Risser’s stage	Original method	French method

Stage 0	Micro-ossification (2)1 Gas shadow (1)2	Micro-ossification (2)1 Gas shadow (1)2

Stage 1	Skip ossification (2)3 Gas shadow (1)2	Gas shadow (1)2 Skip ossification (2)3

Stage 2	Skip ossification (1)3 Miscalculation of excursion (4)4	Skip ossification (1)3 Miscalculation of excursion (2)4

Stage 3	Miscalculation of excursion (5)4	Micro-fusion (4)5

Stage 4	Miscalculation of excursion (1)4 Micro-fusion (3)5	Skip ossification (2)3 Pseudo-fusion (10)6Micro-fusion (4)5

Stage 5	Skip ossification (2)3 Pseudo-fusion (14)6

Risser’s stage

Stage 0

Stage 1

Stage 2

Stage 3

Stage 4

Stage 5

Original method	French method

Micro-ossification (2)1 Gas shadow (1)2	Micro-ossification (2)1 Gas shadow (1)2

Skip ossification (2)3 Gas shadow (1)2	Gas shadow (1)2 Skip ossification (2)3

Skip ossification (1)3 Miscalculation of excursion (4)4	Skip ossification (1)3 Miscalculation of excursion (2)4

Miscalculation of excursion (5)4	Micro-fusion (4)5

Miscalculation of excursion (1)4 Micro-fusion (3)5	Skip ossification (2)3 Pseudo-fusion (10)6Micro-fusion (4)5

Skip ossification (2)3 Pseudo-fusion (14)6


 	Skin to calyx distance

 	≤75mm	>75mm	P value

Number	140	130

Gender	 	 	0.823

Male	88	80

Female	52	50

Mean age (years)	43.09±12.5	45.4±12.4	0.129

Mean body mass index (kg/m2)	25.7±3.5	26.6±5.3	0.090

Mean stone size (mm)	21.7±5.8	22.8±6.0	0.143

Stone location	 	 	0.077

Complex stone	60	57

Pelvis	31	34

Lower	40	30

Middle	8	6

Upper	1	3

Operation side	 	 	0.745

Left	76	68

Right	64	62

Degree of hydronephrosis	 	 	0.682

0	6	4

1	72	66

2	54	54

3	6	6

4	2	0

Previous renal stone treatment	 	 	0.853

SWL	22	21

PNL	14	17

Open renal stone surgery	11	13

	Skin to calyx distance

	≤75mm	>75mm

Number	140	130

Gender

Male	88	80

Female	52	50

Mean age (years)	43.09±12.5	45.4±12.4

Mean body mass index (kg/m2)	25.7±3.5	26.6±5.3

Mean stone size (mm)	21.7±5.8	22.8±6.0

Stone location

Complex stone	60	57

Pelvis	31	34

Lower	40	30

Middle	8	6

Upper	1	3

Operation side

Left	76	68

Right	64	62

Degree of hydronephrosis

0	6	4

1	72	66

2	54	54

3	6	6

4	2	0

Previous renal stone treatment

SWL	22	21

PNL	14	17

Open renal stone surgery	11	13


Characteristic	Improvisation	Composition

Context	Public or private	Private

Individual/group	Individual or group	Individual or group (less frequent)

Development	Continuous, linear, real-time act, extemporaneous creation	Continuous or discontinuous act, mediated creation

Experimentation	Extemporaneous experimentation; it can provide suggestions to composition	Reasoned experimentation

Abilities	Performing and compositional	Compositional

Processes	Anticipation, use of repertoire, emotive communication, feedback, and flow	Planning, translating from the sound to graph, idea generation, organization and construction, revision

Reversibility	Irreversible action, it cannot be changed	Reversible action, it can be changed until the final draft

Revision	It cannot be reviewed, but only adjusted in real-time during the performance with the feedback	It can be reviewed and improved

Control	Control of individual variables but not of group variables	Overall control of the score and of the complexity of the compositional process

Feedback	Real-time feedback	Feedback without real-time pressure

Process dynamics	Interactive process. It has an adaptable nature, it allows you to answer to context variables, it can be adjusted instantly. Challenge between performers, taking risks	Fix product. The composition can be interpreted but it is not possible to change the notes of the score

Communication	The author has a direct communication with the audience. It is more authentic and real than composition	The author has a communication with the audience mediated by the performer(s) who interprets his/her ideas


Comorbidities and outcomes	Estimate (mean or proportion)	95% CI

Number of comorbidities	7.54	(7.53-7.55)

Charlson comorbidity category

 Low (1–2)	0.29%	(0.26%-0.31%)

 Medium (3–4)	17.29%	(17.12%-17.46%)

 High (5+)	82.42%	(82.25%-82.60%)

Inpatient death	3.15%	(3.08%-3.23%)

Inpatient length of stay (days)	5.22	(5.20-5.25)

Inpatient cost (2009 $US)	$11,313.28	($11,233.77-$11,329.80)


Conditions	In-the-bag dislocation	Out-of-the-bag dislocation	Overall

Group (n = 209)	Group (n = 21)	(n = 230)

Pseudoexfoliation	90 (43.1 %)	1 (4.8 %)	91 (39.6 %)

Eye rubbing or tapping*	30 (14.4 %)	4 (19.0 %)	34 (14.8 %)

Atopic dermatitis	16 (7.7 %)	2 (9.5 %)	18 (7.8 %)

Long axial length	24 (11.5 %)	2 (9.5 %)	26 (11.3 %)

Postvitrectomy	22 (10.5 %)	2 (9.5 %)	24 (10.4 %)


Strains and conditions	Throughput (Mbp)	Absolute counts	Ratios

 	 	Reads aligned on reference genome	Uniquely aligned reads	Ratio considering DB110 HP as reference (all reads)	Ratio considering DB110 HP as reference (unique reads)

DB110 28 MPa (DB110 HP)	582	16.621.219	5.836.186	1.00	1.00

DB110 0.1 MPa (DB110 LP)	584	16.690.818	3.050.616	1.00	0.52

TW30 28 MPa (TW30 HP)	611	17.466.471	5.692.495	1.05	0.97

TW30 0.1 MPa (TW30 LP)	479	13.699.146	4.517.864	0.824	0.77


Cost category	Cost (USD)	Percentage

Project costs of program implementation:

 Support structure	57,794	14.2

 Salary	196,839	48.3

 Medicine	144,020	35.3

 Supplies	9,301	2.3

 Total financial cost	407,954	100.0

Estimated unit costs of program implementation:

 Unit annual cost per WAJA	3,610

 Per capita cost	1.16

Cost category	Cost (USD)

Project costs of program implementation:

Support structure	57,794

Salary	196,839

Medicine	144,020

Supplies	9,301

Total financial cost	407,954

Estimated unit costs of program implementation:

Unit annual cost per WAJA	3,610

Per capita cost	1.16

Percentage

Project costs of program implementation:

14.2

48.3

35.3

2.3

100.0

Estimated unit costs of program implementation:


Parameters	Definitions

Patient characteristics	Age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), medical insurance status and performance status

Hospitalisation	LOS (length of hospitalisation post-operation), the procedure performed, diagnosis, operating time, name of surgery, intra-operative estimated blood loss

Post-operation	Time to full tolerance of free fluids (days), time to full tolerance of solid food (days), time to drain removal (days) hospitalisation expenses

Complications

Infection	Wound infection, lung infection, intraperitoneal infection, operation space infection (fever, mild abdominal pain without radiographic abnormalities)

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV)	It was recognised that nausea and vomiting are common side effects of surgical recovery

Ileus	Is a disruption of the normal propulsive ability of the gastrointestinal tract

Post-operative haemorrhage	Evidence of blood loss from drains or based on ultrasonography

Post-operative thrombosis	Evidence of blood thrombosis based on ultrasonography

APACHE II score	Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II

Parameters	Definitions

Patient characteristics	Age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), medical insurance status and performance status

Hospitalisation	LOS (length of hospitalisation post-operation), the procedure performed, diagnosis, operating time, name of surgery, intra-operative estimated blood loss

Post-operation	Time to full tolerance of free fluids (days), time to full tolerance of solid food (days), time to drain removal (days) hospitalisation expenses

Complications

Infection	Wound infection, lung infection, intraperitoneal infection, operation space infection (fever, mild abdominal pain without radiographic abnormalities)

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV)	It was recognised that nausea and vomiting are common side effects of surgical recovery

Ileus	Is a disruption of the normal propulsive ability of the gastrointestinal tract

Post-operative	Evidence of blood loss from

 haemorrhage	drains or based on ultrasonography

Post-operative thrombosis	Evidence of blood thrombosis based on ultrasonography

APACHE II score	Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II


Risk-factors	Level	Categorization

Herd1	1,2,3,4

Sow-related factors

Parity	Young	1st parity

Mature	2nd-7th parity

Litter size	Large2	Gilts: >15 piglets, Sows: >18 piglets

Small	Gilts: <16 piglets, Sows: < 19 piglets

Stillborn	Many	>1 piglet

Few	0-1 piglets

Clinical disease	Yes	Mastitis and/or temp > 39.5°C and/or leg problems and/or vulva discharge3

No	None of the above

Piglet-related factors4

Gender	Male

Female

Birth weight	Continuous scale

Faecal consistency	Liquid	Watery or liquid consistency of rectal contents

Normal	Creamy, firm or solid consistency of rectal contents and if no faeces on swab

Flanks	Hollow	Area behind ribs turned inwards

Normal	Area behind ribs followed the line of the ribs

Hair coat	Rough	Hair coat appeared dull

Normal	Hair coat did not appear dull

Risk-factors	Level	Categorization

Flanks	Hollow	Area behind ribs turned inwards

Normal	Area behind ribs followed the line of the ribs

Hair coat	Rough	Hair coat appeared dull

Normal	Hair coat did not appear dull


Site of metastases	PTC-GD	Euthyroid

Bone	2 (6.8%)	1 (0.4%)

Lung	0	2 (0.8%)

Bone + lung	2 (6.8%)	4 (1.6%)

Local recurrence + lung	0	3 (1.3%)

Local recurrence + lung + bone	0	3 (1.3%)

Local recurrence	1 (3.4%)	4 (1.7%)


Parameter	Description	Baseline cohort (n = 43)	PD cohort (n = 40)

Age at sample draw	Median age (range)	72 (37–83)	63 (35–88)

Adjuvant endocrine therapy (%)	No	26 (60)	26 (65)

Yes, tamoxifen only	10 (23)	9 (23)

Yes, tamoxifen + AI	5 (12)	4 (10)

Yes, AI only	2 (5)	1 (2)

Adjuvant chemotherapy (%)	No	34 (79)	28 (70)

Yes	9 (21)	12 (30)

Neoadjuvant therapies (%)	No	43 (100)	40 (100)

Number of previous lines endocrine therapy lines for MBC (%)	0	43 (100)

1		22 (55)

2		12 (30)

≥3		6 (15)

Endocrine therapy after start (BL cohort) or before PD (PD cohort) (%)	AI	30 (70)	25 (63)

Tamoxifen	13 (30)	7 (17)

Fulvestrant		8 (20)

Previous endocrine therapy lines for MBC (in case of inclusion at PD on ≥second‐line endocrine therapy) (%)	Yes, AI only		9 (23)

Yes, AI + tamoxifen		6 (15)

Yes, tamoxifen only		3 (7)

Progression on the current line (%)	Yes	35 (81)	40 (100)

CTC count	Median count (range)	81 (6–32492)	21 (5–2837)

Number of previous lines endocrine therapy lines for MBC (%)	≥3		6 (15)

Endocrine therapy after start (BL cohort) or before PD (PD cohort) (%)	AI	30 (70)	25 (63)

Tamoxifen	13 (30)	7 (17)

Fulvestrant		8 (20)

Previous endocrine therapy lines for MBC (in case of inclusion at PD on ≥second‐line endocrine therapy) (%)	Yes, AI only		9 (23)

Yes, AI + tamoxifen		6 (15)

Yes, tamoxifen only		3 (7)

Progression on the current line (%)	Yes	35 (81)	40 (100)

CTC count	Median count (range)	81 (6–32492)	21 (5–2837)


	Walk Well	Control	Main between group comparison

Outcomes	N	Mean (SD)	N	Mean (SD)	Mean difference at 12-weeks (95 % CI)a	p	ICC

Primary outcome


	Area

Khagrachari	Cox’s Bazar	Bandarban	Rangamati	Netrokona	Total	Frequency

A (1,900 bp)	10	56	6	1	2	75	0.735

B (1,400 bp)	1	2	1	0	1	5	0.049

C (1,100 bp)	2	5	2	0	0	9	0.088

Mixed	2	10	0	0	1	13	0.127

	Area

Khagrachari	Cox’s Bazar	Bandarban	Rangamati	Netrokona	Total	Frequency

A (1,900 bp)	10	56	6	1	2	75	0.735

B (1,400 bp)	1	2	1	0	1	5	0.049

C	2			0	0		0.08


	Mean	95% HPD	Posterior probability

PB2	August 2016	June – October 2016	0.9992

PB1	August 2016	July – October 2016	0.9993

PA	July 2016	May – October 2016	0.9995

HA	September 2016	July – October 2016	0.9997

NP	May 2016	October 2015 – October 2016	0.9997

NA	May 2016	June – October 2016	0.9689

M	August 2016	June – October 2016	0.4849

NS	September 2016	June – October 2016	0.9995

	Mean	95% HPD	Posterior probability

PB1	August 2016	July – October 2016	0.9993

PA	July 2016	May – October 2016	0.9995

HA	September 2016	July – October 2016	0.9997

NP	May 2016	October 2015 – October 2016	0.9997

NA	May 2016	June – October 2016	0.9689

M	August 2016	June – October 2016	0.4849

NS	September 2016	June – October 2016	0.9995


Conceptual definition 	Operational definition

Prostate cancer knowledge—Participants’ understanding of CaP disease, prevention and detection. 	Ten questions assessed participants’ prostate cancer knowledge using a True/False/Don’t Know scale. Each correct response had 1 point and incorrect response or ‘I don’t know’ response had 0 point. Higher score indicated high knowledge of prostate cancer information.

Prostate cancer early detection behaviour—CaP information seeking behaviour and CaP screening.	An index of Prostate Cancer Detection Behaviour was created by combining (sum) the responses of participants on prostate cancer screening by DRE in the last year (5 if Yes, and 0 if No); prostate cancer screening by PSA in the last year (5 if Yes, and 0 if No); prostate cancer information seeking behaviour (measured on a 5-point Strongly Agree–Strongly Disagree scale); prostate cancer discussion with a physician (measured on a 5-point Strongly Agree–Strongly Disagree scale); and paying attention to prostate cancer information (measured on a 5-point Strongly Agree–Strongly Disagree scale). The index score ranged from 0 to 25.

Prostate cancer screening intention—Participants’ expressed likelihood of screening for CaP in the future	Three questions were used to measure intention. For example, participants responded to the question: ‘Within the next year, I will get tested for prostate cancer with the Digital Rectal Examination (DRE)’ on a strongly disagree (1)–strongly agree (5) scale, with higher score indicating high intention.

Decisional conflict—Participants’ state of uncertainty about the course of action to take relative to CaP screening [34].	O’Connor’s scale [34] provided the items for decisional conflict. The scale used for this study assessed CaP screening uncertainty (3 items) and factors contributing to uncertainty (7 items) on a strongly disagree (1)–strongly agree (5) scale. An example of the screening uncertainty measure is ‘I’m unsure what to do when it comes to prostate cancer screening’. Lower score on this scale indicates high uncertainty. An example of the factors contributing to uncertainty measure is ‘I feel I know the risks and side effects of prostate cancer screening’. Higher score on this scale indicates greater number of factors contributing to uncertainty.

Satisfaction with the W.O.R.D video 	Participants’ satisfaction was assessed by three questions. For example, participants responded to the statement, ‘The information I received from the Prostate Cancer Education video can best be described as’ using a Very Unsatisfactory (1)–Very Satisfactory scale (5) with higher score indicating high satisfaction.

Quality of the W.O.R.D video 	Participants’ perceived quality was assessed by three questions. For example, participants responded to the statement, ‘The Prostate Cancer Education video can best be described as superior’ using a strongly disagree (1) strongly agree (5) scale, with higher score indicating high quality rating.

General assessment of the W.O.R.D video 	Using a ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and ‘I can’t say’ scale, participants responded to ten questions focused on general assessment of the video. Examples were: Was the information provided by the video useful to you? Did you experience any difficulty with the video? In your opinion, would you say that the video is credible?

Conceptual definition	Operational definition

Decisional conflict—Participants’ state of uncertainty about the course of action to take relative to CaP screening [34].	O’Connor’s scale [34] provided the items for decisional conflict. The scale used for this study assessed CaP screening uncertainty (3 items) and factors contributing to uncertainty (7 items) on a strongly disagree (1)–strongly agree (5) scale. An example of the screening uncertainty measure is ‘I’m unsure what to do when it comes to prostate cancer screening’. Lower score on this scale indicates high uncertainty. An example of the factors contributing to uncertainty measure is ‘I feel I know the risks and side effects of prostate cancer screening’. Higher score on this scale indicates greater number of factors contributing to uncertainty.

Satisfaction with the W.O.R.D video	Participants’ satisfaction was assessed by three questions. For example, participants responded to the statement, ‘The information I received from the Prostate Cancer Education video can best be described as’ using a Very Unsatisfactory (1)–Very Satisfactory scale (5) with higher score indicating high satisfaction.

Quality of the W.O.R.D video	Participants’ perceived quality was assessed by three questions. For example, participants responded to the statement, ‘The Prostate Cancer Education video can best be described as superior’ using a strongly disagree (1) strongly agree (5) scale, with higher score indicating high quality rating.

General assessment of the W.O.R.D video	Using a ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and ‘I can’t say’ scale, participants responded to ten questions focused on general assessment of the video. Examples were: Was the information provided by the video useful to you? Did you experience any difficulty with the video? In your opinion, would you say that the video is credible?


Input	Processing	Output

Alignment	Export to a different format	Alignment

Alignment	Remove sequences >80 % identical and columns with conservation <0.9	Alignment

Alignment	Construct neighbour-joining tree using Kimura distance correction	Distance matrix

Distance matrix	Reconstruct tree	Tree

Alignment	Apply bootstrap analysis	Bootstrap trees


Source	Country	Filling (Years)	Remarks

R Franceys, et al. [15]	Various	15–25	Design recommendations for household properties

J Pickford [17]	East Africa	Over 30	Reported at a house hold level

P Morgan [53]	Zimbabwe	Over 30	Household latrine

DA Still and K Foxon [107]	South Africa	20	Design recommendation

	South Africa	5–9	Empting time for most (85 %) pit latrines. Lower and higher filling rates were also noted

I Günther, et al. [56]	Uganda	5	Study in low income areas of Kampala, Uganda (Slums)

RN Kulabako, et al. [108]	Uganda	<1	Low laying areas of peri-urban settlements in Kampala

K Adubofour, et al. [109]	Ghana (slums in Kusami metroplis)	4.2	Average filling time

>10	High income areas

0.25	Low income areas

E Appiah-Effah, et al. [57]	Ghana (Ashanti region)	6–10	Low income area in Ashanti region

Source	Country	Filling (Years)	Remarks

RN Kulabako, et al. [108]	Uganda	<1	Low laying areas of peri-urban settlements in Kampala

K Adubofour, et al. [109]	Ghana (slums in Kusami metroplis)	4.2	Average filling time

>10	High income areas

0.25	Low income areas

E Appiah-Effah, et al. [57]	Ghana (Ashanti region)	6–10	Low income area in Ashanti region


MONITORING LAYER	INFORMATION LAYER	INTERCHANGE LAYER

Capture Subsystem	Analysis Subsystem	Visualization & Control Subsystem

MDP	Probes

Communication events:	Composite probe: 	Merging traces	Web-based visualization	XML records with TimeStamp, Metadata and Radio packet	Ethernet based platform

Transmission_Error

Routing_Error	Attached monitor node (Traps)

Transmission_success	Trace Analysis on the merged trace, based on several analysis tools	SQL database

Captured_Frame	Single probe: Sniffers

Mote_state

Capture Subsystem	Analysis Subsystem	Visualization & Control Subsystem	INFORMATION LAYER	INTERCHANGE LAYER

MDP	Probes

Communication events:	Composite probe:	Merging traces	Web-based visualization	XML records with TimeStamp, Metadata and Radio packet	Ethernet based platform

Transmission_Error

Routing_Error	Attached monitor node (Traps)

Transmission_success	Trace Analysis on the merged trace, based on several analysis tools	SQL database

Captured_Frame	Single probe: Sniffers

Mote_state


Locus	Locus reference

ZF01-020	This study

ZF01-025	This study

TG01-040	This study

ZF01-054a	This study

ZF01-139b	This study

ZF01-136	This study

ZF01-170c	[47]

ZF01-161	This study

ZF01-190	This study

ZF01-196	This study

Tgu12	This study

ZF01-180b	[43]

ZF01-081b	This study

ZF02-068	This study

ZF02-038b	This study

TG02-078	[43]

TG02-088	[43]

Ase44	[64]

ZF02-128	This study

ZF02-129	This study

ZEST09-005	Dawson et al. unpublished

Smm4	[65]

Cpi7	[66]

ZEST09-018	Dawson et al. unpublished

ZEST09-021	Dawson et al. unpublished

ZEST09-025	Dawson et al. unpublished


Poroscientific Model 740	Relative uncertainty (k = 1)	Absolute uncertainty	Percent contribution	Comments

LP CFV stagnation pres., P0 = 570.03 kPa	(× 10−6)	(Pa)	(%)

Calibration transfer standard for static pres.	17	9.7	2.1	Traceable to NIST Pres. and Vacuum Group

Drift limit	60	34.2	25.6	< 0.01 % in 6 months, assume rect. distrib.

Residuals, hysteresis, thermal effects	100	57.0	71.3	From cal. records, experiments

Dynamic pres. Unc.	12	6.7	1	Est. based on unc. of 10 % u(M) and 5 %

RSS	118	67.5	100

Poroscientific Model 740	Relative uncertainty (k = 1)	Absolute uncertainty	Percent contribution

LP CFV stagnation pres., P0 = 570.03 kPa	(× 10−6)	(Pa)	(%)

RSS	118	67.5	100


Bacteria	Total (N = 221)

Gram-negative organisms

 Klebsiella species	83 (38%)

 Escherichia coli	72 (33%)

 Pseudomonas aeruginosa	10 (5%)

 Enterobacter species	8 (4%)

 Proteus species	3 (1%)

 Citrobacter species	3 (1%)

 Serratia species	1 (1%)

 Acinetobacter species	1 (1%)

Gram-positive organisms

 Enterococcus species	18 (8%)

 Streptococcus species	17 (8%)

 Staphylococcus species	2 (1%)

Anaerobes

 Bacteroides species	3 (1%)

Bacteria

Gram-negative organisms

Klebsiella species

Escherichia coli

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Enterobacter species

Proteus species

Citrobacter species

Serratia species

Acinetobacter species

Gram-positive organisms

Enterococcus species

Streptococcus species

Staphylococcus species

Anaerobes

Bacteroides species


APPLE Schoolsa	Alberta Schoolsb	Intervention Effect: Change in APPLE Schools over time relative to the coinciding change in Alberta schools (95% CI)b


Subscale	Experimental group (n = 25)	Control group (n = 23)

Anxiety

 Week 0	6.3 ± 3.2	6.5 ± 3.4

 Week 4	4.1 ± 2.9∗#	6.1 ± 3.2

Depression

 Week 0	4.9 ± 3.8	4.8 ± 3.1

 Week 4	3.1 ± 2.8∗∗##	4.6 ± 2.9

Total

 Week 0	10.9 ± 4.1	10.8 ± 3.9

 Week 4	7.1 ± 3.1∗∗##	9.8 ± 3.4


Acceptance Number	Drug	Date	Company	Progress

JXSL1600007	Nivolumab	17 February 2016	Bristol-Myers Squibb	In Assessing

JXSL1500068	7 December 2015

JXSL1300032	20 May 2013	In Clinic

JXSL1600009	Pembrolizumab	29 February 2016	Merck	In Assessing

JXSL1600005	16 February 2016

JXSL1500074	31 December 2015

JXSL1500058	30 September 2015

JXSL1500040	28 July 2015

JXSL1500020	25 May 2015

CXSL1400138	JS001-PD-1	21 January 2015	ShangHai JunShi	In Clinic

CXSL1400153	SHR-1210	19 January 2015	ShangHai HengRui

CXSL1500096	BGB-317	11 December 2015	BeiGene	In Assessing

CXSL1600016	Genor PD-1 Antibody	7 April 2016	Genorbio

Acceptance Number	Drug	Date

JXSL1600007	Nivolumab	17 February 2016

JXSL1500068	7 December 2015

JXSL1300032	20 May 2013

JXSL1600009	Pembrolizumab	29 February 2016

JXSL1600005	16 February 2016

JXSL1500074	31 December 2015

JXSL1500058	30 September 2015

JXSL1500040	28 July 2015

JXSL1500020	25 May 2015

CXSL1400138	JS001-PD-1	21 January 2015

CXSL1400153	SHR-1210	19 January 2015

CXSL1500096	BGB-317	11 December 2015

CXSL1600016	Genor PD-1 Antibody	7 April 2016

Company	Progress

Bristol-Myers Squibb	In Assessing

In Clinic

Merck	In Assessing

ShangHai JunShi	In Clinic

ShangHai HengRui

BeiGene	In Assessing

Genorbio


Inputs	Outputs

Solar irradiance spectra	Radiance spectrum

Gas absorption and scattering cross sections	Jacobians (partial derivatives of the radiance spectrum with respect to each of the state vector elements)

Atmospheric state	-

Surface state	-

Instrument line shape function	-

Aerosol optical properties	-


Imaging direction	Treatment	Sheep (n = 5)	Pigs (n = 3)

Dorsal/Ventral	Baseline	14	15

Hypertonic	1	7

Isotonic	0	6

Mannitol	0	3

Lateral	Baseline	14	10

Hypertonic	3	2

Isotonic	4	3

Mannitol	0	4

Other	Upside down	2	0

At 24 h	1	0

Lung	0	4

		39	51

Lateral	Isotonic	4	3

Mannitol	0	4

Other	Upside down	2	0

At 24 h	1	0

Lung	0	4

		39	51


Volume (ml)	Protein concentration (mg/l)	Specific activity (AU *10000/ml)	Total activity (AU*100000)	Recovery (%)


Mycotoxins	Positives (N)	Occurrence (%)	Mean (μg kg−1)	Median (μg kg−1)	Range (μg kg−1)

Raisins


Subject terms	Titles

synuclein	alpha-synuclein

alpha synuclein

alpha

protein

aggregation

deep brain	deep brain stimulation

deep

stimulation

brain stimulation

subthalamic

lewy	lewy bodies

lewy bodies

bodies

lewy body

dementia

monoamine oxidase	monoamine oxidase

oxidase

monoamine

mao

b

mitochondrial	oxidative stress

oxidative

complex i

oxidative stress

stress


Score	Criteria

0	Active and positive engagement with the assessor or a positive response to the stimuli introduced

1	Relaxed or passive response

2	Acceptance after a few attempts and eventual tolerance

3	Overexcitement

4	Dog was attempting to avoid the assessor or the stimuli or used mouthing

5	Exhibition of fear, tonic immobility, or escape from the arena

Criteria

Active and positive engagement with the assessor or a positive response to the stimuli introduced

Relaxed or passive response

Acceptance after a few attempts and eventual tolerance

Overexcitement

Dog was attempting to avoid the assessor or the stimuli or used mouthing

Exhibition of fear, tonic immobility, or escape from the arena


Organisms	Patients

Coagulase-negative Staph.	14 (35%)

Staph. Aureus`	7 (17.5%)

Gram-negative rods	5 (12.5%)

Enterococcus	2 (5%)

Coliform Bacilli	3 (7.5%)

Diphteroid Bacilli	1 (2.5%)

No Pathogens identified	8 (20%)

Organisms	Patients

No Pathogens identified	8 (20%)


Adverse effect	Outcome	Upper risk limit (%)

		Low-dose methylprednisolone	High-dose methylprednisolone

Acute severe allergy	Lethal	0.24	0.00a

Life-threatening	2.65	1.18

Cardio-pulmonary distress	Lethal	0.33	0.79

Persistent	0.02	0.39

Life-threatening	0.86	1.71

Diabetes	Lethal	0.02	0.53

Persistent	0.86	1.05

Life-threatening	0.07	0.13

Gastrointestinal haemorrhage	Lethal	0.26	0.39

Persistent	0.13	0.13

Life-threatening	0.37	0.79

Hepatotoxicity	Lethal	0.11	0.13

Persistent	0.11	0.53

Life-threatening	0.29	0.66

Myopathy	Persistent	0.46	0.79

Life-threatening	0.07	0.13

Osteonecrosisb	Persistent	0.57	1.58

Pancreatitis	Lethal	0.04	0.13

Psychosis	Persistent	0.04	0.13

Life-threatening	0.07	0.13

Seizure	Lethal	0.09	0.39

Persistent	0.13	0.00a

Life-threatening	0.13	0.13

Ventricular arrhythmia/cardiac arrest	Lethal	0.55	1.05

Persistent	0.09	0.13

Life-threatening	0.86	1.18

Totalc	Lethal	1.65	3.42

Persistent	2.43	4.73

Life-threatening	5.36	6.04

Hepatotoxicity	Life-threatening	0.29	0.66

Myopathy	Persistent	0.46	0.79

Life-threatening	0.07	0.13

Osteonecrosisb	Persistent	0.57	1.58

Pancreatitis	Lethal	0.04	0.13

Psychosis	Persistent	0.04	0.13

Life-threatening	0.07	0.13

Seizure	Lethal	0.09	0.39

Persistent	0.13	0.00a

Life-threatening	0.13	0.13

Ventricular arrhythmia/cardiac arrest	Lethal	0.55	1.05

Persistent	0.09	0.13

Life-threatening	0.86	1.18

Totalc	Lethal	1.65	3.42

Persistent	2.43	4.73

Life-threatening	5.36	6.04


Location	Year	N	Genotype frequency	HWEa

Phe/Phe	Phe/Cys	Cys/Cys	χ2	P

Porto Velho (RO)	2010	37	0.95	0.05	0	0.002	0.821

Rondonópolis (MT)	2012	11	1	0	0	–	–

Cianorte (PR)	2009	16	1	0	0	–	–

Foz do Iguaçu (PR)	2009	24	0.79	0.21	0	0.324	0.875

Maringá (PR)	2012	24	0.87	0.13	0	0.107	0.753

Marilena (PR)	2014	16	0.94	0.06	0	0.017	0.874

Nova Londrina (PR)	2014	21	1	0	0	–	–


MIGS ID	Property	Term	Evidence codea

	Classification	Domain Bacteria	TAS [7]

		Phylum Firmicutes	TAS [8–10]

		Class Firmibacteria	TAS [8, 9, 11]

		Order Bacillales	TAS [8, 9, 12, 13]

		Family Bacillaceae	TAS [8, 9, 13, 14]

		Genus Bacillus	TAS [8, 9, 13, 15]

		Species Bacillus cereus	TAS [8, 9, 13, 16]

		Strain FORC_005

	Gram stain	Positive	TAS [17, 18]

	Cell shape	Rod	TAS [17, 18]

	Motility	Motile with peritrichous flagella	TAS [17, 18]

	Sporulation	Endospore-forming	TAS [8]

	Temperature range	10 °C–50 °C	TAS [8, 17]

	Optimum temperature	28–35 °C	TAS [8]

	pH range; Optimum	4.9–9.3; 6.0–7.0	TAS [17]

	Carbon source	Glucose, Aesculin	TAS [19]

MIGS-6	Habitat	Ubiquitous; especially in soil	TAS [17, 18]

MIGS-6.3	Salinity	0–7.5 % NaCl (w/v)	TAS [17]

MIGS-22	Oxygen requirement	Facultative anaerobes	TAS [17, 18]

MIGS-15	Biotic relationship	free-living	NAS

MIGS-14	Pathogenicity	Diarrhea, emesis in human	NAS

MIGS-4	Geographic location	Incheon, South Korea	IDA

MIGS-23	Isolation	Korean soy sauce braised fish-cake with quail-egg	IDA

MIGS-5	Sample collection	March 2014	IDA

MIGS-4.1	Latitude	37.27 N	IDA

MIGS-4.2	Longitude	126.42 E	IDA

MIGS-4.4	Altitude	Not reported


RAFK, RAF-RAFK

RAFPH, RAFPH-RAF~{p1}

RAF, MEK-RAF~{p1}, RAF-RAFK, RAFPH-RAF~{p1}, MEK~{p1}-RAF~{p1}, RAF~{p1}

MEKPH, MEKPH-MEK~{p1}, MEKPH-MEK~{p1, p2}

MEK, MAPK-MEK~{p1, p2}, MEK-RAF~{p1}, MEKPH-MEK~{p1}, MEKPH-MEK~{p1, p2}, MAPK~{p1}-MEK~{p1, p2}, MEK~{p1}-RAF~{p1}, MEK~{p1}, MEK~{p1, p2}

MAPKPH, MAPKPH-MAPK~{p1}, MAPKPH-MAPK~{p1, p2}

MAPK, MAPK-MEK~{p1, p2}, MAPKPH-MAPK~{p1}, MAPK~{p1, p2} MAPK~{p1}-MEK~{p1, p2}, MAPK~{p1}, MAPKPH-MAPK ~{p1, p2},

RAFK, RAF-RAFK

RAFPH, RAFPH-RAF~{p1}

R


Comparison		χ2 statistics	p-value

IPI vs. NCCN-IPI	IPI	6.46	0.0110

	NCCN-IPI	1.69	0.1941

IPI vs. GELTAMO-IPI	IPI	10.32	0.0013

	GELTAMO-IPI	3.25	0.0712

NCCN-IPI vs. GELTAMO-IPI	NCCN-IPI	0.06	-*

	GELTAMO-IPI	1.60	-*

Comparison		χ2 statistics	p-value

IPI vs. GELTAMO-IPI	IPI	10.32	0.0013

	GELTAMO-IPI	3.25	0.0712

NCCN-IPI vs. GELTAMO-IPI	NCCN-IPI	0.06	-*

	GELTAMO-IPI	1.60	-*


Animals	Saline	TNBS alone	TNBS + RTP

SD rats	31.5 ± 2.16	41.8 ± 3.22	31.9 ± 1.18

BALB/c mice	33.7 ± 1.13	42.9 ± 2.20	35.1 ± 3.24


	Fourier Descriptor-Based	GEI-Based	Convexity Defect-Based

Behavior	TPR	PPV	ACC	F_Score	TPR	PPV	ACC	F_Score	TPR	PPV	ACC	F_Score

Walking	0	0	1.6	-	83.9	97.7	82.4	90.3	17.4	98.4	18.4	29.6

Running	13.0	97.2	16.0	22.9	0	0	3.5	-	23.4	98.4	27.6	37.8

Standing	85.9	100	85.9	92.4	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a

Sitting	59.7	100	59.7	74.8	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a

Waving with two hands	81.4	13.7	47.8	23.5	96.5	19.1	59.6	31.9	89.0	68.6	94.9	77.4


IOFB location	Number of cases (%)

In the vitreous	11 (52.38 %)

In the retina	7 (33.33 %)

Perforating	3 (14.28 %)


Groups

Stimulation therapy

Donepezil

Stimulation therapy

Donepezil

Stimulation therapy

Donepezil


Type of interview	In-depth interviews	Focus group discussions

Members of HIV serodiscordant couples

N	42	25 (total participants – 4FGDs)

Age, Median (IQR)	31 (28–38)	32(28–35)

% Female	21 (50%)	14 (56%)

% HIV positive	21 (50%)	20 (80%)

Children, Median (IQR)	1 (1–2)	1 (0–1)

Providers (participating in key informant interviews)

N	20

Gynaecologist	11 (55%)

 Fertility clinics	5

 Jointly public and private clinics	4

 Safer conception research sites	2

Nurse counsellors	5 (25%)

 Safer conception research sites	3

 Public health hospitals	2

Clinical Officers	2 (10%)

 Safer conception research sites	1

 Public health hospitals	1

Counsellors	2 (10%)

Type of interview	In-depth interviews	Focus group discussions

Clinical Officers	2 (10%)

Safer conception research sites	1

Public health hospitals	1

Counsellors	2 (10%)


Sampling sites	Functional type	Vehicle and personnel	Greenbelt coverage rate	Air pollution

SSC	Shed used to stay chicken waiting for slaughtering	A few transport vehicles with chickens about 10 times h−1	~50%	Serious air pollution

EPV	Entrances to personnel and transport vehicles with products	Flow of transport vehicles, and some flow of personnel at commuting time	<5%	A little air pollution

GB	Green belt	Little flow of vehicles and personnel	>95%	Little air pollution

Sampling sites	Functional type	Vehicle and personnel	Greenbelt coverage rate	Air pollution

SSC	Shed used to stay chicken waiting for slaughtering	A few transport vehicles with chickens about 10 times h−1	~50%	Serious air pollution

EP	Entrances to	Flow of transport vehicles, and some		A lit

Sampling sites	Functional type	Vehicle and personnel	Greenbelt coverage rate	Air pollution

V	 personnel and transport vehicles with products	 flow of personnel at commuting time	<5%	tle air pollution

GB	Green belt	Little flow of vehicles and personnel	>95%	Little air pollution


COL4A3 polymorphism	PolyPhen prediction (score)	SIFT prediction (score)

G43R	possibly damaging (1.800)	not tolerated (0.00)

P141L	probably damaging (2.250)	tolerated (0.40)

E162G	benign(0.024)	tolerated (0.64)

D326Y	probably damaging (2.025)	tolerated (0.08)

H451R	benign (1.426)	tolerated (0.54)

P574L	probably damaging (2.250)	tolerated (0.19)

COL4A4 polymorphism	PolyPhen prediction (score)	SIFT prediction (score)

P482S	benign (1.125)	tolerated (0.71)

G545A	benign (1.350)	not tolerated (0.01)

M1327V	benign(0.017)	tolerated (0.13)

COL4A3 polymorphism	PolyPhen prediction (score)	SIFT prediction (score)

G43R	possibly damaging (1.800)	not tolerated (0.00)

P1	probably d	tolera

41L	amaging (2.250)	ted (0.40)

E162G	benign(0.024)	tolerated (0.64)

D326Y	probably damaging (2.025)	tolerated (0.08)

H451R	benign (1.426)	tolerated (0.54)

P574L	probably damaging (2.250)	tolerated (0.19)

COL4A4 polymorphism	PolyPhen prediction (score)	SIFT prediction (score)

P482S	benign (1.125)	tolerated (0.71)

G545A	benign (1.350)	not tolerated (0.01)

M1327V	benign(0.017)	tolerated (0.13)


	Site	Amino acid replacements	Aminoacid change	PAML

SLAC	REL	FEL	MEME	FUBAR	Branch-sites

COX1	3	Y; S (2, 12, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24); P (15)	x	–	x	–	–	–

177	T, A (19)	–	–	–	–	–	E. mitis


S/N	Communities	Number of health facilities	Population size (2010 projection)	Major source of water supply	Means of waste disposal	Means of faecal disposal

Public	Private	Mission	Other

1	Moniya	6	4	0	0	28,990	• Well water is the major source	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages	• Most use latrine at home

2	Ojoo	2	13	0	0	35,737	• Well water is the major source	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages in some areas	• Most use latrine at home

• Private refuse collector are engaged by some areas

3	Alagbafo	1	1	0	1	22,635	• Well water and spring are the major sources of water although water pipe runs through but disconnected	• Refuse containers provided by the government	• Most use latrine at home

4	Foko	1	3	0	0	29,279	• Well water is the major source of water although water pipe runs through the community but irregular	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages in some areas	• Indiscriminate disposal of fecal matter through the drainage or dumping site

5	Inalende	0	3	0	1	24,279	• Well water is the major source of water although water pipe runs through the community but irregular	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages in some areas	• Most dispose their fecal matter through the drainage or dump site

6	Odo-Ona/Apata	4	7	2	0	55,429	• Pipe borne water irregular	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages in some areas	• Most use latrine at home

• Well water is the major source

7	Olorunsogo	1	6	0	2	38,475	• Well water is the major source	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages in some areas	• Most use latrine at home

8	Olunloyo	1	2	0	0	25,531	• Well water is the major source and some have borehole	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages in some areas	• Most use latrine at home

S/N	Communities	Number of health facilities

Public	Private	Mission	Other

1	Moniya	6	4	0	0

2	Ojoo	2	13	0	0

3	Alagbafo	1	1	0	1

4	Foko	1	3	0	0

5	Inalende	0	3	0	1

6	Odo-Ona/Apata	4	7	2	0

7	Olorunsogo	1	6	0	2

8	Olunloyo	1	2	0	0

Population size (2010 projection)	Major source of water supply	Means of waste disposal	Means of faecal disposal

28,990	• Well water is the major source	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages	• Most use latrine at home

35,737	• Well water is the major source	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages in some areas	• Most use latrine at home

• Private refuse collector are engaged by some areas

22,635	• Well water and spring are the major sources of water although water pipe runs through but disconnected	• Refuse containers provided by the government	• Most use latrine at home

29,279	• Well water is the major source of water although water pipe runs through the community but irregular	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages in some areas	• Indiscriminate disposal of fecal matter through the drainage or dumping site

24,279	• Well water is the major source of water although water pipe runs through the community but irregular	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages in some areas	• Most dispose their fecal matter through the drainage or dump site

55,429	• Pipe borne water irregular	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages in some areas	• Most use latrine at home

• Well water is the major source

38,475	• Well water is the major source	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages in some areas	• Most use latrine at home

25,531	• Well water is the major source and some have borehole	• Indiscriminate dumping at dump sites and drainages in some areas	• Most use latrine at home


Predictors of HSCL	Drop-outs at one- year follow-up N = 155	Participants at one- year follow-up N = 758	Drop-outs at 15-year follow-up N = 514	Participants at 15- year follow-up N = 399

Women:

Age	-.12	-.17**	-.14**	-.18**

Alone with child	.19*	.12**	.16**	.09

Family finances	-.33**	-.28**	-.29**	-.28**

Education	-.15	-.18**	-.20**	-.13**

Not working	.16	.14**	.14**	.14**

Emotionality	.65**	.55**	.53**	.62**

Sociability	-.16*	-.19**	-.22**	-.13*

Activity	.00	-.01	-.01	-.01

Partner support	-.46**	-.37**	-.38**	-.40**


Reference	n	Subjects/methods	Exposure Measurement (PC; CC, CS)	Intervention (RCT)	Cancer type	Gene/s	Locus	Effect

Al-Hilal et al., 2013 [14]	367	6-month RCT/M + F, 45–70 year		EPA + DHA; 0.45, 0.9 or 1.9 g/day		FADS1 + FADS2	rs174537	↓D5D activity associated with T variant allele; ↑D5D activity in TG, TT with increasing doses; no association for D6D

Fradet et al., 2009 [12]	Control 478; case 466	CC/M, mean age 65 year	FFQ		Prostate	COX2	rs4648310	G allele correlated with aggressive PCa when n-3 FA intake was low, and low risk with high intake

Gago-Dominguez et al., 2004 [49]	Control 670; case 258	CC/F, 45–74 year	SQ FFQ		Breast	GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTP1	multiple	Lower activity genotypes associated with higher BCa protection with ↑ intake of marine n-3 FA

Habermann et al., 2013 [11]	Control 912; case 712	CC/M + F, 30–79 year	CARDIA questionnaire		Rectal	ALOX12	rs11571339	G allele associated with↓rectal cancer risk in those with low n-3 PUFA intake (NS)

Habermann et al., 2013 [11]	Control 1900; case 1543	CC/M + F, 30–79 year	CARDIA questionnaire		Colon	ALOX15	rs11568131	AA genotype have ↓risk of colon cancer with↑ intakes of n-3 PUFA (NS)

Habermann et al., 2013 [11]	Control 1900; case 1543	CC/M + F, 30–79 year	CARDIA questionnaire		Colon	COX1	rs10306110	Low EPA/DHA intake associated with higher colon cancer risk in variant allele carriers only

Hedelin et al., 2006 [50]	Control 1130; case1499	CC/M, 35–79 year	FFQ		Prostate	COX2	rs5275	C allele at locus rs5275 correlated with ↓risk of PCa with high intake of fatty fish

Hester et al., 2014 [13]	30	CS/Caucasian F, 21–65 year	Serum FA			FADS1	rs174537	T variant correlated with lower AA; GG genotype associated with ↑LTB4 + 5-HETE

Hog et al., 2013 [37]	122	3 year PC/M, 35–59 year	Blood serum			FADS1, FADS2 + FADS3	rs174537 (FADS1); rs174575, rs2727270 (FADS2), rs1000778 (FADS3)	rs174537GG had ↑AA, AA/DGLA, DPA, LDL, oxLDL + ↓ETA. Rs17453 had↓AA, AA/DGLA, EPA, DPA, EPA/ALA + urinary PGF2a

Poole et al., 2007 [51]	Control 626; case 716	CC/M + F, 30–74 year	FFQ		Colorectal	COX1	Phe17Leu	Modest↓risk of CRC for carriers of P17 with higher fish intake; L17 carriers have ↓risk of CRC with lower intake

Poole et al., 2010 [52]	Control 582; case 483	CC/M + F, 30–74 year	FFQ		Colorectal	PGES	rs7873087	Carriers of T allele have ↓risk of CRC with ↑fish intake

Poole et al., 2010 [52]	Control 582; case 483	CC/M + F, 30–74 year	FFQ		Colorectal	EP4	Val294Ile	Carriers of Ile variant showed correlation between ↑fish intake and ↑CRC risk

Porenta et al., 2013 [53]	108	6-month RCT/CRC at risk M + F	2 day FR + 24 h recall	Healthy People 2010 diet or Mediterranean diet	Colon	FADS cluster	rs174556 and rs174561 in FADS1, rs383445 in FADS2 and rs174537 of the FADS1/2 intragenic region	Wild-type alleles associated with lower AA in colonic mucosa in persons on Mediterranean Diet

Reference	n	Subjects/methods

Al-Hilal et al., 2013 [14]	367	6-month RCT/M + F, 45–70 year

Fradet et al., 2009 [12]	Control 478; case 466	CC/M, mean age 65 year

Gago-Dominguez et al., 2004 [49]	Control 670; case 258	CC/F, 45–74 year

Habermann et al., 2013 [11]	Control 912; case 712	CC/M + F, 30–79 year

Habermann et al., 2013 [11]	Control 1900; case 1543	CC/M + F, 30–79 year

Habermann et al., 2013 [11]	Control 1900; case 1543	CC/M + F, 30–79 year

Hedelin et al., 2006 [50]	Control 1130; case1499	CC/M, 35–79 year

Hester et al., 2014 [13]	30	CS/Caucasian F, 21–65 year

Hog et al., 2013 [37]	122	3 year PC/M, 35–59 year

Poole et al., 2007 [51]	Control 626; case 716	CC/M + F, 30–74 year

Poole et al., 2010 [52]	Control 582; case 483	CC/M + F, 30–74 year

Poole et al., 2010 [52]	Control 582; case 483	CC/M + F, 30–74 year

Porenta et al., 2013 [53]	108	6-month RCT/CRC at risk M + F

Exposure Measurement (PC; CC, CS)	Intervention (RCT)	Cancer type	Gene/s	Locus	Effect

	EPA + DHA; 0.45, 0.9 or 1.9 g/day		FADS1 + FADS2	rs174537	↓D5D activity associated with T variant allele; ↑D5D activity in TG, TT with increasing doses; no association for D6D

FFQ		Prostate	COX2	rs4648310	G allele correlated with aggressive PCa when n-3 FA intake was low, and low risk with high intake

SQ FFQ		Breast	GSTM1, GSTT1, GSTP1	multiple	Lower activity genotypes associated with higher BCa protection with ↑ intake of marine n-3 FA

CARDIA questionnaire		Rectal	ALOX12	rs11571339	G allele associated with↓rectal cancer risk in those with low n-3 PUFA intake (NS)

CARDIA questionnaire		Colon	ALOX15	rs11568131	AA genotype have ↓risk of colon cancer with↑ intakes of n-3 PUFA (NS)

CARDIA questionnaire		Colon	COX1	rs10306110	Low EPA/DHA intake associated with higher colon cancer risk in variant allele carriers only

FFQ		Prostate	COX2	rs5275	C allele at locus rs5275 correlated with ↓risk of PCa with high intake of fatty fish

Serum FA			FADS1	rs174537	T variant correlated with lower AA; GG genotype associated with ↑LTB4 + 5-HETE

Blood serum			FADS1, FADS2 + FADS3	rs174537 (FADS1); rs174575, rs2727270 (FADS2), rs1000778 (FADS3)	rs174537GG had ↑AA, AA/DGLA, DPA, LDL, oxLDL + ↓ETA. Rs17453 had↓AA, AA/DGLA, EPA, DPA, EPA/ALA + urinary PGF2a

FFQ		Colorectal	COX1	Phe17Leu	Modest↓risk of CRC for carriers of P17 with higher fish intake; L17 carriers have ↓risk of CRC with lower intake

FFQ		Colorectal	PGES	rs7873087	Carriers of T allele have ↓risk of CRC with ↑fish intake

FFQ		Colorectal	EP4	Val294Ile	Carriers of Ile variant showed correlation between ↑fish intake and ↑CRC risk

2 day FR + 24 h recall	Healthy People 2010 diet or Mediterranean diet	Colon	FADS cluster	rs174556 and rs174561 in FADS1, rs383445 in FADS2 and rs174537 of the FADS1/2 intragenic region	Wild-type alleles associated with lower AA in colonic mucosa in persons on Mediterranean Diet


Instrument A	Time 1	Time 2	Intervention	Time 3	Difference score	Exercise test Result

Subject 1	8	9	Verum	15	+6	Much improved

Subject 2	9	8	“”	15	+7	Much improved

Subject 3	8	9	“”	15	+6	Much improved

Subject 4	9	8	“”	15	+7	Much improved

Subject 5	8	9	Placebo	8	-1	Unchanged

Subject 6	9	8	“”	9	+1	Unchanged

Subject 7	8	9	“”	8	-1	Unchanged

Subject 8	9	8	“”	9	+1	Unchanged

Instrument B	Time 1	Time 2		Time 3	Difference score	Exercise test Result

Subject 1	5	5	Verum	5	0	Much improved

Subject 2	9	9	“”	9	0	Much improved

Subject 3	13	13	“”	13	0	Much improved

Subject 4	17	17	“”	17	0	Much improved

Subject 5	5	5	Placebo	5	0	Unchanged

Subject 6	9	9	“”	9	0	Unchanged

Subject 7	13	13	“”	13	0	Unchanged

Subject 8	17	17	“”	17	0

Instrument A	Time 1	Time 2	Intervention	Time 3	Difference score

Subject 1	8	9	Verum	15	+6

Subject 2	9	8	“”	15	+7

Subject 3	8	9	“”	15	+6

Subject 4	9	8	“”	15	+7

Subject 5	8	9	Placebo	8	-1

Subject 6	9	8	“”	9	+1

Subject 7	8	9	“”	8	-1

Subject 8	9	8	“”	9	+1

Instrument B	Time 1	Time 2		Time 3	Difference score

Subject 1	5	5	Verum	5	0

Subject 2	9	9	“”	9	0

Subject 3	13	13	“”	13	0

Subject 4	17	17	“”	17	0

Subject 5	5	5	Placebo	5	0

Subject 6	9	9	“”	9	0

Subject 7	13	13	“”	13	0

Subject 8	17	17	“”	17	0

Exercise test Result

Much improved

Much improved

Much improved

Much improved

Unchanged

Unchanged

Unchanged

Unchanged

Exercise test Result

Much improved

Much improved

Much improved

Much improved

Unchanged

Unchanged

Unchanged


Reference	Population	N	RRT	Mortality	Prognostic factors for hospital mortality

Mixed population (solid and hematological tumors, including bone marrow transplantation)

Berghmans et al. (15)	Solid: 50%	32	CVVHDF	ICU: 50%	Number of organ failure

Hemato: 50%	Hospital: 53%

BMT: 28%

Salahudeen et al. (5)	Solid: 38%	199	C-SLED	Day 30: 65%	SOFA score, pH, mean blood pressure

Hemato: 62%

BMT: 18%

Mixed population (solid and hematological tumors, excluding bone marrow transplantation)

Maccariello et al. (13)	Solid: 73%	118	IRRT daily conventional	ICU: 70%	Number of organ failure

Hemato: 27%	IRRT daily extended	Hospital: 78%

CRRT

Darmon et al. (7)	Solid: 7%	94	CRRT	ICU: 43.6%	LOD score, late RRT (>24 h after ICU admission)

Hemato: 78%	IRRT	Hospital: 51.1%

Other: 15%	6 months: 65.4%

Soares et al. (14)	Solid: 75%	98	IRRT conventional	Hospital: 64–86%	–

Hemato: 25%	IRRT extended

CRRT

Hematological tumors

Letourneau et al. (12)	BMT: 100%	14	CVVHDF	–	–

IRRT

Lanore et al. (11)	BMT: 11%	43		ICU: 72%	ARF secondary to sepsis, SAPS score, mechanical ventilation support

Benoit et al. (9)	BMT: 22.4%	50	IRRT	ICU: 79.6%	–

CRRT	Hospital: 83.7%

6 months: 86%

Salahudeen et al. (5)	BMT: 18%	199	C-SLED	Day 30: 65%	SOFA score, pH, mean blood pressure

Mixed population (solid and hematological tumors, excluding bone marrow transplantation)

Maccariello et al. (13)	Solid: 73%	118	IRRT daily conventional	ICU: 70%	Number of organ failure

Hemato: 27%	IRRT daily extended	Hospital: 78%

CRRT

Darmon et al. (7)	Solid: 7%	94	CRRT	ICU: 43.6%	LOD score, late RRT (>24 h after ICU admission)

Hemato: 78%	IRRT	Hospital: 51.1%

Other: 15%	6 months: 65.4%

Soares et al. (14)	Solid: 75%	98	IRRT conventional	Hospital: 64–86%	–

Hemato: 25%	IRRT extended

CRRT

Hematological tumors

Letourneau et al. (12)	BMT: 100%	14	CVVHDF	–	–

IRRT

Lanore et al. (11)	BMT: 11%	43		ICU: 72%	ARF secondary to sepsis, SAPS score, mechanical ventilation support

Benoit et al. (9)	BMT: 22.4%	50	IRRT	ICU: 79.6%	–

CRRT	Hospital: 83.7%

6 months: 86%


OCT (μm) Mean ± SD	Chloroquine group	Control group	p value∗

FLV	0.86 ± 1.04	0.60 ± 0.53	0.167

GLV	4.28 ± 3.87	3.56 ± 3.05	0.358


Metal	PFP soluble metals (μg metal/g PM)	Fresno soluble metals (μg metal/g PM)b

Co	< 3.2	n/a

Cr	< 0.84	n/a

Cu	< 1.0	344 ± 137

Fe	< 25	262 ± 32

Mn	< 1.8	397 ± 56

Ni	< 3.4	n/a

V	< 0.68	17 ± 3

Zn	7.8 ± 4.9	n/a

Metal	PFP soluble metals (μg metal/g PM)	Fresno soluble metals (μg metal/g PM)b

Co	< 3.2	n/a

Cr	< 0.84	n/a

Cu	< 1.0	344 ± 137

Fe	< 25	262 ± 32

Mn	< 1.8	397 ± 56

Ni	< 3.4	n/a

	< 0	17


	Before SVA onset (n = 30)	After SVA onset (n = 30)	p

Systolic arterial pressure, mmHg	114 [97–127]	97 [86–118]	0.076

Diastolic arterial pressure, mmHg	58 [51–63]	58 [47–64]	0.513

Mean arterial pressure, mmHg	77.0 [70.0–87.0]	73.0 [58.5–80.5]	0.056

Arterial pulse pressure, mmHg	54 [39–70]	42 [31–57]	0.081

Heart rate, beats/min	99 [87–118]	140 [123–165]	<0.001

Dobutamine dose, μg/kg/mina	7.5 [5.0–10.0]	7.5 [5.0–10.0]	>0.99

Norepinephrine dose, mg/ha	1.7 [0.3–3.0]	1.8 [0.5–4.5]	0.010

Epinephrine dose, mg/ha	1.3 [0.5–2.0]	1.5 [0.0–3.0]	0.655


	Nest (%)	Environment (%)	Chi-square	P

Egg stage

String	55	76	3.366	0.07

Foil	10	13	0.391	0.53

Paper	0	2	–	–

Other	35	9	15.364	< 0.001

Chick stage

String	30	83	24.858	< 0.001


		Number of clones	Number of heteroinsertion	Number of homoinsertion	Efficiency of heteroinsertion	Efficiency of homoinsertion

Eed	LNL insertion	88	17	4	19.3%	4.5%

FNFL insertion	190	33	5	17.4%	2.6%

SRCAP	LNL insertion	94	65	3	69.1%	3.2%

FNFL insertion	96	70	2	72.9%	2.1%


Donor	Population	Expansionday	EGA sample accessionnumber

1	IgM+ IgD+	0	EGAN00001588556

1	IgM+ IgD-	0	EGAN00001588558

1	IgM- IgD-	0	EGAN00001588559

1	IgM+ IgD+	5	EGAN00001588560

1	IgM+ IgD-	5	EGAN00001588561

1	IgM- IgD-	5	EGAN00001588562

1	IgM+ IgD+	10	EGAN00001588563

1	IgM+ IgD-	10	EGAN00001588564

1	IgM- IgD-	10	EGAN00001588565


p value¶

Complication rate

0.458

0.634

0.44

0.363


	Hazard ratio	95% CI	p

Model 1 + SAPS II

Heart failure	2.25	1.29-3.93	0.005

Coronary artery disease	0.40	0.21-0.77	0.006

Hemoglobin on admission	0.91	0.84-0.98	0.009

SAPS II	1.04	1.03-1.05	0.001

Model 2 + SAPS II

Heart failure	1.70	0.99-2.88	0.05

Peripheral artery disease	0.51	0.28-0.95	0.03

Coronary artery disease	0.49	0.26-0.93	0.03

Hemoglobin on admission	0.91	0.84-0.98	0.01

CKD	1.67	1.08-2.57	0.02

SAPS II	1.04	1.03-1.05	0.001


Indexes	Biological Rope Unit	Myriophyllum verticillatum Unit	Iris wilsonii Unit	Activated Carbon Unit

TN	16.07%	28.10%	30.33%	19.55%

NO3−-N	28.64%	37.02%	33.78%	25.03%

Indexes	Biological Rope Unit	Myriophyllum verticillatum Unit	Iris wilsonii Unit	Activated Carbon Unit

NH4+-N	17.68%	25.12%	29.22%	28.04%

TP	21.19%	3.96%	6.05%	4.17%

PO43−-P	15.05%	16.51%	14.23%	25.52%


Characteristics

Characteristics of the children		N	%

Age (n = 1067)	- 2 or 3 years old	227	21%

	- 4 years old	335	31%

	- 5 years old	328	31%

	- 6 years old	177	17%

Girls (n = 1068)		537	50%

First in birth order (n = 1039)		498	48%

Medical conditions (n = 1068)	- Preterm infant	96	9%

	- Hospitalisation after birth	81	8%

	- Asthma	156	15%

	- Wearing of glasses	146	14%

	- Auditory disorders	63	6%

	- Allergy	214	20%

	- Behavioural disorder	44	4%

	- At least one surgical intervention	225	21%

	- Other medical conditions	70	7%

Long term medication use (n = 1068)		73	7%

Frequency of administrating over the counter drugs without medical advice (n = 1062)	- Never	168	16%

	- Rarely	311	29%

	- Often	509	48%

	- Almost every time my child is ill	74	7%

Under homeopathic treatment (n = 1043)		549	53%

Advice from a pharmacist within the last 12 months (n = 1051)		445	42%

		Mean	SD

N. of primary care consultations within the last 12 months (n = 1029)		5.9	4.6

Parental characteristics		N	%

Single parent family (n = 1066)		136	13%

Rural place of residence (n = 1064)		217	20%

Occupation (n = 1056)	- Disadvantaged (workers, unemployed)	151	14%

	- Moderately advantaged (self-employed, employees)	563	53%

	- Advantaged (managers and executives)	342	33%

Education level (n = 1037)	- Elementary and secondary	285	27%

	- High school diploma ("Baccalauréat")	238	23%

	- Lower tertiary	235	23%

	- Higher tertiary	279	27%

Annual family income (n = 949)	- < 14 000 €	168	18%

	- 14 000 to 19 999 €	203	21%

	- 20 000 to 29 999 €	286	30%

	- 30 000 to 39 999 €	170	18%

	- ≥ 40 000 €	122	13%

		Mean	SD

Age of the respondent in year (n = 1058)		34.0	5.0

Parental stress level (n = 1040)		4.9	2.3


Procedure	Total volume (mL)	Total protein (mg)	Total activity (UI)a	Specific activityb (UI mg−1)	Purificationc (fold)

Crude extract	300	1302.3	215220	165.3	1

Ammonium Sulphate ppt.	22	43.9	13501.4	307.5	1.86

Dialysis	21	39.2	12559.9	320.4	1.94

DEAE-cellulose	12	6.37	6811.2	1069.3	6.47

Sephadex G-100	9	2.9	4599.1	1585.9	9.6

Procedure	Total volume (mL)	Total protein (mg)	Total activity (UI)a	Specific activityb (UI mg−1)	Purificationc (fold)

Dialysis	21	39.2	12559.9	320.4	1.94

DEAE-cellulose	12	6.37	6811.2	1069.3	6.47

Sephadex G-100	9	2.9	4599.1	1585.9	9.6


Gene name	Gene symbol	Comments	Statistics

Log2 fold change	q value

Spermidine synthetase	Srm	Synthesizes polyamines important in granule biogenesis and homeostasis, including storage of histamine and proteases (Garcia-Faroldi, 2010 [47])	3.68	0.00016

Ornithine decarboxylase 1	Odc1	Synthesizes polyamines important in granule biogenesis and homeostasis, including storage of histamine and proteases (Garcia-Faroldi, 2010 [47])	2.52	0.00016

Spermine synthetase	Sms	Synthesizes polyamines important in granule biogenesis and homesostasis, including storage of histamine and proteases (Garcia-Faroldi, 2010 [47])	0.54	0.0045

Basic helix-loop-helix family, member A15	Bhlha15	Important transcription factor in forming mature secretory granules in a variety of specialized secretory cells (Tian 2010 [72])	3.42	0.00016

Rab5c, member of Ras oncogene family	Rab5c	Key regulator of mast cell granule fusion during biogenesis (Azouz 2014 [48])	0.62	0.00032

Mannose-6-phosphate receptor	M6pr	Transports glycosylated proteins, such as lysosomal hydrolases and TNF, into vesicles (Coutinho 2012 [50], Olszewski 2006 [73])	0.43	0.00016

Adaptor protein 1A complex	Ap1m1	Protein necessary for the sorting of proteins into vesicles and secretory granule maturation (Bonnemaison 2014 [49])	0.36	0.0033

ATPase, H+ transporting, lysosomal 16 kDa, V0 subunit c	Atp6v0c	Component of a vacuolar type H+ ATPase that acidifies granule lumen for condensation of granule contents (Borges 2011)	0.69	0.00016

ATPase, H+ transporting, lysosomal 50/57 kDa, V1 subunit H	Atp6v1h	Component of a vacuolar type H+ ATPase that acidifies granule lumen for condensation of granule contents (Borges 2011)	0.52	0.00016

ATPase, H+ transporting, lysosomal V0 subunit a2	Atp6v0a2	Component of a vacuolar type H+ ATPase that acidifies granule lumen for condensation of granule contents (Borges 2011)	0.46	0.00016

ATPase, H+ transporting, lysosomal 50/57 kDa, V1 subunit H	Atp6v1a	Component of a vacuolar type H+ ATPase that acidifies granule lumen for condensation of granule contents (Borges 2011)	0.42	0.020

ATPase, H+ transporting, lysosomal 9 kDa, V0 subunit e1	Atp6v0e	Component of a vacuolar type H+ ATPase that acidifies granule lumen for condensation of granule contents (Borges 2011)	0.32	0.0044

ATPase, H+ transporting, lysosomal 34 kDa, V1 subunit D	Atp6v1d	Component of a vacuolar type H+ ATPase that acidifies granule lumen for condensation of granule contents (Borges 2011)	−0.24	0.038

ATPase, H+ transporting, lysosomal 13 kDa, V1 subunit G2	Atp6v1g2	Component of a vacuolar type H+ ATPase that acidifies granule lumen for condensation of granule contents (Borges 2011)	−1.84	0.00016

Lysosomal trafficking regulator	Lyst	Important regulator of granule formation (Durchfort 2012 [95], Hammel 2010 [52])	−1.29	0.00016

Solute carrier family 18, member 2	Slc18a2	Transports histamine and serotonin into granules (Merickel 1995 [96])	−0.92	0.00016


Histone	Modification 1	Modification 2	Modification 3	Modification 4	Intensity average 6xHIS-Ibd1 (4 repetitions)	Intensity average 6xHIS-G9a (2 repetitions)

H3	K9ac	K14ac			0.95	0.02

H2a	K5ac	K9ac	K13ac		0.92	0.01

H4	R3me2s	K5ac	K8ac	K12ac	0.90	0.00

H4	K5ac	K8ac	K12ac	K16ac	0.89	0.03

H3	K9me3	K14ac			0.88	0.01

H3	S10P	K14ac			0.88	0.04

H4	K5ac	K8ac	K12ac		0.84	0.01

H3	T11P	K14ac			0.82	0.01

H2a	S1P	K5ac	K9ac	K13ac	0.82	0.01

H2a	S1P	K9ac	K13ac		0.81	0.01

H3	R2me2s	K4me2	R8me2a	K9me2	0.19	0.96

H3	R2me2a	K4me1	R8me2a	K9me2	0.18	0.94

H3	R2me2a	K4me2	R8me2a	K9me2	0.18	0.90

H3	K4ac	R8me2s	K9me1		0.21	0.84

H3	R2me2a	K4me2	R8me2a	K9me1	0.19	0.83

H3	R2me2a	K4me3	R8me2a	K9me2	0.18	0.80

H3	R2me2a	K4ac	R8me2a	K9me2	0.28	0.79

H3	R2me2a	K4me3	R8me2a	K9me1	0.19	0.79

H3	R2me2s	K4ac	R8me2a	K9me1	0.16	0.76

H3	R2me2s	K4me2	R8me2s	K9me1	0.17	0.76

Histone	Modification 1	Modification 2	Modification 3	Modification 4	Intensity average 6xHIS-Ibd1 (4 repetitions)	Intensity average 6xHIS-G9a (2 repetitions)

H3	R2me2a	K4me3	R8me2a	K9me2	0.18	0.80

H3	R2me2a	K4ac	R8me2a	K9me2	0.28	0.79

H3	R2me2a	K4me3	R8me2a	K9me1	0.19	0.79

H3	R2me2s	K4ac	R8me2a	K9me1	0.16	0.76

H3	R2me2s	K4me2	R8me2s	K9me1	0.17	0.76


Characteristic	n	%

Area of practice

GP/FP	117	27

GP/FP with enhanced area	72	17

Specialist	219	51

Other1:	6	1

Not specified	12	3

Number of years in practice

0 to 5	40	9

6 to 10	39	9

11 to 15	45	11

16 to 20	59	14

21 or more	230	54

Not specified	13	3

Region of practice

Atlantic	38	9

Quebec	100	23

Ontario	128	30

Prairies	70	16

BC	64	15

Territories	6	1

Not specified	20	5

Community where practicing

Urban	226	53

Rural	92	22

Both	96	23

Not specified	12	3

Language of survey completion

English	388	91

French	38	9

Characteristic	n	%

Area of practice

GP/FP	117	27

GP/FP with enhanced area	72	17

Specialist	219	51

Other1:	6	1

Not specified	12	3

Number of years in practice

0 to 5	40	9

6 to 10	39	9

11 to 15	45	11

16 to 20	59	14

21 or more	230	54

Not specified	13	3

Region of practice

Atlantic	38	9

Quebec	100	23

Ontario	128	30

Prairies	70	16

BC	64	15

Territories	6	1

Not specified	20	5

Community where practicing

Urban	226	53

Rural	92	22

B	96	23

Characteristic	n	%

oth

Not specified	12	3

Language of survey completion

English	388	91

French	38	9


Bacteria	MIC (mg/mL)

IxPE	IxCE	IxME	IxWE

Bacillus subtilis (MTCC111)	2	>2	0.125	1

Staphylococcus aureus (MTCC3160)	>2	>2	1	>2

Streptococcus mutant (MTCC890)	>2	1	2	2

Escherichia coli (MTCC443)	2	1	2	>2

Klebsiella pneumoniae (MTCC109)	>2	>2	0.25	>2

Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MTCC741)	2	2	0.5	2


	Current wheeze	Ever had wheeze	Wheeze disturb sleep	Wheeze limiting speech	Exercise wheeze	Night cough	Ever had asthma	Any asthma symptoms

Boys	29 (9.0%)	75 (25.3%)	3 (3.8%)	4 (4.8%)	14 (4.8%)	44 (14.9%)	43 (13.3%)	89 (27.6%)


Subject	Age enrollment(years)	GMFCS level at enrollment	GMFM-66 change over 2 years	Abnormalmovements	Typography

1	1.7	IV	4	Spasticity with dystonia	Q

2	2.4	II	8	Spasticity	D

3	5.1	I	19	Spasticity with dystonia	H (Lh)

4	1.2	IV	4	Spasticity with dystonia	Q

5	4.0	II	2	Spasticity with dystonia	H (Lh)

6	4.4	III	4	Spasticity	D

7	2.3	II	11	Spasticity	H (Rh)

8	1.4	II	17	Spasticity	H (Lh)

9	1.1	I	16	Spasticity with dystonia	H (Rh)

10	3.7	II	11	Spasticity	H (Rh)

11	1.5	IV	2	Spasticity with dystonia	Q

12	3.8	IV	5	Spasticity with dystonia	Q

13	2.1	II	15	Spasticity	D

14	2.8	II	13	Spasticity with dystonia	H (Lh)

15	2.8	II	5	Spasticity	D

16	1.4	IV	6	Spasticity predominant, mixed with dystonia	Q

17	3.0	III	22	Spasticity predominant, mixed with spasticity	T (LUE)

Subject	Age enrollment(years)	GMFCS level at enrollment	GMFM-66 change over 2 years	Abnormalmovements	Typography

1	1.7	IV	4	Spasticity with dystonia	Q

2	2.4	II	8	Spasticity	D

3	5.1	I	19	Spasticity with dystonia	H (Lh)

4	1.2	IV	4	Spasticity with dystonia	Q

5	4.0	II	2	Spasticity with dystonia	H (Lh)

6	4.4	III	4	Spasticity	D

7	2.3	II	11	Spasticity	H (Rh)

8	1.4	II	17	Spasticity	H (Lh)

9	1.1	I	16	Spasticity with dystonia	H (Rh)

10	3.7	II	11	Spasticity	H (Rh)

11	1.5	IV	2	Spasticity with dystonia	Q

12	3.8	IV	5	Spasticity with dystonia	Q

13	2.1	II	15	Spasticity	D

14	2.8	II	13	Spasticity with dystonia	H (Lh)

15		I

Subject	Age enrollment(years)	GMFCS level at enrollment	GMFM-66 change over 2 years	Abnormalmovements	Typography

	2.8	I	5	Spasticity	D

16	1.4	IV	6	Spasticity predominant, mixed with dystonia	Q

17	3.0	III	22	Spasticity predominant, mixed with spasticity	T (LUE)


Compound	Class	PIM inhibition selectivity	Development	Disease

SGI-1776	imadizaopyridazine	IC50: 7 nM PIM1, 363 nM PIM2, 69 nM PIM3, 44 nM FLT-3 and 34 nM Haspin [107].	Failure in phase I clinical trials by cardiotoxicity	Non-Hodgkin lymphoma

SMI4a	benzylidene-thiazolidene-2,4-dione	IC50: 21 nM PIM1, 100 nM PIM2 [113].	Preclinical	Acute myeloid leukemia

Selective vs. 56 kinases [114].

LGB321	3-(S)-amino-piperidine pyridyl carboxamide	IC50: 0.001 nM PIM1, 0.0021 nM PIM2, and 0.0008 nM PIM3 [106].	Recruiting patients for clinical trials	Multiple myeloma

AZD1897		IC50: 3 nM PIM1,2 and 3 [115].	Preclinical	Acute myeloid leukemia

SEL24-B58	Benzoimidazol	IC50: 31 nM PIM1, 154 nM PIM2, 152 nM PIM3. Selective in a panel of 299 kinases with the exception of haspin, HIPK and CLK kinases [117].	Preclinical	Leukemic monocyte lymphoma

AZD1208	thiazolidene	IC50: Pim-1 0.4 nM, Pim-2 5.0 nM and Pim-3 1.9 nM [115].	Recruiting patients for clinical trials	Acute myeloid leukemia

Compound	Class	PIM inhibition selectivity	Development	Disease

	imadizaopyridazine	IC5	Failure in phase I clinical trials by cardiotoxicity	Non-Hodgkin lymph

SGI-1776		0: 7 nM PIM1, 363 nM PIM2, 69 nM PIM3, 44 nM FLT-3 and 34 nM Haspin [107].		oma

SMI4a	benzylidene-thiazolidene-2,4-dione	IC50: 21 nM PIM1, 100 nM PIM2 [113].	Preclinical	Acute myeloid leukemia

Selective vs. 56 kinases [114].

LGB321	3-(S)-amino-piperidine pyridyl carboxamide	IC50: 0.001 nM PIM1, 0.0021 nM PIM2, and 0.0008 nM PIM3 [106].	Recruiting patients for clinical trials	Multiple myeloma

AZD1897		IC50: 3 nM PIM1,2 and 3 [115].	Preclinical	Acute myeloid leukemia

SEL24-B58	Benzoimidazol	IC50: 31 nM PIM1, 154 nM PIM2, 152 nM PIM3. Selective in a panel of 299 kinases with the exception of haspin, HIPK and CLK kinases [117].	Preclinical	Leukemic monocyte lymphoma

AZD1208	thiazolidene	IC50: Pim-1 0.4 nM, Pim-2 5.0 nM and Pim-3 1.9 nM [115].	Recruiting patients for clinical trials	Acute myeloid leukemia


Upper Asymptote	Lower Asymptote	Sig Diff	Point of Inflection	Slope	Fit

0.99	0.48	< 0.05	3.36	−1.75	0.15


Age stratum	(%)

 39 years or younger	41

 40–49 years	42

 50 years or older	15

 Missing data	2

Sex

 Female	15

 male	85

Fields of practice

 Pediatrics	2

 Family practice	11

 General internal medicine	44

 Specialty internal medicine	21

 Surgery-related	7

 Emergency medicine	9

 The other fields	7

Size of employing facilities

 Office-based clinic	24

 1–100 beds	13

 101–250 beds	17

 251–500 beds	17

 501 or more beds	28


Characteristics	PTCL-NOS	NKT	AITL	ALCL	Total

ALK+	ALK−

Age > 	2	2/18 (1	6/11 (54.5	0/4 (0.0)		29/109 (26.6)


Genotypesa	Number of seedlings tested	Average resistance score	Significanceb

Reaction to BPH biotype 4 (2009–2014)

 CR2711–76	201	2.33	a

 Jaya	207	7.99	b

 F1 (Jaya/CR2711–76)	52	1.33	a

 PTB-33	206	4.03	a

Reaction to Laguna BPH colony (2013–2015)

 CR2711–76	199	3.87	b

 Jaya	176	8.91	a

 F1 (Jaya/CR2711–76)	24	2.88	b

 Rathu Heenati	210	3.11	b

 TN-1	272	9.01	a

Genotypesa	Number of seedlings tested	Average resistance score	Significanceb

Rathu Heenati	210	3.11	b

TN-1	272	9.01	a


Chromosomal region	Fragile site (FS)	FS typea	BAC-probe	Co-localization of FA breakpoints and FS

1p13.3	FRA1N	Aphidicolinb	RP11-242D10	+

1q21.2	FRA1F	Aphidicolin	RP11-301 M17	+

1q42.2	Near FRA1H	Azacytidin	RP11-109G24	−

2q35	FRA2U	Aphidicolin	RP11-316O14	+

3p14.2	FRA3B	Aphidicolin	RP11-129 K20	+

3p21.31	FRA3H	New nomenclaturec	RP11-787O14RP11-159A17	+

3q27.1	FRA3C	Aphidicolin	RP11-110C15	+

5q13.2	FRA5K	New nomenclatured	RP11-497H16	+

5q33.2	FRA5O	New nomenclatured	RP11-265I24RP11-494C5	+

7q22.3	FRA7F	Aphidicolin	CTB-20D2	+

7q32.3	FRA7H	Aphidicolin	RP11-138A9RP11-36B6	+

11q13	FRA11H	Aphidicolin	RP11-449G14	+

14q24.3	FRA14G	Aphidicolinb	RP3-414A15	+

16q22.1	FRA16C, FRA16B	Aphidicolin	RP11-106 J23	+

16q23	FRA16D	Aphidicolin	RP11-358 L22	+

18q21.3	FRA18B	Aphidicolin	RP11-15C15	+


Stage of prostate cancer	Hormonal agent	Function	Year of FDA approval	Reference

Advanced, hormone naïve	Goserelin acetate	GnRH agonist	1989	[27, 28]

Leuprolide acetate	GnRH agonist	1989	[27, 29]

Histrelin acetate	GnRH agonist	1991	[27, 30]

Triptorelin pamoate	GnRH agonist	2000	[27, 31]

Abarelix	GnRH antagonist	2003	[27, 48]

Degarelix	GnRH antagonist	2008	[27, 49]

Bicalutamide	AR antagonist	1995	[27, 126]

Flutamide	AR antagonist	1989	[27, 127]

Castrate-resistant	Abiraterone acetate	CYP17 inhibitor	2011b	[27, 94]

2012a	[96, 99]

Enzalutamide	AR antagonist	2012b	[27, 101]

2014a	[102, 128]

Stage of prostate cancer	Hormonal agent	Function	Year of FDA approval	Reference

Advanced, hormone naïve	Leuprolide acetate	GnRH agonist	1989	[27, 29]

Histrelin acetate	GnRH agonist	1991	[27, 30]

Triptorelin pamoate	GnRH agonist	2000	[27, 31]

Abarelix	GnRH antagonist	2003	[27, 48]

Degarelix	GnRH antagonist	2008	[27, 49]

Bicalutamide	AR antagonist	1995	[27, 126]

Flutamide	AR antagonist	1989	[27, 127]

Castrate-resistant	Abiraterone acetate	CYP17 inhibitor	2011b	[27, 94]

2012a	[96, 99]

Enzalutamide	AR antagonist	2012b	[27, 101]

2014a	[102, 128]


MIGS ID	Property	Term	Evidence codea

	Classification	Domain Bacteria	TAS [38]

		Phylum “Nitrospirae”	TAS [38]

		Class “Nitrospira”	TAS [38]

		Order “Nitrospirales”	TAS [38]

		Family “Nitrospiraceae”	TAS [1, 38]

		Genus Leptospirillum	TAS [39]

		Species Leptospirillum ferriphilum	TAS [5]

		Strain Sp-Cl	TAS [5]

	Gram stain	Negative	TAS [5]

	Cell shape	Curved rod	IDA

	Motility	Motile	TAS [5]

	Sporulation	Non-spore forming	TAS [5]

	Temperature range	25° to 45 °C	NAS

	Optimum temperature	30° to 37 °C	NAS

	pH range, optimum	1.3 to 2.0; NA	IDA

	Carbon source	CO2	IDA

MIGS-6	Habitat	chloride, metal-rich and acidic environment	IDA

MIGS-6.3	Salinity	0-12 g/L Cl-	IDA

MIGS-22	Oxygen requirement	Aerobic	TAS [5]

MIGS-15	Biotic relationship	Free-living	IDA

MIGS-14	Pathogenicity	None	TAS [5, 22]

MIGS-4	Geographic location	Spence mine, Atacama Desert, Chile	IDA

MIGS-5	Sample collection	2007	IDA

MIGS-4.1	Latitude	22°.81 S	IDA

MIGS-4.2	Longitude	69°.26 W	IDA

MIGS-4.4	Altitude	1700	IDA

MIGS ID	Property	Term	Evidence codea

	Motility	Motile	TAS [5]

	Sporulation	Non-spore forming	TAS [5]

	Temperature range	25° to 45 °C	NAS

	Optimum temperature	30° to 37 °C	NAS

	pH range, optimum	1.3 to 2.0; NA	IDA

	Carbon source	CO2	IDA

MIGS-6	Habitat	chloride, metal-rich and acidic environment	IDA

MIGS-6.3	Salinity	0-12 g/L Cl-	IDA

MIGS-22	Oxygen requirement	Aerobic	TAS [5]

MIGS-15	Biotic relationship	Free-living	IDA

MIGS-14	Pathogenicity	None	TAS [5, 22]

MIGS-4	Geographic location	Spence mine, Atacama Desert, Chile	IDA

MIGS-5	Sample collection	2007	IDA

MIGS-4.1	Latitude	22°.81 S	IDA

MIGS-4.2	Longitude	69°.26 W	IDA

MIGS-4.4	Altitude	1700	IDA


SNPs	Allele	α-helix	Extended strand	β-turn	Random coil

c.271C > T	C	32.92	13.04	4.35	49.69

T	32.3	13.04	5.59	49.07

SNPs	Allele	α-helix	Extended strand	β-turn	Random coil

c.271		32	13.0	4.3	49.6


Health Behaviour	Total number	No. aimed at general population	No. aimed at community, school or work places	No. aimed at targeted populations or individuals

Smoking	48	5	6	Young people (11)Smokers (26)

Physical Activity	24	4	1	Young people (6)Older people (2)Adults over 18 years(8)

Alcohol	15	4	0	Young people (2)Pregnant women (1)Drink drivers (3)Problem drinkers (4)

Healthy eating	13	0	3	Young people (4)Older people (1)Pregnant women (1)Non specific (6)

Illicit drug use in young people	4	0	4	0

Sexual risk taking in young people	8	0	8	0

Health Behaviour	Total number	No. aimed at general population	No. aimed at community, school or work places	No. aimed at targeted populations or individuals

Smoking	48	5	6	Young people (11)Smokers (26)

Physical Activity	2	4	1	Young people (6)Older people (2)Adults over 18

	4			 years(8)

Alcohol	15	4	0	Young people (2)Pregnant women (1)Drink drivers (3)Problem drinkers (4)

Healthy eating	13	0	3	Young people (4)Older people (1)Pregnant women (1)Non specific (6)

Illicit drug use in young people	4	0	4	0

Sexual risk taking in young people	8	0	8	0


	Alfalfa	High nitrate-containing barley	Low nitrate-containing barley	NPA-containing milkvetch	NPOH-containing milkvetch

Crude protein (%)	17.3	13.8	6.4	10.0	9.6

Digestible crude protein (%)	12.6	9.4	2.5	5.8	5.4

Acid detergent fiber (%)	35.5	35.4	31.4	32.4	34.8

Neutral detergent fiber (%)	38.8	45.0	46.9	38.3	37.8

Total digestible nutrients (%)	60.2	59.1	59.5	60.0	58.1

Net energy lactation (Mcal/kg)	1.36	1.32	1.34	1.34	1.30

Net energy maintenance (Mcal/kg)	1.45	1.43	1.43	1.45	1.39

Net energy gain (Mcal/kg)	0.73	0.70	0.70	0.73	0.68

In vitro true digestibility (%)	75.7	80.4	68.5	85.3	82.3

Ash (%)	10.2	9.3	5.4	7.4	7.9

Relative feed value	146.7	126.8	127.7	154.7	152.0

Nitratea (%)	0.16	1.69	0.23	0.15	0.03

Mineral analysis (NIR)

Calcium	1.22	0.69	0.48	0.72	0.77

Magnesium	0.29	0.15	0.04	0.11	0.11

Phosphorus	0.39	0.29	0.16	0.25	0.23

Potassium	2.92	2.23	1.52	1.64	1.50


Strain

Bifidobacterium adolescentis DSM 20083T

Bifidobacterium adolescentis DSM 20086

Bifidobacterium adolescentis DSM 20087

Bifidobacterium animalissubsp. lactis NRRL B-41405

Bifidobacterium animalissubps. animalis NRRL B-41406T

Bifidobacterium bifidum DSM 20456T

Bifidobacterium breve DSM 20091

Bifidobacterium breve NRRL B-41408T

Bifidobacterium catenulatum DSM 20224

Bifidobacterium longumsubsp. infantis ATCC 15697T

Bifidobacterium longumsubsp. longum NRRL B-41409T

Bifidobacterium longumsubsp. suis NRRL B-41407T

Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum DSM 20439

Bifidobacterium pseudolongumsubsp. globosum DSM 20092T

Bifidobacterium pseudolongumsubsp. pseudolongum DSM 20094

Bifidobacterium pseudolongumsubsp. pseudolongum DSM 20095

Bifidobacterium pseudolongumsubsp. pseudolongum DSM 20099T

Strain

Bifidobacterium adolescentis DSM 20087

Bifidobacterium animalissubsp. lactis NRRL B-41405

Bifidobacterium animalissubps. animalis NRRL B-41406T

Bifidobacterium bifidum DSM 20456T

Bifidobacterium breve DSM 20091

Bifidobacterium breve NRRL B-41408T

Bifidobacterium catenulatum DSM 20224

Bifidobacterium longumsubsp. infantis ATCC 15697T

Bifidobacterium longumsubsp. longum NRRL B-41409T

Bifidobacterium longumsubsp. suis NRRL B-41407T

Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum DSM 20439

Bifidobacterium pseudolongumsubsp. globosum DSM 20092T

Bifidobacterium pseudolongumsubsp. pseudolongum DSM 20094

Bifidobacterium pseudolongumsubsp. pseudolongum DSM 20095

Bifidobacterium pseudolongumsubsp. pseudolongum DSM 20099T


University & Library	Responded to phase 2

1. Charles Drew University of Medicine & Science, Health Sciences Library	✓

2. Loma Linda University Medical Center, Jesse Medical Library & Information Center

3. Oregon Health and Science University, Library	✓

4. Stanford University Medical Center, Lane Medical Library

5. University of Arizona (Tucson Campus), Arizona Health Sciences Library	✓

(University of Arizona (Phoenix Campus) Partnership of U of A & ASU medical school dissolved mid-project. ASU counted as part of U of A)

6. University of California, Davis, Carlson Health Sciences Library

7. University of California, Irvine, Science Library	✓

8. University of California, Los Angeles, Biomedical Library	✓

(University of California, Riverside program is developing, with most services provided by UCLA and therefore, counted under UCLA)

9. University of California San Diego, Biomedical Library	✓

10. University of California, San Francisco, Library	✓

11. University of Colorado, Health Sciences Library	✓

12. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Health Sciences Library

13. University of Nevada Reno, Savitt Medical Library	✓

14. University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Health Sciences Library and Informatics	✓

15. University of Southern California, Norris Medical Library	✓

16. University of Utah, Eccles Health Sciences Library	✓

17. University of Washington, Health Sciences Library	✓


	Distribution between categories	Assumed hospitalization rate

No-test scenario		44.6%

Test scenario

 sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≥ 85 at weeks 20 + 0–33 + 6, or ≥ 110 from week 34 onwards	19.60%	70.0%

 sFlt-1/PlGF ratio > 38 − < 85 at weeks 20 + 0–33 + 6, or > 38 − < 110 from week 34 onwards	16.20%	57.6%

 sFlt-1/PlGF ratio ≤ 38	64.20%	1.5%


Library	Restriction enzyme	BAC vector	No. clones	Average insert size (kb)	Insert range (kb)	Genome coverage*	HICF fragments (avg)	Control clones	Successful fingerprints

TC_Bba	HindIII	pIndigoBAC536	36864	145	90-185	10×	120.2	768	31864

TC_BBb	EcoRI	pIndigoBAC536	36864	120	40-160	10×	102.1	768	32218

TC_BBc	MboI	pIndigoBAC536	36864	140	80-180	10×	120.4	768	31304

Library	Restriction enzyme	BAC vector	No. clones	Average insert size (kb)	Insert range (kb)	Genome coverage*	HICF fragments (avg)

TC_Bba	HindIII	pIndigoBAC536	36864	145	90-185	10×	120.2

TC_BBb	EcoRI	pIndigoBAC536	36864	120	40-160	10×	102.1

TC_BBc	MboI	pIndigoBAC536	36864	140	80-180	10×	120.4

Control clones	Successful fingerprints

768	31864

768	32218

768	31304


Parameter	Value

Self-inductance	L = 6 [mH]

Rated current	I = 8 [A] (AC, 50/60 Hz, sinus wave)

Current density	J < 3 [A/mm2]

Ambient temperature	θa = +40 [°C]

Self-resonance frequency range	fcrit = 80 ÷ 140 [kHz]


Variable	OR	95 % CI	P-value

Clinical history

 No recent history of UTI	3.8	1.3–11.4	0.02

Clinical symptoms

 Nausea/vomiting	0.4	0.1–1.4	0.14

Type of UTI, symptoms

 Cystitis, no other non-urinary symptoms	1

 Cystitis, with back or adnominal pain symptoms only	11.4	2.1–63.0	0.01

 Cystitis, with vaginal discharge	12.1	1.1–137.5	0.05

 Cystitis, with other combinations of non-urinary symptoms	0.1	0.0–1.1	0.06

 Pyelonephritis (fever or flank pain present)	2.7	0.8–9.3	0.12

Variable	OR	95 % CI	P-value

Nausea/vomiting	0.4	0.1–1.4	0.14

Type of UTI, symptoms

Cystitis, no other non-urinary symptoms	1

Cystitis, with back or adnominal pain symptoms only	11.4	2.1–63.0	0.01

Cystitis, with vaginal discharge	12.1	1.1–137.5	0.05

Cystitis, with other combinations of non-urinary symptoms	0.1	0.0–1.1	0.06

Pyelonephritis (fever or flank pain present)	2.7	0.8–9.3	0.12


Characteristics	n (%)

Knowledge of modifiable risk factors

 Don't know any risk factor	27 (3.8)

 Only one risk factor	89 (12.4)

 A total of two risk factors	302 (41.9)

 Good level of knowledge*	302 (41.9)

Knowledge of symptoms of heart attack

 Don't Know	586 (81.4)

 List 1 symptom	93 (12.9)

 List at least 2 symptoms	41 (5.7)


 	 	Univariate analysis	Multivariate analysis

Variable	Threshold	Unadjusted OR	CI	Adjusted OR	CI	P value

Glucose variability (SD)	NA	5.9	0.9 to 37	10.4	1.3 to 86	.03

GCS	Every 1 point	1.1	0.8 to 1.4	0.5	0.2 to 0.99	.04

		Univariate analysis	Multivariate analysis

Variable	Threshold	Unadjusted OR	CI	Adjusted OR	CI

Glucose variability (SD)	NA	5.9	0.9 to 37	10.4	1.3 to 86

GCS	Every 1 point	1.1	0.8 to 1.4	0.5	0.2 to 0.99

Multivariate analysis

P value

.03

.04


Group	n	Clinical pregnancy (case), %	Abortion (case)	Multiple pregnancy (case)	Average treatment cycle

LE group	52	16 (30.8%)	2	2	4.1±0.5

CC group	52	17 (32.1%)	3	3	3.9±0.2

LE + HMG group	52	29 (55.7%)a	2	5	2.9 ± 0.3b

χ2/F	-	-	-	-	17.241

P	-	-	-	-	<0.001

Group	n	Clinical pregnancy (case), %	Abortion (case)	Multiple pregnancy (case)	Average treatment cycle

LE + HMG group	52	29 (55.7%)a	2	5	2.9 ± 0.3b

χ2/F	-	-	-	-	17.241

P	-	-	-	-	<0.001


	Data sources	Health care organization characteristics

Country	Revenue/income	Practice costs	Remuneration system	Gate-keeping

Belgium	Interest group	Interest group	Fee-for-service	No

Denmark	Interest group and government agency	Interest group and government agency	Fee-for-service	Yes

Finland	WHO (2000) and independent organization	-	Mainly salary, some additional fee-for-service and capitation fee	Yes

France	Government agency	Tax office	Fee-for-service	No

Germany	Independent organization	Independent organization	Fee-for-service	No

Netherlands	Interest group	National statistics office (based on tax data)	Capitation and fee-for-service1)	Yes

Sweden	Interest group	-	Salary	No

U.K.	Independent organization (1995, 2000), government agency (2005)	Independent organization (1995, 2000), government agency (2005)	Capitation, since 2004 additional quality related payments	Yes

	Data sources	Health care organization characteristics

Coun	Revenue/income	Pr	Remuneratio	Gate-

try		actice costs	n system	keeping

Belgium	Interest group	Interest group	Fee-for-service	No

Denmark	Interest group and government agency	Interest group and government agency	Fee-for-service	Yes

Finland	WHO (2000) and independent organization	-	Mainly salary, some additional fee-for-service and capitation fee	Yes

France	Government agency	Tax office	Fee-for-service	No

Germany	Independent organization	Independent organization	Fee-for-service	No

Netherlands	Interest group	National statistics office (based on tax data)	Capitation and fee-for-service1)	Yes

Sweden	Interest group	-	Salary	No

U.K.	Independent organization (1995, 2000), government agency (2005)	Independent organization (1995, 2000), government agency (2005)	Capitation, since 2004 additional quality related payments	Yes


PatID	MWRT (sec; average + std)	Percentage of 6-s time windows with difference in MWRT:

	Signal 1	Signal 2	>0.1 s	>0.2 s

Category A


	WOMEN	MEN

	Core	Boost	Core	Boost

	%	%	%	%

Self-assessed general health

Very good	33	21	36	24

Good	45	51	44	48

Fair	14	23	14	24

Bad	6	4	5	3

Very bad	2	1	1	1

P-value		<underline>0.000</underline>		<underline>0.000</underline>

Very good/good	78	72	79	72

Fair/bad/very bad	22	28	21	28

P-value		<underline>0.000</underline>		<underline>0.000</underline>

N	833	2701	736	2181

Portions of fruit and vegetables

 Less than 1	5	4	8	6

 1 to 2	26	15	26	17

 3 to 4	27	27	28	24

 5 or more	42	55	38	54

P-value		<underline>0.000</underline>		<underline>0.000</underline>

N	833	2647	735	2133

	WOMEN

	Core	Boost

	%	%

Self-assessed general health

Very good	33	21

Good	45	51

Fair	14	23

Bad	6	4

Very bad	2	1

P-value		0.000

Very good/good	78	72

Fair/bad/very bad	22	28

P-value		0.000

N	833	2701

Portions of fruit and vegetables

Less than 1	5	4

1 to 2	26	15

3 to 4	27	27

5 or more	42	55

P-value		0.000

N	833	2647


Tissue	RNA expression	Tissue	RNA expression

Whole brain	•	Lung	•

Cerebral cortex	•••	Placenta	•

Frontal lobe	••	Bladder	••

Parietal lobe	••	Uterus	••

Occipital lobe	•	Prostate	•

Temporal lobe	•	Testis	•

Postcentral gyrus	•	Ovary	•

of cerebral cortex		Liver	•

Pons	•	Pancreas	•••

Cerebellum left	•	Adrenal gland	•••

Cerebellum right	••	Thyroid gland	••

Corpus callosum	•••	Salivary gland	••••

Amygdala	••	Mammary gland	•

Caudate nucleus	•	Esophagus	•

Hippocampus	•	Stomach	•

Medulla	•	Duodenum	••

oblongata		Jejunum	•••

Putamen	•	Ileum	••

Substantia nigra	•	Ileocecum	•

Accumbens	••	Appendix	-

nucleus		Colon, ascending	•

Thalamus	••	Colon, transverse	•

Pituary gland	•	Colon, descending	•

Spinal cord	•	Rectum	•

Heart	••	Fetal brain	•

Aorta	•	Fetal heart	••

Artrium left	••	Fetal kidney	•••

Artrium right	••	Fetal liver	•••

Ventricle left	••••	Fetal spleen	•

Ventricle right	••	Fetal thymus	•

Interventricular	••	Fetal lung	•

septum		Promyelocytic leukaemia,	•

Apex of the heart	••••	HL-60

Kidney	•	Hela S3	•

Skeletal muscle	•	Chronic myelogenous	••

Spleen	•	leukaemia, K-562

Thymus	••	Lymphoblastic leukaemia,	••

Peripheral blood	•	MOLT-4

leukocyte		Burkitt's lymphoma, Raji	•

Lymph node	•	Burkitt's lymphoma, Daudi	•

Trachea	•

Tissue	RNA expression

Whole brain	•

Cerebral cortex	•••

Frontal lobe	••

Parietal lobe	••

Occipital lobe	•

Temporal lobe	•

Postcentral gyrus	•

of cerebral cortex

Pons	•

Cerebellum left	•

Cerebellum right	••

Corpus callosum	•••

Amygdala	••

Caudate nucleus	•

Hippocampus	•

Medulla	•

oblongata

Putamen	•

Substantia nigra	•

Accumbens	••

nucleus

Thalamus	••

Pituary gland	•

Spinal cord	•

Heart	••

Aorta	•

Artrium left	••

Artrium right	••

Ventricle left	••••

Ventricle right	••

Interventricular	••

septum

Apex of the heart	••••

Kidney	•

Skeletal muscle	•

Spleen	•

Thymus	••

Peripheral blood	•

leukocyte

Lymph node	•

Trachea	•

Tissue	RNA expression

Lung	•

Placenta	•

Bladder	••

Uterus	••

Prostate	•

Testis	•

Ovary	•

Liver	•

Pancreas	•••

Adrenal gland	•••

Thyroid gland	••

Salivary gland	••••

Mammary gland	•

Esophagus	•

Stomach	•

Duodenum	••

Jejunum	•••

Ileum	••

Ileocecum	•

Appendix	-

Colon, ascending	•

Colon, transverse	•

Colon, descending	•

Rectum	•

Fetal brain	•

Fetal heart	••

Fetal kidney	•••

Fetal liver	•••

Fetal spleen	•

Fetal thymus	•

Fetal lung	•

Promyelocytic leukaemia,	•

HL-60

Hela S3	•

Chronic myelogenous	••

leukaemia, K-562

Lymphoblastic leukaemia,	••

MOLT-4

Burkitt's lymphoma, Raji	•

Burkitt's lymphoma, Daudi	•


	Rank of correct class

	1	2	3	4

Single-localized only	88.8a	92.2	94.5	96.3

CYT-NUC: 1 correct	88.2a	96.1	99.5	100.0

CYT-NUC: both correct		66.5a	82.9	96.3

All multi-localized: 1 correct	81.9a	92.0	96.1	97.4

All multi-localized: both correct		59.7a	73.8	83.2

	Rank of correct class

	1	2	3	4

All multi-localized: both correct		59.7a	73.8	83.2


Group	Patient number	Age	Sex	CRP (mg/dl)	ESR (mm)	Medicine

						PSL (mg/day)	DMARDs other than biologics	Biologics

RA	#1	62	F	0.05	46		MTX	ADA

#2	67	F	0.49	29		MTX

#3	43	F	0.2	26	2	MTX

#4	4			39


Characteristics	Matrilineal	Patrilineal

Age (years)	M	F	M	F

 Mean	41	31	40	29

 20–29	0	2	0	3

 30–39	3	5	3	4

 40–49	4	0	4	0

Years living with HIV

 1–5	2	2	7	7

 6–10	5	5	0	0

Average number of children couples had after an HIV diagnosis	2	1

Average number of children couples have in their households	4	4

Couples with HIV+ children	2	0

Characteristics	Matrilineal	Patrilineal

Couples with HIV+ children	2	0


Category

Total number of reads	1,366,749

Total length of reads (bp)	625,825,203

Total number of reads cleaned	1,361,424

Total length of reads cleaned (bp)	598,655,879

Number of reads placed	1,302,023

Number of singletons	10,992

Total length of singletons (bp)	3,714,066

Average length of singletons (bp)	337

Largest singleton (bp)	692

Number of contigs	39,088

Total length of contigs (bp)	22,806,009

Average length of contigs (bp)	583

Largest contig (bp)	6,401

Average read coverage of contigs	24


control	condition	YKOaux	BCprot	PBprot

SC	control	3	3	3

SC	ADE–	3	3	3

SC	ARG–	3	3	3

SC	HIS–	0	3	3

SC	LEU–	0	3	3

SC	LYS–	3	2	3

SC	MET–	3	3	3

SC	SER–	3	2	3

SC	THR–	3	2	3

SC	TRP–	3	3	3

SC	URA–	0	3	3

SC	MM*	3	4	5

SC	MM + URA	0	1	1

YPD	control	11	14	12

YPD	cisplatin, DNA cross-linking agent	3	4	3

YPD	CCCP, protonophore inhibitor of oxidative phosphorylation	3	3	3

YPD	FCCP, protonophore inhibitor of oxidative phosphorylation	3	3	3

YPD	PYRQ, novel quinolone compound, PCID 16001701	4	4	4

YPD	YPG, obligate respiratory	2	4	4

control	condition	YKOaux	BCprot	PBprot

SC	control	3	3	3

SC	ADE–	3	3	3

SC	ARG–	3	3	3

SC	HIS–	0	3	3

SC	LEU–	0	3	3

SC	LYS–	3	2	3

SC	MET–	3	3	3

SC	SER–	3	2	3

SC	T	3	2

	HR–			3

SC	TRP–	3	3	3

SC	URA–	0	3	3

SC	MM*	3	4	5

SC	MM + URA	0	1	1

YPD	control	11	14	12

YPD	cisplatin, DNA cross-linking agent	3	4	3

YPD	CCCP, protonophore inhibitor of oxidative phosphorylation	3	3	3

YPD	FCCP, protonophore inhibitor of oxidative phosphorylation	3	3	3

YPD	PYRQ, novel quinolone compound, PCID 16001701	4	4	4

YPD	YPG, obligate respiratory	2	4	4


	Healthy non-smoker	Smokers without COPD	Smokers with COPD

IL-8 (pg/ml)	307 (225-558)	262 (208-407)	360 (165-474)	P = 0.512


	Evaluation method: strict	Evaluation method: average

Entity type	OG	OG+NN	OG+CRF	OG	OG+NN

All	0.62	0.70	0.58	0.65	0.72

Chemicals	0.55	0.77	0.34	0.56	0.77

Cells	0.80	0.76	0.91	0.84	0.81

Biological processes/molecular functions	0.30	0.35	0.54	0.35	0.39

Cellular components	0.55	0.70	0.75	0.56	0.71

Organisms	0.44	0.94	0.87	0.45	0.94

Proteins	0.62	0.80	0.70	0.63	0.80

Sequences	0.54	0.75	0.12	0.57	0.76


uORF homology group	uORF length (amino acids)	Conserved sequence features

		Length conserved at N- and C-Termini	N-terminus (amino acids)	Middle (amino acids)	C-terminus (amino acids)	Overall

uORF features conserved between Arabidopsis and rice

1	25–43	C-terminus			SY-rich: 5/14	20–39% STY

2	34–39	C-terminus			KR-rich: 5–6/20	18–24% KR

3	50–54	N- and C-termini	K-rich: 4/9	S-rich: 5–6/6	KR-rich: 4–5/16, SY-rich: 4–5/12	17–23% KR. 22–29% SY

4	52–55	N- and C-termini			SY-rich: 7/30	21–23% STY

5	38–41	N- and C-termini

6	55–68	N-terminus

7	57–105	N-terminus	STY-rich: 6–7/22	KR-rich: 4/5–8

8	61–62	N- and C-termini				CHCH domain, 17% KR

9	17–33	N-terminus

10.1	41	N- and C-termini

11	24–44	C-terminus			KR-rich: 5–6/15	25% KR

12	39–51	N- and C-termini

13	25	N- and C-termini		RS-rich: 10–12/18		40–48% RS

14	29	N-terminus		ST-rich: 4–6/10		14–32% STY

15.1	18–27	N- and C-termini			8/9 hydrophobic

15.3	43–54	N- and C-termini			13/14 completely conserved

16	40–62	C-terminus

17	36–45	C-terminus

18	36–38	Neither

19	30–34	N-terminus				29% ST

uORF features conserved between Arabidopsis paralogs

20	41–43	N- and C-termini	STY-rich: 8–9/27			23% STY

21	87–90	N- and C-termini		ST-rich: 11–12/17–22		22–25% ST

22	25	N- and C-termini

23	69–71	Neither

24	31–34	N- and C-termini

25	25	N- and C-termini

26	22	N-terminus


Assay	Cyclohexane extract	Ethanolic extract

ORAC-PYR (mTE/g)	1.5 ± 0.4	28.1 ± 2.5

DPPH (mTE/g)	0.20 ± 0.03	2.25 ± 0.07

DPPH (IC50 μg/mL)	95.0 ± 0.2	24.2 ± 0.5

TEAC (mTE/g)	0.64 ± 0.09	7.22 ± 0.08

TEAC (IC50 mg/mL)	0.800 ± 0.132	0.071 ± 0.009

FRAP (mTE/g)	0.27 ± 0.01	6.70 ± 0.03

FRAP (mmol FeII/g)	1.20 ± 0.01	22.5 ± 0.1

Total phenolics (mGAE/g)	1.22 ± 0.12	7.82 ± 0.01

Total flavonoids (mCE/g)	0.18 ± 0.01	0.63 ± 0.01

Total anthocyanin (mg cyanidin 3-O-glucoside/g)	n.d.	n.d.


Population	mu (empirical)	C.I. for mu (empirical)	C.I. for simulations	C.I. bootstrapped data

BKL	5.6178e-05	−1.1812e-04 to 2.3048e-04	−1.2157e-07 to 1.1975e-07	−1.0721e-05 to 1.2234e-04


	Baseline	6-month

	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	P value

Knowledge

 General knowledge on health and tobacco use (range: 0–7)	4.5 ± 1.0	5.2 ± 0.7	0.02

 Specific knowledge on smoking-related diseases (range: 0–10)	7.6 ± 2	7.7 ± 1.6	0.8

Attitudes a

 Banning all tobacco advertisement	3.4 ± 0.5	3.3 ± 0.6	0.14

 Recognition of own & professional role in smoking cessation counseling	3.3 ± 0.4	3.2 ± 0.3	0.17

 Bad image of woman smokers	2.97 ± 0.3	3.2 ± 0.3	0.001

Practice in smoking cessation counseling	n (%)	n (%)

 Had practiced	15 (62.5)	12 (55.0)	-

 Among those who had practiced b

 Ask	0.83 (1.0)	0.92 (0.9)

 Advise	1.38 (1.1)	1.38 (0.8)

 Assess	0.92 (1.0)	0.92 (0.9)

 Assist	1.00 (1.1)	1.15 (0.9)

 Arrange	0.42 (0.9)	0.17 (0.4)


 Parameter	 Step size α	 Nr. epochs	 Decay constant λ

	 0.3	 10	N/4


Research procedure	Responder	Definitely Yes (%)	Probably Yes (%)	Probably No (%)	Definitely No (%)

“Drawing 1 extra vial of blood for research purposes when other blood is being obtained for clinical purposes. (Would not require an extra blood draw.)”	Parent by Infant Status	NICU ≤ 31 wks	50	22	15	13

NICU 34-36 wks	45	38	3	13

NICU Term with hypoglycemia	45	45	8	3

Well-Baby Nursery/Mother-Baby Unit (37-42 weeks)	45	43	10	3

Healthcare Provider	66	32	2	0

“Drawing 1 extra vial of blood for research purposes only. (Would require an extra blood draw.)”	Parent by Infant Status	NICU ≤ 31 wks	12	32	37	20

NICU 34-36 wks	28	42	15	15

NICU Term with hypoglycemia	18	33	33	15

Well-Baby Nursery/Mother-Baby Unit (37-42 weeks)	32	33	33	15

Healthcare Provider	22	41	28	10

“2 Echocardiograms (heart ultrasound). These are not associated with any pain, but occasionally some infants can feel slight discomfort”	Parent by Infant Status	NICU ≤ 31 wks	33	55	12	5

NICU 34-36 wks	22	52	12	14

NICU Term with hypoglycemia	18	56	25	0

Well-Baby Nursery/Mother-Baby Unit (37-42 weeks)	30	43	23	3

Healthcare Provider	50	48	2	0

“MRI brain without sedation”	Parent by Infant Status	NICU ≤ 31 wks	20	40	20	20

NICU 34-36 wks	20	25	27	28

NICU Term with hypoglycemia	7	27	40	20

Well-Baby Nursery/Mother-Baby Unit (37-42 weeks)	12	22	42	23

Healthcare Provider	28	38	24	11

“MRI brain with sedation”	Parent by Infant Status	NICU ≤ 31 wks	15	38	27	30

NICU 34-36 wks	12	18	37	33

NICU Term with hypoglycemia	5	21	20	54

Well-Baby Nursery/Mother-Baby Unit (37-42 weeks)	5	20	39	36

Healthcare Provider	3	16	48	33

Research procedure	Responder

“Drawing 1 extra vial of blood for research purposes when other blood is being obtained for clinical purposes. (Would not require an extra blood draw.)”	Parent by Infant Status

Healthcare Provider

“Drawing 1 extra vial of blood for research purposes only. (Would require an extra blood draw.)”	Parent by Infant Status

Healthcare Provider

“2 Echocardiograms (heart ultrasound). These are not associated with any pain, but occasionally some infants can feel slight discomfort”	Parent by Infant Status

Healthcare Provider

“MRI brain without sedation”	Parent by Infant Status

Healthcare Provider

“MRI brain with sedation”	Parent by Infant Status

Healthcare Provider

Responder	Definitely Yes (%)	Probably Yes (%)	Probably No (%)	Definitely No (%)

NICU ≤ 31 wks	50	22	15	13

NICU 34-36 wks	45	38	3	13

NICU Term with hypoglycemia	45	45	8	3

Well-Baby Nursery/Mother-Baby Unit (37-42 weeks)	45	43	10	3

Healthcare Provider	66	32	2	0

NICU ≤ 31 wks	12	32	37	20

NICU 34-36 wks	28	42	15	15

NICU Term with hypoglycemia	18	33	33	15

Well-Baby Nursery/Mother-Baby Unit (37-42 weeks)	32	33	33	15

Healthcare Provider	22	41	28	10

NICU ≤ 31 wks	33	55	12	5

NICU 34-36 wks	22	52	12	14

NICU Term with hypoglycemia	18	56	25	0

Well-Baby Nursery/Mother-Baby Unit (37-42 weeks)	30	43	23	3

Healthcare Provider	50	48	2	0

NICU ≤ 31 wks	20	40	20	20

NICU 34-36 wks	20	25	27	28

NICU Term with hypoglycemia	7	27	40	20

Well-Baby Nursery/Mother-Baby Unit (37-42 weeks)	12	22	42	23

Healthcare Provider	28	38	24	11

NICU ≤ 31 wks	15	38	27	30

NICU 34-36 wks	12	18	37	33

NICU Term with hypoglycemia	5	21	20	54

Well-Baby Nursery/Mother-Baby Unit (37-42 weeks)	5	20	39	36

Healthcare Provider	3	16	48	33


Ethical view	Emic view (relative frequency) n = 65	Possibilities

Finning[100]	“Fishing that only takes shark fins (63,4%)	“Best monitor”; “Give high fine”

Immature Capture [101]	Fish small sharks (61,9%)	“drop the baby sharks”, put closure, “increase the mesh of the nets”

Bycatch Capture [102]	“Fishing with trawlnet”, “fishnet excess”, “stuck with longline hook in steel” (46,8%)	“forbid trawling”, “control gillnets use”, “forbid longline hooks stuck with Spiral wire Rope use”

Females Capture [70]	“female fishing”; “fish a female carrying a baby shark in the belly” (15,1%)	“Drop females”; “make closure”

Ethical view	Emic view (relative frequency) n = 65	Possibilities

Finn	“Fishing that 	“Best monitor”; “Give high f

ing[100]	only takes shark fins (63,4%)	ine”

Immature Capture [101]	Fish small sharks (61,9%)	“drop the baby sharks”, put closure, “increase the mesh of the nets”

Bycatch Capture [102]	“Fishing with trawlnet”, “fishnet excess”, “stuck with longline hook in steel” (46,8%)	“forbid trawling”, “control gillnets use”, “forbid longline hooks stuck with Spiral wire Rope use”

Females Capture [70]	“female fishing”; “fish a female carrying a baby shark in the belly” (15,1%)	“Drop females”; “make closure”


Measures	MBCT, n (%)	Self-help, n (%)

Recovered	Improved	Same	Deteriorated	Recovered	Improved	Same	Deteriorated

Post-treatment

(MBCT = 28; Self-help = 32)

Concern over mistakes*	6 (21)	12 (43)	10 (36)	0 (0)	4 (13)	8 (25)	20 (63)	0 (0)

Clinical perfectionism	8 (29)	0 (0)	20 (71)	0 (0)	4 (13)	0 (0)	28 (88)	0 (0)


	Dietary Group 2

Index	C	LP	R	SEM

Day 3

Initial body weight (g/mouse)	8.5	8.4	8.6	0.10

Final body weight (g/mouse)	10.4 X	7.2 Y	7.4 Y	0.10

Food intake (g/mouse · 3d) 3	7.8 X	4.5 Y	3.6 Y	0.20

Food intake (g/g body weight · d)3	0.19 X	0.13 Y	0.09 Z	0.001

Carcass dry matter (g/100g wet weight)	30.3 X	28.3 Y	27.9 Y	0.30

Carcass lipid (g/100g wet weight)4	9.2 X	5.9 Y	3.4 Z	0.03

Day 14

Initial body weight (g/mouse)	8.3	8.5	8.6	0.08

Final body weight (g/mouse) 4	17.5 X	6.1 Y	6.0 Y	0.02

Food intake (g/mouse · 14d) 5	60.6 X	18.2 Y	12.6 Z	0.01

Food intake (g/g body weight · d)	0.20 X	0.11 Y	0.08 Z	0.002

Carcass dry matter (g/100g wet weight)	32.1 X	28.1 Y	26.5 Z	0.26

Carcass lipid (g/100g wet weight)	10.4 X	4.5 Y	2.7 Z	0.34


	rs3782886

	Non-minor homo

	Major homo (A/A)	Hetero (A/G)

Short stature

Total participants (BMI < 25 kg/m2)

No. at risk	232	123

No. of cases (percentage)	56 (24.1)	30 (24.4)

Model 1	1.00	0.96 (0.55, 1.68)

1.00

Model 2	1.00	1.03 (0.57, 1.86)

1.00

Reduced maximum voluntary tongue pressure against the palate (MTP)

Total participants (BMI < 25 kg/m2)

No. at risk	232	123

No. of cases (percentage)	82 (35.3)	44 (35.8)

Model 1	1.00	1.00 (0.62, 1.61)

1.00

Model 2	1.00	1.11 (0.66, 1.86)

1.00


Case	Fusion	mit.	CD34	CD99	EMA	SMA	S100	BCL2	STAT6	EGR1	Others

1	Ex4-Ex3	8/10	+	+	-	-	-	+	+	1	desmine -

2	Positive	3/10	+	+		+	+	+	+	3	desmine -, CK-pan -

3	Ex4-Ex3	3/10	+			-		+	+	1	desmine -

4	N	0/			-	+			+	1	des


Study (Year)LocationReview article cited	Nature of Practice	Amount of Practice	Study Results, Attributes and Limitations

IWAO et al. (1999) [51]Japan/Kyotouncontrolled observational study	Qigong walking = mild and slow walking using all muscles in body Conventional walking = normal walking	Evaluated 90 min post lunch on 3 different days Qigong walking (30–40 min)Conventional walking (30 min)	Plasma glucose decreased in both exercise groups Conventional = 228 to 205 mg/dL; Qigong = 223 to 216 mg/dLCompared with no exercise, 229 mg/dL (p < 0.025)Very short-duration study where subjects served as their own controls. Little information known about subjects.

LIU et al. (2010) [52]Australia/QueenslandPre-post feasibility trial uncontrolled observational study	Kai/Mai Tai Chi/Qigong style - defines qigong as "mind-body movement therapy...most involve combined training of movement, breathing, and mind, with a strong focus on the mind“	12 weeks1–1.5 h 3×/wk with Tai Chi/Qigong instructor; also encouraged to practice at home	Good adherence and high acceptability; Significant reductions with BMI, HbA1c and IRNo subjects were taking medications. Combination of group and individual practice.

HUANG et al. (2012) [53]Taiwan/Kaohsiungquasi-experimental	Defines qigong as breathing training. Qi meaning breath and gong meaning to train. Five Element Gymnastics (FEG) consolidates Qigong, Xiang Gong & Martial Arts with Gymnastics.	16 weeksFEG practiced following DVD 2 ×/day for 20 min each session for 16 weeks with 2 sessions in first week taught by certified fitness instructor and group education sessions at weeks 3, 7, 11 and 14; Control group maintained usual activities	HbA1C change -6.77 (p < 0.01)Included insulin-dependent subjects; however, medications remained same. Combination of instructor led group practice and DVD led at home individual practice.

Study (Year)LocationReview article cited	Nature of Practice

IWAO et al. (1999) [51]Japan/Kyotouncontrolled observational study	Qigong walking = mild and slow walking using all muscles in body Conventional walking = normal walking

LIU et al. (2010) [52]Australia/QueenslandPre-post feasibility trial uncontrolled observational study	Kai/Mai Tai Chi/Qigong style - defines qigong as "mind-body movement therapy...most involve combined training of movement, breathing, and mind, with a strong focus on the mind“

HUANG et al. (2012) [53]Taiwan/Kaohsiungquasi-experimental	Defines qigong as breathing training. Qi meaning breath and gong meaning to train. Five Element Gymnastics (FEG) consolidates Qigong, Xiang Gong & Martial Arts with Gymnastics.

Amount of Practice	Study Results, Attributes and Limitations

Evaluated 90 min post lunch on 3 different days Qigong walking (30–40 min)Conventional walking (30 min)	Plasma glucose decreased in both exercise groups Conventional = 228 to 205 mg/dL; Qigong = 223 to 216 mg/dLCompared with no exercise, 229 mg/dL (p < 0.025)Very short-duration study where subjects served as their own controls. Little information known about subjects.

12 weeks1–1.5 h 3×/wk with Tai Chi/Qigong instructor; also encouraged to practice at home	Good adherence and high acceptability; Significant reductions with BMI, HbA1c and IRNo subjects were taking medications. Combination of group and individual practice.

16 weeksFEG practiced following DVD 2 ×/day for 20 min each session for 16 weeks with 2 sessions in first week taught by certified fitness instructor and group education sessions at weeks 3, 7, 11 and 14; Control group maintained usual activities	HbA1C change -6.77 (p < 0.01)Included insulin-dependent subjects; however, medications remained same. Combination of instructor led group practice and DVD led at home individual practice.


CCA-IMT, mm

Age-adjusted

Multivariate-adjusted†

Multivariate-adjusted+HDL‡

CB-IMT, mm

Age-adjusted

Multivariate-adjusted†

Multivariate-adjusted+HDL‡

Higher CCA-IMT§

Prevalence, %

Age-adjusted

Multivariate-adjusted†

Multivariate-adjusted+HDL‡


Name	Expression plasmids	Properties

YJ0	pBS01A	Empty vector

YJ-G01	pYJ-G01	TcGPAT1 expression

YJ-G02	pYJ-G02	TcGPAT2 expression

YJ-L01	pYJ-L01	TcLPAT1 expression

YJ-L02	pYJ-L02	TcLPAT2 expression

YJ-D01	pYJ-D01	TcDGAT1 expression

YJ-D02	pYJ-D02	TcDGAT2 expression

YJ-111	pYJ-111	TcGPAT1, TcLPAT1 and TcDGAT1 gene combination expression

YJ-112	pYJ-112	TcGPAT1, TcLPAT1 and TcDGAT2 gene combination expression

YJ-121	pYJ-121	TcGPAT1, TcLPAT2 and TcDGAT1 gene combination expression

YJ-122	pYJ-122	TcGPAT1, TcLPAT2 and TcDGAT2 gene combination expression

YJ-211	pYJ-211	TcGPAT2, TcLPAT1 and TcDGAT1 gene combination expression

YJ-212	pYJ-212	TcGPAT2, TcLPAT1 and TcDGAT2 gene combination expression

YJ-221	pYJ-221	TcGPAT2, TcLPAT2 and TcDGAT1 gene combination expression

YJ-222	pYJ-222	TcGPAT2, TcLPAT2 and TcDGAT2 gene combination expression

Name	Expression plasmids	Properties

YJ-122	pYJ-122	TcGPAT1, TcLPAT2 and TcDGAT2 gene combination expression

YJ-211	pYJ-211	TcGPAT2, TcLPAT1 and TcDGAT1 gene combination expression

YJ-212	pYJ-212	TcGPAT2, TcLPAT1 and TcDGAT2 gene combination expression

YJ-221	pYJ-221	TcGPAT2, TcLPAT2 and TcDGAT1 gene combination expression

YJ-222	pYJ-222	TcGPAT2, TcLPAT2 and TcDGAT2 gene combination expression


Variable	Sensitivity	Specificity	Positive predictive value	Negative predictive value

B3 criterion	0.44	0.91	0.13	0.87

MSI histology	0.79	0.85	0.20	0.80

MsPath score*	0.86	0.85	0.18	0.82

Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes	0.52	0.65	0.37	0.63

Any mucinous differentiation	0.63	0.69	0.34	0.65

Poor differentiation	0.27	0.89	0.13	0.88

Family history of cancers (B4.B5)	0.64	0.92	0.13	0.87

Revised Bethesda guidelines	0.78	0.77	0.3	0.7

Revised Bethesda guidelines (modified B1, age limit <45 y)	0.78	0.89	0.19	0.80

Variable	Sensitivity	Specificity	Positive predictive value	Negative predictive value

Revised Bethesda guidelines (modified B1, age limit <45 y)	0.78	0.89	0.19	0.80


Words	Mean	SD

Arousal

Negative	5.24	1.49

Positive	4.68	1.47

Neutral	2.77	1.32

Valence

Negative	2.58	0.79

Positive	7.62	0.55

Neutral	5.00	0.34

Words	Mean	SD

Positive	7.62	0.55

Neutral	5.00	0.34