Methylation probe	Distance from MEG3 TSS	Correlation with 14q32 prognostic miRNAs	Number of miRNAs	Overlap with CTCF binding site

cg1656	1326	None	None	Near site (in promoter)

cg0928	775	0.466 (0.596 to 0.404)	7	In site (in promoter)

cg2583	156	0.459 (0.528 to 0.396)	3	Near site (in promoter)

cg05711	−218	−0.561	1	Near site (within gene body)

cg1537	−628	−0.443 (−0.408 to −0.631)	13	Near site (within gene body)

cg1510	−1264	0.546 (0.621 to 0.428)	2	Near site (within gene body)

cg0429	−1968	−0.283 (−0.554 to −0.552)	10	Not in site (within gene body)

Methylation probe	Distance from MEG3 TSS	Correlation with 14q32 prognostic miRNAs	Number of miRNAs	Overlap with CTCF binding site

cg1510	−1264	0.546 (0.621 to 0.428)	2	Near site (within gene body)

cg0429	−1968	−0.283 (−0.554 to −0.552)	10	Not in site (within gene body)


tRF5	Anticodon	ELISA status	SE	P-value

Negative (RPM)a	Positive (RPM)a

tRF5-Ala	CGC	616	494	31	0.0081

tRF5-Glu	CTC	2584	1492	306	0.0155

tRF5-Gly	TCC	65	148	21	0.0082


Variable	Multivariate analysis (DFS)	Multivariate analysis (OS)


	Patient 1	Patient 2	Patient 3	Patient 4

First time TB diagnosis	1995	1992	1985	2001

Immigration Date	August-97	July-97	March-92	March-03

Duration between TB and MDR TB diagnosis	2 years	5 years	12 years	2 years

Duration between MDR TB and XDR TB diagnosis	2 years	5 years	1.3 years	concurrent

Duration between XDR TB diagnosis and end of antituberculous drug therapy in Germany	2.4 years	1.9 years	2 years	2.5 years

Overall length of inhospital treatment in Germany	4.5 years	6 years	6 years	11 months

Outcome	treatment failure	cure	death	cure

Last sputum cultures	positive	negative	positive	negative

Radiologic signs of activity	present	not present	present	not present

Known transmission of XDR strain to contacts	no	no	no	no

	Patient 1	Patient 2	Patient 3	Patient 4

Duration between MDR TB and XDR TB diagnosis	2 years	5 years	1.3 years	concurrent

Duration between XDR TB diagnosis and end of antituberculous drug therapy in Germany	2.4 years	1.9 years	2 years	2.5 years

Overall length of inhospital treatment in Germany	4.5 years	6 years	6 years	11 months

Outcome	treatment failure	cure	death	cure

Last sputum cultures	positive	negative	positive	negative

Radiologic signs of activity	present	not present	present	not present

Known transmission of XDR strain to contacts	no	no	no	no


	p-value

MicroRNA	(Hypoxia vs Normoxia)

hsa_miR_206	0.04786


DHA source	Frequency, n

Salmon	6

Herring	5

Tuna	4

Cod	3

Brook trout	3

Trout	2

Carp	1

Sardines	1

Haddock	1

Grouper	1

Pike	1

White fish	1

Fish sticks (contains minced pollock)	3

Crustaceans	3

Caviar	1


Site	MPM	AF	BU	HE	HY	LE	RA	XE	Unk

Djorse	Pos	12	10				4

Otuaplem	Pos	4		10		1	2	12

Sarpeiman	Pos	1	13		8

Seduase	Pos	9

Achiaman	Pos				18		1

Kwashikuma	Pos	16			48		3		1

Weija	Pos

Site	MPM

Djorse	Pos

Otuaplem	Pos

Sarpeiman	Pos

Seduase	Pos

Achiaman	Pos

Kwashikuma	Pos

Weija	Pos


Cigarette	Erg %	LPS %

Newport Menthol	4.45	3.36

Camel Turkish Royal	9.90	6.18

Pall Mall	13.3	6.01

Kool	9.30	4.26

Parliament Lights	10.00	3.00

Liggett Select Full Flavor	8.57	3.99

University of Kentucky	10.86	6.30


Trait	Reference

Agronomic traits

Yield and yield parameters	Nath and Alam (2002)

Pod characters	Swamy et al. (2006)

Seed dormancy	Wang et al. (2012)

Early maturity	Upadhyaya et al. (2006)

Resistance to diseases and insect pests

Early leaf spot (Cercospora arachidicola Hori)	Singh et al. (1997), Holbrook and Isleib (2001)

Late leaf spot [Phaeoisariopsis personata (Berk. & Curt.) Van Arx]	Singh et al. (1997, 2003), Holbrook and Isleib (2001), Li et al. (2012)

Leaf rust (Puccinia arachidis Spegazzini)	Singh et al. (1997, 2003)

Aflatoxin contamination (Aspergillus spp.)	Singh et al. (1997), Whitaker et al. (2004)

Stem and pod rot (Sclerotium rolfsii)	Singh et al. (1997), Gorbet et al. (2004)

Bacterial wilt resistance (Ralstonia solanacearum)	Singh et al. (1997)

Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.)	Holbrook and Isleib (2001)

Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV)	Li et al. (2012)

Groundnut rosette disease (GRD)	Subrahmanyam et al. (1998)

Kalahasty malady (Tylenchorhynchus brevilineatus)	Mehan et al. (1993)

Insect pests	Amin et al. (1985), Harish et al. (2012)

Abiotic stress tolerance

Drought tolerance	Upadhyaya (2005), Jogloy et al. (2009), Balota et al. (2012)

Heat	Ntare et al. (2001)

Cold	Upadhyaya et al. (2009)

Salinity	Singh et al. (2008)

Aluminum toxicity	Boshou et al. (2000)

Nitrogen fixation tolerant to soil drying	Devi et al. (2010)

Quality parameters and others

Nutritional quality	Wang et al. (2010), Upadhyaya et al. (2012)

Traits for confectionary uses	Dwivedi et al. (1994), Dwivedi and Nigam (2005)

Root hairs on roots and gynophores that enhance phosphorus uptake	Wissuwa and Ae (2001)

Phosphorus (P) uptake	Wissuwa and Ae (1998)

Trait

Agronomic traits

Yield and yield parameters

Pod characters

Seed dormancy

Early maturity

Resistance to diseases and insect pests

Early leaf spot (Cercospora arachidicola Hori)

Late leaf spot [Phaeoisariopsis personata (Berk. & Curt.) Van Arx]

Leaf rust (Puccinia arachidis Spegazzini)

Aflatoxin contamination (Aspergillus spp.)

Stem and pod rot (Sclerotium rolfsii)

Bacterial wilt resistance (Ralstonia solanacearum)

Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.)

Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV)

Groundnut rosette disease (GRD)

Kalahasty malady (Tylenchorhynchus brevilineatus)

Insect pests

Abiotic stress tolerance

Drought tolerance

Heat

Cold

Salinity

Aluminum toxicity

Nitrogen fixation tolerant to soil drying

Quality parameters and others

Nutritional quality

Traits for confectionary uses

Root hairs on roots and gynophores that enhance phosphorus uptake

Phosphorus (P) uptake

Reference

Nath and Alam (2002)

Swamy et al. (2006)

Wang et al. (2012)

Upadhyaya et al. (2006)

Singh et al. (1997), Holbrook and Isleib (2001)

Singh et al. (1997, 2003), Holbrook and Isleib (2001), Li et al. (2012)

Singh et al. (1997, 2003)

Singh et al. (1997), Whitaker et al. (2004)

Singh et al. (1997), Gorbet et al. (2004)

Singh et al. (1997)

Holbrook and Isleib (2001)

Li et al. (2012)

Subrahmanyam et al. (1998)

Mehan et al. (1993)

Amin et al. (1985), Harish et al. (2012)

Upadhyaya (2005), Jogloy et al. (2009), Balota et al. (2012)

Ntare et al. (2001)

Upadhyaya et al. (2009)

Singh et al. (2008)

Boshou et al. (2000)

Devi et al. (2010)

Wang et al. (2010), Upadhyaya et al. (2012)

Dwivedi et al. (1994), Dwivedi and Nigam (2005)

Wissuwa and Ae (2001)

Wissuwa and Ae (1998)


	Number	Age at diagnosis	Disease duration	Anti-CCP-positive	RF-positive

		(years)	(years)	(%)	(%)

RA <1 year	144	54	0.8	70	68

RA >5 years	59	48	11	87	75

AS	88	34	10	1	nd

PsA	30	41	6	3	nd

SLE	21	37	8	5	nd

SSC	20	51	0.5	5	nd

Healthy	50	nd	nd	0	nd

RA <1 year

RA >5 years

AS

PsA

SLE

SSC

Healthy

Number	Age at diagnosis	Disease duration	Anti-CCP-positive	RF-positive

	(years)	(years)	(%)	(%)

144	54	0.8	70	68

59	48	11	87	75

88	34	10	1	nd

30	41	6	3	nd

21	37	8	5	nd

20	51	0.5	5	nd

50	nd	nd	0	nd


Pathology	Human FXTAS	CGG knock-in mouse

CGG trinucleotide repeat length	55 to 199 CGG repeat length, repeat instability	70 to 300 CGG repeats, modest repeat instability

Elevated FMR1 mRNA expression	Increased 2- to 8-fold	Increased 1.5- to 3-fold

Fragile X mental retardation protein levels	Reduced in several brain regions	Reduced in several brain regions

Motor impairments	Tremor/ataxia, postural sway, parkinsonism	Impaired on rotarod and ladder rung task

Cognitive Impairments	Poor working memory, anxiety, depression, social phobia	Spatial memory deficits, altered anxiety-like behaviors

Intranuclear inclusions	Neurons and astrocytes, highly correlated with CGG repeat length, frequency increases with age	Neurons and astrocytes, related to length of CGG repeat, frequency increases with age


	Any quantity fills	Single bottle gills of 2.5 mL

Method of imputing days supply	Sensitivity	Specificity	Sensitivity	Specificity

Medication possession

Unadjusted days supply	56%	63%	47%	79%

2.0-2.1 Variable Factor*	60%	60%	53%	77%

2.0 Constant Factor/45

 Minimum†	61%	60%	54%	77%

Days covered

Unadjusted days supply	53%	68%	43%	99%

2.0-2.1 Variable Factor*	67%	69%	61%	90%

2.0 Constant Factor/45

 Minimum†	70%	70%	65%	90%

	Any quantity fills	Single bottle gills of 2.5 mL

Method of imputing days supply	Sensitivity	Specificity	Sensitivity	Specificity

Unadjusted days supply	53%	68%	43%	99%

2.0-2.1 Variable Factor*	67%	69%	61%	90%

2.0 Constant Factor/45

Minimum†	70%	70%	65%	90%


Stage dose and route	Patients, n (active:placebo)

SAD stage dose, route (cohort)

 0.3 IV (A)	4:1

 1.0 IV (B)	4:1

 1.0 SC (C)	4:1

 3.0 IV (D)	4:1

 3.0 SC (E)	4:1

 5.0 IV (F)	4:1

MAD stage dose, route (cohort)

 1.0 SC (G)	8:2

 3.0 SC (H)	16:4

 5.0 IV (I)	4:1

Stage dose and route	Patients, n (active:placebo)

MAD stage dose, route (cohort)

1.0 SC (G)	8:2

3.0 SC (H)	16:4

5.0 IV (I)	4:1


Adsorption Concentration (mol/L)	10−3	10−2	10−1

Absorbance	1.004	0.860	0.377

Drug concentration	0.125 × 10−3	0.106 × 10−2	0.045 × 10−1

The remaining amount of R6G in 20 mL solution (mg)	1.198	10.189	42.589

The amount of added magnetic particles (g)	0.001	0.01	0.1

The amount of the adsorbed drug (mg)	0.239	4.085	101.114

The amount of the adsorbed drug by 1.0 g particles (mg)	239.0	408.5	1011.1


DNA Binding Factor	No. of Bound Genes in the Genome	No. of Bound Genes in hESCs	No. of Bound POLR3G-Dependent Genes	Hypergeometric Test p Value	Adjusted p Value (Benjamini-Hochberg)


	M	SD	Range

Townsend disability score	2.4	1.38	0–4

Social resources (LSNS-6)	15.4	5.90	0–30

Cognitive impairment (MMSE)	26.9	3.02	8–30

Loneliness	1.0	1.18	0–6

Townsend disability score

Social resources (LSNS-6)

Cognitive impairment (MMSE)

Loneliness


		Livron 6 loci (without Pwalt_Te39)	Aouste 7 loci

Ne - LDNe		892 (243 - Infinite)	-1470 (585 - Infinite)


	Overall	Monotherapy	Part of double combination therapy	Part of triple combination therapy

Amikacin	17.3	15.7	19.4	9.5

Meropenem	11.8	7.2	10.8	26.2

Piperacillin-tazobactam	11.2	27.7	6.3	4.8

Ampicillin	10.1	1.2	14.0	7.1

Gentamicin	9.2	3.6	13.1	0

Cefotaxime	5.8	15.7	3.2	0

Fluconazole	4.9	2.4	4.1	14.3

Ciprofloxacin	3.8	4.8	4.1	0

Vancomycin	3.5	1.2	4.1	4.8

Ceftriaxone	2.6	4.8	2.3	0

Colistin	2.3	0	2.7	4.8

Levofloxacin	2.0	2.4	2.3	0

Cefoperazone Sulbactam	3.2	0	4.5	2.4

Amphotericin B/Amphotericin B liposomal	1.7	2.4	1.4	2.4

Cefoperazone	1.4	1.2	1.4	2.4

	Overall	Monotherapy	Part of double combination therapy	Part of triple combination therapy

Gentamicin	9.2	3.6	13.1	0

Cefotaxime	5.8	15.7	3.2	0

Fluconazole	4.9	2.4	4.1	14.3

Ciprofloxacin	3.8	4.8	4.1	0

Vancomycin	3.5	1.2	4.1	4.8

Ceftriaxone	2.6	4.8	2.3	0

Colistin	2.3	0	2.7	4.8

Levofloxacin	2.0	2.4	2.3	0

Cefoperazone Sulbactam	3.2	0	4.5	2.4

Amphotericin B/Amphotericin B liposomal	1.7	2.4	1.4	2.4

Cefoperazone	1.4	1.2	1.4	2.4


Section	Number of infants with indicators for OPD	Frequency distribution (%)

A. Functioning of physiological subsystems?	2	10

B. State of alertness during feeding†	-	-

C. Stress cues during feeding	15	75

D. Movement and muscle tone screening	4	20

E. Oral peripheral examination	8	40

F. Clinical feeding and swallowing evaluation	14	70

Diagnosis of OPD	9	45


Day from onset of fever	Day of defervescence	Total fluid intake in ml	IV fluids in ml


Variables	Total n (%)	Boys n (%)	Girls n (%)

Alcohol use & bullying others	15 (2.2)	13 (4.0)	2 (0.6)

Alcohol use & sexual activity	12 (1.8)	11 (3.4)	1 (0.3)

Early sexual intercourse & sexual activity	10 (1.5)	6 (1.8)	4 (1.1)

Alcohol use & cigarette use	9 (1.3)	4 (1.2)	5 (1.4)

Sexual activity & bullying others	4 (0.6)	3 (0.9)	1 (0.3)

Tablets use & bullying others	3 (0.4)	3 (0.9)	0 (0.0)

Cigarette use & sexual activity	5 (0.7)	2 (0.6)	3 (0.8)

Cigarette use & bullying others	4 (0.6)	3 (0.9)	1 (0.3)

Alcohol use & tablets use	2 (0.3)	2 (0.6)	0 (0.0)

Alcohol use & cigarette use & sexual activity	12 (1.8)	5 (1.5)	7 (2.0)

Alcohol use & sexual activity & bullying others	10 (1.5)	8 (2.4)	2 (0.6)

Alcohol use & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity	9 (1.3)	6 (1.8)	3 (0.8)

Alcohol use & cigarette use & bullying others	6 (0.9)	4 (1.2)	2 (0.6)

Early sexual intercourse & sexual activity & bullying others	5 (0.7)	4 (1.2)	1 (0.3)

Alcohol use & tablets use & bullying others	2 (0.3)	0 (0.0)	2 (0.6)

Cigarette use & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity	3 (0.4)	1 (0.3)	2 (0.6)

Cigarette use & sexual activity & bullying others	1 (0.1)	1 (0.3)	0 (0.0)

Cigarette use & tablets use & bullying others	2 (0.3)	0 (0.0)	2 (0.6)

Cigarette & alcohol & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity	5 (0.7)	5 (1.5)	0 (0.0)

Cigarette & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity & bullying	2 (0.3)	2 (0.6)	0 (0.0)

Cigarette & Alcohol & early sexual intercourse & bullying others	1 (0.1)	1 (0.3)	0 (0.0)

Alcohol use & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity & bullying	1 (0.1)	1 (0.3)	0 (0.0)

Cigarette & alcohol & early sex & sexual activity & bullying others	5 (0.7)	4 (1.2)	1 (0.3)

Cigarette & alcohol & tablets & early sex & sexual activity	1 (0.1)	0 (0.0)	1 (0.3)

Cigarette & alcohol & tablets & early sex & sexual activity & bullying	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)

Variables

Alcohol use & bullying others

Alcohol use & sexual activity

Early sexual intercourse & sexual activity

Alcohol use & cigarette use

Sexual activity & bullying others

Tablets use & bullying others

Cigarette use & sexual activity

Cigarette use & bullying others

Alcohol use & tablets use

Alcohol use & cigarette use & sexual activity

Alcohol use & sexual activity & bullying others

Alcohol use & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity

Alcohol use & cigarette use & bullying others

Early sexual intercourse & sexual activity & bullying others

Alcohol use & tablets use & bullying others

Cigarette use & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity

Cigarette use & sexual activity & bullying others

Cigarette use & tablets use & bullying others

Cigarette & alcohol & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity

Cigarette & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity & bullying

Cigarette & Alcohol & early sexual intercourse & bullying others

Alcohol use & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity & bullying

Cigarette & alcohol & early sex & sexual activity & bullying others

Cigarette & alcohol & tablets & early sex & sexual activity

Cigarette & alcohol & tablets & early sex & sexual activity & bullying


	All	Age 35-59 years	Age 60-74 years

	eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) 	eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) 		eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)

	Coeff.	HR at more adverse level*	p-value	Coeff.	HR at more adverse level*	p-value		Coeff.	HR at more adverse level*	p-value

Allcausemortality

Classicalriskfactorsadjusted	-0.0025	0.97	0.6829	0.0181	1.18	0.3290		-0.0178	0.81	0.0020

Incident cardiovascular disease

Classicalriskfactorsadjusted	-0.0020	0.98	0.8030	0.0262	1.28	0.2063		-0.0162	0.83	0.0451


Gene symbol	Gene full name	Fold regulation	p-value

TLR2	Toll-like receptor 2	−30.20	0.02

IL1A	Interleukin 1, alpha	−7.85	0.01

LTB	Lymphotoxin beta (TNF superfamily, member 3)	−5.80	0.02

IL23A	Interleukin 23, alpha subunit p19	−5.67	0.01

TLR4	Toll-like receptor 4	−4.03	0.01

CCL7	Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 7	−3.78	0.00

CXCL3	Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 3	−3.66	0.02

CXCR2	Chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 2	−3.55	0.02

TLR1	Toll-like receptor 1	−3.31	0.01

IL15	Interleukin 15	−3.23	0.00

CCR1	Chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 1	−2.91	0.03

IL18	Interleukin 18	−2.49	0.00

IL10	Interleukin 10	−2.20	0.05

IL1R1	Interleukin 1 receptor, type I	−2.02	0.01

LY96*	Lymphocyte antigen 96 (MD-2)	2.49	0.01


	Intervention N = 392	Comparison N = 394

Birth interval (months)

Mead (SD)	40.0 (30)	38.1 (26)	F 0.89, p 0.35; unequal variance in birth interval

Missing	(2)	(1)

Birth weight

Mean (SD)	3403 (509)	3500 (504)	Difference -97 g

Missing data	(3)	(2)

Low birth weight (<2500 g)	25/393	14/394	OR (exact) 1.85 [0.91, 3.91]

Birth weight <10thpercentile*	40/378 (11%)	31/382(8%)	OR (exact) 1.14 [0.55, 2.38]

Low birth weight

<1000 g	6	0

1000–1499	3	0

1500–1999	7	2

2000–2499	9	12

All with birth weight (≥ 2,500 g	367	380

Missing data	(3)	(2)

All births	395	396

Gestation

Mean (SD)	39.3 (2.2)	39.5 (1.5)

Preterm birth (<37 weeks)	24 (6%)	17 (4%)	OR (exact) 1.44 (0.73, 2.91)

Preterm birth

20–27 weeks	4	0

28–31 weeks	6	1

32–36 weeks	14	16

All with gestations ≥ 37 weeks	366	374

Missing data	(2)	(3)

All gestations	392	394


Plasmid	Description	Source

pRL446		Elhai and Wolk, 1988

pMD18T	TA cloning vector	TaKaRa clonetech

pMD18Tslr1670		This study

pMD18Tslr1670KmR	Construction Δslr1670	This study

pXT323	Construction ΔglpK	This study

Plasmid	Description

pRL446

pMD18T	TA cloning vector

pMD18Tslr1670

pMD18Tslr1670KmR	Construction Δslr1670

pXT323	Construction ΔglpK

Source

Elhai and Wolk, 1988

TaKaRa clonetech

This study

This study

This study


 	Number of patients (%)

Histology

Non-small cell lung cancer	56 (88%)

Other	6 (9%)

No pathology	2 (3%)

Dose schedule

6 Gy × 5 fractions	2 (3%)

8 Gy × 5 fractions	7 (11%)

9 Gy × 5 fractions	1 (1.5%)

10 Gy × 5 fractions	10 (16%)

10.5 Gy × 5 fractions	7 (11%)

12 Gy × 4 fractions	17 (27%)

18 Gy* × 3 fractions	19 (29%)

Other	1 (1.5%)

Tumor size

≤ 3 cm	36 (56%)

>3 cm	28 (44%)

SBRT indication

Refused surgery	7 (11%)

Medically inoperable	47 (73%)

Surgically incurable	10 (16%)

Location

Central	23 (36%

Peripheral	41 (64%)

	Number of patients (%)

Medically inoperable	47 (73%)

Surgically incurable	10 (16%)

Location

Central	23 (36%

Peripheral	41 (64%)


Variable	ML score (95% CI)a	MEWS (95% CI)b	Difference (95% CI for difference)c	P value

Cardiac arrest within 72 hours after presentation

Ar	0.78	0.6	0.101 (0.006 to 	0.037


	Prospective cohort	Fixed effects (all)	Fixed effects (worked > 41 h)	Fixed effects (worked >48 h)

N	5910	18,221	5889	1631

Long working hours (>48 h)	1%	9%	28%	100%

Semi-long hours (41–48 h)	6%	31%	96%	86%

Short sickness absence	73%	64%	64%	52%

Long sickness absence	23%	14%	14%	13%

Extra-long sickness absence	12%	6%	6%	5%

Age	45 (SD 12)	42 (SD 12)	43 (SD 12)	44 (SD 11)

Salary	506,685 (SD 160094)	649,470 (SD 369401)	746,052 (SD 438982)	887,558 (SD 479854)

Female	67%	71%	58%	43%

Temporary contract	16%	32%	38%	45%

Multiple jobholders	3%	5%	5%	6%

Norwegian	92%	92%	92%	91%

Other Nordic	3%	4%	4%	4%

Other western	2%	2%	2%	3%

Non Western	2%	2%	2%	2%

Physician	11%	16%	37%	67%

Nurse	30%	32%	27%	12%

Other patient-related	20%	22%	14%	10%

Administration/management	23%	17%	10%	6%

Kitchen/cleaning/orderly	6%	4%	5%	0%

Other operations	6%	4%	4%	2%

Other	6%	5%	3%	2%

	Prospective cohort	Fixed effects (all)	Fixed effects (worked > 41 h)	Fixed effects (worked >48 h)

N	5910	18,221	5889	1631

Long working hours (>48 h)	1%	9%	28%	100%

Semi-long hours (41–48 h)	6%	31%	96%	86%

Short sickness absence	73%	64%	64%	52%

Long sickness absence	23%	14%	14%	13%

Extra-long sickness absence	12%	6%	6%	5%

Age	45 (SD 12)	42 (SD 12)	43 (SD 12)	44 (SD 11)

Salary	506,685 (SD 160094)	649,470 (SD 369401)	746,052 (SD 438982)	887,558 (SD 479854)

Fe	67%

	Prospective cohort	Fixed effects (all)	Fixed effects (worked > 41 h)	Fixed effects (worked >48 h)

male		71%	58%	43%

Temporary contract	16%	32%	38%	45%

Multiple jobholders	3%	5%	5%	6%

Norwegian	92%	92%	92%	91%

Other Nordic	3%	4%	4%	4%

Other western	2%	2%	2%	3%

Non Western	2%	2%	2%	2%

Physician	11%	16%	37%	67%

Nurse	30%	32%	27%	12%

Other patient-related	20%	22%	14%	10%

Administration/management	23%	17%	10%	6%

Kitchen/cleaning/orderly	6%	4%	5%	0%

Other operations	6%	4%	4%	2%

Other	6%	5%	3%	2%


	Dawn	Michelle

State PCL-5 TRASC*	Pre	Post	Pre	Post

#1: Flashbacks of traumatic events	3	3	0	2

#2: Altered sense of time	3	3	0	0

#3: Marked loss of emotional feeling	2	4	0	0

#4: Feeling what you are experiencing is not real	3	3	0	0

#5: Out of body experience	2	2	0	0

#6: Feeling like a part of your body is not your own	2	2	0	0

#7: Identity confusion	1	2	1	0

#8: Divided or multiple senses of self	3	2	3	1

#9: Loss of time	3	2	0	0

#10: Hearing voices	0	0	0	0

	Dawn

State PCL-5 TRASC*	Pre

#1: Flashbacks of traumatic events	3

#2: Altered sense of time	3

#3: Marked loss of emotional feeling	2

#4: Feeling what you are experiencing is not real	3

#5: Out of body experience	2

#6: Feeling like a part of your body is not your own	2

#7: Identity confusion	1

#8: Divided or multiple senses of self	3

#9: Loss of time	3

#10: Hearing voices	0


Antinuclear antibodies	P1	P2

Anti-nRNP/SM	3+, 2+, 2+	3+, 2+, 1+

Anti-SM	N, N, N	2+, 1+, N

Anti-SSA	3+, 3+, 3+	3+, 3+, 3+

Anti-RO-52	N, N, N	3+, 3+, 3+

Anti-SSB	N, N, N	1+, N, N

Anti-SCOL-70	N, N, N	N, N, N

Anti-JO-1	N, N, N	N, N, N

Anti-CENP B	N, N, N	N, N, N

Anti-dsDNA	3+, 2+, 2+	1+, N, N

Anti-nucleosome	3+, 3+, 3+	N, N, N

Anti-histone	3+, 1+, 1+	N, N, N

Anti-ribosomal P	N, N, N	3+, 3+, 2+

ACA	N, N, N	N, N, N

Antinuclear antibodies	P1	P2

Anti-RO-52	N, N, N	3+, 3+, 3+

Anti-SSB	N, N, N	1+, N, N

Anti-SCOL-70	N, N, N	N, N, N

Anti-JO-1	N, N, N	N, N, N

Anti-CENP B	N, N, N	N, N, N

Anti-dsDNA	3+, 2+, 2+	1+, N, N

Anti-nucleosome	3+, 3+, 3+	N, N, N

Anti-histone	3+, 1+, 1+	N, N, N

Anti-ribosomal P	N, N, N	3+, 3+, 2+

ACA	N, N, N	N, N, N


Question	Number	%

Blood on your tooth brush during brushing may be a sign of:

1. Gum disease	57	95.0

2. Tooth decay	2	3.3

3. I don’t know	1	1.7

What should you do when you see blood on your toothbrush?

1. Stop brushing	1	1.7

2. Stop brushing the area that is bleeding 	4	6.7

3. Continue brushing	22	36.7

4. See a dentist 	33	55.0

5. I don’t know what to do	0	0

Question	Number	%

1. Stop brushing	1	1.7

2. Stop brushing the area that is bleeding	4	6.7

3. Continue brushing	22	36.7

4. See a dentist	33	55.0

5. I don’t know what to do	0	0


Group	Biopsy	Reaction

		0	I	II	III

Dercum	Painful abdomen (n = 41)	11 (27)	14 (34)	16 (39)	-

	Painful knee (n = 47)	11 (23)	21 (45)	14 (30)	1 (2)

	Non-painful area (n = 28)	8 (29)	14 (50)	6 (21)	-

Obese controls	Abdomen (n = 41)	12 (29)	15 (37)	12 (29)	2 (5)

	Knee (n = 41)	10 (24)	13 (32)	16 (39)	2 (5)

Normal weight controls	Knee (n = 11)	6 (55)	5 (45)	-	-

Differences between groups (p-value)

Dercum vs. Obese controls - abdomen	0.022

Dercum vs. Obese controls - knee	0.33

Dercum vs. Normal weight controls - knee	0.81

Obese vs. Normal weight controls - knee	< 0.001

Dercum - painful abdomen vs. Dercum - non-painful abdomen1	0.4

Dercum - painful knee vs. Dercum - non-painful knee2	0.5

Group	Biopsy	Reaction

		0	I	II

Dercum	Painful abdomen (n = 41)	11 (27)	14 (34)	16 (39)

	Painful knee (n = 47)	11 (23)	21 (45)	14 (30)

	Non-painful area (n = 28)	8 (29)	14 (50)	6 (21)

Obese controls	Abdomen (n = 41)	12 (29)	15 (37)	12 (29)

	Knee (n = 41)	10 (24)	13 (32)	16 (39)

Normal weight controls	Knee (n = 11)	6 (55)	5 (45)	-

Differences between groups (p-value)

Dercum vs. Obese controls - abdomen	0.022

Dercum vs. Obese controls - knee	0.33

Dercum vs. Normal weight controls - knee	0.81

Obese vs. Normal weight controls - knee	< 0.001

Dercum - painful abdomen vs. Dercum - non-painful abdomen1	0.4

Dercum - painful knee vs. Dercum - non-painful knee2	0.5


Study	Intact +ve/−ve	Circumcised +ve/−ve	Odds ratio	95% confidence interval	Exact odds ratio	Exact 95% confidence interval

Warner	2316/2849	14352/21054	1.19	1.12–1.26	1.1925	1.1239–1.2653

Random effects summary effect:				0.8902	0.7277–1.0891


Patient	Tumor site	T stage	N stage	M stage

1	Oral cavity	1	0	0

2	Oral cavity	4a	2b	0

3	Oral cavity	4a	2c	0

4	Oropharynx	2	0	0

5	Oropharynx	2	2b	0

6	Oropharynx	3	2b	0

7	Oropharynx	4a	0	0

8	Oropharynx	4a	2c	0

9	Oropharynx	4a	2c	1

10	Hypopharynx	3	2b	0

Patient	Tumor site	T stage	N stage

1	Oral cavity	1	0

2	Oral cavity	4a	2b

3	Oral cavity	4a	2c

4	Oropharynx	2	0

5	Oropharynx	2	2b

6	Oropharynx	3	2b

7	Oropharynx	4a	0

8	Oropharynx	4a	2c

9	Oropharynx	4a	2c

10	Hypopharynx	3	2b


Variable	Idealistic Distortion

Lown (%)	Averagen (%)

Place of Residence	Urban	3 (0.5)	189 (29.3)

Rural	13 (1.5)	243 (27.5)

Job	Employed	4 (1.8)	63 (27.9)

Housewife	12 (0.9)	369 (28.3)

Education	Illiterate	1 (2.6)	7 (18.4)

Below diploma	10 (1.4)	212 (29.7)

High school Diploma	2 (0.4)	141 (29.1)

Higher Education	3 (1)	72 (24.6)

Spouse’s Education	Illiterate	0 (0)	0 (0)

Below diploma	11 (1.5)	220 (29.7)

High school Diploma	1 (0.6)	54 (31)

Higher Education	4 (0.7)	158 (25.9)

Spouse’s Job	Unemployed	2 (4.8)	18 (42.9)

Employed	14 (0.9)	414 (27.9)

Income	Less than 100$	7 (1.7)	105 (25.4)

100-300$	7 (0.8)	237 (27.5)

More than 300$	2 (0.8)	90 (35.6)

Fertility Status	Fertile	10 (1)	288 (28.3)

Infertile	6 (1.2)	144 (28.2)


 	BMI	Associated UK 1990 centile2

 	 	Boys	Girls

(a) Classify their children as currently overweight

 7 yearsb	23.1	99	99

 12 years	24.4	99	97

 15 years	29.1	99	99

(b) Express concern that their children will become overweight in the future

 7 yearsb	17.1	81	75

 12 years	20.3	88	79

 15 years	24.1	94	91


	All groups (average)	≥ 9 years (average)	< 9 years (average)	P value (t test)

Resource consumption

Hospitalized	158 (12.4%)	96 (10.7%)	62 (16.4%)

 Length of stay (hospitalization days)	4.1	4.0	4.3	0.003

 Consultations (N)	3.2	3.0	3.5	0.0006

 Workdays lost	2.1	2.2	1.9	0.0036

 School days missed	4.9	4.9	4.9	0.078

Nonhospitalized	1,121 (87.6%)	805 (89.3%)	316 (83.6%)

 Consultations (N)	2.4	2.4	2.4

 Workdays lost	0.4	0.3	0.6

 School days missed	1.7	1.7	1.7

All episodes*	1,279	901	378

 Length of stay(hospitalization days)	0.5	0.4	0.7

 Consultations (N)	2.5	2.5	2.6

 Workdays lost	0.6	0.5	0.8

 School days missed	2.1	2.0	2.3

	All groups (average)	≥ 9 years (average)	< 9 years (average)	P value (t test)

School days missed	2.1	2.0	2.3


Plasma characteristics	β coefficient (S.E.)	Pvalue

Neurocognitive impairment	−0.03 (0.16)	0.859

Gender, male	−0.48 (0.23)	0.042

Current CD4+ count, per 50 copies	−0.04 (0.02)	0.021

Detectable HIV VL	0.37 (0.16)	0.021

IL-10, per 10 units	0.18 (0.10)	0.061

Plasma characteristics	β coefficient (S.E.)	Pvalue

IL-10, per 10 units	0.18 (0.10)	0.061


Characteristics	n (%)

Symptom occurrence (%)

 Mean (range)	61 (21-100)

Incubation time (hr)

 Mean (range)	2 (1-15)

Clinical symptoms2

 Diarrhea	78 (82.9)

 Vomiting	78 (82.9)

 Abdominal pain	60 (63.8)

 Nausea	56 (59.5)

 Chillness	55 (58.5)

 Fever	35 (37.2)

 Headache	6 (6.0)


Final clinical outcome	Number (%) of patients

Favorable (44 hips)

Excellent	19 (32.8)

Good	25 (43.1)

Unfavorable (14 hips)

Fair	4 (6.9)

Poor	10 (17.2)

Total	58 (100)

Final clinical outcome

Favorable (44 hips)

Excellent

Good

Unfavorable (14 hips)

Fair

Poor

Total


Traits/gene transcripts	BTN1A1	SCD	LPL	GPAM	ACACA	LPIN


Disease	EC50 (95% CI) [pM]	Max. spec. lysis [%]	Antigen Density [molecules/cell]


Variable	Value	Effect	S.E.	CI	95%

Mother's BMI	4 points increment	0.85	0.12	0.62	1.08

Age (Mother)	5 years increment	0.73	0.17	0.41	1.06

Time studying per day (hours)	6 hrs increment	0.83	0.15	0.53	1.13

Time in sport activities per day (hours)	3 hrs increment	-0.43	0.18	-0.77	-0.08

Time in front of TV per day	≤ 1 h vs. 1-2 hrs	-2.09	0.36	-2.8	-1.38

	>2 hrs vs. 1-2 hrs	-0.26	0.29	-0.83	0.3

Municipality income (low vs. high)		1.82	0.28	1.26	2.37


Items	n (%)	Male (n = 32)	Female (n = 35)

Knowledge about worm infection:

Heard about liver fluke “san tap” or “pha yat bai mai nai tap”	34 (50.7)	34.4	65.7

How to get infection with O. viverrini:

Eating raw vegetables	3 (4.5)	3.1	5.7

Not maintaining good personal hygiene: hand washing, nail clipping, unclean environment	8 (11.9)	15.6	11.4

Eating any raw food: meat, snail, shrimp	29 (43.3)	34.4	51.4

Eating raw fish dishes (Koi Pa, Lap Pa Nuew)	8 (11.9)	12.5	11.4

Heard about roundworm	52 (77.6)	84.4	71.4

How to get infection with roundworm:

It just occurs in our body	2 (2.9)	0	5.7

Eat any raw: meat, fish, shrimp, vegetables	7 (10.4)	15.6	5.7

Not maintaining good personal hygiene: not hand washing before eating, not clipping nails, flies touching our food, drinking dirty water	16 (23.9)	18.7	28.6

Heard about hookworm	3 (4.5)	6.2	2.8

Do not know	3 (4.5)	6.2	2.8

Heard about whipworm	2 (2.9)	6.2	0

Do not know	2 (2.9)	6.2	0

Heard about tapeworm	33 (49.3)	46.9	51.4

Eating raw food	8 (11.9)	21.9	2.8

Eating raw fish dishes	33 (49.3)	53.1	45.7

Perceptions of latrine use:

Village will not be dirty	15 (22.4)	34.4	11.4

Flies do not touch our food anymore	4 (5.9)	12.5	0

Prevention of diseases/no transmission of diseases	10 (14.9)	18.8	11.4

Animals will not eat human faeces	6 (8.9)	0	17.1

Convenience (not getting wet from rain, convenience during the night and when sick)	13 (19.4)	6.2	31.4

Perceived liver fluke as health problem in community	6 (8.9)	12.5	5.7

Practices personal hygiene:

Hand washing before eating	31 (46.3)	31.2	60.0

Saying that most of people in village do not wash hands with soap	10 (14.9)	0	28.6

Perceptions of personal hygiene:

Hands will be clean if we wash hands before eating	10 (14.9)	0	28.6

We will be healthy if we wash hands before eating	3 (4.5)	9.4	0

We can not get any worm infections or diseases if we wash our hands before eating	20 (29.9)	28.1	31.4

Deworming in community:

Getting dewormed	37 (55.2)	75.0	37.1

Treatment of tapeworm with traditional medicine	19 (28.3)	43.7	14.3

Treatment with modern medicine	18 (26.9)	31.2	22.8

Treatment of roundworm using modern medicine	2 (2.9)	2.9	0


	Intervention Mean(SE)	Control Mean(SE)	Estimated Intervention Effect Mean (95%CI)	p-value from GEE model

Pre-intervention mean score	7.71 (0.11)	7.48 (0.09)

Post-intervention mean score	3.63 (0.26)	4.24 (0.27)

Pre-post difference	4.08 (0.23)	3.24 (0.30)	0.84 (0.10; 1.58)	0.03

Pre-post difference adjusted for number of physician visits	4.10 (0.18)	3.25(0.27)	0.85 (0.21 ;1.48)	0.01


Predictors	OR	P value	95% CI

Lower	Upper

Right side operation	2.37	<0.001	1.52	3.70

Male	2.66	<0.001	1.65	4.28

Pleural adhesion	1.76	0.005	1.18	2.62

Predictors	OR	P value	95% CI

Lower	Upper

BMI < 25.5 kg/m2	1.72	0.02	1.08	2.75


Reference	Author	Article 	Published in journal	Year published	nsubjects	nteeth	Study design

[6]	Pogrel et al.	“Coronectomy: a technique to protect the inferior alveolar nerve” 	J Oral Maxillofac Surg 	2004	41	50	Prospective cohort

[7]	Renton et al. 	“A randomised controlled clinical trial to compare the incidence of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve as a result of coronectomy and removal of mandibular third molars” 	Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg	2005	128	94	Randomized controlled trial

[8]	Pogrel 	“An update on coronectomy” 	J Oral Maxillofac Surg 	2009	Not available	450	Prospective cohort

[9]	Leung and Cheung	“Safety of coronectomy versus excision of wisdom teeth: a randomized controlled trial” 	Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod	2009	231	171	Randomized controlled trial

[10]	Hatano et al.	“Clinical evaluations of coronectomy (intentional partial odontectomy) for mandibular third molars using dental computed tomography: a case-control study” 	J Oral Maxillofac Surg 	2009	220	102	Case control study

[11]	Dolanmaz et al.	“A preferable technique for protecting the inferior alveolar nerve: coronectomy” 	J Oral Maxillofac Surg 	2009	43	47	Prospective cohort

[12]	Cilasun et al. 	“Coronectomy in patients with high risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury diagnosed by computed tomography” 	J Oral Maxillofac Surg 	2011	120	175	Prospective cohort

[13]	Leung and Cheung 	“Coronectomy of the lower third molar is safe within the first 3 years”	J Oral Maxillofac Surg 	2012	98	135	Prospective cohort

Author	Article	Published in journal	Year published	nsubjects	nteeth	Study design

Pogrel et al.	“Coronectomy: a technique to protect the inferior alveolar nerve”	J Oral Maxillofac Surg	2004	41	50	Prospective cohort

Renton et al.	“A randomised controlled clinical trial to compare the incidence of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve as a result of coronectomy and removal of mandibular third molars”	Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg	2005	128	94	Randomized controlled trial

Pogrel	“An update on coronectomy”	J Oral Maxillofac Surg	2009	Not available	450	Prospective cohort

Leung and Cheung	“Safety of coronectomy versus excision of wisdom teeth: a randomized controlled trial”	Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod	2009	231	171	Randomized controlled trial

Hatano et al.	“Clinical evaluations of coronectomy (intentional partial odontectomy) for mandibular third molars using dental computed tomography: a case-control study”	J Oral Maxillofac Surg	2009	220	102	Case control study

Dolanmaz et al.	“A preferable technique for protecting the inferior alveolar nerve: coronectomy”	J Oral Maxillofac Surg	2009	43	47	Prospective cohort

Cilasun et al.	“Coronectomy in patients with high risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury diagnosed by computed tomography”	J Oral Maxillofac Surg	2011	120	175	Prospective cohort

Leung and Cheung	“Coronectomy of the lower third molar is safe within the first 3 years”	J Oral Maxillofac Surg	2012	98	135	Prospective cohort


DEG_Set	Annotated	COG	GO	KEGG	KOG	Pfam	Swiss-Prot	eggNOG	Nr

F		5	981		95		12	167	17


Tear location	Autograft	Allograft

Near femoral attachment	14	2

Near tibial attachment	1	2

Mid-substance	1	4

Stretched	2	2

No graft seen	1	1

Tear location	Autograft	Allograft

Stretched	2	2

No graft seen	1	1


	Possible answers

How often do you use wikipedia as an information source in general?

	Never

	1-5x/week

	Daily

	1-5x/month

How often do you use Wikipedia as an information source in your medical studies?

	Never

	1-5x/week

	Daily

	1-5x/month

Given that you read a medical article on Wikipedia, do you draw any criteria to evaluate its quality? (Multiple answer possible)

	I compare it to my knowledge

	Number of references

	Authors are well-known

	High number of revisions

	Date of latest revision

	I compare it to specific literature

	I discuss the content with my colleagues/teachers

	I do not draw any criteria

	I trust my gut feeling

Given that you find incorrect information, what do you do?

	I correct the error

	I am not familiar how to correct articles

	I know how to correct articles but leave the entry unaltered

	I draw attention to the false information in any other way

	Possible answers

	High number of revisions

	Date of latest revision

	I compare it to specific literature

	I discuss the content with my colleagues/teachers

	I do not draw any criteria

	I trust my gut feeling

Given that you find incorrect information, what do you do?

	I correct the error

	I am not familiar how to correct articles

	I know how to correct articles but leave the entry unaltered

	I draw attention to the false information in any other way


	Anda	Sør‐Gjæslingan

Oceanic	Coastal	Oceanic	Coastal

Habitat


Variable	Odds ratio	95%confidence interval

Guideline-recommended vancomycin dosing	0.91	0.53-1.56

Vancomycin duration > 15 days	3.65	2.16-6.17

Weight greater than 100 kilograms	2.08	1.18-3.67

Pitt Bacteremia Score of four or greater	3.80	2.17-6.63

Vancomycin trough greater than 20 mcg/ml	2.51	1.28-4.92

Age greater than 52 years	2.40	1.38-4.15

Intensive care unit resident	3.64	2.15-6.18

Concomitant nephrotoxin	2.08	1.24-3.49

Male gender	1.04	0.56-1.57

Charlson comorbidity index 5 or greater	1.14	0.57-2.27

Baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.0 mg/dL	0.94	0.56-1.57

Variable	Odds ratio

Guideline-recommended vancomycin dosing	0.91

Vancomycin duration > 15 days	3.65

Weight greater than 100 kilograms	2.08

Pitt Bacteremia Score of four or greater	3.80

Vancomycin trough greater than 20 mcg/ml	2.51

Age greater than 52 years	2.40

Intensive care unit resident	3.64

Concomitant nephrotoxin	2.08

Male gender	1.04

Charlson comorbidity index 5 or greater	1.14

Baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.0 mg/dL	0.94


GEO ID	Sample count (case:control)	Platform	Sample source	Tissue

GSE14359	18: 2	GPL96 [HG-U133A] Affymetrix Human Genome U133A Array	in vivo	Bone, lung

GSE16102	48: 6	GPL96 [HG-U133A] Affymetrix Human Genome U133A Array	in vivo	Bone

GSE12865	12: 2	GPL6244 [HuGene-1_0-st] Affymetrix Human Gene 1.0 ST Array	in vivo	Bone

GSE11414	4: 2	GPL6244 [HuGene-1_0-st] Affymetrix Human Gene 1.0 ST Array	in vitro	Bone

GSE42352	103:15	GPL10295 Illumina human-6 v2.0 expression beadchip (using nuIDs as identifier)	in vivo/in vitro	Bone

GSE36001	19: 6	GPL6102 Illumina human-6 v2.0 expression beadchip	in vitro	Bone

GSE32964	35: 1	GPL6947 Illumina HumanHT-12 V3.0 expression beadchip	in vivo	Bone

GSE30807	1: 1	GPL570 [HG-U133_Plus_2] Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array	in vitro	Bone

GEO ID	Sample count (case:control)	Platform	Sample source	Tissue

GSE36001	19: 6	GPL6102 Illumina human-6 v2.0 expression beadchip	in vitro	Bone

GSE32964	35: 1	GPL6947 Illumina HumanHT-12 V3.0 expression beadchip	in vivo	Bone

GSE30807	1: 1	GPL570 [HG-U133_Plus_2] Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array	in vitro	Bone


Gene	Primer sequences	Amplicon length	Annealing temperature

MBD-1	5' TCTGGTTGCCAAGGTCCAAA 3'5' ACATCCATCTTCCCTTCCCGA 3'	122bp	61°C

vimentin	5' TGGAAGAGAACTTTGCCGTTG 3'5' AAGGTGACGAGCCATTTCCTC 3'	101bp	60°C

GRP78	5' CACCAATGACCAGAATCGCCT 3'5' CAATGCGCTCCTTGAGCTTT 3'	101bp	60°C

Gene	Primer sequences	Amplicon length	Annealing temperature

GRP78	5' CACCAATGACCAGAATCGCCT 3'5' CAATGCGCTCCTTGAGCTTT 3'	101bp	60°C


Conjugate	N	F0, RFU	Fenz, RFU	Fmax

BSA-FITC(Voss et al.)	25	-	-	3450


AE or laboratory abnormality	n (%)

Grade 1/2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Any grade

Non-hematologic AEs of any cause occurring in ≥ 15% of patients

 Fatigue/asthenia	33 (55)	12 (20)	0	45 (75)

 Diarrhea	33 (55)	3 (5)	0	36 (60)

 Stomatitis, oral discomfort, and related oral syndromes	29 (48)	3 (5)	0	32 (53)

 Dysgeusia	27 (45)	0	0	27 (45)

 Hypertension	18 (30)	8 (13)	0	26 (43)

 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	25 (42)	0	0	25 (42)

 Vomiting	19 (32)	2 (3)	0	21 (35)

 Dyspepsia	20 (33)	0	0	20 (33)

 Epistaxis	18 (30)	2 (3)	0	20 (33)

 Nausea	20 (33)	0	0	20 (33)

 Headache	17 (28)	2 (3)	0	19 (32)

 Decreased appetite	14 (23)	4 (7)	0	18 (30)

 Dry skin	14 (23)	1 (2)	0	15 (25)

 Ejection fraction decreased	10 (17)	3 (5)	1 (2)	14 (23)

 Abdominal pain	11 (18)	0	0	11 (18)

 Hand–foot syndrome and related disorders	8 (13)	3 (5)	0	11 (18)

 Pyrexia	11 (18)	0	0	11 (18)

 Weight decreased	11 (18)	0	0	11 (18)

 Constipation	10 (17)	0	0	10 (17)

 Left ventricular dysfunction	8 (13)	2 (3)	0	10 (17)

 Insomnia	8 (13)	1 (2)	0	9 (15)

 Dyspnea	8 (13)	1 (2)	0	9 (15)

Hematologic laboratory abnormalities

 Leukopenia	46 (77)	4 (7)	1 (2)	51 (85)

 Anemia	46 (77)	2 (3)	0	48 (80)

 Neutropenia	36 (60)	9 (15)	1 (2)	46 (77)

 Lymphopenia	36 (60)	6 (10)	1 (2)	43 (72)

 Thrombocytopenia	34 (57)	6 (10)	3 (5)	43 (72)


Topic	Sub-Topic	Positive Feedback

Usability 	Utilization	“Both the motor and cognitive tasks were easy.”

Learning	“There was no problem in learning the use of the system.”

Pleasantness	“The 3D glass was not uncomfortable.”“The environment was beautiful.”“The cycle-ergometer was manageable.”

Sense of Presence	Spatial Presence	“The feeling was to be in the real park.”“I had the feeling of being suspended.” “The environment was relaxing.”

Engagement	“I was focused on the task.”“I think I’ve been pedaling for 5 min.”“I forget you (the examiners) were here too.”

Realism	“The environment was realistic.”

Cyber Sickness	Physical side-effects	None present side effect like cyber-sickness or nausea

Expectations		“This system could be useful for several types of patients.”“I think it’s easier to train with this tool.”

Topic	Sub-Topic	Positive Feedback

Usabi	Utilization	“Both the motor and cognitive tasks were easy.”

Learning	“There was no problem in learning the use of the system.”

Pleasa

lity	ntness	“The 3D glass was not uncomfortable.”“The environment was beautiful.”“The cycle-ergometer was manageable.”

Sense of Presence	Spatial Presence	“The feeling was to be in the real park.”“I had the feeling of being suspended.” “The environment was relaxing.”

Engagement	“I was focused on the task.”“I think I’ve been pedaling for 5 min.”“I forget you (the examiners) were here too.”

Realism	“The environment was realistic.”

Cyber Sickness	Physical side-effects	None present side effect like cyber-sickness or nausea

Expectations		“This system could be useful for several types of patients.”“I think it’s easier to train with this tool.”


Pure nuclear (No. of cases = 100)

OR§

(95% CI)

Pure cortical (No. of cases = 40)

OR§

(95% CI)

Pure posterior (No. of cases = 62)

OR§

(95% CI)

Pure nuclear (No. of cases = 100)

OR§

(95% CI)

Pure cortical (No. of cases = 40)

OR§

(95% CI)

Pure posterior (No. of cases = 62)

OR§

(95% CI)


Synthesis feature	Traditional systematic review	Critical interpretive synthesis

Research question	• A research question is developed a priori and is not changed during the course of the research study.	• A compass question is developed, which can evolve over the course of the research study, in a transparent manner.

Literature search	• Exhaustive literature search	• Exhaustive literature search but can purposively sample literature outside of original search parameters

Article selection	• Static inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied to search results;	• Inclusion and exclusion criteria are iteratively refined to reflect the evolving compass questions (often through successive pilot testing of the criteria using small batches of references with the final criteria applied to all search results);

• Included articles are empirical studies and often consist only of a small number of specific methodological designs (e.g., RCT, CCT, observational studies); and	• Included articles can consist of both empirical and non-empirical (e.g., editorials, essays) analyses that offer insight into the topic under investigation (i.e., articles are not limited to those that meet certain design or quality criteria); and

• All relevant articles meeting inclusion criteria and minimum quality standard are included in the analysis.	• A purposive sample of eligible articles is typically selected based on the unique insights they can provide to the topic under investigation.

Quality rating of articles	• Quality ratings are usually applied to all articles included in a systematic review and used to help interpret the findings.	• Relevance ratings are applied to articles, not quality ratings (i.e., articles are rated on their ability to answer the compass question).

Synthesis	• Data is extracted from all studies meeting the inclusion criteria using an a priori approach; and	• Data is extracted from a purposive sample of studies using an analytic framework where the constructs are iteratively revised and reapplied to the included papers to ensure the constructs are grounded in the data; and

• Findings are synthesized either quantitatively (i.e., in a meta-analysis) or qualitatively, which typically involves reporting findings from studies according to the pre-defined outcomes of interest.	• The analytical constructs that emerged from the iterative analysis are used to derive an explanatory framework.

Synthesis feature	Traditional systematic review	Critical interpretive synthesis

Literature search	• Exhaustive literature search	• Exhaustive literature search but can purposively sample literature outside of original search parameters

Article selection	• Static inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied to search results;	• Inclusion and exclusion criteria are iteratively refined to reflect the evolving compass questions (often through successive pilot testing of the criteria using small batches of references with the final criteria applied to all search results);

• Included articles are empirical studies and often consist only of a small number of specific methodological designs (e.g., RCT, CCT, observational studies); and	• Included articles can consist of both empirical and non-empirical (e.g., editorials, essays) analyses that offer insight into the topic under investigation (i.e., articles are not limited to those that meet certain design or quality criteria); and

• All relevant articles meeting inclusion criteria and minimum quality standard are included in the analysis.	• A purposive sample of eligible articles is typically selected based on the unique insights they can provide to the topic under investigation.

Quality rating of articles	• Quality ratings are usually applied to all articles included in a systematic review and used to help interpret the findings.	• Relevance ratings are applied to articles, not quality ratings (i.e., articles are rated on their ability to answer the compass question).

Synthesis	• Data is extracted from all studies meeting the inclusion criteria using an a priori approach; and	• Data is extracted from a purposive sample of studies using an analytic framework where the constructs are iteratively revised and reapplied to the included papers to ensure the constructs are grounded in the data; and

• Findings are synthesized either quantitatively (i.e., in a meta-analysis) or qualitatively, which typically involves reporting findings from studies according to the pre-defined outcomes of interest.	• The analytical constructs that emerged from the iterative analysis are used to derive an explanatory framework.


Model for total tibial cartilage volume	r2	p Value for Δ r2 compared with the specified model	ΔF with addition to the model (p value for ΔF is the same as for Δr2)

Bone area only (+)	0.14	< 0.001	N/A

Bone area (+) age (-)	0.21	< 0.001 compared with bone area only	14.84

Bone area (+) age (-) smoking, alcohol	0.22	0.43 compared with bone area and age	0.86

Bone area (+) age (-) smoking, alcohol, BMI	0.22	0.53 compared with bone area, age, smoking and alcohol	0.39

Bone area (+) age (-) smoking, alcohol, ln hsCRP (-)	0.28	< 0.001 compared with bone area, age, smoking, alcohol	13.15

Bone area (+) age (-) smoking, alcohol, BMI ln hsCRP(-)	0.28	< 0.001 compared with bone area age smoking alcohol	7.23 (both variables added together); if BMI added first, ΔF = 0.43 (p for ΔF = 0.51) followed by lnCRP ΔF = 13.99, (p for ΔF < 0.001); if ln CRP added first, ΔF = 13.15, (p for ΔF < 0.001) followed by BMI ΔF = 1.28, (p for ΔF = 0.26)

Model for total tibial cartilage	r2	p Value for Δ r2 compared with the	ΔF with addition to the model (p value f

 volume		 specified model	or ΔF is the same as for Δr2)

Bone area only (+)	0.14	< 0.001	N/A

Bone area (+) age (-)	0.21	< 0.001 compared with bone area only	14.84

Bone area (+) age (-) smoking, alcohol	0.22	0.43 compared with bone area and age	0.86

Bone area (+) age (-) smoking, alcohol, BMI	0.22	0.53 compared with bone area, age, smoking and alcohol	0.39

Bone area (+) age (-) smoking, alcohol, ln hsCRP (-)	0.28	< 0.001 compared with bone area, age, smoking, alcohol	13.15

Bone area (+) age (-) smoking, alcohol, BMI ln hsCRP(-)	0.28	< 0.001 compared with bone area age smoking alcohol	7.23 (both variables added together); if BMI added first, ΔF = 0.43 (p for ΔF = 0.51) followed by lnCRP ΔF = 13.99, (p for ΔF < 0.001); if ln CRP added first, ΔF = 13.15, (p for ΔF < 0.001) followed by BMI ΔF = 1.28, (p for ΔF = 0.26)


	No COPD		COPD		COPD/CHF

Number of beneficiaries	1,319,680		245,958		118,617

 As % of all beneficiaries	84.30%		15.70%		7.60%

Personal Characteristics

Females, %	59.70%		54.50%		55.10%

Age (yrs), mean (sd)	75.8 (7.3)		77.4 (7.2)		78.9 (7.4)

Medicare-Disabled/ESRD, %	7%		14%		16%

Bottom quartile household income,%	24%		30%		31%

Comorbidities

Diabetes	21.00%		33.60%		44.70%

CHF	17.80%		48.20%		100.00%

Ischemic heart disease	35.50%		65.40%		84.60%

 Atrial fibrillation	9.60%		20.60%		36.00%

	No COPD

Number of beneficiaries	1,319,680

As % of all beneficiaries	84.30%

Personal Characteristics

Females, %	59.70%

Age (yrs), mean (sd)	75.8 (7.3)

Medicare-Disabled/ESRD, %	7%

Bottom quartile household income,%	24%

Comorbidities

Diabetes	21.00%

CHF	17.80%

Ischemic heart disease	35.50%

Atrial fibrillation	9.60%


Author	Cell line name	Species	Location

Hishikawa et al. [61]	SP cells	Mouse	Renal interstitial space

Challen et al. [62]	SP cells	Mouse	Proximal tubules

Inowa et al. [30]	SP cells	Human	Not identified

Dekel et al. [33]	Sca1+ cells	Mouse	Nontubular

Gupta et al. [34]	MRPCs	Rat	Renal tubules

Maeshima et al. [4, 35]	LRC cells	Rat	Renal tubular cells

Oliver et al. [63]	Slow-cycling cells	Mouse, rat	Renal papilla

Bussolati et al. [36, 39]	CD133+ CD24+ cells	Human	Bowman's capsule, inner medullary papilla, S3 segment of proximal tubules, interstitium

Sallustio et al. [37, 38]	CD133+ CD24+ cells	Human	Tubules, glomerulus

Sagrinati et al. [64]	CD133+ CD24+ cells	Human	Bowman's capsule

Lindgren et al. [65]	CD133+ CD24+ cells	Human	Renal proximal tubules

Kitamura et al. [41]	KS cells	Rat	S3 segment of proximal tubules

Author

Hishikawa et al. [61]

Challen et al. [62]

Inowa et al. [30]

Dekel et al. [33]

Gupta et al. [34]

Maeshima et al. [4, 35]

Oliver et al. [63]

Bussolati et al. [36, 39]

Sallustio et al. [37, 38]

Sagrinati et al. [64]

Lindgren et al. [65]

Kitamura et al. [41]

Cell line name	Species	Location

SP cells	Mouse	Renal interstitial space

SP cells	Mouse	Proximal tubules

SP cells	Human	Not identified

Sca1+ cells	Mouse	Nontubular

MRPCs	Rat	Renal tubules

LRC cells	Rat	Renal tubular cells

Slow-cycling cells	Mouse, rat	Renal papilla

CD133+ CD24+ cells	Human	Bowman's capsule, inner medullary papilla, S3 segment of proximal tubules, interstitium

CD133+ CD24+ cells	Human	Tubules, glomerulus

CD133+ CD24+ cells	Human	Bowman's capsule

CD133+ CD24+ cells	Human	Renal proximal tubules

KS cells	Rat	S3 segment of proximal tubules


Classification	Co-biased as At	Biased as At and Aa	Co-biased as Aa

Occurrence	219	302	325

Expected	173.1	419.2	253.7

Classification	Co-biased as At	Biased as At and Aa	Co-biased as Aa

Occurrenc	21	302	3


P300	N400 & N100

Amplitude (X)/Latency (L)	BVS Score	Amplitude (X)/Latency (L)	BVS Score

X > μ −σ	5	X < μ + σ	5

L < μ + σ		L < μ + σ

μ − 1.5σ < X < μ −σ	4	μ + 1.5σ > X > μ + σ	4

μ + 1.5σ > L > μ + σ		μ + 1.5σ > L > μ + σ

μ − 2σ < X < μ − 1.5σ	3	μ + 2σ > X > μ + 1.5σ	3

μ + 2σ > L > μ + 1.5σ		μ + 2σ > L > μ + 1.5σ

μ − 2.5σ < X < μ − 2σ	2	μ + 2.5σ > X > μ + 2σ	2

μ + 2.5σ > L > μ + 2σ

		μ + 2.5σ > L > μ + 2σ

X < μ − 2.5σ	1	X > μ + 2.5σ	1

L > μ + 2.5σ

		L > μ + 2.5σ


Formulation	n

Drug type

 Caffeine	0.60

 Acetaminophen	0.66

 Theophylline	0.71

 Salicylic acid	0.73

 Indomethacin	0.98

Cross-linker

 1:2	1.24

 1:4	1.25

Formulation

Drug type

Caffeine

Acetaminophen

Theophylline

Salicylic acid

Indomethacin

Cross-linker

1:2

1:4


			Genotype calling

Read	Read mapping	Reference TR mapping	Unmodified TR	Homozygous VNTR	Heterozygous VNTR†

Set	Sen	Spec	Sen	Spec	Sen	Spec	Sens	Spec	PPV	Sens	Spec	PPV

454 Exact (avg. 261 nt)	97.5%	99.6%	96.9%	99.2%	97.7%	100%*	95.8%	100%*	96.3%	84.2%	100%*	91.6%

454 Errors (avg. 261 nt)	90.1%	99.5%	94.7%	99%	93.7%	99.9%	91.9%	100%*	91.8%	76.6%	100%*	85.8%

			Genotype calling

Read	Read mapping	Reference TR mapping	Unmodified TR	Homozygous VNTR	Heterozygous VNTR†

Set	Sen	Spec	Sen	Spec	Sen	Spec	Sens	Spec	PPV	Sens	Spec	PPV

Illumina Exact (100 nt)	94.5%	99.5%	96.8%	99.6%	95.0%	100%*	93.6%	100%*	98.1%	83.1%	100%*	86.5%

Illumina Errors (100 nt)	70.4%	97.7%	78.1%	97.4%	67.6%	100%*	64.8%	100%*	94.2%	47.3%	100%*	74.5%


Electrochemical Aptasensors Applied for Food Safeguard

Analyte	Matrix	Method details	Linear range and LOD	Reference

Salmonella Typhimurium	Pork	EIS based on AuNPs and GO	2.4–2.4 × 103 CFU/mL, 3 CFU/mL	[17]

Staphylococcus aureus	Pig Skin	Potentiometry using SWCNT	800 CFU/mL	[18]

Lysozyme	wine	Aptamer–antibody diazonium coupling, DPV	5 fM–5 nM, 4.3 fM	[21]

Ochratoxin A	cocoa beans	Anti-OTA-aptamer on SPCE, EIS	0.15–2.5 ng/mL, 0.15 ng/mL	[22]

Aflatoxin M1	Milk	Hexaethyleneglycol modified aptamers on SPE, EIS	2–150 ng/L, 1.15 ng/mL	[23]

Aflatoxin B1	Alcoholic beverage	MB-tagged aptamer on SPCE, hexamethylenediamine and carbodiimide, DPV	0.05–6.0 ng/mL, 0.05 ng/mL	[6]

Kanamycin	Milk	Aptamer on SPCE, EIS	1.2–75 ng/mL, 0.11 ng/mL	[25]


Demographic variables	N*	%	Demographic variables	N*	%

Sex	Male	110	24.6	Age in years	21-30	92	20.6

Female	338	75.4	31-40	152	33.9

Marital status	Married	386	86.2	41-50	161	35.9

Others	62	13.8	>50	43	9.6

Occupation	Administrative staff	43	9.6	Years worked	≤5	84	18.8

General practitioner	138	30.9	6-10	55	12.3

Public health physician	105	23.4	11-15	57	12.7

Nurse	122	27.2	16-20	66	14.7

Other	40	8.9	≥21	186	41.5

Working hours (per week)	≤40	212	47.3	Monthly income (RMB)	<2000	186	41.5

41-48	140	31.3	2000-2999	194	43.3

49-56	62	13.8	3000- 3999	58	12.9

>56	34	7.6	≥4000	10	2.3

Title	Senior	88	19.6	Educational background	High school or below	92	20.5

Middle	190	42.4	Junior college	185	41.3

Junior	144	32.1	College and above	171	38.2

No title	26	5.9

Demographic variables	N*	%	Demographic variables	N*	%

Title	Junior	144	32.1	Educational background	College and above	171	38.2

No title	26	5.9


	Open abdominal wall hernia repair	Laparoscopic abdominal wall hernia repair

Hematoma	6 %	1 %

Seroma	4 %	3 %

Visceral lesions	0	0

Sub-occlusion	0	0

Respiratory infections	1 %	0

Infections of prosthesis	0	0

Fascial necrosis	0	0

Postop. Pain (6 mesi)	3 %	1 %

Recurrence	7 %	4 %

Mortality	0	0


	Pearson Correlation (r) with Sleep Quality Scale (-)

	Study 1056	Study 1077

	r	p-value	r	p-value

Average Daily Diary Pain Numeric Rating Scale (-)	0.64	<0.001	0.58	<0.001

MOS Sleep Scales

 Sleep Disturbance (-)	0.45	<0.001	0.42	<0.001

 Snoring (-)	0.01	0.884	0.00	0.993

 Awaken Short of Breath or with Headache (-)	0.21	<0.001	0.14	<0.001

 Quantity of Sleep (+)	-0.31	<0.001	-0.34	<0.001

 Sleep Adequacy (+)	-0.21	<0.001	-0.32	<0.001

 Somnolence (-)	0.11	0.004	0.15	<0.001


Isolate ID	Laccase (4thday)	Lipase (3rdday)	Cellulase (3rdday)	Source of isolation	Depth (m)

PKU F1	-	+	+	Seawater	0

PKU F2	+	-	+	Seawater	0

PKU F3	+	++	++	Seawater	0

PKU F4	++	+	+	Seawater	0

PKU F5	-	++	-	Sediment	0

PKU F6	-	-	+	Seawater	0

PKU F7	++	+	++	Sediment	0

PKU F8	-	+	++	Sediment	0

PKU F9	-	++	++	Sediment	0

PKU F10	+	-	-	Sediment	0

PKU F11	+	++	+++	Seawater	10

PKU F12	-	++	++	Seawater	10

PKU F13	-	++	+++	Seawater	0

PKU F14	++	+++	++	Seawater	0

PKU F15	+	-	-	Seawater	10

PKU F16	+++	+++	++	Seawater	5

PKU F17	-	++	+	Seawater	10

PKU F18	+++	+	+++	Seawater	0

PKU F19	-	+	-	Seawater	0

PKU F20	++	++	++	Seawater	0

PKU F21	+	++	-	Seawater	0

PKU F22	-	+++	++	Seawater	0

PKU Y1	-	++	+	Seawater	0

PKU Y2	-	+	++	Seawater	0

PKU Y3	-	++	+	Seawater	10

PKU Y4	-	+	++	Seawater	0

PKU Y5	-	++	++	Seawater	10

PKU Y6	-	++	++	Seawater	5

PKU Y7	-	-	++	Seawater	0

PKU Y8	-	+++	+++	Seawater	0

PKU Y9	-	++	++	Seawater	10


Patient 	Age	Clinical stage	Histologic type	Tumor size 	Estrogen receptor (ER)	Progesterone receptor (PR)	Her2 status	Molecular classification

A	50 yr	T2N1M0 (grading: IIB)	Ductal infiltrating	3 cm	(−)	(−)	(+)	Her2+

B	59 yr	T3N0M0 (grading: IIB)	Ductal infiltrating	5 cm	(+)	(+)	(+)	Luminal B

C	41 yr	T2N1M0 (grading: IIB)	Ductal infiltrating	4 cm	(+)	(+)	(−)	Luminal A


MiRs	Expression levels	mRNA targets	Cell types	Refs	miR classification

Diabetic retinopathy

miR-146a	Down	Fibronectin	HUVECs	[103]	I, A, O

miR-146b-3p	Down	ADA2	Vitreous of diabetes patients, macrophages	[79]	O

miR-200b	Down	VEGF	HUVEC	[104]	O, A

miR-195	Up	SIRT1	HRECs, HMECs	[105]	A, O

Diabetic nephropathy

miR-192	Up	ZEB 1/2	Glomeruli from renal biopsies	[106]	O

miR-377	Up	Pak1, Sod1/2	NHMCs	[107]	O, A

miR-29a/b/c	Down	Col1, Col4	h. conditionally immortalized podocyte	[108]	O

miR-21	Up	PTEN, RAS40	hMCs	[91]	O, I, A

	Up	TIMP3	human kidney biopsy	[92]

miR-155	Up		h. kidney biopsy, HRGECs	[109]	I, O, A

miR-146a	Up		h. kidney biopsy, HRGECs	[109]	I, A, O

miR-215	Down	SIP1/ZEB2	h. conditionally immortalized podocytes	[110]	O

miR-135a	Up	TRPC1	kidney tissues, HMC	[111]	O

Macrovascular diabetic complications

miR-16	Down	Cox-2	THP-1 monocytes	[112]	O

miR-503	Up	Ccne1-Cdc25A	HUVEC, HMVEC	[102]	O, A

miR-133	Down	Rho-A, Cdc42	h. embryos/fetuses cardiac cells	[113]	I, A

miR-223	Up	Glut4	Left ventricular biopsies	[114]	I, O, A

miR-221	Up	C-kit	HUVEC	[115]	O, A

miR-492	Down	Resistin	HUVEC	[116]	O, A

MiRs

Diabetic retinopathy

miR-146a

miR-146b-3p

miR-200b

miR-195

Diabetic nephropathy

miR-192

miR-377

miR-29a/b/c

miR-21

miR-155

miR-146a

miR-215

miR-135a

Macrovascular diabetic complications

miR-16

miR-503

miR-133

miR-223

miR-221

miR-492

Expression levels	mRNA targets	Cell types	Refs	miR classification

Diabetic retinopathy

Down	Fibronectin	HUVECs	[103]	I, A, O

Down	ADA2	Vitreous of diabetes patients, macrophages	[79]	O

Down	VEGF	HUVEC	[104]	O, A

Up	SIRT1	HRECs, HMECs	[105]	A, O

Diabetic nephropathy

Up	ZEB 1/2	Glomeruli from renal biopsies	[106]	O

Up	Pak1, Sod1/2	NHMCs	[107]	O, A

Down	Col1, Col4	h. conditionally immortalized podocyte	[108]	O

Up	PTEN, RAS40	hMCs	[91]	O, I, A

Up	TIMP3	human kidney biopsy	[92]

Up		h. kidney biopsy, HRGECs	[109]	I, O, A

Up		h. kidney biopsy, HRGECs	[109]	I, A, O

Down	SIP1/ZEB2	h. conditionally immortalized podocytes	[110]	O

Up	TRPC1	kidney tissues, HMC	[111]	O

Macrovascular diabetic complications

Down	Cox-2	THP-1 monocytes	[112]	O

Up	Ccne1-Cdc25A	HUVEC, HMVEC	[102]	O, A

Down	Rho-A, Cdc42	h. embryos/fetuses cardiac cells	[113]	I, A

Up	Glut4	Left ventricular biopsies	[114]	I, O, A

Up	C-kit	HUVEC	[115]	O, A

Down	Resistin	HUVEC	[116]	O, A


	Total, n	Proactive care, n (%)* or mean (SD)	Usual care, n (%) or mean (SD)	p value

All participants	1077	525	552	–

Demographic characteristics:

Age (years)	57.4 (10.5)	57.2 (10.3)	57.6 (10.8)	0.47

Race


Altitude	1st Hb (g/dL)	2nd Hb (g/dL)	GA 1st Hb (weeks)	GA 2nd Hb (weeks)	Gestational age (weeks)	Birthweight (g)

X ± SD	X ± SD	X ± SD	X ± SD	X ± SD	X ± SD

Low	12.1	0.80	11.4	1.34	17.2	8.2	36	11.6	38.9	1.76	3262	512

Moderate	12.7	0.90	12.5	1.43	19.4	8.36	36.7	4.6	38.8	2.07	3123	529


	Reference Subjects	Test Subjects

RTP	W1	W2	L	W1	W2	L	LSD

M1	15.0	24.8	14.3	14.7	25.3	14.4	0.59


Measure	A. Single-task	B. Dual-task	C. Dual-task cost


I. Site 1 (n = 4 writers with 10 letters each)

Item	GP	Specialist	p

History	4.04 ± 1.0	4.16 ± 0.95	NS

Physical Examination	4.34 ± 0.90	4.23 ± 0.98	NS

Impression	4.12 ± 0.90	4.14 ± 1.0	NS

Plan	4.21 ± 0.85	4.21 ± 0.99	NS

Brevity	3.87 ± 0.94	4.25 ± 0.87	0.003

Clarity	4.00 ± 1.1	4.14 ± 1.0	NS

Format	3.98 ± 1.1	4.01 ± 1.0	NS

Educational Value	4.02 ± 0.95	3.90 ± 0.90	NS

Global rating	4.04 ± 0.96	3.92 ± 0.97	NS

Overall score	36.45 ± 7.36	36.97 ± 7.85	NS

II Site 2 (n = 5 writers with 10 letters each)

Item	GP	Specialist	p

History	3.88 ± 1.1	4.40 ± 0.72	0.0001

Physical Examination	3.90 ± 0.97	4.45 ± 0.71	<0.0001

Impression	4.00 ± 1.0	4.08 ± 0.96	NS

Plan	4.14 ± 0.90	4.18 ± 0.87	NS

Brevity	3.64 ± 1.2	3.83 ± 0.90	NS

Clarity	3.931 ± .0	4.03 ± 0.91	NS

Format	3.63 ± 1.1	3.68 ± 0.67	NS

Educational Value	4.00 ± 1.0	3.38 ± 1.1	<0.0001

Global rating	3.88 ± 0.93	3.74 ± 0.91	NS

Overall score	34.97 ± 7.70	35.79 ± 5.19	NS


Putative gene	SNP (bp)	Nucleotides	AA residual

Lp1-SST	871	TCA→GCA	Y/D

	1,087	GCC→TCC	A/S

	1,091	GTC→GCC	V/A

	1,116	GAC→GAG	D/E

	1,124	CTG→CCG	L/P

Lp6G-FFT	835	GTC→ATC	V/I

	938	TAC→TTC	Y/F

LpCAT	1,093	GTG→ATG	V/M

LpACO1	469	CCG→TCG	P/S

Putative gene	SNP (bp)	Nucleotides	AA residual

Lp1-SST	871	TCA→GCA	Y/D

	1,087	GCC→TCC	A/S

	1,091	GTC→GCC	V/A

	1,116	GAC→GAG	D/E

	1,124	CTG→CCG	L/P

Lp6G-FFT	835	GTC→ATC	V/I

	938	TAC→TTC	Y/F

LpCAT	1,093	GTG→ATG	V/M

L	469	CCG→TC


	CRC	CRC (interaction)	BC	BC (interaction)

	coeff	pval	coeff	pval	coeff	pval	coeff	pval

Person level

Age < 50 (reference 50–64)	0.306	0.000	0.306	0.000	0.040	0.000	0.040	0.000

Age 65–74	−0.105	0.000	−0.105	0.000	−0.255	0.000	−0.255	0.000

Age 75+	−0.051	0.000	−0.051	0.000	−0.139	0.000	−0.139	0.000

Female (reference male)	0.040	0.000	0.040	0.000	.	.	.	.

Black (reference white)	0.079	0.000	0.079	0.000	0.386	0.000	0.386	0.000

Race all other (reference white)	0.008	0.363	0.008	0.399	0.136	0.000	0.136	0.000

County level

Percentage of population < age 65, with no health insurance	0.005	0.000	0.007	0.016	0.003	0.002	0.005	0.031

Average distance traveled by Medicare beneficiary to cancer screening provider	0.002	0.037	0.002	0.041	0.000	0.532	0.000	0.519

Screening rate (percent of area FFS Medicare population utilizing screening)	−0.036	0.000	−0.037	0.000	−0.027	0.000	−0.027	0.000

Managed care penetration (percentage of area insured population in managed care plans)	0.101	0.033	0.103	0.039	−0.284	0.000	−0.285	0.000

State level

State Policy (1 = yes, 0 = no) `Direct Access Specialist'	−0.055	0.004	−0.271	0.000	−0.053	0.001	−0.009	0.841

Cross level interaction

< 65 Pop uninsured * state policy interaction	.	.	0.013	0.000	.	.	−0.003	0.288

Variance Components

Level 1 * (individual)	3.2899	3.2899	3.2899	3.2899

Level 2 (county)	0.02497	0.02484	0.01450	0.01447

Level 3 (state)	0.00074	0.00065	0.00018	0.00017

	CRC	CRC (interaction)	BC	BC (interaction)

	coeff	pval	coeff	pval	coeff	pval	coeff	pval

Level 3 (state)	0.00074	0.00065	0.00018	0.00017


Variable	n (%)

Quality of provider (n = 285)

 Licensed pharmacist	16 (5.6)

 Pharmacist assistant	36 (12.6)

 Auxiliary	233 (81.8)

Sex (n = 285)

 Females	216 (75.8)

 Males	69 (24.2)

Years of experience (n = 285)

 ≤2	66 (23.2)

 2–5	115 (40.4)

 5–10	58 (20.3)

 >10	46 (16.1)


Variable	Total	N	%

Mode of spread of HIV/AIDS*

 Sexual intercourse	206	203	98.5

 Blood transfusion	206	188	91.3

 Unsterile instrument	206	199	96.6

 MTCT	206	179	87.7

 Other (spiritual)	206	33	15.0

Mother to child transmission

 Possible	206	190	92.2

 Not possible	206	1	0.5

 Don’t know	206	15	7.3

Mode of mother –to-child transmission*

 In the womb (intrauterine)	190	179	94.2

 During delivery	190	154	81.1

 Through breastfeeding	190	187	98.4

MTCT preventable?

 Preventable	206	182	88.3

 Not preventable	206	8	3.8

 Don’t know	206	15	7.2

Means of PMTCT*

 Giving ART	182	176	96.7

 Avoiding breastfeeding	182	162	89.0

 C/S delivery	182	69	37.9

Antiretrovials*

 Drug to prevent transmission to baby	206	58	28.2

 Drug to cure HIV	206	78	37.9

 Drug to prevent death from HIV/AIDS	206	147	71.4

 Drug to prolong lives	206	184	89.3

 Works effectively with optimal adherence	206	200	97.6

Variable	Total	N	%

Don’t know	206	15	7.2

Means of PMTCT*

Giving ART	182	176	96.7

Avoiding breastfeeding	182	162	89.0

C/S delivery	182	69	37.9

Antiretrovials*

Drug to prevent transmission to baby	206	58	28.2

Drug to cure HIV	206	78	37.9

Drug to prevent death from HIV/AIDS	206	147	71.4

Drug to prolong lives	206	184	89.3

Works effectively with optimal adherence	206	200	97.6


	Non-syndromic Robin sequence (ns-RS)	Non-syndromic cleft palate (ns-CP)	Chi-square Test (two-sided)

N	%	N	%	P

Total number of patients	115	100	191	100

 Males/females	49/66	42.6/57.4	86/105	45.0/55.0

Tooth agenesis (excl. 3rd molars)	55	47.8	57	29.8	< 0.001

 Maxilla	28	24.3	31	16.2	0.082

 Mandibulaa	45	39.1	39	20.4	< 0.001

 Right dental quadrants (q1, q4)	42	36.5	43	22.5	0.008

 Left dental quadrants (q2, q3)	50	43.4	42	22.0	< 0.001

 In males	18/49	36.7	28/86	32.6	0.622

 In femalesb	37/66	56.0	30/105	28.6	< 0.001


	Never smokers N = 25	COPDGene N = 2098	SPIROMICS N = 1117	p-value (SPIROMICS vs COPDGene) (current and former smokers)

D 3		2%	8.1%

GOLD 4	0%	5.8%	7.1%


Variables	Total	Fasting triglycerides	P-value

		<1.2 mmol/L (N = 103)	≥2 mmol/L (N = 226)

Biochemical markers

hs-CRP (mg/L)	3.2 ± 4.1	3.5 ± 4.5	3.1 ± 3.9	0.440


	SKM	CSM

	Concentration (nmol/g SKM protein)	Concentration (nmol/g CSM protein)

Laminin	2.20 ± 0.22	N/A

α-Dystroglycan	89.72 ± 15.04	692.67 ± 57.39

Dystrophin	2.20 ± 0.07	16.11 ± 0.69

Ratio	Lam : αDG : Dys = 1 : 41 : 1	αDG : Dys = 43 : 1


		Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	TOTAL

Number of animals		6	7	7	7	27

Number of tumours		12	14	14	14	54

Weight (g)	Mean	30	29	29	29	29

	Range	28–33	27–32	28–31	28–31	27–33

Tumour size (mm3)	Mean	100	95	97	96	97

	Range	26–181	25–165	40–271	39–182	25–271

Treatment given		vehicle	5Gy + vehicle	FGFR inhibitor	FGFR inhibitor + 5 Gy

	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4

Treatment given	vehicle	5Gy + vehicle	FGFR inhibitor	FGFR inhibitor + 5 Gy


LPS	IL1A	IL1β	IL6	IL8	iNOS

ng/mL	Expression, a.u.	Expression, a.u.	Expression, a.u.	Expression, a.u.	Expression, a.u.


	PGM-High	PGM-Low

MiSeq-High	2864925	44534

MiSeq-Low	394	115


Special stain/IHC	Squamous cell carcinoma	Adenocarcinoma

CK7	−/+	+

p63	+	−

CK5/6	+	−

TTF-1	−	+/−

Special stain/IHC	Squamous cell carcinoma

CK7	−/+

p63	+

CK5/6	+

TTF-1	−


Risk factor	Odds ratio	95 % CI	P value

−1SD of L2–4 BMD	8.2	2.9–34.4	<0.001

−1SD of total BMD	4.5	2.0–13.3	0.001

−1SD of neck BMD	7.2	2.6–28.8	<0.001

−1SD of troch BMD	9.6	3.0–51.2	0.001


Control	MT	Cell 1	Cell 2	MT-Diff	Diff-Cell1	Diff-Cell2

CGC	13.33	8.5	8.66	6.33	4.66	6.5


THE BPRS SCALE Assessment of each item: EMOTION

TOTAL Assessment	24,80	16,27	-8,53	23,47	19,77	-3,70


Tumor samples	IRX1	NOL4	Age (years)	Gender	Race	Smoking	Alcohol	Tumor anatomic site	Overall stage

1	N	N	67	M	C	Yes	Yes	Nasal floor	2

2	Y	Y	57	M	C	Yes	Yes	Larynx	2

3	N	N	61	M	C	No	No	Neck	3

4	Y	Y	60	F	C	Yes	Yes	Larynx	4

5	Y	Y	55	M	A	Yes	Yes	Larynx	2

6	Y	Y	54	M	C	No	Yes	Oropharynx	4

7	Y	N	64	M	A	Yes	Yes	Hypopharynx	3

8	Y	Y	55	F	A	Yes	No	Oral cavity	1

9	N	Y	80	M	C	Yes	No	Oral cavity	NA

10	Y	Y	54	F	C	No	Oral	cavity	4

11	Y	Y	62	M	C	Yes	Yes	Oropharynx	4

12	Y	Y	72	M	C	Yes	Yes	Hypopharynx	3

13	Y	Y	42	M	C	Yes	No	Larynx	2

14	Y	Y	66	M	C	Yes	No	Oropharynx	4

15	Y	Y	74	M	C	Yes	Larynx	2

16	Y	Y	58	M	A	Yes	Yes	Oropharynx	4

17	Y	Y	56	F	C	Yes	Yes	Oral cavity	2

18	Y	Y	43	M	C	Yes	Yes	Oropharynx	4

19	Y	Y	68	M	C	Yes	Yes	Oropharynx	4

20	Y	Y	63	M	A	Yes		Oral cavity	NA

21	Y	Y	64	F	C	No	Yes	Oral cavity	3

22	N	Y	88	M	C	Yes	Yes	Oral cavity	NA

23	Y	Y	42	M	C	Yes	No	Oral cavity	3

24	Y	Y	51	M	C	Yes	Yes	Larynx	4

25	Y	Y	80	M	C	No	Yes	Neck	NA

26	Y	Y	58	M	C	Yes	Yes	Larynx	3

27	Y	Y	71	M	C	Yes	Yes	Neck	NA

28	Y	Y	48	M	C	Yes	Yes	Oropharynx	4

29	Y	Y	61	M	C	Yes	No	Maxillary sinus	1

30	Y	Y	77	M	C	No	No	Salivary gland	NA

31	Y	Y	67	M	C	Larynx	3

32	Y	Y	36	M	C	Yes	No	Oral cavity	4

33	Y	Y	74	F	C	No	Yes	Maxillary sinus	4

Tumor samples	IRX1	NOL4	Age (years)	Gender	Race	Smoking	Alcohol	Tumor anatomic site	Overall stage

28	Y	Y	48	M	C	Yes	Yes	Oropharynx	4

29	Y	Y	61	M	C	Yes	No	Maxillary sinus	1

30	Y	Y	77	M	C	No	No	Salivary gland	NA

31	Y	Y	67	M	C	Larynx	3

32	Y	Y	36	M	C	Yes	No	Oral cavity	4

33	Y	Y	74	F	C	No	Yes	Maxillary sinus	4


Independent variables	Adjusted

OR (95 % CI)	P-value

Sex

 Male	1.08 (0.68 – 1.72)	0.73

 Female (Ref.)

Age

 ≤35 years	2.71 (1.14 – 6.46)	0.024

 ≥36 years (Ref.)

Nationality

 Yemeni	0.69 (0.35 – 1.35)	0.28

 Foreign (Ref.)

University

 Yemeni	0.71 (0.33 – 1.52)	0.39

 Foreign (Ref.)

Referral

 Yes	0.78 (0.41 – 1.50)	0.47

 No (Ref.)

Independent variables	Adjusted

OR (95 % CI)	P-value

Referral

Yes	0.78 (0.41 – 1.50)	0.47

No (Ref.)


Participant	Age	Sex	Diagnosis	CARS

1	14	Male	ASD	42

2	14	Male	ASD	33

3	13	Male	ASD	43.5

4	16	Male	ASD	39

5	20	Male	ASD	36

6	13	Male	ASD	38

Participant	Age	Sex	Diagnosis	CARS

6	13	Male	ASD	38


	Study patients	n	Children	Adults	HLA DQ2/DQ8	IgA-tTG/EMA	Atrophy grade at diagnosis (Marsh criteria)

Celiac patients	aCD-patient	2	1	1	+	+	II-III

	GFD-patient 	2	1	1	+	+	II-III

Non-Celiac patients	GP-patient	2	1	1	+/-	 - (*)	M.M

	Study patients	n	Children	Adults	HLA DQ2/DQ8	IgA-tTG/EMA	Atrophy grade at diagnosis (Marsh criteria)

Celiac pa	aCD-pati		1			+	II-I

tients	ent	2		1	+		II

	GFD-patient	2	1	1	+	+	II-III

Non-Celiac patients	GP-patient	2	1	1	+/-	- (*)	M.M


Type of data	Data source	Detail of data to be collected	Time point(s)

Non-participant observation of training sessions	Observation, training sessions	•Observation of the training and care home-based sessions will allow recording of content and delivery of training, length of sessions, number of attendees. Also, identification of possible issues for follow-up in semi-structured interviews in the case study care homes	Each session

Non-participant observation of care home-based sessions	Observation, care home-based sessions	A selected number of sessions throughout the programme (approximately 30% of the total)

Documentary analysis	Patient Safety Collaborative Programme Board	•All documents relating to the programme will be analysed to provide information about programme planning, content and delivery	Throughout the programme

Focus groups	Care home staff participating in the programme (2 groups of 6–8 staff at each time point)	•What has been learned by participation in the programme, how learning has been applied to individuals’ practice, barriers and facilitators to implementing change in the care home, perceptions of best/worst features of the programme, suggestions for improvement	6, 12 and 18 months

Semi-structured interviews	CCG managers and programme facilitators (n = 6)	•Experience of running the programme, perceived barriers to safety-related change in care homes, best/worst features of the programme, suggestions for improvement	Months 6, 12 and 24

Semi-structured interviews in four case study care homes	Staff and care home managers (participants and non-participants in the programme) (n = 6 to 8 in each of the four case study sites at each time point)	•What has been learned, how learning has been applied to individuals’ practice, barriers and facilitators to implementing change in the care home, changes made to safety-related processes at the care home level, extent and type of collaboration across care homes	12 and 24 months

Type of data	Data source

Non-participant observation of training sessions	Observation, training sessions

Non-participant observation of care home-based sessions	Observation, care home-based sessions

Documentary analysis	Patient Safety Collaborative Programme Board

Focus groups	Care home staff participating in the programme (2 groups of 6–8 staff at each time point)

Semi-structured interviews	CCG managers and programme facilitators (n = 6)

Semi-structured interviews in four case study care homes	Staff and care home managers (participants and non-participants in the programme) (n = 6 to 8 in each of the four case study sites at each time point)

Detail of data to be collected	Time point(s)

•Observation of the training and care home-based sessions will allow recording of content and delivery of training, length of sessions, number of attendees. Also, identification of possible issues for follow-up in semi-structured interviews in the case study care homes	Each session

A selected number of sessions throughout the programme (approximately 30% of the total)

•All documents relating to the programme will be analysed to provide information about programme planning, content and delivery	Throughout the programme

•What has been learned by participation in the programme, how learning has been applied to individuals’ practice, barriers and facilitators to implementing change in the care home, perceptions of best/worst features of the programme, suggestions for improvement	6, 12 and 18 months

•Experience of running the programme, perceived barriers to safety-related change in care homes, best/worst features of the programme, suggestions for improvement	Months 6, 12 and 24

•What has been learned, how learning has been applied to individuals’ practice, barriers and facilitators to implementing change in the care home, changes made to safety-related processes at the care home level, extent and type of collaboration across care homes	12 and 24 months


Original version	Translated version

Is there a view of the outside from corridors? (include internal courtyard)	Are there external views from different parts of the circulation space? (including internal courtyard)

Are there external views from different parts of the circulation space?

Are there external views from different parts of the circulation space?	Are there external views from different parts of the circulation space? (including internal courtyard)


Starch (g)	Urea (g)	Borate (g)	Reaction temp. (°C)	Stirring rate (rpm)

50	15	2.5	80	600 ± 5

50	15	3.5	80	600 ± 5

50	15	4.5	80	600 ± 5


	Growth Medium	2,4-D (mg/L)	NAA (mg/L)	Kinetin (mg/L)

Alfalfa (M. sativa ssp. Varia A2)	MS	1	-	0.2

Arabidopsis (A. thaliana ecotype Columbia)	MS	-	0.5	0.05

Grape (V. berlandieri × V. rupestris cv. 'Richter 110')	MS	-	1	0.2

Maize (Z. mays, cv. H1233)	N6 M (LP40)	0.5	-	-

Rice (O. sativa ssp. japonica cv. 'Unggi 9'	G1	1	-	-

Tobacco (N. tabacum cv. Petit Havana SR1)	MS	-	1	0.2

Alfalfa (M. sativa ssp. Varia A2)

Arabidopsis (A. thaliana ecotype Columbia)

Grape (V. berlandieri × V. rupestris cv. 'Richter 110')

Maize (Z. mays, cv. H1233)

Rice (O. sativa ssp. japonica cv. 'Unggi 9'

Tobacco (N. tabacum cv. Petit Havana SR1)


Chromosome - RNA

	Positive	Negative

Dataset	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value

GO Process	238	1.50	2.76E-12	393	1.66	9.55E-29

SGD Phenotype	59	2.73	8.45E-12	135	4.19	9.35E-44

Positive Genetic	20	23.82	7.29E-21	3	2.39	0.13

Synthetic Sick	2	1.30	0.67	49	21.35	1.44E-46

Chromosome - Signalling

		Positive			Negative

Dataset	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value

GO Process	56	1.39	5.98E-03	121	1.30	1.12E-03

SGD Phenotype	10	1.40	2.50E-01	67	4.07	2.13E-22

Positive Genetic	3	13.48	1.56E-03	2	3.90	0.09

Synthetic Sick	0	0.00	1.00	24	19.98	3.06E-23

RNA - Signalling

		Positive			Negative

Dataset	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value

GO Process	65	2.03	5.97E-09	162	2.25	7.63E-26

SGD Phenotype	33	5.07	1.87E-14	88	6.02	7.13E-42

Positive Genetic	16	71.81	1.19E-24	2	4.00	0.09

Synthetic Sick	1	2.40	0.34	54	57.77	1.98E-74

Chromosome - RNA

	Positive	Negative

Dataset	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value

GO Process	238	1.50	2.76E-12	393	1.66	9.55E-29

SGD Phenotype	59	2.73	8.45E-12	135	4.19	9.35E-44

Positive Genetic	20	23.82	7.29E-21	3	2.39	0.13

Synthetic Sick	2	1.30	0.67	49	21.35	1.44E-46

Chromosome - Signalling

		Positive			Negative

Dataset	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value

GO Process	56	1.39	5.98E-03	121	1.30	1.12E-03

SGD Phenotype	10	1.40	2.50E-01	67	4.07	2.13E-22

Positive Genetic	3	13.48	1.56E-03	2	3.90	0.09

Synthetic Sick	0	0.00	1.00	24	19.98	3.06E-23

RNA - Signalling

		P			Negativ

Chromosome - RNA

		ositive			e

Dataset	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value

GO Process	65	2.03	5.97E-09	162	2.25	7.63E-26

SGD Phenotype	33	5.07	1.87E-14	88	6.02	7.13E-42

Positive Genetic	16	71.81	1.19E-24	2	4.00	0.09

Synthetic Sick	1	2.40	0.34	54	57.77	1.98E-74


Handle	Functionality	Comfort	Freedom of movement

Scissors handle A	4.4 ± 1.8	3.8 ± 1.7	4.1 ± 1.5

Scissors handle B	5.0 ± 1.4	4.6 ± 1.4	4.9 ± 1.3

In-line handle	4.0 ± 1.6	4.6 ± 1.5	4.7 ± 1.6

Pistol grip A	5.3 ± 1.4	5.3 ± 1.4	5.0 ± 1.3

Pistol grip B	4.5 ± 1.8	4.6 ± 1.7	4.4 + 1.6


Variation	Purpose of the variation and ideas for the debriefing discussions

Include observers.	• Include an outside view on the processes during the conduct into the debriefing. What does such an outside view contribute to the analysis of the conduct of Hand-it-on?• Prepare participants for the observer role during scenarios and debriefings. What is helpful feedback to colleagues after a simulation scenario?

Vary the objects.	• Use objects where there is something at stake for those who handle them. When handling a full glass of water there is a different “risk” for the person handling the water than when handing on a pen. Where are own risks during the care for patients? How do they impact the actions of those involved?• Use objects that are difficult to manipulate (e.g., a thin thread). They can be used to focus on technical skills and psychomotoric challenges in combination with keeping an overview of parallel tasks. How does the requirement to concentrate on handling this object impact the overview of the situation?

Vary the direction in which the objects should be passed and/or include more tasks.	• This variation can challenge improvement plans between two rounds of Hand-it-on. How are the intentions to implement changes (work as imagined) impacted by the practicalities of the work system (work as done)?• Discuss the impact of work procedures and personal preferences on their implementation. How do changes in procedures impact the patient care?

Separate one or more participants while giving the details of the instruction. Let the first few rounds run without them and include those participants only then.	• Discuss the integration of new colleagues into a department. How are they introduced to the tasks they are supposed to do? How are they welcomed on a social and emotional level? What influences their integration (think about time pressure, work-load, or structured introduction programs)? Are there differences in the introduction between the two departments in the variation for large groups (See Fig. 1b)?• Discuss the importance of knowing about the history of discussions in a department. How do people understand a situation if they know only parts of its development and did not have any prior practice of the task?• Discuss working with people who might not have been part of forming the current routines, norms, values and beliefs. How does the shared understanding of those impact the task and social level? How does it feel to accept the features of the work system if you were not a part in forming them?

Include “hidden” instructions for briefed role players. You could ask them to frequently “drop” objects or to not concentrate on the process, causing delays. Remember to reveal the hidden instructions during the debriefing to protect your role player. They would not like to come across as “obstructive” or “unable” in reality.	• Discuss how the group reacted to such a “low” performer. How can a work team or an organization deal with a worker who does not perform to standards? How would a team identify such a person in the first place? What would impact the reaction to such a worker? Is there a difference in how you treat people who you like vs. those you do not get along with? How does it feel to observe this person? How does it feel to be this person? What do patients think about the low performer?

Include “stressors” such as loud music, noise, or the threat of moving the organization to a different country.	• Discuss the impact of such disturbances and ask participants to draw connections to real life. How do different operation room settings with their lighting, temperature or noise conditions impact performance?• Explore the differences in the experience and in handling of such stressors between the individuals involved. Who is disturbed by such external factors, who can deal with them easily? What are the coping strategies?

Variation	Purpose of the variation and ideas for the debriefing discussions

Separate one or more participants while giving the details of the instruction. Let the first few rounds run without them and include those participants only then.	• Discuss the integration of new colleagues into a department. How are they introduced to the tasks they are supposed to do? How are they welcomed on a social and emotional level? What influences their integration (think about time pressure, work-load, or structured introduction programs)? Are there differences in the introduction between the two departments in the variation for large groups (See Fig. 1b)?• Discuss the importance of knowing about the history of discussions in a department. How do people understand a situation if they know only parts of its development and did not have any prior practice of the task?• Discuss working with people who might not have been part of forming the current routines, norms, values and beliefs. How does the shared understanding of those impact the task and social level? How does it feel to accept the features of the work system if you were not a part in forming them?

Include “hidden” instructions for briefed role players. You could ask them to frequently “drop” objects or to not concentrate on the process, causing delays. Remember to reveal the hidden instructions during the debriefing to protect your role player. They would not like to come across as “obstructive” or “unable” in reality.	• Discuss how the group reacted to such a “low” performer. How can a work team or an organization deal with a worker who does not perform to standards? How would a team identify such a person in the first place? What would impact the reaction to such a worker? Is there a difference in how you treat people who you like vs. those you do not get along with? How does it feel to observe this person? How does it feel to be this person? What do patients think about the low performer?

Include “stressors” such as loud music, noise, or the threat of moving the organization to a different country.	• Discuss the impact of such disturbances and ask participants to draw connections to real life. How do different operation room settings with their lighting, temperature or noise conditions impact performance?• Explore the differences in the experience and in handling of such stressors between the individuals involved. Who is disturbed by such external factors, who can deal with them easily? What are the coping strategies?


	PG group	Control group	95% CI	p-value

Wound closure )	n = 32	n = 41

 Second day postoperatively	0	0		–

 Third day postoperatively	7	6	7% (–11% to 25%)	0.5

 Fourth day postoperatively	7	13	–9% (–30% to 10%)	0.4

Wound closure	n = 36	n = 46

 2 weeks postoperatively	4	16	–24% (–41% to 7%)	0.02

Drop in Hb, mean (SD)	n = 50	n = 52

 mmol/L	–1.58 (0.63)	–1.75 (0.58)	0.16 (–0.07 to 0.4)	0.2

Pain at rest, median (range)	n = 50	n = 52

 At inclusion	3 (1–5)	3 (1–5)		0.8

 6 weeks	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.08

 3 months	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.8

Pain during walking, median (range)	n = 50	n = 52

 At inclusion	4 (1–5)	4 (1–5)		0.4

 6 weeks	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.07

 3 months	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.9

Use of pain medication, median (range)	n = 50	n = 52

 At inclusion	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.5

 6 weeks	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.9

 3 months	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.1

WOMAC score, mean (range)	n = 50	n = 52

 At inclusion	45 (8–76)	44 (14–74)

 6 weeks	26 (3–76)	24 (0–65)	0 (–8 to 8)	0.7

 3 months	25 (0–76)	21 (0–66)	–3 (–6 to 1)	0.4

ROM, mean (SD)	n = 32	n = 36

 Second day postoperatively	53 (14)	50 (17)

 Third day postoperatively	68 (13)	65 (16)

 Fourth day postoperatively	72 (13)	73 (14)		0.7

ROM, mean (SD)	n = 34	n = 45

 2 weeks postoperatively	91 (13)	89 (13)

 6 weeks postoperatively	99 (11)	100 (13)

 3 months postoperatively	102 (12)	101 (12)		0.9

	PG group	Control group	95% CI	p-value

Wound closure )	n = 32	n = 41

Second day postoperatively	0	0		–

Third day postoperatively	7	6	7% (–11% to 25%)	0.5

Fourth day postoperatively	7	13	–9% (–30% to 10%)	0.4

Wound closure	n = 36	n = 46

2 weeks postoperatively	4	16	–24% (–41% to 7%)	0.02

Drop in Hb, mean (SD)	n = 50	n = 52

mmol/L	–1.58 (0.63)	–1.75 (0.58)	0.16 (–0.07 to 0.4)	0.2

Pain at rest, median (range)	n = 50	n = 52

At inclusion	3 (1–5)	3 (1–5)		0.8

6 weeks	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.08

3 months	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.8

Pain during walking, median (range)	n = 50	n = 52

At inclusio	4 (1–5	4 (1–		0.4

	PG group	Control group	95% CI	p-value

n	)	5)

6 weeks	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.07

3 months	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.9

Use of pain medication, median (range)	n = 50	n = 52

At inclusion	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.5

6 weeks	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.9

3 months	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.1

WOMAC score, mean (range)	n = 50	n = 52

At inclusion	45 (8–76)	44 (14–74)

6 weeks	26 (3–76)	24 (0–65)	0 (–8 to 8)	0.7

3 months	25 (0–76)	21 (0–66)	–3 (–6 to 1)	0.4

ROM, mean (SD)	n = 32	n = 36

Second day postoperatively	53 (14)	50 (17)

Third day postoperatively	68 (13)	65 (16)

Fourth day postoperatively	72 (13)	73 (14)		0.7

ROM, mean (SD)	n = 34	n = 45

2 weeks postoperatively	91 (13)	89 (13)

6 weeks postoperatively	99 (11)	100 (13)

3 months postoperatively	102 (12)	101 (12)		0.9


	CLSI Guidelines	EUCAST Guidelines

	Disk content (μg)	2006	2007	2008	2010	2011	2012	Disk content (μg)	2013	2014

		11/8	23/8	6/8	5/5	14/12	22/4	10/4		26/3	6/6	30/9	20/12	23/1	23/1a	11/9a

Drug

 Ofloxacin	5	S	S	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	0	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT

 Pipercillin/ Tazobactum	100/10	S	S	S	S	S	S	S	36	S	S	S	S	S	R	S

 Ceftazidime	30	S	S	S	S	S	S	S	10	S	S	S	S	S	S	S

 Tobramycin	10	S	S	S	S	S	S	S	10	S	S	S	S	S	S	S

 Ciprofloxacin	5	NT	S	NT	S	S	S	S	5	S	S	S	S	S	S	S

 Amikacin	30	NT	S	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	30	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT

 Aztreoman	30	NT	S	NT	NT	NT	NT	S	30	S	I	I	I	I	I	I

 Colistin (E-Test)	10	NT	S	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	10	NT	NT	S	S	S	S	S

 Imipenem	10	NT	S	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	10	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT

 Meropenem	10	NT	S	S	S	S	S	S	10	S	S	S	S	S	S	S

	CLSI Guidelines	EUCAST Guidelines

	Disk content (μg)	2006	2007	2008	2010	2011	2012	Disk content (μg)	2013	2014

		11/8	23/8	6/8	5/5	14/12	22/4	10/4		26/3	6/6	30/9	20/12	23/1	23/1a	11/9a

Imipenem	10	NT	S	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	10	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT

Meropenem	10	NT	S	S	S	S	S	S	10	S	S	S	S	S	S	S


Case	Constant Error (m/s)	Amplitude of White Noise

Case1	0	0

Case2	1	0

Case3	0	0.1

Case4	1	0.1


Medium(dielectric constant)	Dipole Moment (D)

Gas	2.98

Water (78.3)	5.13

DMSO (46.8)	4.50

Acetonitrile (35.7)	4.53

n-Octanol (9.9)	4.54

Chloroform (4.7)	3.96

Carbon tetrachloride (2.2)	3.46


Tumor type	Site of sample collection a	Metastatic disease 	Ki67 index, %

Ileal carcinoid	Retro-peritoneal LN (m)	Yes	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	Yes	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	Yes	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	Yes	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ovary (m)	Yes	40

Ileal carcinoid	Retro-peritoneal LN (m)	Yes	5

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	No	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Muscle (m)	Yes	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	Yes	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	No	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	Yes	<2

N-F pancreatic NET	Pancreas (p)	No	<2

N-F pancreatic NET	Pancreas (p)	No	5

Functioning pancreatico-duodenal NETs

Gastrinoma	Retro-peritoneal LN (m)	Yes	5

Glucagonoma	Retro-peritoneal LN (m)	Yes	<2

Glucagonoma	pancreas (p)	Yes	5

Glucagonoma	Pancreas (p)	Yes	50

Glucagonoma/Somatostatinoma	Pancreas (p)	No	<2

Somatostatinoma	Pancreas (p)	Yes	<2

Somatostatinoma	Papilla Vatery (p)	No	<2

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)	No	<2

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)		<2

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (m)	Yes	<2

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)	No	10

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)		<2

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)	Yes	5

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)	No	<2

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)	No	25

Paraganglioma	Retroperitoneum (p)	No	<2

NE colon carcinoma	Colon (p)	Yes	50

NE colon carcinoma	Colon (p)	Yes	85

NE colon carcinoma	Colon (p)	Yes	<2

NE colon carcinoma	Liver (m)	Yes	5

Gastric NET, type 3	Corpus (p)	No	5

Tumor type	Site of sample collection a	Metastatic disease	Ki67 index, %

NE colon carcinoma	Colon (p)	Yes	85

NE colon carcinoma	Colon (p)	Yes	<2

NE colon carcinoma	Liver (m)	Yes	5

Gastric NET, type 3	Corpus (p)	No	5


Variable	Group	N	%

Aeitiology	HSVa	38	18.18

	ADEMb	23	11

	VZVc	12	5.74

	MTBd	10	4.78

	ANTe	8	3.83

	Other	34	16.27

	 Viral	22	10.53

	 Bacterial	12	5.74

	Unknown	84	40.19

Gender	Male	114	54.54

Age: Categorical	Age ≤ 10	55	26.32

	10 < Age ≤35	55	26.32

	35 < Age ≤55	42	20.1

	Age >55	50	23.92

Age: Continuous	33.29 ± 25.64 (0,87)*

Region	South West	17	8.13

	London	86	41.15

	North West	106	50.72

Duration of illness	58.88 ± 71.39 (3,535)*

Length of stay**	49.01 ± 67.01(2,521)*

Variable	Group	N	%

Aeitiology	HSVa	38	18.18

	ADEMb	23	11

	VZVc	12	5.74

	MTBd	10	4.78

	ANTe	8	3.83

	Other	34	16.27

	Viral	22	10.53

	Bacterial	12	5.74

	Unknown	84	40.19

Gende	Ma	11	54.54


Gene ID	Illumina sequencing	QRT-PCR	KO description

comp139796_c2	−53.83a	−138.82	chalcone synthase

comp78650_c0	−26.86	−80.31	flavonol synthase

comp129681_c0	−3.78	−9.73	hydroxymethyl glutaryl CoA synthase

comp106407_c0	−10.00	−25.62	3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase

comp140511_c0	−3.30	−5.73	Dammarenediol-II synthase

comp126977_c0	−6.04	−4.79	glycosyltransferase

comp141084_c0	−2.13	−6.34	glycosyltransferase

comp140248_c0	6.98b	19.41	glutathione S-transferase

comp117631_c0	8.19	25.85	glutathione S-transferase

comp128853_c0	2.05	63.56	myb proto-oncogene protein, plant

comp128641_c0	2.32	2.17	myb proto-oncogene protein, plant

comp66279_c0	3.55	2.63	myb proto-oncogene protein, plant

comp128496_c0	5.93	8.83	myb proto-oncogene protein, plant

comp77739_c0	8.52	8.26	myb proto-oncogene protein, plant

comp109390_c0	6.71	5.20	heat shock transcription factor, other eukaryote

comp141438_c1	5.22	9.27	heat shock 90 kDa protein

comp142366_c1	6.33	4.68	heat shock 70 kDa protein

comp141020_c0	7.02	21.39	heat shock 70 kDa protein

comp134360_c1	12.85	9.71	heat shock 70 kDa protein

comp134360_c0	13.58	20.37	heat shock 70 kDa protein

Gene ID	Illumina sequencing	QRT-PCR	KO description

comp128496_c0	5.93	8.83	myb proto-oncogene protein, plant

comp77739_c0	8.52	8.26	myb proto-oncogene protein, plant

comp109390_c0	6.71	5.20	heat shock transcription factor, other eukaryote

comp141438_c1	5.22	9.27	heat shock 90 kDa protein

comp142366_c1	6.33	4.68	heat shock 70 kDa protein

comp141020_c0	7.02	21.39	heat shock 70 kDa protein

comp134360_c1	12.85	9.71	heat shock 70 kDa protein

comp134360_c0	13.58	20.37	heat shock 70 kDa protein


	arabinose	galactose	glucose	xylose	mannose	sucrose

sugar maple	not detected	not detected	1231	not detected	not detected	not detected

aspen	13.4	0.6	1.4	3.5	2.5	0.98

spalted aspen	not detected	3.3	10.1	15.8	12.6	12.1

tree of heaven	29.2	110	133.5	14.2	not detected	1.9

	arabinose

sugar maple	not detected

aspen	13.4

spalted aspen	not detected

tree of heaven	29.2

galactose	glucose	xylose	mannose	sucrose

not detected	1231	not detected	not detected	not detected

0.6	1.4	3.5	2.5	0.98

3.3	10.1	15.8	12.6	12.1

110	133.5	14.2	not detected	1.9


Site	Latitude	Longitude	Elevation(m)	Land Cover	Site Size

Dayekou	38.5337°N	100.2502°E	2835.2	Coniferous Forest	2 km × 2 km

Yingke	38.8571°N	100.4103°E	1519.1	Cropland (corn)	2 km × 2 km

Hulunber	49.3533°N	120.1246°E	650	Meadow steppe	3 km × 3 km

Jingyuetan	44.1172°N	125.3615°E	190	Cropland (corn)	3 km × 3 km

Site	Latitude	Longitude	Elevation(m)	Land Cover	Site Size

Hulunber	49.3533°N	120.1246°E	650	Meadow steppe	3 km × 3 km

Jingyuetan	44.1172°N	125.3615°E	190	Cropland (corn)	3 km × 3 km


Diagnosis	All patients (n)	RF+(n)	Patients with early disease (<12 months) (n)	RF+(n)

Rheumatoid arthritis	160	129	52	39

Undifferentiated monoarhtritis	13	4/11a	8b	2/6a

Undifferentiated oligoarthritis	9	2	4b	1

Undifferentiated polyarthritis	7	2	5c	1

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis	9	4	0	0

Adult Still's disease	1	0	0	0

Undifferentiated spondylarthritis	4	0	2	0

Psoriatic arthritis	12	0	2	0

Ankylosing spondylitis	1	0	0	0

Ulcerative colitis	2	0/1d	1	0

Undifferentiated systemic inflammatory disease with arthritis	1	0	0	0

Systemic lupus erythematosus	3	0	1	0

Cutaneous PAN with arthritis	1	0	0	0

Osteoarthritis	4	4	1	1

Healthy individuals	10	ND	NA	NA

Sum	237	141	76	42

osis	tients (n)		ith early disease (<12 months) (n)	F+(n)

Rheumatoid arthritis	160	129	52	39

Undifferentiated monoarhtritis	13	4/11a	8b	2/6a

Undifferentiated oligoarthritis	9	2	4b	1

Undifferentiated polyarthritis	7	2	5c	1

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis	9	4	0	0

Adult Still's disease	1	0	0	0

Undifferentiated spondylarthritis	4	0	2	0

Psoriatic arthritis	12	0	2	0

Ankylosing spondylitis	1	0	0	0

Ulcerative colitis	2	0/1d	1	0

Undifferentiated systemic inflammatory disease with arthritis	1	0	0	0

Systemic lupus erythematosus	3	0	1	0

Cutaneous PAN with arthritis	1	0	0	0

Osteoarthritis	4	4	1	1

Healthy individuals	10	ND	NA	NA

Sum	237	141	76	42


Bacterial Luciferase (Lux)	Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP)

V. fischeri	[16]	E. coli	[17]

Various toxins		Various toxins

Bacteriophage	[18]	E. coli	[19]

Pathogenic Bacteria		L-arabinose

Saccharomyces cerevisiae	[20]	Yeast	[21]

Androgenic compounds		DNA damage

E. coli	[22]	E. coli	[23]

Nalidixic Acid		Arsenic

E. coli	[24]	Bacillus sp.	[14]

Various stressors		Arsenic/Zinc

HEK293 mammalian cell line	[25]	Firefly Luciferase (Luc)

Whole animal imaging		E. coli	[26]

		Gene expression

E. coli	[27]

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons		E. coli	[28]

		Benzene

Alcaligenes eutrophus	[29]

Heavy metals		E. coli	[30]

		Various toxins

Pseudomonas putida	[31]

Microbial volatile organics		Aequorin

		E. coli	[32]

Pseudomonas fluorescens	[33]	Calcium

Naphthalene/salicylate

		B Cells	[34]

E. coli	[35]	Pathogenic Bacteria

DNA damaging agents


		Patient age		Total

		Younger than 60 years	Older than 60 years

	Low risk	12	41	53

Goasguen score	Intermediate risk	9	48	57

Total		21	89	110

		Patient age		Total

Goasguen score	Intermediate risk	9	48	57

Total		21	89	110


Beneficiary-related features	Men (n = 198)	Women (n = 117)	Total (n = 315)

Number	(%)	Number	(%)	Number	(%)

Aspects of life

 	Working, attending school, or performing housework	159	(82.4%)	92	(81.4%)	251	(82.0%)

 	Home care	28	(14.5%)	18	(15.9%)	46	(14.6%)

 	Hospitalization or admission	6	(3.1%)	3	(2.7%)	9	(2.9%)

 	Not known	5	—	4	—	9	—

Visit status

 	Primarily inpatient	9	(4.7%)	1	(1.0%)	10	(3.4%)

 	Half inpatient/half outpatient	12	(6.3%)	8	(7.6%)	20	(6.8%)

 	Primarily outpatient	170	(89.0%)	96	(91.4%)	266	(89.9%)

 	Other or not known	7	—	12	—	19	—

Physical-disability certification and grade

 	Not certified	148	(75.1%)	92	(78.6%)	240	(76.4%)

 	Grade 1	42	(21.3%)	17	(14.5%)	59	(18.8%)

 	Grade 2–5	7	(3.6%)	8	(6.8%)	15	(4.8%)

 	Not known	1	—	0	—	1	—

Care-requirement certification status

 	Needing care or support	8	(4.1%)	7	(6.5%)	15	(5.0%)

 	No need for care or support	185	(95.9%)	100	(93.5%)	285	(95.0%)

 	Not known	5	—	10	—	15	—

Self-rated clinical course as compared with previous year

 	Worse	52	(28.3%)	29	(27.4%)	81	(27.9%)

 	Unchanged	109	(59.2%)	69	(65.1%)	178	(61.4%)

 	Improved or cured	23	(12.5%)	8	(7.5%)	31	(10.7%)

 	Other or not known	14	—	11	—	25	—


Cohorts

Parameter

N

Females %

Age (years)

Baseline

Follow-up

Follow-up duration

LTL (kb)

Baseline

Follow-up

LTL attrition (bp/year)

BMI (Kg/m2)

Baseline

Follow-up

Difference

Smoking (%)

Baseline

Follow-up


MiMix [21]	Minimum Information required for reporting a Molecular Interaction experiment

It relies on PSI-MI [22] controlled vocabularies for terms, and its purpose is providing a checklist of the information to be supplied when describing experimental molecular interaction data. It is a module developed within the framework of the MIAPE guidelines.

MIAPE [23]	Minimum Information About a Proteomics Experiment

It provides guidance modules for reporting the use of proteomics techniques such as gel electrophoresis and mass spectrometry, and has been developed and proposed to encourage collection and integration of these kinds of data.

MIAME [24]	Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment

It is used to submit fully compliant datasets, to enable the interpretation of the experimental results unambiguously and, potentially, to reproduce the study.

MIRIAM Registry [25]	Minimum Information Required in the Annotation of Models

Created for defining the meta-information needed to ensure the re-usability of computational models of biological processes. It aims to maintain, unambiguously and perennially, the identifiers regarding the biomedical domain. The registry retrieves the identifiers in the form of URIs, and provides the http://www.Identifiers.org resolver online service, for their generation.

MiMix [21]	Minimum Information required for reporting a Molecular Interaction experiment

It relies on PSI-MI [22] controlled vocabularies for terms, and its purpose is providing a checklist of the information to be supplied when describing experimental molecular interaction data. It is a module developed within the framework of the MIAPE guidelines.

MIAME [24]	Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment

It is used to submit fully compliant datasets, to enable the interpretation of the experimental results unambiguously and, potentially, to reproduce the study.

MIRIAM Registry [25]	Minimum Information Required in the Annotation of Models

Created for defining the meta-information needed to ensure the re-usability of computational models of biological processes. It aims to maintain, unambiguously and perennially, the identifiers regarding the biomedical domain. The registry retrieves the identifiers in the form of URIs, and provides the http://www.Identifiers.org resolver online service, for their generation.


Clinical Outcome Measure	Natural course mean pp/y (95% CI) P-value	Treatment course mean pp/y (95% CI) P-value	Difference* mean pp/y (95% CI) P- value

MRC sumscore Total study population (N = 69, M = 558)	 	 	1.4 (0.8 to 2.1)	<0.001

MRC sumscorePatients with pre-ERT + ERT follow-up (N = 49, M = 523)	−1.2 (−2.1 to −0.4)	0.006	2.1 (1.2 to 3.0)	<0.001	3.3 (1.9 to 4.7)	<0.001

HHD sumscore Total study population (N = 64, M = 503)	 	 	4.0 (2.5 to 5.6)	<0.001

HHD sumscore Patients with pre-ERT + ERT follow-up (N = 42, M = 435)	−2.8 (−4.2 to −1.3)	<0.001	5.1 (3.0 to 7.3)	<0.001	7.9 (5.0 to 10.7)	<0.001

QMFT score Total study population (N = 69, M = 553)	 	 	0.7 (−0.2 to 1.7)	0.14

FVC in upright position Total study population (N = 62, M = 475)	 	 	0.1 (−1.0 to 1.1)	0.92

FVC in upright position Patients with pre-ERT + ERT follow-up (N = 46, M = 480)	−2.0 (−3.1 to −0.8)	0.001	−0.2 (−1.6 to 1.2)	0.76	1.8 (−0.2 to 3.7)	0.08

FVC in supine position Total study population (N = 54, M = 411)	 	 	−1.1 (−2.1 to −0.1)	0.03

FVC in supine position Patients with pre-ERT + ERT follow-up (N = 42, M = 436)	−1.8 (−2.9 to −0.7)	0.002	−1.0 (−2.3 to 0.3)	0.12	0.8 (−0.9 to 2.4)	0.38

Clinical Outcome Measure	Natural course mean pp/y (95% CI) P-value	Treatment course mean pp/y (95% CI) P-value	Difference* mean pp/y (95% CI) P- value

FVC in supine position Total study population (N = 54, M = 411)			−1.1 (−2.1 to −0.1)	0.03

FVC in supine position Patients with pre-ERT + ERT follow-up (N = 42, M = 436)	−1.8 (−2.9 to −0.7)	0.002	−1.0 (−2.3 to 0.3)	0.12	0.8 (−0.9 to 2.4)	0.38


Collection day	Total no. of females	No. of parous females	Daily parity rate


 	Reduced transversal palatal diameter N (%)	Skeletal class II	Cross-byte	Atipic swallowing

 	 	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)

Atopic SDB subjects	39/60 (65%)	24/60 (40%)	21/60 (35%)	54/60 ( 90%)

Non atopic SDB subjects	44/50 (88%)	24/50 (48%)	15/50 (30%)	47/50 (94%)

p	P<0.05 (*)	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.

	Reduced transversal palatal diameter N (%)	Skeletal class II	Cross-byte	Atipic swallowing

		N (%)	N (%)	N (%)

Non atopic SDB subjects	44/50 (88%)	24/50 (48%)	15/50 (30%)	47/50 (94%)

p	P<0.05 (*)	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.