F	commerce	> 5

3	40	F	unemployed	> 5

4	41	F	commerce	> 15

5	41	F	services	> 5

6	47	F	unemployed	< 5

7	49	F	unemployed	> 15

8	51	F	unemployed	> 15

9	54	F	farming/commerce	> 15

10	56	F	farming	> 15

11	57	F	commerce	> 15

12	62	F	unemployed	> 5

13	64	F	unemployed	> 15

14	73	F	farming	> 15

15	76	F	unemployed	> 15

16	46	M	mining	> 15

17	52	M	commerce	> 5

18	52	M	commerce	> 5

19	58	M	farming	> 15

20	68	M	mining	> 15

Health Status	Health Effects

A	not declared

D	gastrointestinal disease, skin hyperpigmentation

R	gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases

R	skin hyperpigmentation

R	gastrointestinal disease

R	gastrointestinal disease

D	gastrointestinal disease, skin hyperpigmentation

R	gastrointestinal and vascular diseases

R	gastrointestinal disease

A	not declared

R	gastrointestinal disease

R	nutritionaldisease (obesity)

D	vascular disease

D	skin hyperpigmentation, tumor

A	not declared

R	respiratory and vascular diseases

A	not declared

A	not declared

D	gastrointestinal disease, skin hyperpigmentation

A	not declared


Newborn service	Coverage of service (%)

Indonesia	Lao PDR	Philippines

Skilled birth attendance*	83	42	72

Hep B (first dose)	85	37 (given at birth)	87

Hep B (fourth dose)	41	56	67 (third dose)

BCG vaccination	89	78	92

Postpartum care for newborn within two days	48	47	not available

Newborns that have a reported birth weight (based on either a written record or the mother’s recall)	89	43	73

Newborns that received breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth	49	39	54

Newborn service	Coverage of service (%)

Indonesia	Lao PDR	Philippines

Skilled birth attendance*	83	42	72

Hep 	8	37 (given at birth

B (first dose)	5	)	87

Hep B (fourth dose)	41	56	67 (third dose)

BCG vaccination	89	78	92

Postpartum care for newborn within two days	48	47	not available

Newborns that have a reported birth weight (based on either a written record or the mother’s recall)	89	43	73

Newborns that received breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth	49	39	54


	Experimental (n = 12)	Comparison (n = 8)	p-Value b

Baseline	10 Weeks	Baseline	10 Weeks


			Cell Viability

	Compound	Dose	Human Non-small Cell Lung Cancer	Normal Diploid Fibroblasts

X.	Cyc-[AAAGGGPRGPRPGGGAAA]	200 μM	+ + +	+ + +

XI.	Cyc-[GGGGGGPRGPRPGGGGGG]	200 μM	+ + +	+ + +

XII.	Cyc-GGGGGGPRGPRPGGGGGG]	200 μM	+ + +	+ + +

XIII.	Cyc-[AAGPGGPRGPRPGGPGAA]	200 μM	+ + +	+ + +

XIV.	Linear FPPRGPRPVKLALKLALK	200 μM	+ + +	+ + +

XV	Linear PRGPRPVALKLALKLAL	200 μM	+ + +	+ + +


Reference	Primary outcomes	Secondary outcomes

Huang (moderate)1[34]	Higher sales of healthier food options were observed in the intervention group compared to the control group.


Work productivity assessment	No. of patients	Response, n (%) or mean ± SD

Employed at baseline	575	Yes: 262 (45.6)

Employed when CD symptoms began	313	Yes: 161 (51.4)

Stopped working due to CD	161	Yes: 59 (36.6)

Employment status affected by CD	262	 • Different job with less responsibility or pay: 14 (5.3)

		 • Same job, reduced hours or responsibility: 50 (19.1)

		 • No change: 198 (75.6)

Missed work in past month due to CD	261	Yes: 74 (28.4)

Number of missed work days in past month	74	5.7 ± 11.6

Decreased productivity due to CD	261	Yes: 150 (57.5)

Estimated decrease in work productivity (%)	150	72.1 ± 20.5

Have received disability benefits due to CD	262	Yes: 12 (4.6)

Duration of disability benefits (months)	12	33.2 ± 60.8

Work productivity assessment

Employed at baseline

Employed when CD symptoms began

Stopped working due to CD

Employment status affected by CD

Missed work in past month due to CD

Number of missed work days in past month

Decreased productivity due to CD

Estimated decrease in work productivity (%)

Have received disability benefits due to CD

Duration of disability benefits (months)


Species	Riparian area	Forest	Orchards	High fallows	Market gardens	Village

An. braziliensis	2	-	-	-	1	2

An. darlingi	81	-	6	10	78	97

An. ininii	-	1	-	1	-	-

An. intermedius	4	-	-	1	5	-

An. mediopunctatus	1	3	1	3	1	-

An. nuneztovari	14	-	4	15	14	1

An. oswaldoi	-	1	-	-	-	-

An. peryassui	1	-	-	-	-	-

An. strodei	1	-	-	-	1	-

An. triannulatus	25	30	16	404	4	-

Total	129	35	27	434	104	100

Species number	8	4	4	6	7	3

Species	Riparian area	Forest	Orchards	High fallows	Market gardens	Village

An. triannulatus	25	30	16	404	4	-

Total	129	35	27	434	104	100

Species number	8	4	4	6	7	3


Feature	Bee	Fly	Mosquito	Moth	Chafer	Fruit Fly	Average Accuracy

Global feature	97.46	91.83	94.44	98.68	90	98.68	95.18

Global and local feature	97.46	93.87	97.22	88.33	93.93	98.68	94.92


Specimen	Culture	Our Taqman PCR Assay

Positive	Negative	Positive	Negative

Lung (n = 40)	17	23	39	1

Milk(n = 18)	4	14	4	14

Swabs(n = 10)	4	6	6	4

Joint Fluid (n = 3)	0	3	1	2

Total (n = 71)	25	46	50	21


Factor	B	SE	Wald	df	p value	Odds ratio	95% CI

Disturbance to studies: yes	0.740	0.366	4.083	1	0.043	2.1	1.1–4.3

Facilities of the classroom: satisfactory	− 2.151	0.327	43.156	1	< 0.001	0.1	0.1–0.2

Library facilities: satisfactory	− 0.691	0.332	4.338	1	0.037	0.5	0.3–0.9

School health services: satisfactory	− 0.578	0.328	3.080	1	0.079	0.6	0.3–1.1

Scope of subject content: satisfactory	− 1.464	0. 357	16.818	1	< 0.001	0.2	0.1–0.5

Relevance of subject area: satisfactory	− 1.900	0.421	20.333	1	< 0.001	0.2	0.1–0.3

Difficulty in understanding: easily understood	− 1.380	0.340	16.444	1	< 0.001	0.3	0.1–0.5

Duration of study: less than 2 h per day	0.574	0.325	3.127	1	0.077	1.8	0.9–3.4

Support from parents: satisfactory	− 1.800	0.488	13.612	1	< 0.001	0.2	0.1–0.4

Support from teachers: satisfactory	− 1.084	0.449	5.832	1	0.016	0.3	0.1–0.8

Preference of subject stream: own preference	− 1.995	0.486	16.825	1	< 0.001	0.1	0.1–0.4

Personal expectations: encouraging	− 1.251	0.576	4.716	1	0.030	0.3	0.1–0.9

Expectations of parents: encouraging	− 1.002	0.346	8.375	1	0.004	0.4	0.2–0.7

Subjected to bullying at school: yes	0.981	0.302	10.557	1	0.001	2.7	1.5–4.8

Factor	B	SE	Wald	df	p value	Odds ratio	95% CI

Disturbance to studies: yes	0.740	0.366	4.083	1	0.043	2.1	1.1–4.3

Facilities of the classroom: satisfactory	− 2.151	0.327	43.156	1	< 0.001	0.1	0.1–0.2

Library facilities: satisfactory	− 0.691	0.332	4.338	1	0.037	0.5	0.3–0.9

School health services: satisfactory	− 0.578	0.328	3.080	1	0.079	0.6	0.3–1.1

Scope of subject content: satisfactory	− 1.464	0. 357	16.818	1	< 0.001	0.2	0.1–0.5

Relevance of subject area: satisfactory	− 1.900	0.421	20.333	1	< 0.001	0.2	0.1–0.3

Difficulty in understanding: easily understood	− 1.380	0.340	16.444	1	< 0.001	0.3	0.1–0.5

Duration of study: less than 2 h per day	0.574	0.325	3.127	1	0.077	1.8	0.9–3.4

Suppor	− 1	0.48	13.612	1		0	0.1

t from parents: satisfactory	.800	8			< 0.001	.2	–0.4

Support from teachers: satisfactory	− 1.084	0.449	5.832	1	0.016	0.3	0.1–0.8

Preference of subject stream: own preference	− 1.995	0.486	16.825	1	< 0.001	0.1	0.1–0.4

Personal expectations: encouraging	− 1.251	0.576	4.716	1	0.030	0.3	0.1–0.9

Expectations of parents: encouraging	− 1.002	0.346	8.375	1	0.004	0.4	0.2–0.7

Subjected to bullying at school: yes	0.981	0.302	10.557	1	0.001	2.7	1.5–4.8


	n (%)	Median survival (months)	95% CI1

Radiographic Response3	31 (100)		P = .21

Progressive Disease	7 (22.6)	13.6	7.4–19.8

Stable Disease	20 (64.5)	9.3	6.9–11.8

Partial Response	4 (12.9)	21.5	13.7–29.1


Method	Advantages	Disadvantages

Cobb	▪ Simple procedure	▪ No means to quantify rotation from gradation scheme

	▪ Little patient exposure to radiation (one anteroposterior radiograph)	▪ Distortion of spinous process tip in scoliotic vertebrae may decrease accuracy

		▪ Limited visibility of spinous process on radiographs of vertebrae with large rotation

Nash-Moe	▪ Position of pedicles are less affected by intravertebral rotation; more reliable landmark for measuring rotation	▪ Provides over-estimation of rotation (can be adjusted by 10° as suggested by Drerup)

		▪ Pedicles are poorly visible on vertebrae rotated severely or on spines with surgical instrumentation

Perdriolle	▪ Affordable	▪ Difficulty in making precise markings on radiographs – a 2 mm error corresponds to 5° rotation

	▪ Non-invasive

	▪ Simple procedure

	▪ Little patient exposure to radiation (one anteroposterior radiograph)	▪ Reduced accuracy when measuring large degrees of rotation

	▪ General findings report accurate measurements to within ± 5°

Stokes	▪ Accounts for three-dimensionality of vertebra; similar accuracy to stereoradiograph	▪ Greater random error in comparison to methods involving marking of vertebral edges

	▪ Little exposure to radiation

	▪ Simple measuring procedure

Aaro-Dahlborn	▪ Better measurement accuracy even when measuring vertebrae tilted in the coronal and saggital planes	▪ More difficult to use for inexperienced observers due to less obvious landmark definitions

Ho	▪ Clearly defined reference points; simple procedure	▪ Less correlation to actual rotation value when measuring distorted and

	▪ Better interobserver reliability in comparison to Aaro-Dahlborn method when assessing normal vertebrae	tilted vertebrae; less applicable in realistic conditions


	Up-regulated	Down-regulated	Total

Rep1	90	86	176

Rep2	77	89	166

Rep1& Rep2	15	15	30

	Up-regulated	Down-regulated	Total

Rep2	77	89	166

Rep1& Rep2	15	15	30


Group	Habituation	Day 1	Day 2	Day 2 - 4	Day 5 - 8	Day 9	Day 9 - 13	Day 14	Day 14 - 19	Day 20

Stress 1 × 15 min	Decap	Stress 2 × 10 min	Stress 3 × 10 min	Decap	Stress 3 × 10 min	Decap	No stress	Decap

Stress 1	V	V	V

Control 1	V	V	V

Stress 2	V	V		V	V	V

Control 2	V	V		V	V	V

Stress 3	V	V		V	V		V	V

Control 3	V	V		V	V		V	V

Stress 4	V	V		V	V		V		V	V

Control 4	V	V		V	V		V		V	V

Group	Habituation	Stress 1 × 15 min	Decap	Stress 2 × 10 min	Stress 3 × 10 min	Decap	Stress 3 × 10 min	Decap	No stress	Decap

Stress 1	V	V	V

Control 1	V	V	V

Stress 2	V	V		V	V	V

Control 2	V	V		V	V	V

Stress 3	V	V		V	V		V	V

Control 3	V	V		V	V		V	V

Stress 4	V	V		V	V		V		V	V

Control 4	V	V		V	V		V		V	V


Milestone	Date

Review of lower risk drinking guidelines announced	March 2012

Expert group assessment of the need to update the guidelines	2013–2014

Guidelines development group considered the evidence and produced advice on revisions to the guidelines	2014–2015

Publication of proposed revisions	January 2016

Public consultation on the clarity of the guidelines concluded	April 2016

Final guidelines released	August 2016


Drug Name	Drug Function	Reference

Trimetazidine	Cytoprotective, anti-ischemic	[78,79]

Isoflurane	Cytoprotective	[80]

Erythropoietin	Anti-apoptotic	[77]

Deferoxamine:	HIF-1α stabilizer	[81,82]

Dimethyloxalylglycine	HIF-1α stabilizer	[83]

Antimycin	Mitochondrial inhibitor	[75]

Oxytocin	Anti-oxidant	[84]

Celastrol	Anti-oxidant	[85]

Melatonin	Anti-oxidant	[86,87]

Nicorandil	K+ channel activator	[88]

Diazoxide	K+ channel activator	[76]

Lipopolysaccharide	TRL4 agonist	[89]

Pioglitazone	PPAR-γ agonists	[90]

NaHS	H2S donor	[91]

Drug Name

Trimetazidine

Isoflurane

Erythropoietin

Deferoxamine:

Dimethyloxalylglycine

Antimycin

Oxytocin

Celastrol

Melatonin

Nicorandil

Diazoxide

Lipopolysaccharide

Pioglitazone

NaHS

Drug Function	Reference

Cytoprotective, anti-ischemic	[78,79]

Cytoprotective	[80]

Anti-apoptotic	[77]

HIF-1α stabilizer	[81,82]

HIF-1α stabilizer	[83]

Mitochondrial inhibitor	[75]

Anti-oxidant	[84]

Anti-oxidant	[85]

Anti-oxidant	[86,87]

K+ channel activator	[88]

K+ channel activator	[76]

TRL4 agonist	[89]

PPAR-γ agonists	[90]

H2S donor	[91]


Study*	30-day major complications	30-day minor complications	Pulmonary embolism	Deep venous thrombosis	Readmissions in the first 30 postoperative days

Abdalla [15]	1	5	0	0	NR1

Buchs [16]	24 (not classified)	7	2	2

Hagen [7]	23 (not classified)	NR	NR	NR

Tieu [17]	45	102	2	3	67

Vilallonga [18]	1 case	NR	NR	NR	NR

Ayloo [19]	NR	NR	NR	0

Diamantis [20]	0 (not classified)	0	0	0

Edelson [21]	NR	NR	NR	NR

Park [22]	10 (not classified)	0	0	0

Scozzari [8]	4	14	1	NR	NR

Curet [23]	3 (not classified)	NR	NR	NR

Deng [24]	4	7	NR	NR	3

Hubens [25]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Sudan [26]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Parini [27]	0	0	0	0	0

Mohr [28]	6	7	NR	NR	NR

Yu [29]	NR	NR	1	NR	NR

Ali [30]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Artuso [31]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Galvani [32]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Sanchez [33]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Muhlmann [34]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR


Variable	N(%) = 604(100%)

Gender (male)	417(69%)

Age (yrs)	60.2(± 12.5)

BMI (kg/m2)	26.5(24.3-29.4)

Race (Caucasian)	560(92.7)

Cause of CKD

 Diabetic nephropathy	65(10.8%)

 Renovascular	188(31.1%)

 Glomerular disease	109(18%)

 Interstitial disease	57(9.4%)

 Congenital (incl PKD)	62(10.3%)

 Unknown	123(20.4%)

History of CVD	178(29.5%)

Diabetes Mellitus	144(23.8%)

Hypertension	433(71.7%)

Smoking	145(24%)

Systolic BP (mmHg)	136(± 21)

Diastolic BP (mmHg)	78(± 11)

Creatinine (μmol/l)	184(± 71)

eGFR (MDRD, ml/min/1.73 m2)	36.8(± 13.9)

Total cholesterol (mmol/l)	4.8(± 1.0)

Proteinuria (g/24 hours)	0.3(0.1-0.9)

Phosphate (mmol/l)	1.12(± 0.26)

Calcium (mmol/l)	2.38(± 0.14)

PTH (pmol/l)	8.3(5.6-14.4)

cFGF23 (RU/ml)	116(67-203)

Medication

 Active vitamin D (any)	135(22.4)

 Phosphate binders (any)	56(9.3)

Variable	N(%) = 604(100%)

Gender (male)	417(69%)

Age (yrs)	60.2(± 12.5)

BMI (kg/m2)	26.5(24.3-29.4)

Race (Caucasian)	560(92.7)

Cause of CKD

Diabetic nephropathy	65(10.8%)

Renovascular	188(31.1%)

Glomerular disease	109(18%)

Interstitial disease	57(9.4%)

Congenital (incl PKD)	62(10.3%)

Unknown	123(20.4%)

History of CVD	178(29.5%)

D	144(2

iabetes Mellitus	3.8%)

Hypertension	433(71.7%)

Smoking	145(24%)

Systolic BP (mmHg)	136(± 21)

Diastolic BP (mmHg)	78(± 11)

Creatinine (μmol/l)	184(± 71)

eGFR (MDRD, ml/min/1.73 m2)	36.8(± 13.9)

Total cholesterol (mmol/l)	4.8(± 1.0)

Proteinuria (g/24 hours)	0.3(0.1-0.9)

Phosphate (mmol/l)	1.12(± 0.26)

Calcium (mmol/l)	2.38(± 0.14)

PTH (pmol/l)	8.3(5.6-14.4)

cFGF23 (RU/ml)	116(67-203)

Medication

Active vitamin D (any)	135(22.4)

Phosphate binders (any)	56(9.3)


Receptor	Ligand 7	Ligand 11	Ligand 15

CA-II	6	0	5

Cat B	8	1	3

DNA-1	5	2	7

DNA-2	2	2	5

Gyrase	3	1	6

HDAC7	3	0	3

HIS	4	1	4

Kinase	5	0	4

rHA	4	2	2

RNR	6	1	7

Top II	9	4	7

TrxR	6	4	3

TS	7	4	7

Receptor

CA-II

Cat B

DNA-1

DNA-2

Gyrase

HDAC7

HIS

Kinase

rHA

RNR

Top II

TrxR

TS


	Number of		Number of

Condition	Trials	Patients	Drug treaments	Trial arms	Contributing patients

Arthritis	16	2990	Opioid	24	2173

			Placebo	7	445

			Other comparator	2	447

Musculoskeletal	10	1648	Opioid	18	1561

			Placebo	4	302

			Other comparator	0	0

Neuropathic	5	302	Opioid	5	219

			Placebo	4	178

			Other comparator	1	46

Mixed conditions	3	606	Opioid	6	606

			Placebo	1	49

			Other comparator	0	0


Sub-groups	T1DM patients (N = 216)	Controls (N = 204)	p-value	ORa	CIb


Participants	Gender	Years of implant	Etiology	Implantation site

F.R.	M	9	Neurofibratosis type 2	Brainstem

D.M.	M	13	Trauma with bilateral cochlear fracture	Brainstem

M.A.	F	16	Congenital hearing loss	Cochlea

P.S.	M	15	Congenital hearing loss	Cochlea

M.G.	M	12	Congenital hearing loss	Cochlea

G.A.	F	16	Congenital hearing loss	Cochlea

Participants	Gender

F.R.	M

D.M.	M

M.A.	F

P.S.	M

M.G.	M

G.A.	F

Years of implant	Etiology	Implantation site

9	Neurofibratosis type 2	Brainstem

13	Trauma with bilateral cochlear fracture	Brainstem

16	Congenital hearing loss	Cochlea

15	Congenital hearing loss	Cochlea

12	Congenital hearing loss	Cochlea

16	Congenital hearing loss	Cochlea


Gene symbol	Description	Log2FC	Padjusted

FLAI-K-feline	Feline class I antigen-alpha chain-like class I antigen	1.7066	4.95E−06*

LOC101084108	HLA class II histocompatibility antigen, DM alpha chain	0.24295	0.50201

LOC101082906	HLA class II histocompatibility antigen DO beta chain	0.06259	0.8714

LOC101090265	HLA class II histocompatibility antigen, DM beta chain	−0.52204	0.24494

LOC101098301	DLA class II histocompatibility antigen, DR-1 beta chain	−0.61283	0.2607

LOC101088734	HLA class II histocompatibility antigen DR alpha chain-like	−0.63486	0.24216

HMHA1	Minor human histocompatibility protein HA-1	−0.67421	0.0512


Clinicopathological features	N	STK31 methylation	p

+	-

Age	148

<45		49	13	0.741

≥45		66	20

Histology	102

Squamous cell carcinoma		67	13	1.000

Adenocarcinoma		18	4

Differentiation	146

Well + Moderate		75	17	0.584

Poor		42	12

Lymph node metastasis	100

Positive		23	7	0.708

Negative		56	14

FIGO stage	119

IA1 ~ IIA2		50	14	0.617

IIB ~ IIIA		45	10

Tumor size (cm)	148

<1		40	11	0.877

≥1		75	22

HPV16/18	134

No(HPV-negative)		18	0	0.037

Yes		87	29

HPV genotyping	123

HPV16		81	19	0.711

HPV18		20	3

Squamous cell carcinoma-Ag(SCC-Ag)	80

Normal		24	4	1.000

High		45	7

Neoajuvant Chemotherapy	55

No		23	7	0.029

Yes		25	0

Neoajuvant Chemotherapy resistance	55

No		44	9	0.037

Yes		0	2

Clinicopathological features	N	STK31 methylation	p

+	-

ifferentiation	146

Well + Moderate		75	17	0.584

Poor		42	12

Lymph node metastasis	100

Positive		23	7	0.708

Negative		56	14

FIGO stage	119

IA1 ~ IIA2		50	14	0.617

IIB ~ IIIA		45	10

Tumor size (cm)	148

<1		40	11	0.877

≥1		75	22

HPV16/18	134

No(HPV-negative)		18	0	0.037

Yes		87	29

HPV genotyping	123

HPV16		81	19	0.711

HPV18		20	3

Squamous cell carcinoma-Ag(SCC-Ag)	80

Normal		24	4	1.000

High		45	7

Neoajuvant Chemotherapy	55

No		23	7	0.029

Yes		25	0

Neoajuvant Chemotherapy resistance	55

No		44	9	0.037

Yes		0	2


Recommendation	Quality of evidence	Strength of recommendation	Rationale (Benefits, harms and the preferences of patients and clinicians)

1	Victims with potential spinal injury should have spinal stabilisation.	Very low	Strong	Paucity of literature supporting spinal stabilisation. Very little literature documenting serious harm. Spinal cord injury can have devastating consequences. Potential benefits outweigh harms

2	A minimal handling strategy should be observed.	Very low	Strong	Paucity of literature supporting spinal stabilisation. Very little literature documenting serious harm. Spinal cord injury can have devastating consequences. Potential benefits outweigh possible harms

3	Spinal stabilisation should never delay or preclude life-saving intervention in the critically injured trauma victim.	Very low	Good clinical practice	Literature supporting this recommendation was considered too heterogenous for synthesis. The faculty finds that it is logical that spinal stabilisation in the critically injured patient may cause serious harm

4	Victims of isolated penetrating injury should not be immobilised.	Moderate	Strong	One large study of moderate quality directly supports this recommendation. Spinal injury in patients with isolated penetrating injury is rare

5	Triaging tools based on clinical findings should be implemented.	Moderate	Strong	Consistent evidence supporting triaging tools based on clinical findings rather than mechanism. No harmful effects documented

6	Cervical stabilisation may be achieved using manual in-line stabilisation, head-blocks, a rigid collar or combinations thereof.	Very low	Conditional	Consistent experimental evidence demonstrating how rigid collars can stabilise the cervical spine. However, there is also evidence suggesting harm from rigid collars. No evidence proving superiority of any one method

7	Transfer from the ground or between stretchers should be achieved using a scoop stretcher.	Very low	Conditional	General paucity of evidence. Some evidence for significant spinal motion during log-roll. Some evidence documenting improved stability with scoop stretcher transfers. Safety of scoop stretcher systems is good. No harmful effects documented

8	Patients with potential spinal injury should be transported strapped supine on a vacuum mattress or on an ambulance stretcher system.	Very low	Conditional	Evidence supporting harm from hard surface stretcher systems. No consistent evidence demonstrating increased stability with any one method. Increased comfort associated with soft surface systems. No evidence exploring spinal stability of common stretcher systems

9	Hard surface stretcher systems may be used for transports of shorter duration only.	Very low	Conditional	Evidence supporting harm from hard surface stretcher systems. No consistent evidence demonstrating increased stability with any one method. Increased comfort associated with soft surface systems

10	Patients should under some circumstances be invited to self-extricate from vehicles.	Very low	Conditional	Two experimental studies demonstrating improved stability with self-extrication from vehicles. Reasonable and practical alternative as long as used cautiously


	P1

	Control	Patient

AVERAGE AMPLITUDE

Standard	0.281	0.463

Low deviant	0.324	0.337

High deviant	−0.080	0.219

PEAK LATENCY

Standard	77	84

Low deviant	68	73

High deviant	65	75


Nutrient	Oxygen (kJ/l)	Carbon dioxide (kJ/l)

Carbohydrate	21.1	21.1

Protein	18.7	23.4

Fat	19.6	27.8

Nutrient	Oxygen (kJ/l)

Carbohydrate	21.1

Protein	18.7

Fat	19.6


Spiked conc.(μg/ml)	Between-day assay (n=6)	Within-day assay (n=6)

Mean	SD	RSD (%)	Mean	SD	RSD (%)


Total particles (by optical particle counter)	Viral particles (by RT-PCR analysis)

Particle size range (μm)	Average removal efficiency (%)	Particle size range (μm)	Average removal efficiency (%)

IAV	PRRSV	PEDV


French

Titles

Abstracts (hr=0.0)

Abstracts (hr=0.29)

Spanish

Titles

Abstracts (hr=0.0)

Abstracts (hr=0.29)


Demographic variable		Pre (N = 88)	Post (N = 69)

		n (%)	n (%)	Test statistics

Gender	Female	63(72)	53(77)	x2 = 0.546, df = 1, p = 0.46

Male	25(28)	16(23)

Scenario version	CT ICU scenario	48(55)	45(65)	x2 = 1.824, df = 1, p = 0.177

Gen ICU scenario	40(45)	24(35)

Age	20 - 29	21(24)	21(30)	x2 = 2.566, df = 4, p = 0.63

30 - 39	43(49)	29(42)

40 - 49	20(23)	18(26)

50 - 59	3(3)	1(1)

60 - 69	1(1)

Current unit*		[n = 76]	[n = 58]	x2 = 3.469, df = 2, p = 0.176

Private ICU	25(33)	17(29)

General ICU	32(42)	18(31)

Cardiothoracic ICU	19(25)	23(40)

Current designation	RN	56(64)	39(567)	x2 = 5.331, df = 6, p = 0.502

CNS	20(23)	19(27)

RMO	3(3)	1(1)

Registrar/Senior Registrar	5(6))	7(10)

Consultant	4(4)	2(3)

Role	Nurse	76(86)	58(84)	x2 = 0.164, df = 1, p = 0.69

Doctor	12(14)	11(16)

Current employment type	Full Time	64(73)	47(69)	x2 = 1.154, df = 3, p = 0.76

Part Time	22(25)	20(29)

Casual/Other	2(2)	1(1)

Highest level of education	Hospital Certificate	3(4)		x2 = 7.35, df = 8, p = 0.499

Associate Diploma/Diploma	8(9)	2(3)

Bachelors Degree	39(44)	28(41)

Graduate Certificate	21(24)	20(29)

Graduate Diploma	6(7)	9(13)

Masters Degree	8(9)	8(12)

PhD	1(1)	1(1)

Other	2(2)	1(1)

Enrolled in higher degree study^	Yes	25(29)	13(20)	x2 = 1.642, df = 1, p = 0.20

Level of higher degree study enrolled in^		[n = 25]	[n = 13]	x2 = 3.562, df = 4, p = 0.47

Graduate Certificate/Diploma	14(56)	6(50)

Masters Degree by coursework	5(20)	4(33)

PhD	2(8)	2(17)

Other	4(16)

	mean(SD)	range	mean(SD)	range

Years employed in current unit^	5.09(6.09)	3 weeks to 38 yrs	4.61(4.57)	1 month to 18 yrs	t = 0.561, df = 151.63, p = 0.576

Years of ICU experience	7.03(6.55)	3 weeks to 38 yrs	6.58(5.70)	1 month to 21 yrs	t = 0.457, df = 153.24, p = 0.649


Growth Variable	Exclusively Breastfed (n = 62)	Exclusively Formula Fed (n = 12)	Solid Foods with Partial Breastfeeding (n = 57)	Solid Foods with Formula Feeding (n = 23)

Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD

Weight (kg)

At birth	3.8 ± 0.4	3.8 ± 0.4	3.7 ± 0.4	3.7 ± 0.3

2 months	5.6 ± 0.6	5.5 ± 0.7	5.8 ± 0.5	5.4 ± 0.4

6 months	7.8 ± 0.8	8.2 ± 1.0	8.2 ± 1.0	8.5 ± 0.8 *

2 months	9.6 ± 0.9	10.3 ± 1.4	10.1 ± 1.2 *	10.6 ± 1.0 *

Growth Variable	Exclusively Breastfed (n = 62)	Exclusively Formula Fed (n = 12)	Solid Foods with Partial Breastfeeding (n = 57)	Solid Foods with Formula Feeding (n = 23)

Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD

18 months	11.3 ± 1.0	11.5 ± 1.2	11.6 ± 1.3	11.9 ± 1.2 *

Length (cm)

At birth	51.9 ± 1.5	52.0 ± 1.7	51.8 ± 1.6	51.7 ± 1.9

2 months	59.7 ± 1.5	59.4 ± 1.8	59.8 ± 2.0	58.9 ± 1.5

6 months	68.3 ± 2.0	69.4 ± 2.7	69.1 ± 2.3 *	68.4 ± 1.7

12 months	76.2 ± 2.5	77.4 ± 2.9	77.1 ± 2.7	77.6 ± 2.5 *

18 months	83.0 ± 2.5	83.8 ± 3.2	83.9 ± 2.7	83.1 ± 2.5


	NSCLC cases (n = 34)	Controls (n = 30)	P-value

Age	67.56 (SD 11.12)	64.48 (SD 11.25)	0.33

Sex			0.35

 Female	10	9

 Male	24	21

Race			0.39

 White	22	20

 African American	11	10

 Pack-years (median)	34.28	31.36	0.32

Stage

 Stage I	10

 Stage II	9

 Stage III-IV	15

Histological type

 Adenocarcinoma	21

 Squamous cell carcinoma	13


Percentile threshold	Number of ET SNPs	Number of ET genes	Number of diseases appropriately distributed among ET populations	Number of ET genes associated with appropriately distributed diseases	Permutation P value

95th/5th	22	33	6	4	0.0237

90th/10th	168	230	27	15	0.0111

85th/15th	733	971	42	49	0.0023

Percentile threshold	Number of ET SNPs

95th/5th	22

90th/10th	168

85th/15th	733

Number of ET genes	Number of diseases appropriately distributed among ET populations	Number of ET genes associated with appropriately distributed diseases	Permutation P value

33	6	4	0.0237

230	27	15	0.0111

971	42	49	0.0023