Year	First Author	No	Sex	Age	Site	Complications	Treatment	Incision	LOS (days)

1991 [13]	Hale	22	M	85	Sigmoid	Incarceration	Hartmann’s + intra-abdominal internal ring closure	Midline laparotomy	NA

2003 [12]	Tan	23	M	62	Sigmoid	Incarceration	High anterior resection + left orchidectomy + intra-abdominal closure of hernial defect	Left iliac fossa transverse	NA

2003 [7]	Kouraklis	24	M	79	Sigmoid	Perforation	Hartmann’s + loop colostomy + interval reversal and open hernioplasty	Left groin	10

2003 [16]	Cervinka	25	M	69	Sigmoid	Incarceration	Sigmoidectomy + anastomosis + defunctioning transverse colostomy + herniorrhaphy (Bassini)	Left groin	NA

2008 [17]	Slater	26	M	66	Sigmoid	Incarceration	Hartmann’s + left orchidectomy + internal ring closure	Left groin + midline laparotomy	NA

2008 [17]	Slater	27	M	73	Sigmoid	Perforation	Hartmann’s + left orchidectomy + internal ring closure	L groin + Left modified Rutherford-Morrison	NA

2009 [18]	Ruiz-Tovar	28	M	67	Sigmoid	Perforation without contamination	Sigmoidectomy and anastomosis + hernioplasty (Lichtenstein)	Left groin + midline laparotomy	7

2010 [19]	Ko	29	M	84	Sigmoid	Perforation	Hartmann’s + herniorrhaphy	Laparotomy	Deceased

2010 [20]	Mai	30	M	83	Sigmoid	Strangulation	Hartmann’s + herniorrhaphy	Lower midline + left groin	NA

2011 [5]	Pernazza	31	M	70	Caecum	Incarceration	Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy + herniorrhaphy	Laparoscopy + bilateral groin incisions	5

2012 [6]	Carr	32	M	65	Sigmoid	Incarceration	Laparoscopic high anterior resection + open biosynthetic hernioplasty	Laparoscopy + left groin	4

2013 [21]	Meniconi	33	F	78	Caecum	Incarceration	Open right hemicolectomy + herniorrhaphy	Midline laparotomy + right groin	NA

2013 [22]	Tan	34	M	63	Sigmoid	Perforation	Hartmann’s + herniorrhaphy	Midline laparotomy + left groin	10

2016 [23]	Kulasegaran	35	M	66	Sigmoid	Perforation + necrotising infection	Hartmann’s + debridement + staged skin graft	Left groin + midline laparotomy	NA

2016 [24]	Diao	36	M	48	Transverse colon	Perforation	Transverse colectomy + herniorrhaphy + orchidectomy + partial scrotectomy	Left groin	NA

2017 [25]	Sharma	37	M	84	Caecum	None	Open right hemicolectomy + herniorrhaphy	Right transverse	NA

2018	Current report	38	M	83	Ascending colon	Incarceration	Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy + laparoscopic defect closure	Laparoscopy	10


	Normotensive pregnancy (n = 3183)	Gestational hypertension (n = 145) Beta (95% CI)	P value	Pre-eclampsia (n = 63) Beta (95% CI)	P value

Retinal arteriolar caliber (SDS)

 Full model	Ref	–0.20 (–0.34, –0.05)	0.007	–0.40 (–0.62, –0.19)	0.0002

Retinal venular caliber (SDS)

 Full model	Ref	0.22 (0.07–0.36)	0.003	0.08 (–0.13, 0.30)	0.45

Retinal arteriolar caliber (SDS)

Full model

Retinal venular caliber (SDS)

Full model

Normotensive pregnancy (n = 3183)	Gestational hypertension (n = 145) Beta (95% CI)	P value	Pre-eclampsia (n = 63) Beta (95% CI)	P value

Retinal arteriolar caliber (SDS)

Ref	–0.20 (–0.34, –0.05)	0.007	–0.40 (–0.62, –0.19)	0.0002

Retinal venular caliber (SDS)

Ref	0.22 (0.07–0.36)	0.003	0.08 (–0.13, 0.30)	0.45


Medium	Time

0 day	1 day	3 days	5 days	7 days


Cell lines	IC50

	GEM (μM)	OSI-027 (μM)	OSI-027 (μM) + GEM (μM)	Interaction


Statistical value 	DR: VC	DR: RMSSD	DR: max-min	VR	Rest: VC	Rest: RMSSD	DR: max/min	PI

Ancova F	10.854	8.492	9.016	0.380	6.512	0.493	6.467	2.70

p-value	<0.01	<0.04	<0.005	n.s.	<0.02	n.s.	<0.02	n.s.


Targeta	Nucleotide sequence (5′ to 3′)	Amplicon size (bp)	Reference

cfbb	F: CACACATGCTGTTGGAGTTCAGTTGA	138	This study

R: ACGAAGTCGACAGCATCACACGAAA

erm(A)/(TR)	F: CCGGCAAGGAGAAGGTTATAATGA	190	Otaguiri et al. [5]

R: GCATTCACCCGTTGACTCATTTCC

erm(B)	F: GCTCTTGCACACTCAAGTCTCGAT	117	Otaguiri et al. [5]

R: ACATCTGTGGTATGGCGGGTAAGT

mef(A/E)	F: GCGATGGTCTTGTCTATGGCTTCA	225	Otaguiri et al. [5]

R: AGCTGTTCCAATGCTACGGAT

RNaseP	F: AGATTTGGACCTGCGAGCG	64	WHO [27]

R: GAGCGGCTGTCTCCACAAGT

IGS1	F: GTCATTTCAGCTGGCGCCATCGATAC	260	Tavares et al. [32]

R: TTGCCGCATAACGCATCTTAGCCA

Targeta	Nucleotide sequence (5′ to 3′)

cfbb	F: CACACATGCTGTTGGAGTTCAGTTGA

R: ACGAAGTCGACAGCATCACACGAAA

erm(A)/(TR)	F: CCGGCAAGGAGAAGGTTATAATGA

R: GCATTCACCCGTTGACTCATTTCC

erm(B)	F: GCTCTTGCACACTCAAGTCTCGAT

R: ACATCTGTGGTATGGCGGGTAAGT

mef(A/E)	F: GCGATGGTCTTGTCTATGGCTTCA

R: AGCTGTTCCAATGCTACGGAT

RNaseP	F: AGATTTGGACCTGCGAGCG

R: GAGCGGCTGTCTCCACAAGT

IGS1	F: GTCATTTCAGCTGGCGCCATCGATAC

R: TTGCCGCATAACGCATCTTAGCCA

Amplicon size (bp)	Reference

138	This study

190	Otaguiri et al. [5]

117	Otaguiri et al. [5]

225	Otaguiri et al. [5]

64	WHO [27]

260	Tavares et al. [32]


Outcome	RCN (monetized)	ASBL (monetized)	SER (monetized)	ASBL + SER (monetized)

Cycling mode share by 2051 (%)	5	20	5	40

LV mode share by 2051 (%)	75	65	55	40

Proportion of people considering cycling always/mostly safe by 2040	0.4	0.7	0.3	0.9

LVKT (billion km)	–3.5	–7	–10	–18.5

Cyclist injuries

Fatalities	200 (620)	360 (1,100)	85 (250)	250 (850)

Serious injuries	4,000 (1,300)	7,000 (2,300)	1,600 (500)	5,000 (1,600)

Car crashes

Car occupant fatalities	–70 (–220)	–120 (–370)	–170 (–527)	–340 (–1,000)

Air pollution

Mortality	–10 (–7.5)	–20 (–15)	–40 (–30)	–80 (–60)

Hospitalizations	–5 (–0.02)	–15 (–0.04)	–20 (–0.06)	–40 (–0.12)

COPD incidence	–10 (–0.75)	–30 (–2.25)	–55 (–4)	–90 (–6.75)

Restricted activity days	–12,500 (–1)	–37,200 (–4)	–57,700 (–6)	–112,200 (–11)

Air pollution total	(–9)	(–21)	(–40)	(–78)

All-cause mortality	–650 (–2,000)	–1,850 (–5,700)	–650 (–2,000)	–4,000 (–12,400)

Greenhouse gas emissions (megatons)	–3 (–120)	–8 (–360)	–13 (–520)	–26 (–1040)

Fuel cost ($NZ million)	(–600)	(–1,800)	(–600)	(–3,900)

Infrastructure cost ($NZ million)	(45)	(250)	(380)	(630)

Net benefit ($NZ million)	–770	–2,550	–1,780	–13,090

Benefit–cost ratio	18	18	6	24

Abbreviations: LV, light vehicle; LVKT, light vehicle kilometers travelled. Numbers with a negative sign represent savings. Monetized figures are given in parentheses and are in millions of New Zealand dollars. Benefit–cost ratios are calculated from the net public health benefits and infrastructure costs shown.

Outcome	RCN (monetized)

Cycling mode share by 2051 (%)	5

LV mode share by 2051 (%)	75

Proportion of people considering cycling always/mostly safe by 2040	0.4

LVKT (billion km)	–3.5

Cyclist injuries

Fatalities	200 (620)

Serious injuries	4,000 (1,300)

Car crashes

Car occupant fatalities	–70 (–220)

Air pollution

Mortality	–10 (–7.5)

Hospitalizations	–5 (–0.02)

COPD incidence	–10 (–0.75)

Restricted activity days	–12,500 (–1)

Air pollution total	(–9)

All-cause mortality	–650 (–2,000)

Greenhouse gas emissions (megatons)	–3 (–120)

Fuel cost ($NZ million)	(–600)

Infrastructure cost ($NZ million)	(45)

Net benefit ($NZ million)	–770

Benefit–cost ratio	18

Abbreviations: LV, light vehicle; LVKT, light vehicle kilometers travelled. Numbers with a negative sign represent savings. Monetized figures are given in parentheses and are in millions of New Zealand dollars. Benefit–cost ratios are calculated from the net public health benefits and infrastructure costs shown.

ASBL (monetized)	SER (monetized)	ASBL + SER (monetized)

20	5	40

65	55	40

0.7	0.3	0.9

–7	–10	–18.5

360 (1,100)	85 (250)	250 (850)

7,000 (2,300)	1,600 (500)	5,000 (1,600)

–120 (–370)	–170 (–527)	–340 (–1,000)

–20 (–15)	–40 (–30)	–80 (–60)

–15 (–0.04)	–20 (–0.06)	–40 (–0.12)

–30 (–2.25)	–55 (–4)	–90 (–6.75)

–37,200 (–4)	–57,700 (–6)	–112,200 (–11)

(–21)	(–40)	(–78)

–1,850 (–5,700)	–650 (–2,000)	–4,000 (–12,400)

–8 (–360)	–13 (–520)	–26 (–1040)

(–1,800)	(–600)	(–3,900)

(250)	(380)	(630)

–2,550	–1,780	–13,090

18	6	24

Abbreviations: LV, light vehicle; LVKT, light vehicle kilometers travelled. Numbers with a negative sign represent savings. Monetized figures are given in parentheses and are in millions of New Zealand dollars. Benefit–cost ratios are calculated from the net public health benefits and infrastructure costs shown.


Independent variables	β coefficient(Standardized β coefficient)	95% CI	p-value

Age	0.061 (0.082)	- 0.101 – 0.222	0.461

BMI	1.509 (0.230)	1.056–1.961	< 0.001†

Fasting		- 0.042 	0.315


	All	Followed the advices	Contacted GP

	N = 100	YesN = 93	NoN = 7	p-value	YesN = 22	NoN = 78	p-value

Origin of caller				0.08			> 0.99

Native Norwegian	84	80	4		19	65

Others	16	13	3		3	13

Gender of caller				0.34			> 0.99

Men	22	22	0		5	17

Women	78	71	7		17	61

Time of day				0.009			0.47

Daytime	37	34	3		9	28

Afternoon	42	42	0		7	35

Night	21	17	4		6	15

Got enough time				0.06			0.39

Yes	94	89	5		20	74

No	3	2	1		1	2

Partly	3	2	1		1	2

Got worse				0.53			0.039

Yes	10	9	1		5	5

No	90	84	6		17	73

Got answers to the questions				< 0.0001			0.024

Yes	79	79	0		13	66

No	6	3	3		2	4

Partly	15	11	4		7	8

Trusted the nurse				< 0.0001			0.32

Yes	74	74	0		14	60

No	8	6	2		3	5

Partly	18	13	5		5	13


Protein Symbol	Protein Name	Organism	Function	Swiss Prot ID

OPN (SSP1)	Osteopontin, secreted phosphoprotein 1	Homo sapiens	Matrix mineralization, immunity	P10451

DMP1	Dentin matrix protein 1	Homo sapiens	Osteoblast differentiation, nucleation of hydroxyapatite	Q13316

MEPE	Matrix extracellular phosphoglycoprotein	Homo sapiens	Phosphate excretion, mineralization	Q9NQ76

BSP	Bone sialoprotein	Homo sapiens	Matrix mineralization, hydroxyapatite binding, cell attachment	P21815

DSPP	Dentin sialophosphoprotein	Homo sapiens	Dentinogenesis	Q9NZW4

AMELX	Amylogenin	Homo sapiens	Enamel formation; extracellular scaffold, crystal growth	Q99217

Stm	Starmaker	Danio rerio (zebrafish)	Otolith formation	A2VD23

OMM-64	Otolith matrix macromolecule-64	Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout)	Otolith formation	B1Q2L9

Protein Symbol	Protein Name	Organism	Function	Swiss Prot ID

OPN (SSP1)	Osteopontin, secreted phosphoprotein 1	Homo sapiens	Matrix mineralization, immunity	P10451

DMP1	Dentin matrix protein 1	Homo sapiens	Osteoblast differentiation, nucleation of hydroxyapatite	Q13316

MEPE	Matrix extracellular phosphoglycoprotein	Homo sapiens	Phosphate excretion, mineralization	Q9NQ76

BSP	Bone sialoprotein	Homo sapiens	Matrix mineralization, hydroxyapatite binding, cell attachment	P21815

DSPP	Dentin sialophosphoprotein	Homo sapiens	Dentinogenesis	Q9NZW4

AMELX	Amylogenin	Homo sapiens	Enamel formation; extracellular scaffold, crystal growth	Q99217

Stm	Sta	Danio rerio 	Otolith forma	A2

Protein Symbol	Protein Name	Organism	Function	Swiss Prot ID

	rmaker	(zebrafish)	tion	VD23

OMM-64	Otolith matrix macromolecule-64	Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout)	Otolith formation	B1Q2L9


Question	Response rate (percentage; n = 86)

14. How did you usually use the video clips in PHARMACY 301?	79

15. How did watching the Pharmville clips help you in PHARMACY 301?	64

16. Which families are the most realistic and why?	35

17. Which are the most unrealistic and why?	28

18. Do you have any suggestions for improving Pharmville?	48

19. Do you have any suggestions for where else the Pharmville families could be included in the BPharm programme?	19

20. How do feel that Pharmville and the related clips helped your learning?	35

21. Space for any other comments about Pharmville that you would like to make.	17

Question	Response rate (percentage; n = 86)

14. How did you usually use the video clips in PHARMACY 301?	79

15. How did watching the Pharmville clips help you in PHARMACY 301?	64

16. Which families are the most realistic and why?	35

17. Which are the most unrealistic and why?	28

18. Do you have any suggestions for improving Pharmville?	48

19. Do you have any suggestions for where else the Pharmville families could be included in the BPharm programme?	19

20. How	3

Question	Response rate (percentage; n = 86)

 do feel that Pharmville and the related clips helped your learning?	5

21. Space for any other comments about Pharmville that you would like to make.	17


Runs order	Operating conditions	Response Dry cell mass (g/l)

A	B

15		1

16	−1	0	16.17 ± 0.07


UHI Assessment TOOL	Geographical Cover	Scale of the Assessment	Type of Assessment	User Input Parameters	Tool Output

Decision Support System (DSS) UHI project	Bologna/Modena, Venice/Padua, Wien, Stuttgart, Lodz/Warsaw, Ljubljana, Budapest and Prague.	Supra-metropolitan	Phase 1: Mapping Urban Heat. Phase 2: Understanding regulations and policies related to UHI (greenery: street or roof, material reflectance...)	1/Location, 2/Scale (building or urban) 3/Typology of the intervention (building, facade, roofs, surface lots, urban structure and urban green) 4/Economic assessment 5/Skills.	1/climate change assessment (Change in annual mean temperature per decade, changes in annual near-surface temperature for 30 year periods and heat wave frequency), 2/a set of normative applicable to the selected area and skills, 3/a set of potential mitigation strategies.

CE Urban Heat Island Atlas UHI project	Central Europe region	Regional	Phase 1: Mapping Urban heat related parameters.	1/Location	1/Air temperature 2/Digital elevation models 3/Land surface temperature 4/Land cover regional scale (corine) 5/Urban land use.

STAR tools GRaBS project	North West region of England	Neighbourhood	Phase 4: Testing conceptual design	1/Location 2/Land cover proposal (% of buildings, major roads, other impervious surfaces, green and blue surfaces and bare soil or gravel surfaces) 3/Temperature scenario for 2050 (Baseline temperature, 2050’s 10% probability level, 50% probability level or 90% probability level).	1/Maximum surface temperature

London unified model (Londum)	City of London	City	Phase 1: Simluation map of the Urban Heat Island of the existing city. Phase 4: Simulation map of the Urban Heat Island of the projected city.	1/ Volume (Reflection, Shadowing, conduction of heat into the buildings, flux of heat into the atmosphere). Provided by the tool for the city of London.	1/Urban heat island intensity (air temperature at 1,5m height).

ADMS model	City of London	Neighbourhood	Phase 1: Simluation map of the Urban Heat Island of the existing city. Phase 4: Simulation map of the Urban Heat Island of the projected city.	1/Location 2/Surface cover (Albedo, evapotranspiration, thermal admittance).	2/Air temperature variations -due to land cover- at 2m height.

London site-specific air temperature prediction model (LSSAT)	City of London	Neighbourhood	Phase 1: Air temperature mapping at a particular time. Phase 4: Air temperature prediction based on intervention proposed.	1/Location	1/Hourly prediction of air temperature based on site specific transects (Global solar radiation, cloud cover, wind velocity and relative humidity).

EPA Mitigation Impact Screening Tool (MIST)	U.S.A. 230 cities	City	Phase 4: Testing the mitigation effect of the selected mitiation strategy.	1/Location 2/The latitude 3/the cooling degree day (CDD) 4/the heating degree day (HDD) 5/the population 6/the mean annual temperature 7/the typical peak (one hour) ozone 8/Mitigation strategy (albedo or vegetation modification).	Calculation of the effect of the mitigation strategy 1/Reduction of the mean city temperature 2/Cooling degree days 3/the heating degree day 4/the typical 1hr and 8hr max ozone 5/The energy consumption.

UHI Assessment TOOL	Geographical Cover

Decision Support System (DSS) UHI project	Bologna/Modena, Venice/Padua, Wien, Stuttgart, Lodz/Warsaw, Ljubljana, Budapest and Prague.

CE Urban Heat Island Atlas UHI project	Central Europe region

STAR tools GRaBS project	North West region of England

London unified model (Londum)	City of London

ADMS model	City of London

London site-specific air temperature prediction model (LSSAT)	City of London

EPA Mitigation Impact Screening Tool (MIST)	U.S.A. 230 cities

Scale of the Assessment	Type of Assessment	User Input Parameters	Tool Output

Supra-metropolitan	Phase 1: Mapping Urban Heat. Phase 2: Understanding regulations and policies related to UHI (greenery: street or roof, material reflectance...)	1/Location, 2/Scale (building or urban) 3/Typology of the intervention (building, facade, roofs, surface lots, urban structure and urban green) 4/Economic assessment 5/Skills.	1/climate change assessment (Change in annual mean temperature per decade, changes in annual near-surface temperature for 30 year periods and heat wave frequency), 2/a set of normative applicable to the selected area and skills, 3/a set of potential mitigation strategies.

Regional	Phase 1: Mapping Urban heat related parameters.	1/Location	1/Air temperature 2/Digital elevation models 3/Land surface temperature 4/Land cover regional scale (corine) 5/Urban land use.

Neighbourhood	Phase 4: Testing conceptual design	1/Location 2/Land cover proposal (% of buildings, major roads, other impervious surfaces, green and blue surfaces and bare soil or gravel surfaces) 3/Temperature scenario for 2050 (Baseline temperature, 2050’s 10% probability level, 50% probability level or 90% probability level).	1/Maximum surface temperature

City	Phase 1: Simluation map of the Urban Heat Island of the existing city. Phase 4: Simulation map of the Urban Heat Island of the projected city.	1/ Volume (Reflection, Shadowing, conduction of heat into the buildings, flux of heat into the atmosphere). Provided by the tool for the city of London.	1/Urban heat island intensity (air temperature at 1,5m height).

Neighbourhood	Phase 1: Simluation map of the Urban Heat Island of the existing city. Phase 4: Simulation map of the Urban Heat Island of the projected city.	1/Location 2/Surface cover (Albedo, evapotranspiration, thermal admittance).	2/Air temperature variations -due to land cover- at 2m height.

Neighbourhood	Phase 1: Air temperature mapping at a particular time. Phase 4: Air temperature prediction based on intervention proposed.	1/Location	1/Hourly prediction of air temperature based on site specific transects (Global solar radiation, cloud cover, wind velocity and relative humidity).

City	Phase 4: Testing the mitigation effect of the selected mitiation strategy.	1/Location 2/The latitude 3/the cooling degree day (CDD) 4/the heating degree day (HDD) 5/the population 6/the mean annual temperature 7/the typical peak (one hour) ozone 8/Mitigation strategy (albedo or vegetation modification).	Calculation of the effect of the mitigation strategy 1/Reduction of the mean city temperature 2/Cooling degree days 3/the heating degree day 4/the typical 1hr and 8hr max ozone 5/The energy consumption.


Item	SE	LE	SEM

Sow BW (kg)

At insemination	72.7	72.9	0.9

At day 90 of pregnancy	127.9	117.0	1.9

Litter size	12.0	11.8	0.9

Fetal weight (g)	574.4	507.7	17.9

CV, %	14.86	12.72	1.48


Pharmacological agents	Neonatal rat spinal cord preparation	Decerebrate cat preparation	Acute spinal cat	Early chronic spinal cat	Late chronic spinal cat	Late chronic spinal rat

Edrophonium (EDRO)	↑↑			↔

AChE inhibitor

Neostigmine (NEO)	↑↑

AChE inhibitor

EDRO + ACh				↔

AChE inhibitor + acetylocholine

EDRO + tubocurarine	↔

AChE inhibitor + nicotinic antagonist

Clonidine			↑↑

NA agonist

EDRO + clonidine				↑↑

AChE inhibitor+ NA agonist

Clonidine (low dose)			↔

NA agonist

Atropine		↔	↔	↑↑

muscarinic antagonist

Atropine + clonidine (low dose)			↑↑

muscarinic antagonist + NA agonist

Clonidine (low dose) + atropine			↑↑

NA agonist + muscarinic antagonist

Carbachol				↓↓		↓↓

cholinergic agonist

Carbachol + atropine				↑↑		↑↑

cholinergic agonist + muscarinic antagonist

Atropine + carbachol				↓↓

muscarinic antagonist + cholinergic agonist

EDRO + atropine	↑↓↓

AChE inhibitor + muscarinic antagonist

EDRO + telenzepine	↔

AChE inhibitor + M1 antagonist

EDRO + telenzepine (high dose)	↓↓

AChE inhibitor + M1 antagonist

EDRO + methoctramine (METHOC)	↑↓

AChE inhibitor + M2 antagonist

EDRO + METHOC (high dose)	↓↓

AChE inhibitor + M2 antagonist

EDRO + 4-diphenylacetoxy-N-methylpiperidine metiodide (4-DAMP)	↓↓				↑↑

AChE inhibitor + M3 antagonist

MT-3	↔

M4 antagonist

Mecamylamine		↔

nicotinic antagonist

Mecamylamine + atropine		↔

nicotinic antagonist + muscarinic antagonist

Dihydro-β-erythrpidine					↑↑

nicotinic antagonist

Pharmacological agents	Neonatal rat spinal cord preparation	Decerebrate cat preparation	Acute spinal cat	Early chronic spinal cat	Late chronic spinal cat	Late chronic spinal rat

NA agonist + muscarinic antagonist			↑↑

Carbachol				↓↓		↓↓

cholinergic agonist

Carbachol + atropine				↑↑		↑↑

cholinergic agonist + muscarinic antagonist

Atropine + carbachol				↓↓

muscarinic antagonist + cholinergic agonist

EDRO + atropine	↑↓↓

AChE inhibitor + muscarinic antagonist

EDRO + telenzepine	↔

AChE inhibitor + M1 antagonist

EDRO + telenzepine (high dose)	↓↓

AChE inhibitor + M1 antagonist

EDRO + methoctramine (METHOC)	↑↓

AChE inhibitor + M2 antagonist

EDRO + METHOC (high dose)	↓↓

AChE inhibitor + M2 antagonist

EDRO + 4-diphenylacetoxy-N-methylpiperidine metiodide (4-DAMP)	↓↓				↑↑

AChE inhibitor + M3 antagonist

MT-3	↔

M4 antagonist

Mecamylamine		↔

nicotinic antagonist

Mecamylamine + atropine		↔

nicotinic antagonist + muscarinic antagonist

Dihydro-β-erythrpidine					↑↑

nicotinic antagonist


Patient	Age	Site	Stage	Primary date	Primary therapy*	Recurrence	Expiry

1	50	Retromolar trigone	IV	2009/05/30	S+CCRT

2	55	Oral tongue	IV	2010/10/24	S+CCRT

3	59	Buccal mucosa	IV	2011/05/04	S+CCRT

4	56	Buccal mucosa	IV	2010/05/31	S+CCRT	2010/08/09	2010/10/31

5	49	Buccal mucosa	IV	2010/07/27	S+CCRT	2010/11/24	2011/06/07

6	48	Buccal mucosa	III	2009/10/06	S+C/T	2009/12/29	2010/02/11

Patient	Age	Site	Stage	Primary date	Primary therapy*	Recurrence	Expiry

5	49	Buccal mucosa	IV	2010/07/27	S+CCRT	2010/11/24	2011/06/07

6	48	Buccal mucosa	III	2009/10/06	S+C/T	2009/12/29	2010/02/11


	Acid fast bacilli	Total

	negative for AFB	positive for AFB

Giant cells

 Not present	50	25	75

 Present	6	19	25

Total	56	44	100

	Acid fast bacilli	Total

	negative for AFB	positive for AFB

Present	6	19	25

Total	56	44	100


Parameters

TAC, g/dL

MDA, μmol/L

BMI, kg/m2


Parameter	P-value

Region	0.027

Age	0.103

Gender	0.168

Histology	0.906

Stage	0.901

Smoking status	0.668

Diabetes mellitus	0.142

Parameter	P-value

Age	0.103

Gender	0.168

Histology	0.906

Stage	0.901

Smoking status	0.668

Diabetes mellitus	0.142


	β-coefficient	OR	95% CI	p-value

Measurements at sea level (after varia


	OR	95% CI

Ser/Ser vs. Asn/Asn	5.68	4.83–6.70

Ser/Ser vs. Asn/Ser	4.93	4.28–5.68

Ser/Ser vs. Asn/Asn + Asn/Ser	5.21	4.65–5.85


	Pneumonia (n=5709)

	Without rickets	With rickets

	n=5600	n=109

Deaths n (%)	345 (6.16)	9 (8.26)

Odds-ratio	1.37 (p-value = 0.32)

	Severe malnutrition (n=727)

	Without rickets	With rickets

	n=680	n=47

Deaths n (%)	88 (12.94)	2 (4.26)

Odds-ratio	0.30 (p-value = 0.11)

	Malnutrition (Severe, moderate, mild) (n=1150)

	Without rickets	With rickets

	n=1079	n=71

Deaths n (%)	118 (10.94)	3 (4.23)

Odds-ratio	0.36 (p-value = 0.11)

	Dehydration (n=2233)

	Without rickets	With rickets

	n=2180	n=53

Deaths n (%)	230 (10.55)	4 (7.55)

Odds-ratio	0.69 (p-value = 0.65)

	Diarrhea, n=2805

	Without Rickets	With Rickets

	n=2772	n=33

Deaths n (%)	172 (6.2)	2 (6.06)

Odds-ratio	0.97 (p-value=1.00)

	Pneumonia (n=5709)

	Without rickets	With rickets

	n=5600	n=109

Deaths n (%)	345 (6.16)	9 (8.26)

Odds-ratio	1.37 (p-value = 0.32)

	Severe malnutrition (n=727)

	Without rickets	With rickets

	n=680	n=47

Deaths n (%)	88 (12.94)	2 (4.26)

Odds-ratio	0.30 (p-value = 0.11)

	Malnutrition (Severe, moderate, mild) (n=1150)

	Without rickets	With rickets

	n=1079	n=71

Deaths n (%)	118 (10.94)	3 (4.23)

Odds-ratio	0.36 (p-value = 0.11)

	Dehydration (n=2233)

	Witho	With ricke

	ut rickets	ts

	n=2180	n=53

Deaths n (%)	230 (10.55)	4 (7.55)

Odds-ratio	0.69 (p-value = 0.65)

	Diarrhea, n=2805

	Without Rickets	With Rickets

	n=2772	n=33

Deaths n (%)	172 (6.2)	2 (6.06)

Odds-ratio	0.97 (p-value=1.00)


State	NE level	Ih	Apical function

Asleep	Low	High	Isolated from soma

Awake	Moderate	Moderate	Selective amplification

Attentive	High	Low	Inc. Selectivity & Amplif.

High arousal	Maximum	Minimum	Selective drive e.g., Stereotypical impulses

Anesthetized Ketamine propofol Isoflurane	Low	Minimum	Non-selective slow waves


			Relative Normalised Expression

Receptor Class	Accession Number	Gene Name	BMM	TEPM

			2 h	6 h	24 h	1 h	7 h

Repressed by LPS in BMM and TEPM

Class A

	NM_009924	Cnr2	0.2	0.1	0.3	0.3	0.1

	NM_009911	Cxcr4	0.3	0.1	7.1	0.7	0.1

	NM_183031	Ebi2	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.4	0.2

	NM_004230	Edg5	0.2	0.5	2.0	0.4	0.6

	NM_	Gpr	0		1.


	Mean	SD	Maximum	Minimum

Maximum level of low back pain in the past year	8.81	1.13	10	7

Number of days without pain in the past year	37.04	51.82	174	0

Number of days with low pain in the past year	149.37	86.12	303	0

Number of days with moderate pain in the past year	119.29	51.94	210	22

Number of days with high pain in the past year	57.04	68.72	262	0

	Mean	SD	Maximum	Minimum

Maximum l	8	1		7

	Mean	SD	Maximum	Minimum

evel of low back pain in the past year	.81	.13	10

Number of days without pain in the past year	37.04	51.82	174	0

Number of days with low pain in the past year	149.37	86.12	303	0

Number of days with moderate pain in the past year	119.29	51.94	210	22

Number of days with high pain in the past year	57.04	68.72	262	0


Pathogen	Number of patients	Gender (male/female) 	Median age (min–max)	Mortality (%) (survivors/death)

S. pneumoniae 	14	5/81	5.5 (0–40)	46% (7/6)1

N. meningitidis 	22	10/92	5.5 (1–60)	27% (16/6)

H. influenzae 	9	7/2	2 (1–4)	0% (9/0)

Pathogen	Number of patients	Gender (male/female)	Median age (min–max)

S. pneumoniae	14	5/81	5.5 (0–40)

N. meningitidis	22	10/92	5.5 (1–60)

H. influenzae	9	7/2	2 (1–4)


Author	Derivation sample	Validation sample	Predictors	Outcomes	Performance in the validation sample	Presentation of a simplified score

Pillai et al.	208 patients from India with severe TBI	26 patients from the same centre	1-oculocephalic reflex2-motor GCS3-midline shift	Death or vegetative state	Sensitivity (75%)Specificity (67%)PPV 50%	No

Signorini et al	372 patients from Scotland with moderate and severe TBI	520 patients from the same centre	1-GCS2-ISS3-pupils reactivity and 4-haematoma (CT scan)	Survival at 1 year	A.U.R.O.C (0.835)Error rate (15.2%)Brier score (0.1160)Hosmer-Lemeshow(p < 0.001)	Nomogram

Signorini et al	110 patients from Scotland with moderate and severe TBI	140 patients from the same centre	1-GCS2-ISS3-pupils reactivity and 4-haematoma (CT scan)5-ICP measures	Survival at 1 year	Not reported	No

Hukkelhoven et al.	134 patients from Netherlands with moderate and severe TBI	180 patients from the same centre	1-age2-motor GCS3-pupils reactivity4-pupillary size5-hypotension6-ISS	Raised ICP	A.U.R.O.C. (0.50)Hosmer-Lemeshow(p = 0.18)	No

Hukkelhoven et al.	275 patients from Netherlands with moderate and severe TBI	250 patients from the same centre	1-age2-cause of injury3-pupils reactivity4-pupillary size5-hypotension6-ISS	Surgical removable lesions	A.U.R.O.C. (0.67)Hosmer-Lemeshow(p = 0.01)	No

Hukkelhoven et al.	2269 patients from 2 trials in high income countries with moderate and severe TBI	796 patients from Europe	1-age2-motorGCS3-pupils reactivity4-hypoxia5-hypotension6-CT classification7-subarachnoid haemorrhage	Death or disability at 6 months	A.U.R.O.C. (0.83)Hosmer-Lemeshow(p = 0.05)	Score chart

Hukkelhoven et al.	2269 patients from 2 trials in high income countries with moderate and severe TBI	796 patients from Europe and 746 from the United States	1-age2-motor GCS3-pupils reactivity4-hypoxia5-hypotension6-CT classification7-subarachnoid haemorrhage	Death at 6 months	A.U.R.O.C. (0.87/0.89)Hosmer-Lemeshow(p = 0.42/<0.001)	Score chart

Author	Derivation sample	Validation sample	Predictors	Outcomes	Performance in the validation sample	Presentation of a simplified score

Hukkelhoven et al.	2269 patients from 2 trials in high income countries with moderate and severe TBI	796 patients from Europe	1-age2-motorGCS3-pupils reactivity4-hypoxia5-hypotension6-CT classification7-subarachnoid haemorrhage	Death or disability at 6 months	A.U.R.O.C. (0.83)Hosmer-Lemeshow(p = 0.05)	Score chart

Hukkelhoven et al.	2269 patients from 2 trials in high income countries with moderate and severe TBI	796 patients from Europe and 746 from the United States	1-age2-motor GCS3-pupils reactivity4-hypoxia5-hypotension6-CT classification7-subarachnoid haemorrhage	Death at 6 months	A.U.R.O.C. (0.87/0.89)Hosmer-Lemeshow(p = 0.42/<0.001)	Score chart


 	Mild TBI	Moderate TBI	Severe TBI	p-value

Number of patients	229	85	54	-

Age at time of injury (years)

Mean ± standard deviation	23.7 ± 16.6	29.0 ± 20.9	22.5 ± 16.4	0.038

Range (minimum - maximum)	1.0 - 66.0	1.0 - 76.0	1.0 - 60.0

median	20.0	28.0	19.0

Age at time of reexamination (years)

Mean ± standard deviation	44.2 ± 16.9	43.4 ± 20.08	26.5 ± 16.5	0.018

Range (minimum - maximum)	12.0 - 87.0	11.0 - 87.0	12.0 - 76.0

median	41.0	42.0	34.5

Time to reexamination (years)

Mean ± standard deviation	20.3 ± 6.5	14.2 ± 4.1	14.0 ± 3.9	<0.001

Number of patients <18 years	101	33	26	0.531

(%)	(44.1%)	(38.8%)	(48.1%)

Gender distribution (♂: ♀)	129: 100	57: 28	40: 14	0.026

Injury Severity (ISS)	-	14.8 ± 7.5	21.4 ± 7.1	<0.001

New Injury Severity (NISS)	-	24.3 ± 12.3	36.3 ± 14.8	<0.001

Marital status at follow-up

- Single	40.7%	42.2%	64.8%	0.010

 - Married or cohabitant	51.0%	50.6%	24.1%

 - Divorced	8.3%	7.2%	11.1%

Housing situation before TBI

 - in rented accommodation	51.2%	46.8%	38.5%	0.249

Housing situation at follow-up

 - in rented accommodation	50.2%	42.0%	38.5%	0.205

 - confinement in bed	0.0%	0.0%	5.6%	<0.001

	Mild TBI	Moderate TBI	Severe TBI	p-value

Number of patients	229	85	54	-

Age at time of injury (years)

Mean ± standard deviation	23.7 ± 16.6	29.0 ± 20.9	22.5 ± 16.4	0.038

Range (	1.0 - 66	1.0 - 	1.0 - 60

	Mild TBI	Moderate TBI	Severe TBI	p-value

Number of patients	229	85	54	-

minimum - maximum)	.0	76.0	.0

median	20.0	28.0	19.0

Age at time of reexamination (years)

Mean ± standard deviation	44.2 ± 16.9	43.4 ± 20.08	26.5 ± 16.5	0.018

Range (minimum - maximum)	12.0 - 87.0	11.0 - 87.0	12.0 - 76.0

median	41.0	42.0	34.5

Time to reexamination (years)

Mean ± standard deviation	20.3 ± 6.5	14.2 ± 4.1	14.0 ± 3.9	<0.001

Number of patients <18 years	101	33	26	0.531

(%)	(44.1%)	(38.8%)	(48.1%)

Gender distribution (♂: ♀)	129: 100	57: 28	40: 14	0.026

Injury Severity (ISS)	-	14.8 ± 7.5	21.4 ± 7.1	<0.001

New Injury Severity (NISS)	-	24.3 ± 12.3	36.3 ± 14.8	<0.001

Marital status at follow-up

- Single	40.7%	42.2%	64.8%	0.010

- Married or cohabitant	51.0%	50.6%	24.1%

- Divorced	8.3%	7.2%	11.1%

Housing situation before TBI

- in rented accommodation	51.2%	46.8%	38.5%	0.249

Housing situation at follow-up

- in rented accommodation	50.2%	42.0%	38.5%	0.205

- confinement in bed	0.0%	0.0%	5.6%	<0.001


Variable	Case (n=127)	Control (127)

	Number (%)	Number (%)

Ethnicity

Oromo	122(96.1)	123(96.9)

Others	5(3.9)	4(3.1)

Religion

Muslim	124(97.6)	123(96.9)

Christian	3(2.4)	4(3.1)

Education status of mother

Illiterate	115(90.6)	102(80.3)

Literate	12(9.4)	25(19.7)

Occupation of mother

Housewife	92(72.4)	95(74.8)

Farmer	31(24.4)	30(23.6)

Merchant	4(3.1)	2(0.8)

Age of mothers (years)

<20	5(3.9)	3(2.4)


Method	MDR	AntEpiSeeker	BOOST	MegaSNPHunter	KNN-MDR

Power	N/A	0.65	0.67	0.80	0.74

Corrected power	N/A	0.15	0.28	0.12	0.63

Method	MDR	AntEpiSeeker	BOOST	MegaSNPHunter

Power	N/A	0.65	0.67	0.80

Corrected power	N/A	0.15	0.28	0.12


Ricketts analysis	Pretreatment (16 years, 4 months)	Posttreatment (19 years, 8 months)

Norm	Value	Deviation	Norm	Value	Deviation

Cranial relations

 Facial axis (°)	90 ± 3.5	88.4	vertical growth type	90 ± 3.5	89.0	dolichofacial face type

 Mandibular plane (°)	23.6 ± 4	34.0	29.6 ± 4	29.9

 Mandibular arc (°)	26 ± 4	30.1	27.7 ± 4	26.4

 Lower facial height (°)	45 ± 4	54.1	45 ± 4	58.1

 Maxillary depth (°)	90 ± 3	87.4	maxilla ortho- to retrognathic	90 ± 3	89.7	maxilla orthognathic

 SN-Palatal plane (°)	7.3 ± 3	−3.3	anterior rotation of maxilla	7.3 ± 3	−1.2	less anterior rotation of maxilla

 Facial (angle) depth (°)	89.4 ± 3	84.6	mandible prognathic	90.6 ± 3	85.7	mandible prognathic

 Facial taper	68 ± 3	61.4	posterior rotation of mandible	68 ± 3	64.4	less posterior rotation of mandible

 Convexity of point A (mm)	−0.4 ± 2	2.6	slight skeletal class III	−1.6 ± 2	3.8	skeletal class III

Denture Relations

 Upper incisor to A-Pog (mm)	3.5 ± 2	10.7	distinctly protruded	3.5 ± 2	9.6	slightly less protruded

 Upper incisor to FH (°)	111 ± 4	105.5	slightly retroinclined	111 ± 4	107.4	normally inclined

 Upper molar to PtV(mm)	19.3 ± 1	15.2	upper dental arch retruded	22.7 ± 1	18.3	upper dental arch retruded

 Lower incisor to A-Pog (mm)	1 ± 2	6.5	distinctly protruded	1 ± 2	7.1	distinctly protruded

 Lower incisor inclination (°)	22 ± 4	24.5	normally inclined	22 ± 4	23.4	normally inclined

 Interincisal angle (°)	130 ± 6	132.4	normal	130 ± 6	131.8	normal

 Molar relation (mm)	−3.0 ± 2	−2.6	Angle class I	−3.0 ± 2	−1.1	Angle class I

 Incisor Overjet (mm)	2.5 ± 1	4.6	increased	2.5 ± 1	2.5	normal

 Incisor Overbite (mm)	2.5 ± 1	3.2	increased	2.5 ± 1	2.2	normal

Esthetic Relations

 Lower lip – E-Plane(mm)	−2 ± 2	−3.9	lower lip slightly retruded	< -2 ± 2	−4.3	lower lip slightly retruded

Ricketts analysis	Pretreatment (16 years, 4 months)

Norm

Cranial relations

Facial axis (°)	90 ± 3.5

Mandibular plane (°)	23.6 ± 4

Mandibular arc (°)	26 ± 4

Lower facial height (°)	45 ± 4

Maxillary depth (°)	90 ± 3

SN-Palatal plane (°)	7.3 ± 3

Facial (angle) depth (°)	89.4 ± 3

Facial taper	68 ± 3

Convexity of point A (mm)	−0.4 ± 2

Denture Relations

Upper incisor to A-Pog (mm)	3.5 ± 2

Upper incisor to FH (°)	111 ± 4

Upper molar to PtV(mm)	19.3 ± 1

Lower incisor to A-Pog (mm)	1 ± 2

Lower incisor inclination (°)	22 ± 4

Interincisal angle (°)	130 ± 6

Molar relation (mm)	−3.0 ± 2

Incisor Overjet (mm)	2.5 ± 1

Incisor Overbite (mm)	2.5 ± 1

Esthetic Relations

Lower lip – E-Plane(mm)	−2 ± 2

Pretreatment (16 years, 4 months)	Posttreatment (19 years, 8 months)

Value	Deviation	Norm	Value	Deviation

Cranial relations

88.4	vertical growth type	90 ± 3.5	89.0	dolichofacial face type

34.0	29.6 ± 4	29.9

30.1	27.7 ± 4	26.4

54.1	45 ± 4	58.1

87.4	maxilla ortho- to retrognathic	90 ± 3	89.7	maxilla orthognathic

−3.3	anterior rotation of maxilla	7.3 ± 3	−1.2	less anterior rotation of maxilla

84.6	mandible prognathic	90.6 ± 3	85.7	mandible prognathic

61.4	posterior rotation of mandible	68 ± 3	64.4	less posterior rotation of mandible

2.6	slight skeletal class III	−1.6 ± 2	3.8	skeletal class III

Denture Relations

10.7	distinctly protruded	3.5 ± 2	9.6	slightly less protruded

105.5	slightly retroinclined	111 ± 4	107.4	normally inclined

15.2	upper dental arch retruded	22.7 ± 1	18.3	upper dental arch retruded

6.5	distinctly protruded	1 ± 2	7.1	distinctly protruded

24.5	normally inclined	22 ± 4	23.4	normally inclined

132.4	normal	130 ± 6	131.8	normal

−2.6	Angle class I	−3.0 ± 2	−1.1	Angle class I

4.6	increased	2.5 ± 1	2.5	normal

3.2	increased	2.5 ± 1	2.2	normal

Esthetic Relations

−3.9	lower lip slightly retruded	< -2 ± 2	−4.3	lower lip slightly retruded


Author	Year, Country	Investigation period	No. of colic cases	Distribution of cases	Cases euthanized or dead %	Short-term survival rates (%)

 	Medical %	Surgical %	Without any treatment	Medical cases	Cases undergoing surgery

 	During surgery	After recovery	Overall	Medically treated cases	Surgically treated cases

[3]	1989, USA	1974-1984	320	41	59	16	6	31	25	59	94	44

[7]	2005, Germany	1990-1997	1431	80	20	*	7	35	16	84	93	49

[5]	2003, The Netherlands	1999-2000	649	64	36	8	15	26	21	69	85	54

[6]	2005, Canada	1992-2002	604	54	46	21	6	26	14	66	94	60

[8]	2009, Israel	2003-2006	208	30	70	6	8**	34	71	92	66

[9]	2009, South Africa	1998-2007	929	60	40	3	7	21	13	79	93	66

UHLA***	2013, Denmark	2000-2009	1588	69	31	10	13	44	14	68	87	42

Author	Year, Country	Investigation period	No. of colic cases	Distribution of cases	Cases euthanized or dead %	Short-term survival rates (%)

	Medical %	Surgical %	Without any treatment	Medical cases	Cases undergoing surgery

	During surgery	After recovery	Overall	Medically treated cases	Surgically treated cases

[3]	1989, USA	1974-1984	320	41	59	16	6	31	25	59	94	44

[7]	2005, Germany	1990-1997	1431	80	20	*	7	35	16	84	93	49

[5]	2003, The Netherlands	1999-2000	649	64	36	8	15	26	21	69	85	54

[6]	2005, Canada	1992-2002	604	54	46	21	6	26	14	66	94	60

[8]	2009, Israel	2003-2006	208	30	70	6	8**	34	71	92	66

[	2009, 	1998-2007		60	4		7	21		79	93

Author	Year, Country	Investigation period	No. of colic cases	Distribution of cases	Cases euthanized or dead %	Short-term survival rates (%)

	Medical %	Surgical %	Without any treatment	Medical cases	Cases undergoing surgery

	During surgery	After recovery	Overall	Medically treated cases	Surgically treated cases

9]	South Africa		929		0	3			13			66

UHLA***	2013, Denmark	2000-2009	1588	69	31	10	13	44	14	68	87	42


Place, author's and years of Examination	Prevalence of schistosomiasis

Schistosoma haematobium %	Schistosoma mansoni %

This study

Before mass treatment 2002	13.6	36.3

After mass treatment 2008	18.6	31.0

Mali (Clements et al.) (26)

Before mass treatment (1989)	25.7	7.4

After mass treatment (2006)	38.3	6.7

Mali (Landoure A et al.) (27)

Before mass treatment (2004)	88.0	17.0

After mass treatment (2010)	61.0	12.0

Tanzania (Poggensee G et al.) (28)

Before mass treatment 1996	36.7	22.9

After mass treatment 2002	33.6	00.7

Place, author's and years of Examination	Prevalence of schistosomiasis

Schistosoma haematobium %	Schistosoma mansoni %

Before mass treatment (1989)	25.7	7.4

After mass treatment (2006)	38.3	6.7

Mali (Landoure A et al.) (27)

Before mass treatment (2004)	88.0	17.0

After mass treatment (2010)	61.0	12.0

Tanzania (Poggensee G et al.) (28)

Before mass treatment 1996	36.7	22.9

After mass treatment 2002	33.6	00.7


Cigarettes: ‘surgeon general’s warning’	Smokeless tobacco: ‘warning’

Smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and may complicate pregnancy	This product may cause mouth cancer

Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health	This product may cause gum disease and tooth loss

Smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury, premature birth, and low birth weight	Proposed: this product contains nicotine and is addictive

Cigarette smoke contains carbon monoxide	Compromise: this product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes


Primer Name	Sequence	Gene

CSnmrAF	AGTAGGGTAGGCAGCATCCA	Check for PC-06 (NmrA)

CSnmrAR	GCGCACTATTTCTGAGCAGC	Check for PC-06

pen1	ATGTCCAGATCCCTAACCCAC	Screen for penP deletion

pen2	CATAATTGGGGTCACCTGATG	Screen for penP deletion

CSpenCF	CGTCGACAGAATCTCCAGCT	Check for penC

CSpenCR	TCATCCATCACACCGCGATT	Check for penC

CSjanCF	GGGGAAGGTAGCCATGCTTT	Check for janC

CSjanCR	TGCGGATATTACGAGGCGAC	Check for janC

jan1	CCAATGTTAGAGTCCCAACG	Screen for jan P deletion

jan2	GTCGTATACTCCCCGACATG	Screen for jan P deletion

CSP450F	ACGGTCACGGTCAAGTCTTC	Check for PJ-13 (P450)

CSP450R	CGTTACAGGGCCGGGTATTT	Check for PJ-13 (P450)

CSjanQF	TACAGGCCAGCTCTTCAACC	Check for janQ

CSjanQR	TCGGACATCTTTCGCACCAA	Check for janQ

CS janD intF	GGACTTACAAGGCTTTCGCA	Screen for janD deletion

CS janD intR	ACGCTTAAAGCCCAGAAACA	Screen for janD deletion

CSFADF	CTTCCTCGTGCCCTTGACAT	Check for janO (FAD)

CSFADR	GACCATGCTGTACCGAACGT	Check for janO (FAD)

Primer Name	Sequence	Gene

CSnmrAF	AGTAGGGTAGGCAGCATCCA	Check for PC-06 (NmrA)

CSnmrAR	GCGCACTATTTCTGAGCAGC	Check for PC-06

pen1	ATGTCCAGATCCCTAACCCAC	Screen for penP deletion

pen2	CATAATTGGGGTCACCTGATG	Screen for penP deletion

CSpenCF	CGTCGACAGAATCTCCAGCT	Check for penC

CSpenCR	TCATCCATCACACCGCGATT	Check for penC

CSjanCF	GGGGAAGGTAGCCATGCTTT	Check for janC

CSjanCR	TGCGGATATTACGAGGCGAC	Check for janC

jan1	CCAATGTTAGAGTCCCAACG	Screen for jan P deletion

jan2	GTCGTATACTCCCCGACATG	Screen for jan P deletion

CSP450F	ACGGTCACGGTCAAGTCTTC	Check for PJ-13 (P450)

CSP450R	CGTTACAGGGCCGGGTATTT	Check for PJ-13 (P450)

CSjanQF	TACAGGCCAGCTCTTCAACC	Check for janQ

CSjanQR	TCGGACATCTTTCGCACCAA	Check for janQ

CS janD intF	GGACTTACAAGGCTTTCGCA	Screen for janD deletion

CS janD intR	ACGCTTAAAGCCCAGAAACA	Screen for janD deletion

C	CT	Check

Primer Name	Sequence	Gene

SFADF	TCCTCGTGCCCTTGACAT	 for janO (FAD)

CSFADR	GACCATGCTGTACCGAACGT	Check for janO (FAD)


Translocation	Translocation partner	ATRA response

t(11;17) (q23;q21) [5]	PLZF (promyelocytic leukaemia zinc finger protein)	Resistant

t(5;17) (q35;q21) [6]	NPM (nucleophosmin)	Sensitive

t(11;17) (q13;q21) [7]	NUMA (nuclear mitotic apparatus)	Sensitive

der(17) [8]	STAT5b (signal transducer and activator of transcription)	Resistant

t(3;15) (q26;q13) (present case)		Sensitive

Translocation	Translocation partner	ATRA response

t(5;17) (q35;q21) [6]	NPM (nucleophosmin)	Sensitive

t(11;17) (q13;q21) [7]	NUMA (nuclear mitotic apparatus)	Sensitive

der(17) [8]	STAT5b (signal transducer and activator of transcription)	Resistant

t(3;15) (q26;q13) (present case)		Sensitive


N = 1094	Total	Males (n = 506)	Females (n = 588)	χ2


1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction?There should be at least two independent data extractors and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g. Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g. age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e. Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e. is it sensible to combine?).	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test).	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

11. Was the conflict of interest stated?Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

1. Was an 'a priori' design provided?The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g. Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion?The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language etc.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?A list of included and excluded studies should be provided.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed e.g. age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?'A priori' methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions?The results of the methodological rigor and scientific quality should be considered in the analysis and the conclusions of the review, and explicitly stated in formulating recommendations.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?For the pooled results, a test should be done to ensure the studies were combinable, to assess their homogeneity (i.e. Chi-squared test for homogeneity, I2). If heterogeneity exists a random effects model should be used and/or the clinical appropriateness of combining should be taken into consideration (i.e. is it sensible to combine?).	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?An assessment of publication bias should include a combination of graphical aids (e.g., funnel plot, other available tests) and/or statistical tests (e.g., Egger regression test).	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable

11. Was the conflict of interest stated?Potential sources of support should be clearly acknowledged in both the systematic review and the included studies.	□ Yes□ No□ Can't answer□ Not applicable


Nutrient	Amount (DM)

Crude protein	76.9%

Crude fat	1.9%

Ca	12.31%

P	1.03%

Na	4.09%

K	0.3%

Mg	2.08%

S	0.24%

Mn	615 ppm

Zn	924 ppm

Cu	308 ppm

Co	26 ppm

I	87 ppm

Se	6–8 ppm

Vitamin A	90,200 IU/kg

Vitamin D	9020 IU/kg

Vitamin E	226 IU/kg

Rumensin® 0.68 g/kg	616 g/t

Tylan ® 0.14 g/kg	123 g/t

Nutrient

Crude protein

Crude fat

Ca

P

Na

K

Mg

S

Mn

Zn

Cu

Co

I

Se

Vitamin A

Vitamin D

Vitamin E

Rumensin® 0.68 g/kg

Tylan ® 0.14 g/kg


#	m/z	z	m	Sequence proposal	Alignment	Protein homologue

1	1185.6	3	3553.8	SNVLYGPDTPTLSQSLGNS	Query: NVLYGPDTPTLSQS	CEACAM8

					NVLYGPD PT+S S	P31997

					Sbjct: NVLYGPDAPTISPS	H. sapiens

2	693.3	3	2076.9	BXXTVESVPPNAAEGKDALLR	Query: TVESVPPNAAEGKDALL	CEACAM8

	1039	2			T+E VP NAAEGK+ LL	P31997

					Sbjct: TIEAVPSNAAEGKEVLL	H. sapiens

3	553.2	2	1104.4	BVTTPGPAYSGR	Query: TPGPAYSGR	CEACAM8

					TPGPAYS R	P31997

					Sbjct: TPGPAYSNR	H. sapiens

4	656.8	4	2623.2	B [VL]LPGDTASLTWFK [W/GE/AD/SV]TVLPXXK	Query: WFKGETV	CEACAM8

	875.4	3			W+KGETV	P31997

					Sbjct: WYKGETV	H. sapiens

5	539.2	2	1076.4	BLLLYVLDTK	Query: BLLLYVLDT	Q9NOP7

					+++ YV+ T	CEA protein

					Sbjct: RIIGYVIAT	P. hamadryas

6	425.2	2	848.4	BFETALLR	No match

7	386.2	2	770.4	BTVPDSPR	No match


	Nutritional factors	Chick -starter diet	Chick-Grower diet

1.	ME* Kcal/ kg	2915	2915

2.	Crude protein %	17.50	15.00

3.	Fat %	3-4	3-4

4.	Fibre %	3-4	3-4

5.	Lysine %	0.70	0.75

6.	Methionine %	0.40	0.35

7.	Calcium %	1.00	1.00

8.	Total Phosphorus %	0.70	0.60

9.	Vitamin A (I.U.)	4550	4450

10.	Vitamin D (I.U.)	1600	1600

11.	Vitamin E (I.U.)	15.0	15.0

12.	Vitamin K (mg)	1.00	1.00

13.	Choline (mg)	45.0	45.0

14.	Linoleic acid %	1.00	1.00

	Nutritional factors	Chick -starter diet

1.	ME* Kcal/ kg	2915

2.	Crude protein %	17.50

3.	Fat %	3-4

4.	Fibre %	3-4

5.	Lysine %	0.70

6.	Methionine %	0.40

7.	Calcium %	1.00

8.	Total Phosphorus %	0.70

9.	Vitamin A (I.U.)	4550

10.	Vitamin D (I.U.)	1600

11.	Vitamin E (I.U.)	15.0

12.	Vitamin K (mg)	1.00

13.	Choline (mg)	45.0

14.	Linoleic acid %	1.00


	Pharmacist	PMV

Any FP training	No FP training	Any FP training	No FP training

Male condom	172	0.9	238	0.9	213	0.9*	261	0.8

Pill	148	1.6	170	1.4	153	1.9	160	1.7

EC	127	1.3	165	1.2	89	1.4**	94	1.0

Injectable	130	1.5	159	1.5	na	na	na	na

Totala		3.8		3.5		4.2		3.5


Assumptions	Justification

66.45% of standard care monitoring occurs in primary care with practice nurses	Based on previous TAR (manufacturers submission for TA256)70

60% of the cohort have atrial fibrillation, 40% have an artificial heart valve	In line with the observed proportions of patients with these conditions in self-monitoring trials68

Average age of the cohort is 65 years, and 55% are male	In line with the observed mean age of included patients with these conditions in self-monitoring trials68

50% of self-monitoring people self-test, 50% self-manage	Self- assumption

The increase in the number of tests performed per year with self-monitoring is 23	In line with the observed frequency of self-testing in self-monitoring trials68

Relative treatment effects are estimated and applied separately for self-testing and self-management	Derived from the observed event rates in cohorts of people being managed under current standard models of care. Relative risks of these events resulting from improved/reduced INR control, conferred by self-monitoring, were derived from the meta-analysis of RCTs of self-monitoring versus standard practice. (see section on clinical effectiveness results)

15% of participants do not commence self-monitoring following training	Based on the RCT literature43 and the expert advisory committee consultation

10% of participants discontinue self-monitoring within a year of commencing	Based on consideration of the views of the expert advisory committee (∼5%) and a rate of 14% reported in the largest UK-based trial.43

Self-monitoring device costs are annuitized over 5 years to account for the potential for loss and accidental damage	It was assumed that the NHS would pay for devices and loan them out to patients. As such they were annuitized over their expected useful life, to provide an equivalent annual/quarterly cost of use

75% of devices are reused by another patient when a patient discontinues self-monitoring	In line with a previous UK-based economic evaluation71

Assumptions

66.45% of standard care monitoring occurs in primary care with practice nurses

60% of the cohort have atrial fibrillation, 40% have an artificial heart valve

Average age of the cohort is 65 years, and 55% are male

50% of self-monitoring people self-test, 50% self-manage

The increase in the number of tests performed per year with self-monitoring is 23

Relative treatment effects are estimated and applied separately for self-testing and self-management

15% of participants do not commence self-monitoring following training

10% of participants discontinue self-monitoring within a year of commencing

Self-monitoring device costs are annuitized over 5 years to account for the potential for loss and accidental damage

75% of devices are reused by another patient when a patient discontinues self-monitoring

Justification

Based on previous TAR (manufacturers submission for TA256)70

In line with the observed proportions of patients with these conditions in self-monitoring trials68

In line with the observed mean age of included patients with these conditions in self-monitoring trials68

Self- assumption

In line with the observed frequency of self-testing in self-monitoring trials68

Derived from the observed event rates in cohorts of people being managed under current standard models of care. Relative risks of these events resulting from improved/reduced INR control, conferred by self-monitoring, were derived from the meta-analysis of RCTs of self-monitoring versus standard practice. (see section on clinical effectiveness results)

Based on the RCT literature43 and the expert advisory committee consultation

Based on consideration of the views of the expert advisory committee (∼5%) and a rate of 14% reported in the largest UK-based trial.43

It was assumed that the NHS would pay for devices and loan them out to patients. As such they were annuitized over their expected useful life, to provide an equivalent annual/quarterly cost of use

In line with a previous UK-based economic evaluation71


	HR (95% CI)	P

ABDC treatment	3.63 (1.57-8.34)	0.003

Candida spp. load until day 5	1.19 (0.70-2.02)	0.51

Candida spp. load after day 5	0.67 (0.31-1.47)	0.32

Duration of colonization until day 5	0.96 (0.90-1.02)	0.13

Duration of colonization after day 5	0.92 (0.88-0.96)	<0.001


Clinical Features	Colombia	Mexico	Latinos USA (NLAAS)	USA(NCS-R)

	n¥	%(95%CI)*	n¥	%(95%CI)*	n¥	%(95%CI)*	n¥	%(95%CI)*

Recurrent hazard-laden smoking	9	3 (1, 5)	7	3 (<1, 5)	15	6 (3, 9)	59	3 (2, 4)

Social problems	13	5 (2, 7)	8	3 (<1, 5)	5	2 (<1, 3)	27	1 (1, 2)

Continued smoking despite experiencing these problems‡	9	4 (1, 6)	6	2 (<1, 4)	4	2 (<1, 3)	22	1 (1, 2)

Work problems	8	2 (<1, 4)	6	2 (<1, 4)	5	1 (<1, 3)	24	1 (<1, 2)

Legal problems	6	2 (<1, 4)	3	1 (<1, 2)	Not available**	5	Not estimated

Clinical Features	Colombia	Mexico	Latinos USA (NLAAS)	USA(NCS-R)

	n¥	%(95%CI)*	n¥	%(95%CI)*	n¥	%(95%CI)*	n¥	%(95%CI)*

Recurrent hazard-laden smoking	9	3 (1, 5)	7	3 (<1, 5)	15	6 (3, 9)	59	3 (2, 4)

So	13	5 	8	3 (<1, 		2 (<	2	1 (1

Clinical Features	Colombia	Mexico	Latinos USA (NLAAS)	USA(NCS-R)

	n¥	%(95%CI)*	n¥	%(95%CI)*	n¥	%(95%CI)*	n¥	%(95%CI)*

cial problems		(2, 7)		5)	5	1, 3)	7	, 2)

Continued smoking despite experiencing these problems‡	9	4 (1, 6)	6	2 (<1, 4)	4	2 (<1, 3)	22	1 (1, 2)

Work problems	8	2 (<1, 4)	6	2 (<1, 4)	5	1 (<1, 3)	24	1 (<1, 2)

Legal problems	6	2 (<1, 4)	3	1 (<1, 2)	Not available**	5	Not estimated


Persistent Organic Pollutants	∆ cMetS Score	Relative Change of Glucose (%)	Relative Change of HDL−c (%)	Relative Change of TG (%)	Relative Change of SBP (%)	Relative Change of DBP (%)


	ECW	ECS	ECT	NW

ECW	1			0.33

ECS	1	1		0.33

ECT	1	1	1	0.33


Crude plant extracts

HE I

CE I

ME I

CE II

BE II


groups	Rhizoma Coptidis	Radix Scutellariae	Cortex Phellodendri	Fructus Gardeniae

F1	3	2	2	3

F2	6	2	2	3

F3	3	4	4	6

F4	3	4	2	12

F5	3	2	8	6

F6	3	8	4	3

F7	12	4	8	3

F8	6	1	2	6

F9	6	4	1	3


Reagent	AS	DRG	LB	KOH	NP/PEG

Metabolites	Terpenes and steroids	Alkaloids	Triterpenes and steroids	Coumarins and anthraquinones	Flavonoids andphenolic acids	Saponins

L. origanoides leaves

HEFL	++	−	+	+	+	−

DIFL	+	−	+	+	+	−

EAFL	+	−	+	−	++	+

AQFL	+	−	+	−	+	+

L. origanoides stems

HEFS	++	−	+	+	−	−

DIFS	+	−	+	−	+	−

EAFS	+	−	+	−	++	+

AQFS	+	−	+	−	+	+

Reagent	AS	DRG	LB

Metabolites	Terpenes and steroids	Alkaloids	Triterpenes and steroids

L. origanoides leaves

HEFL	++	−	+

DIFL	+	−	+

EAFL	+	−	+

AQFL	+	−	+

L. origanoides stems

HEFS	++	−	+

DIFS	+	−	+

EAFS	+	−	+

AQFS	+	−	+

KOH	NP/PEG

Coumarins and anthraquinones	Flavonoids andphenolic acids	Saponins

L. origanoides leaves

+	+	−

+	+	−

−	++	+

−	+	+

L. origanoides stems

+	−	−

−	+	−

−	++	+

−	+	+


Variable	Patients with vascular events (n = 7)	Patients without vascular events(n = 83)

Age (years), median (IQR) 	47 (31–62)	50 (40–62)

Males, n (%)	4 (57.1%)	43 (51.8%)

Personal history VTE, n (%)	1 (14.3%)	6 (7.2%)

Family history VTE, n (%)	1 (14.3%)	7 (8.4%)

Unprovoked SVT, n (%)	2 (28.6%)	31 (37.4%)

Liver cirrhosis, n (%)	3 (42.9%)	11 (13.3%)

Solid cancer, n (%)	0 (0%)	6 (7.2%)

Myeloproliferative neoplasm, n (%)	1 (14.3%)	6 (7.2%)

Recent abdominal surgery, n (%)	0 (0%)	10 (12.1%)

Hormonal therapy, n (%)*	1 (33.3%)	10 (25.0%)

Inflammatory bowel disease, n (%)	0 (0%)	5 (6.0%)

JAK2 V617F mutation, n (%)**	1 (20.0%)	2 (5.4%)

Factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A mutation, n (%)**	1 (20.0%)	8 (16.0%)

Previous VKA treatment duration (months), median (IQR)	9.9 (3.2–12.9)	12.7 (7.2–24.0)

Time within therapeutic range (%), median (IQR)	68 (67–80)	62 (56–75)

Antiplatelet therapy during follow-up, n (%)	2 (28.6%)	12 (14.5%)


Tests	Patient’s data	Units	Reference ranges

Cortisol dynamic	1 (confirmed twice)	nmol/L

ACTH	46.2	pg/mL	<46.0

Na+	134	mmol/L	136 to 145

K+	4.1	mmol/L	3.3 to 4.8

Cl-	112	mmol/L	98 to 108

Urea	52	mg/dL	12 to 40

Creatinine	2.4	mg/dL	0.7 to 1.2

Ca2+	9.3	mg/dL	8.9 to 10.2

Random glucose	119	mg/dL

Magnesium	2.49	mg/dL	1.7 to 2.55

ALT	5	g/dL	0 to 41

AST	24	U/L	0 to 40

Alkaline phosphatase	53	U/L	40 to 129

Albumin	3.4	g/dL	3.4 to 4.8

Total bilirubin	0.3	mg/dL	0 to 1.0

Tissue transglutaminase	2.7	U/mL	<15

T4	10.6	pmol/L	11.5 to 22.7

T3	2.7	pmol/L	3.5 to 6.5

TSH	10.61	μIU/mL	0.55 to 4.78

ATG	82.5	IU/mL	<100

ATPO	670.7 (+ve)	IU/mL	<50

Anti-adrenal antibodies	Negative	 	<1:10

Blood culture	Negative

Urine culture	Negative

Stool culture	Negative

Tests	Patient’s data	Units	Reference ranges

Cortisol dynamic	1 (confirmed twice)	nmol/L

ACTH	46.2	pg/mL	<46.0

Na+	134	mmol/L	136 to 145

K+	4.1	mmol/L	3.3 to 4.8

Cl-	112	mmol/L	98 to 108

Urea	52	mg/dL	12 to 40

Creatinine	2.4	mg/dL	0.7 to 1.2

Ca2+	9.3	mg/dL	8.9 to 10.2

Random glucose	119	mg/dL

Magnesium	2.49	mg/dL	1.7 to 2.55

ALT	5	g/dL	0 to 41

AST	24	U/L	0 to 40

Alkaline phosphatase	53	U/L	40 to 129

Albumin	3.4	g/dL	3.4 to 4.8

Total bilirubin	0.3	mg/dL	0 to 1.0

Tissue transglutaminase	2.7	U/mL	<15

T4	10.6	pmol/L	11.5 to 22.7

T3	2.7	pmol/L	3.5 to 6.5

TSH	10.61	μIU/mL	0.55 to 4.78

ATG	82.5	IU/mL	<100

ATPO	670.7 (+ve)	IU/mL	<50

Anti-adrenal 	Negat		<1:

antibodies	ive		10

Blood culture	Negative

Urine culture	Negative

Stool culture	Negative


Variable	Company	Prestudy period(n = 166/133)c	Study period(n = 174/144)c	Age-adjusted HR(95% CI)	HR adjusted modeld(95% CI)

		Number	Incidence	Number	Incidence

Acute injuries, all	Int	83	3.37	60	2.47	0.77 (0.42 to 1.39)	0.79 (0.41 to 1.51)

	Ctrl	58	3.63	63	3.21

Lower extremity	Int	53	2.15	32	1.32	0.84 (0.40 to 1.78)	0.86 (0.38 to 1.92)


Food item	Adjusted OR* (95 % CI)	P value

Cold appetizer—pork liver	3.23 (1.26–8.30)	0.01

Lamb chops, carrots, radish wrapped in lotus leaves	3.98 (1.74–9.11)	0.001


Diet	Echolocation Call Type	Bat Species

Fruits	Broadband clicks of short duration	Egyptian fruit bat

Moths, beetles, flies and other insects	Narrowband with dominant fundamental harmonic	Eastern red bat

Flying insects and small fruits	Multiharmonic narrowband, faintly audible to humans	Black-bearded tomb bat

Aquatic insects like midges, crane flies and black flies	Short, broadband, with dominant fundamental harmonic	Daubenton’s bat

Large insects, spiders and small vertebrates	Short, multiharmonic broadband	Greater false vampire bat

Moths	Long, multiharmonic broadband	Madagascar sucker-footed bat

Butterfly, moths and beetles	Constant frequency (CF) & Frequency Modulated (FM)	Greater horseshoe bat

Beetles, moths, flies, wasps, and flying ants 	Downswept FM narrowband	Big brown bat

Beetles, moths, flies, and small insects	FM broadband	Townsend’s big-eared bat

Diet	Echolocation Call Type	Bat Species

Fr	Broadband 	Egyptian fruit

uits	clicks of short duration	bat

Moths, beetles, flies and other insects	Narrowband with dominant fundamental harmonic	Eastern red bat

Flying insects and small fruits	Multiharmonic narrowband, faintly audible to humans	Black-bearded tomb bat

Aquatic insects like midges, crane flies and black flies	Short, broadband, with dominant fundamental harmonic	Daubenton’s bat

Large insects, spiders and small vertebrates	Short, multiharmonic broadband	Greater false vampire bat

Moths	Long, multiharmonic broadband	Madagascar sucker-footed bat

Butterfly, moths and beetles	Constant frequency (CF) & Frequency Modulated (FM)	Greater horseshoe bat

Beetles, moths, flies, wasps, and flying ants	Downswept FM narrowband	Big brown bat

Beetles, moths, flies, and small insects	FM broadband	Townsend’s big-eared bat


	Control	Mild	Moderate to severe

	(n = 6	(n = 	(n = 10


Variables	Univariate	Multivariate

P value	P value	OR (95% CI)

Control group

 Age, y	0.041	0.125

 Female sex	0.463

 AF duration, months	0.008	0.016	1.013 (1.002–1.023)

 NYHA class	0.094	0.130

 Diabetes	0.127	0.394

 Hypertension	0.250

 LAD, mm	0.114	0.246

Long duration group

 Age, y	0.594

 Female sex	0.424

 AF duration, months	0.064	0.049	1.007 (1.001–1.013)

 NYHA class	0.397

 Diabetes	0.205	0.084

 Hypertension	0.044	0.008	1.062 (1.016–1.110)

 LAD, mm	0.310

Variables	Univariate	Multivariate

P value	P value	OR (95% CI)

NYHA class	0.094	0.130

Diabetes	0.127	0.394

Hypertension	0.250

LAD, mm	0.114	0.246

Long duration group

Age, y	0.594

Female sex	0.424

AF duration, months	0.064	0.049	1.007 (1.001–1.013)

NYHA class	0.397

Diabetes	0.205	0.084

Hypertension	0.044	0.008	1.062 (1.016–1.110)

LAD, mm	0.310


No.	Name	Country	Year	Accession Number

1	CH-1a	China	1996	AY032626

2	BJ-4	China	2000	AF331831

3	HB-1(sh)/2002	China	2002	AY150312

4	JXA1	China	2006	EF112445

5	HUB2	China	2006	EF112446

6	HuN4	China	2007	EF635006

7	SY0608	China	2007	EU144079

No.	Name	Country	Year	Accession Number

8	CH-1R	China	2008	EU807840

9	HB-1	China	2008	EU360130

10	WUH4	China	2011	JQ326271

11	QYYZ	China	2011	JQ308798

12	SD16	China	2012	JX087437

13	JXA1-R	China	2012	JQ804986

14	HEB-2013	China	2013	KJ591659

15	HB-XL	China	2013	KP162169

16	LMY	South Korea	2002	DQ473474

17	VR-2332	USA	1992	AY150564

18	EuroPRRSV	USA	1999	AY366525

19	RespPRRS MLV	USA	1994	AF066183

20	Lelystad virus	Europe	1991	M96262


	Sensitivity (95% CI)	Specificity (95% CI)	Positive predictive value (95% CI)	Negative predictive value (95% CI)

G	1	0 (	18.3 	-


Parameter	MEAN	STD	MIN	MAX

ACCX [g]	0.09	0.20	−0.95	0.59


Characteristic	Control (n = 62)	Template-developed (n = 68)	Bespoke user-tested (n = 63)	Total (n = 193)

Gender, n (%)


perineal laceration	/369 (1.4)	– 1.91)	*


Gene Expression	Normal-Weight Control (n = 10)	Morbidly Obese (n = 30)

VAT	SAT	VAT	SAT

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

Resistin	0.008 ± 0.004	0.016 ± 0.005	0.030 ± 0.02 *	0.030 ± 0.02


Sample	Chemical Composition (in wt %)

Ni	Ti	Al

NiTi46	54.0	46.0	-

NiTiAl1	53.5	45.5	1.0

NiTiAl3	52.4	44.6	3.0

NiTiAl5	51.3	43.7	5.0

NiTiAl7	50.2	42.8	7.0


Surgical procedure classification (three-character ICD 10 code)	Number of hospital discharges	Number of adverse events (%)	Degree of disability (no. of patients)

			Sick leave ≤ 3 months	1-15%	16-30%	> 30%	Death

Primary prosthetic replacement of hip joint (NFB**)	50,733	304 (0.6)	18	259	22	4	1

Primary prosthetic replacement of knee joint (NGB**)	23,600	187 (0.8)	12	163	9	2	1

Decompression of spinal cord and nerve roots (ABC**)	17,507	168 (1.0)	12	120	12	22	2

Fracture surgery of femur (NFJ**)	68,123	105 (0.2)	9	80	14	1	1

Fracture surgery of ankle and foot femur (NHJ**)	22,490	103 (0.5)	8	92	2	2	0

Fracture surgery of knee and lower leg (NGJ**)	12,594	92 (0.7)	5	84	3	0	0

Surgical procedure classification (three-character ICD 10 code)	Number of hospital discharges	Number of adverse events (%)	Degree of disability (no. of patients)

			Sick leave ≤ 3 months	1-15%	16-30%	> 30%	Death

Fracture surgery of knee and lower leg (NGJ**)	12,594	92 (0.7)	5	84	3	0	0


Simulation Parameters	Value

map dimension	2 km × 1.5 km

Simulation time	1000 sec

Vehicle speed	0–15 m/s

Velocity threshold	7 m/s

MAC/PHY	IEEE 802.11p

Vehicle density	100–500

Route generator	SUMO

Simulation Parameters

map dimension

Simulation time

Vehicle speed

Velocity threshold

MAC/PHY

Vehicle density

Route generator

Value

2 km × 1.5 km

1000 sec

0–15 m/s

7 m/s

IEEE 802.11p

100–500

SUMO


	HFNO group	Venturi mask group	P value

(n = 52)	(n = 48)

Primary endpoint

 Number (%) of patients requiring mechanical ventilation	8 (15 %)	4 (8 %)	0.36

Noninvasive mechanical ventilation	6a	3a

Invasive mechanical ventilation	4	2

Secondary endpoints, median [25th–75th percentile]

 Discomfort VAS scoreb at 120 min	3 [1–5]	3 [0–5]	0.88

 Dyspnea VAS scoreb at 120 min	3 [2 – 6]	3 [1–6]	0.87

 Thirst VAS scoreb at 120 min	6 [3–8]	6 [5 – 9]	0.40

 Respiratory rate at 120 min, breaths/min	25 [22–29]	25 [21–31]

 Heart rate at 120 min, beats/min	98 [90–110]	99 [83–112]	0.43

	HFNO group	Venturi mask group	P value

(n = 52)	(n = 48)

Primary endpoint

Number (%) 	8 (1	4 (8	0.3

of patients requiring mechanical ventilation	5 %)	 %)	6

Noninvasive mechanical ventilation	6a	3a

Invasive mechanical ventilation	4	2

Secondary endpoints, median [25th–75th percentile]

Discomfort VAS scoreb at 120 min	3 [1–5]	3 [0–5]	0.88

Dyspnea VAS scoreb at 120 min	3 [2 – 6]	3 [1–6]	0.87

Thirst VAS scoreb at 120 min	6 [3–8]	6 [5 – 9]	0.40

Respiratory rate at 120 min, breaths/min	25 [22–29]	25 [21–31]

Heart rate at 120 min, beats/min	98 [90–110]	99 [83–112]	0.43


Gene-set ID	Gene-set Description	Gene N#

hi015	Predicted haploinsufficiency (most inclusive)	8862

hi035	Predicted haploinsufficiency	4136

hi055	Predicted haploinsufficiency (most stringent)	2214

ExpsNov_BrainFeAd_sp	Specific expression in human adult or fetal brain (Novartis Tissue Atlas)	1285

Synapse_GrantFull	Post-synaptic density components	1407

FMR1_Targets_Darnell	FMR1 targets (Darnell et al)	840

FMR1_Targets_Ascano	FMR1 targets (Ascano et al)	927

thrEXPR_log2rpkm	Expressed in brain (BrainSpan)	13802

thr4.86_log2rpkm	Expressed in brain, very high (BrainSpan)	4595

thr3.32_log2rpkm	Expressed in brain, high/medium (BrainSpan)	4604

thr0.84_log2rpkm	Expressed in brain, medium/low (BrainSpan)	4603

thr.MIN_log2rpkm	Not expressed in brain (BrainSpan)	4600

PhHs_NervSys_ADX	Human nervous system phenotype (HPO), autosomal dominant or X-linked	620

PhHs_NervSys_All	Human nervous system phenotype (HPO)	784

PhHs_MindFun_ADX	Higher mental function phenotype (HPO), autosomal dominant or X-linked	395

PhHs_MindFun_All	Higher mental function phenotype (HPO)	687

MmHs_Neuro_All	Mouse neuro phenotype (MGI/MPO)	3479

MmHs_Extend_All	Mouse developmental phenotype (MGI/MPO)	4314

NeuroF_large	Neurobiological function, inclusive	2601

NeuroF_small	Neurobiological function, stringent	1088

Total	Total gene count	18203


	P1	N1	P2

	Latency (ms)	Amplitude (microvolts)	Latency (ms)	Amplitude (microvolts)	Latency (ms)	Amplitude (microvolts)

Older nonmusicians	65 (8)	2.02 (1.1)	104 (10)	−0.02 (0.95)	171 (15)	2.0 (1.4)


Variable	Time Period 1: April 6-May 5	Time period 2: Aug 4- Sept 2	Time period 3: Oct 3-Nov 1	Total


Performance objectives	Determinants

Information/knowledge	Self-efficacy/skills

To own LLINs	Explain the benefits of LLINs ownership	Demonstrate how a net should be used

To fight bedbugs	Explain the importance of fighting bedbugs as hindrances of LLINs use	Demonstrate how the technique should be done using hot water and local laundry powder soap (OMO)

To use LLINs every night	Explain the importance of using LLINs every night	Use of LLINs in spite of warm weather or weather changes

To allow IRS at household level	Describe IRS benefits	Allow IRS in master roomAllow IRS in storage rooms

To cover households water collection instruments	Explain how water collection instruments can be a source of mosquito breeding.	Cover water collection instruments every time

To clear mosquito breeding sites surrounding homesteads	Explain the importance of clearing water pits and bushes surrounding the homesteads	Perform regular cleaning activities at household level

To own a health insurance	Describe the importance of a health insurance in prompt health care-seeking	Participate in solidarity groups to enable regular contribution

To provide education on malaria symptoms	Describe common malaria symptoms	Identify common malaria symptoms

To promote early fever/malaria care-seeking (within 24 h)	Describe the importance of early care-seeking	Take a decision of seeking care promptly

To raise community awareness on the importance of diagnostic test before treatment	Describe the importance of a lab confirmed treatment for proper care and prevention of treatment resistance	Seek care at health facility (health centre/hospital)

To raise community awareness on the importance of malaria medication compliance	Describe the importance of treatment compliance to prevent disease relapse and treatment resistance	Adhere to the advice/treatment provided

To ensure proper training before implementation of larval source control	To provide knowledge on mosquito reproduction, malaria preventive measures and larval source control using biological substances	Attend onsite practical training

To adhere to the implementation plan	Discuss how larval source control will be implementedTo explain the use of reporting formats	Participate in actual implementation of larval source control

Performance objectives	Determinants

Information/knowledge	Self-efficacy/skills

To use LLINs every night	Explain the importance of using LLINs every night	Use of LLINs in spite of warm weather or weather changes

To allow IRS at household level	Describe IRS benefits	Allow IRS in master roomAllow IRS in storage rooms

To cover households water collection instruments	Explain how water collection instruments can be a source of mosquito breeding.	Cover water collection instruments every time

To clear mosquito breeding sites surrounding homesteads	Explain the importance of clearing water pits and bushes surrounding the homesteads	Perform regular cleaning activities at household level

To own a health insurance	Describe the importance of a health insurance in prompt health care-seeking	Participate in solidarity groups to enable regular contribution

To provide education on malaria symptoms	Describe common malaria symptoms	Identify common malaria symptoms

To promote early fever/malaria care-seeking (within 24 h)	Describe the importance of early care-seeking	Take a decision of seeking care promptly

To raise community awareness on the importance of diagnostic test before treatment	Describe the importance of a lab confirmed treatment for proper care and prevention of treatment resistance	Seek care at health facility (health centre/hospital)

To raise community awareness on the importance of malaria medication compliance	Describe the importance of treatment compliance to prevent disease relapse and treatment resistance	Adhere to the advice/treatment provided

To ensure proper training before implementation of larval source control	To provide knowledge on mosquito reproduction, malaria preventive measures and larval source control using biological substances	Attend onsite practical training

To adhere to the implementation plan	Discuss how larval source control will be implementedTo explain the use of reporting formats	Participate in actual implementation of larval source control


Company	Founded	Guidance and usage

EDAP TMS	1979	US

SonaCare Medical (previously US-HIFU, International HIFU and Focus Surgery)	1997	US

Chongqing HAIFU	1999	Both

China Medical	1999	US

Insightec	1999	MR

Image Guided Therapy	2001	MR—animals

Shanghai A&S	2001	Both

Mirabilis	2004	US

Theraclion	2004	US

Medsonic	2005	MR

Philips Healthcare	2005	MR

Supersonic Imagine	2005	Both

Profound	2008	MR

EyeTechCare	2008	Visual

Alpinion	2008	US

International Cardio Corporation	2009	US

Kona Medical	2009	US

Histosonic	2009	US

FUS instruments	2009	MR—animals

Acublate	2010	Both

Company	Founded	Guidance and usage

Kona Medical	2009	US

Histosonic	2009	US

FUS instruments	2009	MR—animals

Acublate	2010	Both


Nome	rs	Nucleotide chang	Effec	n	Genotype frequenc	Allele


 	Patients with anti-C1q autoantibodies	Patients without anti-C1q autoantibodies	r value(P value)	Patients with levels of C1q above 40.97 μg/ml	Patients with levels of C1q under 40.97 μg/ml	r value(P value)

Median(range)	Median(range)	Median(range)	Median(range)

Histopathological data

Activity Indices score	9(0,19)	7(0,16)	0.238(<0.001)	4(0,19)	9(0,19)	−0.327(<0.001)

Endocapillary hypercellularity	3(0,3)	2(0,3)	0.249(<0.001)	3(0,3)	1(0,3)	−0.337(<0.001)

Cellular crescents	2(0,6)	0(0,6)	0.167(0.013)	2(0,6)	0(0,6)	−0.182(0.007)

Karyorrhexis/fibrinoid necrosis	2(0,6)	0(0,4)	0.175(0.009)	2(0,6)	0(0,2)	−0.310(<0.001)

Subendothelial hyaline deposits	1(0,3)	1(0,3)	0.171(0.012)	1(0,3)	0(0,3)	−0.312(<0.001)

Interstitial inflammation	1(0,3)	1(0,3)	NS	1(0,3)	1(0,3)	NS

Leukocyte infiltration	1(0,3)	1(0,3)	0.159(0.019)	1(0,3)	1(0,3)	−0.246(<0.001)

Chronicity Indices score	2(0,9)	2(0,10)	NS	2(0,10)	2(0,9)	NS

Glomerular sclerosis	0(0,3)	0(0,3)	NS	0(0,3)	0(0,3)	0.146(0.031)

Fibrous crescents	0(0,3)	0(0,3)	NS	0(0,3)	0(0,2)	NS

Tubular atrophy	1(0,3)	1(0,3)	NS	1(0,3)	1(0,3)	NS

Interstitial fibrosis	1(0,3)	1(0,3)	NS	1(0,3)	1(0,3)	NS


Treatment type	IC50 values (μM)

on HepG2 cells	on A549 cells	on B16 cells

Duopafei®	0.96 ± 0.05	0.74 ± 0.02	0.72 ± 0.10

DTX-micelles	0.34 ± 0.02**	0.44 ± 0.05*	0.49 ± 0.08**

Blank micelles	12.84 ± 0.12	29.62 ± 1.02	13.79 ± 0.24

Tre	IC50 values (μM)

on HepG2	on A549	on B1


	Tusablea

Algorithm	Eight	Eleven	Twelve

Random Tweak	1.99	8.47	10.17


Characteristic	Round 1	Round 2

n-size	n-size

Response rate	46	22

Subjects

Male / Female	30/8	15/6

Location

Europe	18	9

Oceania	8	5

United States	5	4

Caribbean	2	1

Canada	1	-

Africa	1	1

South America	1	1

India	1	-

South East Asia	1	-

Discipline

Public health(incl.epidemiology)	21	11

Law (public health/social justice)	4	3

Geography	3	2

Agriculture	2	2

Transport	2	1

Policy	1	1

Nutrition	1	1

Environmental health	1	-

Planning (urban)	2	-

Economics	1	-

Sector

Academia	22	10

Not-for profit organisation	3	3

Government	12	7

Industry	1	1

Characteristic	Round 1	Round 2

n-size	n-size

Transport	2	1

Policy	1	1

Nutrition	1	1

Environmental health	1	-

Planning (urban)	2	-

Economics	1	-

Sector

Academia	22	10

Not-for profit organisation	3	3

Government	12	7

Industry	1	1


	Crohn's disease	Healthy controls

Number (Male/Female)	16 (7/9)	16 (9/7)

Median [range] age (years)	42 [22-66]	33 [22-62]

Disease location	L1: 2	-

	L2: 6	-

	L3: 8	-

Previous bowel resection	6


	S. aureus isolate

Antibio	#	#	#6		#1	#20


Background characteristics	Percent	Selected independent variables	Percent

Maternal age (years)	27.3 ± 5.5*	Mode of delivery

15–24	38.0	Vaginal delivery	37.4

25–29	34.3	Vaginal delivery + episiotomy	41.3

30–34	16.8	C-section	21.3

35–51	11.0	Brought infant formula to delivery room	21.3

Maternal education	 	Experienced breastfeeding problems	10.6

Primary school or less	11.4	Received breastfeeding support from a family member

Secondary school	48.2	During pregnancy	31.8

High school	24.5	During first 3 days after delivery	31.9

College or higher	15.9	Received breastfeeding support from a health care provider

Female child	48.0	During pregnancy	44.1

Rural area of residence	83.3	During first 3 days after delivery	31.6

SES in quartiles	25.0	Exposure to infant feeding messages on TV in past 30 days

 	 	Saw only breastfeeding information	2.6

 	 	Saw only infant formula advertising	36.5

 	 	Saw both infant formula and breastfeeding advertising	43.3

 	 	Saw neither message	17.6

Background characteristics	Percent	Selected independent variables	Percent

Maternal age (years)	27.3 ± 5.5*	Mode of delivery

15–24	38.0	Vaginal delivery	37.4

25–29	34.3	Vaginal delivery + episiotomy	41.3

30–34	16.8	C-section	21.3

35–51	11.0	Brought infant formula to delivery room	21.3

Maternal education		Experienced breastfeeding problems	10.6

Primary school or less	11.4	Received breastfeeding support from a family member

Secondary school	48.2	During pregnancy	31.8

High school	24.5	During first 3 days after delivery	31.9

College or higher	15.9	Received breastfeeding support from a health care provider

Female c	48.	D	4

hild	0	uring pregnancy	4.1

Rural area of residence	83.3	During first 3 days after delivery	31.6

SES in quartiles	25.0	Exposure to infant feeding messages on TV in past 30 days

		Saw only breastfeeding information	2.6

		Saw only infant formula advertising	36.5

		Saw both infant formula and breastfeeding advertising	43.3

		Saw neither message	17.6


Characteristics	Frequency	%

Gender	Male	230	57.50

Female	170	42.50

Level of selfitis	Borderline	136	34.00

Acute	162	40.50

Chronic	102	25.50

Age	16 to 20 years	224	56.00

21 to 25 years	136	34.00

26 to 30 years	27	06.75

Above 30 years	13	03.25

Number of selfies taken per day	1 to 4 selfies	223	55.75

5 to 8 selfies	141	35.25

More than 8 selfies	36	09.00

Number of postings per day	None	136	34.00

At least one time to three times	162	40.50

More than three times	102	25.50

Characteristics	Frequency

Gender	Male	230

Female	170

Level of selfitis	Borderline	136

Acute	162

Chronic	102

Age	16 to 20 years	224

21 to 25 years	136

26 to 30 years	27

Above 30 years	13

Number of selfies taken per day	1 to 4 selfies	223

5 to 8 selfies	141

More than 8 selfies	36

Number of postings per day	None	136

At least one time to three times	162

More than three times	102


	Baseline	Outcomes

Measure		1 Month	3 Month	6 Month	12 Month

Demographic factors

Age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, employment status, martial/partner status, type of housing	X

Smoking history

Number of cigarettes per day, use of other tobacco products, use of electronic-cigarette, number of years smoking, prior quit attempt, smoker in household, home smoking policy	X

Nicotine dependence (time to first cigarette)	X

Previous cessation medication use	X

Importance in ability to quit	X

Confidence in ability to quit/stay quit	X	X	X	X

Tobacco abstinence status–self-report

Cigarette smoking status	X	X	X	X	X1

Non-cigarette tobacco use status	X	X	X	X	X1

Electronic-cigarette use	X	X	X	X	X1

Tobacco abstinence status–biochemical validation

Saliva cotinine or expired aired CO				X

Quit attempt (>24 hours)	X	X

Hospital admission or emergency room visit		X	X	X

Quality of life (EQ-5D)	X			X

Anxiety and depression symptoms (PHQ-4)	X	X	X	X

Alcohol use (AUDIT-C)	X			X

Other non-tobacco substance use	X

Satisfaction with IVR		X	X

Satisfaction with Quit Coach		X	X

Smoking during index hospital stay		X

Smoking cessation medication used after discharge		X	X	X

Smoking cessation counseling used after discharge		X	X	X

Other smoking cessation programs/resources used		X	X	X


Indicators Groups (IG)	Number of species per IG	Number of grid cells required to represent all species from each IG	Percentage of species represented by IG (%)	Land cost-effective by IG ($)

Brachycephalidae	35	9	63	30,929,850

Bufonidae	33	9	59	30,929,850

Cycloramphidae	41	11	69	37,803,150

Hylidae	184	26	69	89,352,900

Hylodidae	33	13	65	44,676,450

Leiuperidae	31	8	71	27,493,200

Leptodactylidae	30	11	65	37,803,150

Microhylidae	21	8	59	27,493,200

Indicators Groups (IG)	Number of species per IG	Number of grid cells required to represent all species from each IG	Percentage of species represented by IG (%)	Land cost-effective by IG ($)

Brachycephalidae	35	9	63	30,929,850

Bufonidae	33	9	59	30,929,850

Cycloramphidae	41	11	69	37,803,150

Hylidae	184	26	69	89,352,900

Hylodidae	33	13	65	44,676,450

Leiuperidae	31	8	71	27,493,200

L	30	11		3

eptodactylidae			65	7,803,150

Microhylidae	21	8	59	27,493,200


Biochemical category	Disease name	OMIM#	Gene(s)	Treatment	Effect	Level of evidence

Amino acids	PSAT deficiency	610992	PSAT1 (AR)	L-serine & +/−glycine supplements	Primary/targeting underlying pathophysiology	4

	PSPH deficiency (Serine deficiency)	614023	PSPH (AR)	L-serine & +/−glycine supplements	Primary/targeting underlying pathophysiology	4

Creatine	Arginine:glycine amidinotransferase (AGAT) deficiency	612718	GATM (AR)	Creatine supplements	Primary/targeting underlying pathophysiology	4

	Creatine transporter deficiency	300352	SLC6A8 (X-linked)	Creatine, glycine, arginine supplements	Primary/targeting underlying pathophysiology	4

Fatty acid oxidation	Carnitine palmitoyltransferase I deficiency	255120	CPT1A (AR)	Low-fat, high carbohydrate diet, avoid fasting, Medium Chain Triglyceride oil	Stablizilng/preventative treatment	4

Hyperhomocystinuria	Cobalamin deficiencies (e.g., C, D, E, F, G)	251110, 277400, 277410, 236270, 277380	MMACHC, MMADHC, MTRR, LMBRD1, MTR (AR)	Hydroxy-/cyanocobalamin (+/− diet restriction, betaine, B12)	Stabilizing/preventative treatment	4

Lipid storage (Leukodystrophy)	Cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis (CTX)	213700	CYP27A1 (AR)	Chenodeoxycholic acid	Stabilizing/preventative treatment	4

Organic acids	HMG-CoA lyase deficiency	246450	HMGCL (AR)	Protein restriction, avoid fasting, emergency regimen	Stabilizing/preventative treatment	4-5

	mHMG-CoA synthase deficiency	605911	HMGCS2 (AR)	Avoid fasting,emergency regimen, +/−dietary precursor restriction	Stabilizing/preventative treatment	5

	SCOT deficiency	245050	OXCT1 (AR)	Avoid fasting, protein restriction, emergency regimen	Stabilizing/preventative treatment	5

Urea cycle	Carbamoyl phosphate synthetase (CPS) deficiency	237300	CPS1 (AR)	Dietary protein restriction, arginine supplement, sodium benzoate, phenylbutyrate (Liver transplantation)	Stabilizing/preventative treatment (primary/targeting underlying pathophysiology)	2b (4)

	Citrullinemia type I (ASS deficiency)	215700	ASS1 (AR)	Dietary protein restriction, arginine supplement, sodium benzoate, phenylbutyrate (Liver transplantation)	Stabilizing/preventative treatment (primary/targeting underlying pathophysiology)	2b (4)

	N-acetyl-glutamate synthetase deficiency	237310	NAGS (AR)	Dietary protein restriction, arginine supplement, sodium benzoate, phenylbutyrate (Liver transplantation)	Stabilizing/preventative treatment	4


Average percent nucleotide identity (APNI)

Lactobacillus plantarum strains	WJL	WCFS1	ST-III	P-8	NC8	IPLA88	plantarumF

ZJ316	98.8	98.9	98.9	99.1	98.9	99.2	98.9

plantarumF	99.3	99.1	99.3	98.9	99.9	99.1	99.0

IPLA88	99.1	99.3	99.1	98.9	99.1

NC8	99.2	99.1	99.3	98.9

P-8	98.7	98.9	98.9

ST-III	99.6	99.1

WCFS1	98.9

Lactobacillus species	fructivoransF	fructivorans KCTC 3543	brevisF	brevis KB290	brevis EW	brevis ATCC 27305

brevis ATCC 14869	89.4	87.6	99.0	97.7	99.0	88.6

brevis ATCC 27305	87.0	85.3	91.3	92.2	90.0

brevis EW	89.8	88.8	98.7	97.6

brevis KB290	88.7	87.4	97.5

brevisF	89.7	88.3

fructivorans KCTC 3543	97.3

Average percent nucleotide identity (APNI)

Lactobacillus plantarum strains	WJL

ZJ316	98.8

plantarumF	99.3

IPLA88	99.1

NC8	99.2

P-8	98.7

ST-III	99.6

WCFS1	98.9

Lactobacillus species	fructivoransF

brevis ATCC 14869	89.4

brevis ATCC 27305	87.0

brevis EW	89.8

brevis KB290	88.7

brevisF	89.7

fructivorans KCTC 3543	97.3


Name gene	Oligo direct	Oligo reverse	PCR conditions	Cycle number	GeneInfo identifier

18S	CTACCACATCCAAGGAAGGCA	TTTTTCGTCACTACCTCCCCG	95°C 15 sec	35	124517659

67°C 30 sec

ERK1	CTAAAGCCCTCCAACCTGCT	CAGCCCACAGACCAGATGT	95°C 15 sec	45	158138506

60°C 30 sec

STAT3	AAAGTCAGGTTGCTGGTCAAA	TGCCGTTGTTGGATTCTTC	95°C 15 sec	45	76253927

60°C 30 sec

Name gene	Oligo direct	Oligo reverse

18S	CTACCACATCCAAGGAAGGCA	TTTTTCGTCACTACCTCCCCG

ERK1	CTAAAGCCCTCCAACCTGCT	CAGCCCACAGACCAGATGT

STAT3	AAAGTCAGGTTGCTGGTCAAA	TGCCGTTGTTGGATTCTTC

PCR conditions	Cycle number	GeneInfo identifier

95°C 15 sec	35	124517659

67°C 30 sec

95°C 15 sec	45	158138506

60°C 30 sec

95°C 15 sec	45	76253927

60°C 30 sec


Region	x	y	z	tpeak	pcorr(puncorr)

TEMPORALLY STABLE EFFECTS: POST-REAL rTMS > POST-SHAM rTMS

Haptic S2—crossmodal: VHi

No significant results

Haptic S2—unimodal: HHi

No significant results

Visual S2—crossmodal: HVi

No significant results

Visual S2—unimodal: VVi	>haptic S2

L FG	−33	−43	−26	2.70	0.051§	0.289§

L pIPS	−30	−64	55	2.91	0.034§	0.192§

LINEAR TIME DEPENDENT EFFECTS: POST-REAL rTMS > POST-SHAM rTMS

Haptic S2—crossmodal: VHi × time > visual S2	>visual S2

L parahippocampus / FG	−36	−16	−20	5.69	0.001	(<0.001)

R middle frontal gyrus	39	−4	61	5.46	0.004	0.014

R superior frontal gyrus	27	5	64	5.13	0.013	(<0.001)

R anterior parahippocampus	24	−1	−26	5.28	0.007

L pSTS/MTG	−48	−73	13	5.14	0.013	(<0.001)

R pSTS/MTG	42	−70	10	4.66	(<0.001)	(<0.001)

R LO	48	−73	−2	3.56	0.006§	0.024§

L aIPS	−36	−37	37	3.55	0.006§	0.002§

L pIPS	−21	−67	49	3.65	0.005§	0.001§

R pIPS	27	−61	46	2.99	0.026§	0.017§

Haptic S2—unimodal: HHi × time

No significant results

Visual S2—crossmodal: VHi × time

No significant results

Visual S2—unimodal: VVi × time

No significant results


	Algorithm 1	Algorithm 2	Algorithm 3	Algorithm 4

Descriptor elements count	avg.	std. dev.	avg.	std. dev.	avg.	std. dev.	avg.	std. dev.

3	4.3	0.5	7.8	0.5	9.4	0.5	5.3	0.5

4	5.3	0.6	8.9	0.7	15.1	0.9	7.0	1.3


Concentration (mg/mL)	The ratio of green and red fluorescence

Control	1.332 ± 0.045

0.005	1.420 ± 0.042∗∗

0.025	1.088 ± 0.037∗∗

0.1	0.801 ± 0.042∗∗

Positive control	0.477 ± 0.033∗∗

Concentration (mg/mL)

Control

0.005

0.025

0.1

Positive control


Clinical Variables	ET (n = 50)	ScT (n = 51)

Gestational age, wks, median (IQR)	28 (26–31)	26 (24–29)

Birth weight, g, median (IQR)	1060 (770–2000)	750 (580–1100)

≤1000 g, n (%)	23 (46)	37 (72.5)

1001–1500 g, n (%)	11 (22)	5 (5.8)

>1500 g, n (%)	16 (32)	9 (17.6)

SGA, n (%)	5 (10)	13 (25.5)

Inborn, n (%)	44 (88)	44 (86.3)

Twin, n (%)	14 (28)	11 (21.6)

Male, n (%)	31 (62)	33 (64.7)

Apgar 1 min, median (IQR)	5 (2–7)	5 (2–6)

Apgar 5 min, median (IQR)	8 (7–8)	7 (7–8)

Resuscitation in delivery room, n (%) 1	42 (84)	45 (88.2)

Early-onset sepsis, n (%)	27	14

Late-onset sepsis, n (%)	23	37

Age at sepsis evaluation, d, median (IQR)	2 (0–11)	9 (3–22)

Weight at sepsis evaluation, g, median (IQR)	1212.5 (820–1960)	880 (600–1610)

Time between sepsis and septic shock, h, median (IQR)	4.5 (3–10)	13 (5–29)

Time between septic shock and ET, h, median (IQR)	7 (4–18)	NA


Sample	Metal organic line pressure (Torr)	Nanowire diameter (nm)	Gate-to-nanowire distance (nm)	Gate length (nm)	Source-to-drain distance (nm)

a	0	29	120	750	1,200

b	0.05	33	140	700	1,200

c	0.1	39	140	750	1,250

d	0.2	40	160	870	1,400

e	0.4	80	140	1,700	2,500

Sample	Metal organic line pressure (Torr)	Nanowire diameter (nm)	Gate-to-nanowire distance (nm)	Gate length (nm)	Source-to-drain distance (nm)

e	0.4	80	140	1,700	2,500


Genea	Reference (PubMedID)	Affected in	Peak length (bp)	Peak to transcription start site (bp)	Promoter class

Nos1	20645313	Hippocampus	334	-3,719	LCP

Map6	16624526	Hippocampus	169	-2,382	ICP

Drd5	11304828	Hippocampus	844	41	HCP

Cacna1c	23183239	Hippocampus	425	-3,692	LCP

Bdnf	16818862	Hippocampus	329	-492	ICP

Gsksb	18500637	Hippocampus	573	-1,042	HCP

Tf	18045615	Hippocampus	159	-3,020	LCP

Cnp	16389193	Hippocampus	464	1,198	HCP

Amacr	20875727	Hippocampus	558	164	HCP

Psen2	19232479	Hippocampus	249	620	LCP

Pax6	10376119	Hippocampus	341	326	ICP

Dlx1	18384059	Hippocampus	431	-2,043	HCP

Dlx1	18384059	Cerebellum	1,330	257	HCP

Cnp	16389193	Cerebellum	769	940	HCP

Psen2	19232479	Cerebellum	455	442	LCP

Pax6	10376119	Cerebellum	349	-3,481	ICP

Stx1a	15219469	Cerebellum	149	72	HCP

Drd5	11304828	Cerebellum	264	-169	HCP

Mmp9	20037727	Cerebellum	138	-325	LCP

Tnf	11244489	Cerebellum	269	49	LCP

Grin1	12679240	Cerebellum	264	-1,595	HCP

Tf	18045615	Cerebellum	749	-1,704	LCP

Dlg4	21151988	Cerebellum	134	-1,459	LCP

Amacr	20875727	Cerebellum	138	-48	HCP

Dao	19685198	Cerebellum	287	-2,385	LCP

Dlx1	18384059	Liver	171	-2,993	HCP

Cnp	16389193	Liver	644	-2,644	HCP

Sod2	15193990	Liver	550	594	HCP

Drd5	11304828	Liver	369	-316	HCP

Il6	20393813	Liver	789	-3,030	LCP

Comt	11381111	Liver	638	-3,542	HCP

Apoe	14674716	Liver	2,158	-1,223	LCP

Drd2	18829695	Liver	257	-91	HCP

Nos1	20645313	Liver	348	172	LCP

Drd1	20127886	Liver	540	739	LCP

Genea	Reference (PubMedID)	Affected in	Peak length (bp)

Nos1	20645313	Hippocampus	334

Map6	16624526	Hippocampus	169

Drd5	11304828	Hippocampus	844

Cacna1c	23183239	Hippocampus	425

Bdnf	16818862	Hippocampus	329

Gsksb	18500637	Hippocampus	573

Tf	18045615	Hippocampus	159

Cnp	16389193	Hippocampus	464

Amacr	20875727	Hippocampus	558

Psen2	19232479	Hippocampus	249

Pax6	10376119	Hippocampus	341

Dlx1	18384059	Hippocampus	431

Dlx1	18384059	Cerebellum	1,330

Cnp	16389193	Cerebellum	769

Psen2	19232479	Cerebellum	455

Pax6	10376119	Cerebellum	349

Stx1a	15219469	Cerebellum	149

Drd5	11304828	Cerebellum	264

Mmp9	20037727	Cerebellum	138

Tnf	11244489	Cerebellum	269

Grin1	12679240	Cerebellum	264

Tf	18045615	Cerebellum	749

Dlg4	21151988	Cerebellum	134

Amacr	20875727	Cerebellum	138

Dao	19685198	Cerebellum	287

Dlx1	18384059	Liver	171

Cnp	16389193	Liver	644

Sod2	15193990	Liver	550

Drd5	11304828	Liver	369

Il6	20393813	Liver	789

Comt	11381111	Liver	638

Apoe	14674716	Liver	2,158

Drd2	18829695	Liver	257

Nos1	20645313	Liver	348

Drd1	20127886	Liver	540


Mentorship demographics	No. (%)

	(N=389 with mentor)

	Male	Female	p	Fisher Exact Test

Department of mentor

Same department	255 (91.1)	95 (91.3)	0.93	1.0

Another department	25 (8.9)	9 (8.7)

Position of mentor

Dept. Chair / Professor	67 (23.9)	22 (21.4)	0.62	0.66

Associate Prof.	59 (21.1)	27 (26.2)

Lecturer	58 (20.7)	19 (18.4)

Assistant Prof.	80 (28.6)	32 (31.1)

Other	16 (5.7)	3 (2.9)

Mentor assignment initiated by

Mentor	242 (87.7)	84 (88.4)	<0.01	0.01

Mentee	34 (12.3)	11 (11.6)

Other	4 (1.4)	8 (7.8)

Mentoring Meeting Frequency

Every month or more	213 (76.1)	83 (79.8)	0.44	0.50

Other (combining all other categories)	67 (23.9)	21 (20.2)

Satisfaction with Mentoring

Very satisfied/ A little satisfied	212 (75.7)	75 (72.8)	0.56	0.60

Not Satisfied\Neutral	68 (24.3)	28 (27.2)


Characteristics

Body mass index 	>30 Kg/m2	10 (8.4%)

Onset of labour	Spontaneous	87 (73.1%)

Induced	21 (17.6%)

Augmented	11 (9.2%)

Use of oxytocin	None	44 (37.0%)

Yes	75 (63.0%)

<4 cm = 19, 4–7 cm = 30, 8–10 cm = 26

Position of fetal head	Right/left/direct occipitoanterior	34 (28.5%)

Right//left/direct occipitoposterior	40 (33.6%)

Occipitotransverse	43 (36.1%)

Others	2 (1.8%)

Station of the fetal head (distance of the leading bony point of fetal skull below the ischial spines, measured in centimeters)	Above −1	1

−1	2

0	68

+1	48

+2	2

Fetal size	Mean 3588 g (2365 g–4840 g)

Operator experience 	Trainee <5 years	13 (10.9%)

Trainee 6-7 years	82 (68.9%)

Consultant (>8 years)	24 (20.2%)

Time of decision to perform operative vaginal birth 	0800–1700	36 (30.3%)

1701–2000	11 (9.2%)

2001–0759	72 (60.5%)

Length of second stage of labour (in cases where the indication was “failure to progress”)	<3 hr	5.2%

3.01–≤4 hr	14.4%

≥4.01 hr	80.4%

Time of decision to perform operative vaginal birth	2001–0759	72 (60.5%)

Length of second stage of labour (in cases where the indication was “failure to progress”)	<3 hr	5.2%

3.01–≤4 hr	14.4%

≥4.01 hr	80.4%


N	Complications	Additional comments	Surgical procedure

5	Equipment failure	Loose halter	Exploratory laparotomy

Tail hair broke	Sarcoid removal

Tail hair broke	Tooth extraction

Tail rope slipped off	Castration

Facial paralysis	Wound closure

4	Poor quality	Fell down after standing	Arthroscopy

Several attempts to stand	Arthroscopy

Lost shoe and broke hoof wall	Sarcoid removal

None	Arthroscopy

3	Long recovery	None	Tumour removal

None	Exploratory laparotomy

Cardiac arrest. Resuscitated	Arthroscopy

2	Excitation	Respiratory problem	Neurectomy

Wound to coronary band.	Desmotomy/Neurectomy

2	Myopathy	None	Exploratory laparotomy

None	Metatarsal fracture repair

1	Restless	Dog–sitting position	Eye surgery

1	Hindlimb Weakness	None	Mandibular fracture

N	Complications	Additional comments	Surgical procedure

5	Equipment failure	Loose halter	Exploratory laparotomy

Tail hair broke	Sarcoid removal

Tail hair broke	Tooth extraction

Tail rope slipped off	Castration

Facial paralysis	Wound closure

	Poor qua	Fell down after standing	Arthroscopy

Several attempts to stand	Arthroscopy

Lost shoe and broke hoof wall	Sarcoid removal

Non	Arthroscop

N	Complications	Additional comments	Surgical procedure

4	lity	e	y

3	Long recovery	None	Tumour removal

None	Exploratory laparotomy

Cardiac arrest. Resuscitated	Arthroscopy

2	Excitation	Respiratory problem	Neurectomy

Wound to coronary band.	Desmotomy/Neurectomy

2	Myopathy	None	Exploratory laparotomy

None	Metatarsal fracture repair

1	Restless	Dog–sitting position	Eye surgery

1	Hindlimb Weakness	None	Mandibular fracture


Variables	SCA2 patients	Preclinical carriers	Healthy controls

	ICC	p	H	ICC	p	H	ICC	p	H

Saccade velocity (°/s)	0.47	0.002	~94%	0.19	0.222	NA	0.136	0.289	NA

Saccade accuracy (%)	0.16	0.170	NA	0.20	0.208	NA	0.013	0.473	NA

Saccade latency (ms)	0.16	0.170	NA	0.13	0.294	NA	0.286	0.121	NA

Variables	SCA2 patients	Preclinical carriers	Healthy controls

	ICC	p	H	ICC	p	H	ICC	p

Saccade velocity (°/s)	0.47	0.002	~94%	0.19	0.222	NA	0.136	0.289

Saccade accuracy (%)	0.16	0.170	NA	0.20	0.208	NA	0.013	0.473

Saccade latency (ms)	0.16	0.170	NA	0.13	0.294	NA	0.286	0.121


Gene identifier	Gene label	Description	Protein identifier

http://bio2rdf.org/sgd:S000004688	YMR083W	Mitochondrial alcohol dehydrogenase isozyme III	http://bio2rdf.org/sgd:S000004688gp

http://bio2rdf.org/sgd:S000000349	YBR145W	Alcohol dehydrogenase isoenzyme V	http://bio2rdf.org/sgd:S000000349gp

http://bio2rdf.org/sgd:S000002624	YDR216W	Carbon source-responsive zinc-finger transcription factor	http://bio2rdf.org/sgd:S000002624gp

http://bio2rdf.org/sgd:S000000819	YER017C	Component of the mitochondrial inner membrane m-AAA protease	http://bio2rdf.org/sgd:S000000819gp

http://bio2rdf.org/sgd:S000001306	YIL044C	ADP-ribosylation factor (ARF) GTPase activating protein (GAP) effector	http://bio2rdf.org/sgd:S000001306gp


Histotypea	Cell lineb	IC50 μM (± SE)c,f	Genetic alterationd	Doubling time (hours)e,f

RHABDOMYOSARCOMA	RD/18	6.8 (± 2.1)	Altered 11p15.5 chromosome	22 ± 0.1

 	SJ-RH4	5.6 (± 1.3)	(2;13)(q35;q14) PAX3 FKHR	25 ± 1.2

 	SJ-RH30	9.9 (± 2.7)	(2;13)(q35;q14) PAX3 FKHR	26 ± 1.0

OSTEOSARCOMA	IOR/OS10	5.5 (± 1.3)	Complex Karyotype	30.4 ± 2.6

 	IOR/OS9	8.6 (± 1.8)	Complex Karyotype	44.5 ± 2.4

 	Saos-2	11.9 (± 3.1)	Complex Karyotype	36.1 ± 4.4

 	Saos-2/DX580	39.3 (± 2.6)	Complex Karyotype	75.6 ± 5.7

 	Saos-2/CDDP6ug	43.3 (± 6.8)	Complex Karyotype	44.3 ± 4.1

 	U-2OS	12.5 (± 0.7)	Complex Karyotype	18.3 ± 0.2

 	U-2OS/DX580	16.5 (± 0.4)	Complex Karyotype	45.3 ± 4.7

 	U-2OS/CDDP4ug	56.1 (± 1.4)	Complex Karyotype	38.6 ± 4.1

EWING SARCOMA	6647	3.1 (± 1.4)	t(11;22)(q24;q12) EWSR1-FLI1 TYPE II	29 ± 2.3

 	LAP-35	11.6 (± 0.7)	t(11;22)(q24;q12) EWSR1-FLI1 TYPE II	48.6 ± 4.2

 	SK-N-MC	3.9 (± 0.5)	t(11;22)(q24;q12) EWSR1-FLI1 TYPE I	26.9 ± 0.5

 	TC-71	2.6 (± 1.4)	t(11;22)(q24;q12) EWSR1-FLI1 TYPE I	14.9 ± 1.4

 	TC/DOXO8	5.0 (± 0.1)	t(11;22)(q24;q12) EWSR1-FLI1 TYPE I	22.6 ± 2.8

h-MSC	MES1	>50	n.d.	n.d.

 	MES2	>50	n.d.	n.d.

 	DP-15	>50	n.d.	n.d.

Histotypea	Cell lineb	IC50 μM (± SE)c,f	Genetic alterationd	Doubling time (hours)e,f

RHABDOMYOSARCOMA	RD/18	6.8 (± 2.1)	Altered 11p15.5 chromosome	22 ± 0.1

	SJ-RH4	5.6 (± 1.3)	(2;13)(q35;q14) PAX3 FKHR	25 ± 1.2

	SJ-RH30	9.9 (± 2.7)	(2;13)(q35;q14) PAX3 FKHR	26 ± 1.0

OSTEOSARCOMA	IOR/OS10	5.5 (± 1.3)	Complex Karyotype	30.4 ± 2.6

	IOR/OS9	8.6 (± 1.8)	Complex Karyotype	44.5 ± 2.4

	Saos-2	11.9 (± 3.1)	Complex Karyotype	36.1 ± 4.4

	Saos-2/DX580	39.3 (± 2.6)	Complex Karyotype	75.6 ± 5.7

	Saos-2/CDDP6ug	43.3 (± 6.8)	Complex Karyotype	44.3 ± 4.1

	U-2OS	12.5 (± 0.7)	Complex Karyotype	18.3 ± 0.2

	U-2OS/DX580	16.5 (± 0.4)	Complex Karyotype	45.3 ± 4.7

	U-2OS/CDDP4ug	56.1 (± 1.4)	Complex Karyotype	38.6 ± 4.1

EWING SARCOMA	6647	3.1 (± 1.4)	t(11;22)(q24;q12) EWSR1-FLI1 TYPE II	29 ± 2.3

	LAP-35	11.6 (± 0.7)	t(11;22)(q24;q12) EWSR1-FLI1 TYPE II	48.6 ± 4.2

	SK-N-MC	3.9 (± 0.5)	t(11;22)(q24;q12) EWSR1-FLI1 TYPE I	26.9 ± 0.5

	TC	2.6 (±	t(11;22)(q24;q1	14.


Spice	Number of portion sizes	Level of intake (% of portion sizes)

		<1.0	1.0-5.0	>5.0

R. chillies	364	15.1	69.5	15.4

Turmeric	351	78.3	21.7	-

Cumin	198	39.4	54.5	6.1

Coriander	97	57.7	35	7.2

	121	6	38.	-


Country	Paliperidone (maximum), %

Austria	0.04

Belgium	4.8

Bury PCT	0.07

Ireland (GMS population)	1.01

Scotland	0.03

Spain (Catalonia)	3.99

Sweden	1.5

Country

Austria

Belgium

Bury PCT

Ireland (GMS population)

Scotland

Spain (Catalonia)

Sweden


Walking Speed (Steps/min)	Actual ZVI Number	Detected ZVI Number

Fixed Threshold Method	Adaptive ZVI Detection Algorithm

80	100	102	100

100	100	100	100

120	100	94	100

Walking Speed (Steps/min)	Actual ZVI Number

80	100

100	100

120	100

Detected ZVI Number

Fixed Threshold Method	Adaptive ZVI Detection Algorithm

102	100

100	100

94	100


	Total Epidemic Size	Days to Epidemic Season Peak	Length of Epidemic Season

Regression Intercept (S.E.)	321.0 (417)	87.5 (13.5)	192.3 (24.0)

Regression Slope (S.E.)	15383 (7175)	-255.3 (233)	-659 (413)

Regression Model p-value	0.08	0.32	0.17

R2	0.48	0.19	0.20

Root Mean Square Error	17.6	3.2	4.2

Mean of Absolute % Error	16	11	8

	Total Epidemic Size	Days to Epidemic Season Peak

Regression Intercept (S.E.)	321.0 (417)	87.5 (13.5)

Regression Slope (S.E.)	15383 (7175)	-255.3 (233)

Regression Model p-value	0.08	0.32

R2	0.48	0.19

Root Mean Square Error	17.6	3.2

Mean of Absolute % Error	16	11


	Early phase	Middle phase	Late phase	Total

CORRECT RESP


	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Range*1	SD*2

Referral rate of participating GPs	0.68	0.65	0.53	0.88	0.35	0.11

Referral rate of non-participating GPs	0.74	0.76	0.47	1.00	0.53	0.15

	Mean	Median	Min	Max	Range*1

Referral rate of participating GPs	0.68	0.65	0.53	0.88	0.35

Referral rate of non-participating GPs	0.74	0.76	0.47	1.00	0.53