	Mouse strain	Methods	PV cells with PNNs (%)

Visual cortex

 Pizzo et al., 2016	C57BL/6J	PV: (1) monoclonal mouse α-PV (SWANT, 1:500); (2) polyclonal guinea pig α-PV PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Sigma, 1:200)	<underline>All layers</underline> P18: ∼55% P35: ∼55%

Morishita et al., 2015	C57BL/6J	PV: monoclonal rabbit α-PV (SWANT, 1:500) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:400)	<underline>All layers</underline> P50: ∼72%

Lensjø et al., 2017	C57BL/6J	PV: polycolonal rabbit α-PV (SWANT, 1:2000) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Sigma, 1:200)	<underline>All layers</underline> 3–5 months:∼70%

Ueno et al., 2017c	C57BL/6J	PV: monoclonal mouse α-PV (Sigma, 1:1000) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:200)	<underline>All layers</underline> 2–6 months: ∼50-60%

Somatosensory cortex

Nowicka et al., 2009	Swiss albino mice	PV: (1) rabbit α-PV (1:1000); (2) monoclonal mouse α-PV (Sigma, 1:1000) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:1000)	<underline>Layer 1–3</underline> P20: <10% P30: ∼30% YA: ∼35% <underline>Layer 4</underline> P10: ∼40% P20: ∼50% P30: ∼50% YA: ∼80% <underline>Layer 5–6</underline> P10: ∼10% P30: ∼35% YA: ∼40%

Ueno et al., 2017b	C57BL/6J	PV: monoclonal mouse α-PV (Sigma, 1:1000) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:200)	<underline>Layer 2-3</underline> P14: ∼70%; P21, 28: ∼50% P56: ∼60% <underline>Layer 4</underline> P14, 21, 28: ∼75% P56: ∼90% <underline>Layer 5-6</underline> P14: ∼75% P21, 28: ∼40-50% P56: ∼60%

Karetko-Sysa et al., 2014	C57BL/6J	PV: polyclonal goat α-PV (Affinity BioReagents, 1:1000) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:1000)	∗Most PV cells colocalized with PNNs in layer 4<underline>Layer 4-6</underline> YA: 67%

Auditory cortex

Brewton et al., 2016	C57BL/6J CBA/CaJ	PV: rabbit α-PV (SWANT, 1:10,000) PNN: FITC-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:750)	<underline>All layers</underline> C57 YA: 35% CBA YA: 50%

Nguyen et al., 2017	CBA/CaJ	PV: rabbit α-PV (SWANT, 1:5000) PNN: FITC-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:500)	<underline>All layers</underline> P30-60: 46%

Wen et al., 2017	FVB WT	PV: (1) rabbit α-PV (SWANT, 1:5000), (2) mouse α-PV (Sigma, 1:1000) PNN: FITC-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:500)	<underline>Layer 2/3</underline> P14: ∼1% P21: ∼29% P30: ∼15% <underline>Layer 4</underline> P14: ∼18% P21: ∼38% P30: ∼38%

Ueno et al., 2017c	C57BL/6J	PV: monoclonal mouse α-PV (Sigma, 1:1000) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:200)	<underline>All layers</underline> YA: ∼60-70%

	Mouse strain	Methods	PV cells with PNNs (%)

Visual cortex

Pizzo et al., 2016	C57BL/6J	PV: (1) monoclonal mouse α-PV (SWANT, 1:500); (2) polyclonal guinea pig α-PV PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Sigma, 1:200)	All layers P18: ∼55% P35: ∼55%

Morishita et al., 2015	C57BL/6J	PV: monoclonal rabbit α-PV (SWANT, 1:500) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:400)	All layers P50: ∼72%

Lensjø et al., 2017	C57BL/6J	PV: polycolonal rabbit α-PV (SWANT, 1:2000) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Sigma, 1:200)	All layers 3–5 months:∼70%

Ueno et al., 2017c	C57BL/6J	PV: monoclonal mouse α-PV (Sigma, 1:1000) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:200)	All layers 2–6 months: ∼50-60%

Somatosensory cortex

Nowicka et al., 2009	Swiss albino mice	PV: (1) rabbit α-PV (1:1000); (2) monoclonal mouse α-PV (Sigma, 1:1000) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:1000)	Layer 1–3 P20: <10% P30: ∼30% YA: ∼35% Layer 4 P10: ∼40% P20: ∼50% P30: ∼50% YA: ∼80% Layer 5–6 P10: ∼10% P30: ∼35% YA: ∼40%

	Mouse strain	Methods	PV cells with PNNs (%)

Ueno et al., 2017b	C57BL/6J	PV: monoclonal mouse α-PV (Sigma, 1:1000) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:200)	Layer 2-3 P14: ∼70%; P21, 28: ∼50% P56: ∼60% Layer 4 P14, 21, 28: ∼75% P56: ∼90% Layer 5-6 P14: ∼75% P21, 28: ∼40-50% P56: ∼60%

Karetko-Sysa et al., 2014	C57BL/6J	PV: polyclonal goat α-PV (Affinity BioReagents, 1:1000) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:1000)	∗Most PV cells colocalized with PNNs in layer 4Layer 4-6 YA: 67%

Auditory cortex

Brewton et al., 2016	C57BL/6J CBA/CaJ	PV: rabbit α-PV (SWANT, 1:10,000) PNN: FITC-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:750)	All layers C57 YA: 35% CBA YA: 50%

Nguyen et al., 2017	CBA/CaJ	PV: rabbit α-PV (SWANT, 1:5000) PNN: FITC-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:500)	All layers P30-60: 46%

Wen et al., 2017	FVB WT	PV: (1) rabbit α-PV (SWANT, 1:5000), (2) mouse α-PV (Sigma, 1:1000) PNN: FITC-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:500)	Layer 2/3 P14: ∼1% P21: ∼29% P30: ∼15% Layer 4 P14: ∼18% P21: ∼38% P30: ∼38%

Ueno et al., 2017c	C57BL/6J	PV: monoclonal mouse α-PV (Sigma, 1:1000) PNN: biotin-conjugated WFA (Vector, 1:200)	All layers YA: ∼60-70%


	Normal weight mice	DIO mice

	PBS	NS1	Vaccine	Sig.	PBS	NS1	Vaccine	Sig.

TNF-α	0.30 ± 0.30	8.42 ± 4.22	1.65 ± 1.31	NS	45.59 ± 24.72	5.76 ± 4.44	21.34 ± 15.29	NS


Authors	Novel prognostic marker	Conclusion

Li et al. 2015 [39]	The expression patterns of miR-15a/16-1	miR-15a seems to be linked with disease progression and prognosis while miR-16-1 acts as a valuable diagnostic marker

 Wang et al. 2015 [40]	Immune checkpoint signaling	The overall response rate to treatment was higher in low sPD-L1 patients than in high sPD-L1 patients

Jung et al. 2016 [41]	Inverse platelet to lymphocyte ratio (iPLR)	Staging by iPLR group had predictive value for PFS and OS

Zhou et al. 2015 [42]	Dysregulated long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs)	Four lncRNAs were identified to be significantly associated with OS

Lee et al. 2015 [43]	Bone marrow (BM) microvessel density (MVD)	PFS was significantly lower in the high MVD group than in the low MVD group

Ma et al. 2015 [44]	N-Cadherin	OS is worse with high expression of N-Cadherin which may be related to 1q21 amplification.

 Lullo et al. 2015 [45]	Th22 cells	Increased frequency of IL-22(+)IL-17(−)IL-13(+) T cells correlates with poor prognosis

Li et al. 2015 [46]	Downregulated miR-33b	miR-33b low expression had significantly shortened PFS and OS

Bolomsky et al. 2015 [47]	Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) expression	IGFBP7 expression is linked to translocation t(4;14) showing clinical features of adverse prognosis

Jung et al. 2015 [48]	Autophagic markers beclin 1 and LC3	Higher immunoreactivity for autophagic markers in MM is associated with superior patient survival

Trotter et al. 2015 [49]	Myeloma cell-derived Runx2	Runx2 expression is a major regulator of MM progression in bone and myeloma bone disease


	Subjects

	Number	Percentage

Supplements use

No	145	69.9%

Yes	62	30.1%

Users of supplement by gender

Male	43	34.1%

Female	19	23.8%

Frequency of use

1 time per wk	8	12.9%

2 times per wk	5	8.1%

3 times per wk	13	21.0%

4 times per wk	11	17.7%

5 times per wk	9	14.5%

6 times per wk	1	1.6%

7 times per wk	15	24.2%

Protein supplements

Whey protein shakes	31	50.0%

Egg protein shakes	15	24.1%

Protein bars	12	19.3%

Protein Gel	1	1.6%

Protein shake blends	3	4.8%

Other supplements*

Multivitamin/mineral	3	4.8%

Creatine - Amino acids	30	48.3%

Amino acids	16	25.9%

Multivitamin/mineral - Creatine - Amino acids	8	12.9%

Multivitamin/mineral - Amino acids	1	1.6%

Creatine	4	6.4%

	Subjects

	Number

Supplements use

No	145

Yes	62

Users of supplement by gender

Male	43

Female	19

Frequency of use

1 time per wk	8

2 times per wk	5

3 times per wk	13

4 times per wk	11

5 times per wk	9

6 times per wk	1

7 times per wk	15

Protein supplements

Whey protein shakes	31

Egg protein shakes	15

Protein bars	12

Protein Gel	1

Protein shake blends	3

Other supplements*

Multivitamin/mineral	3

Creatine - Amino acids	30

Amino acids	16

Multivitamin/mineral - Creatine - Amino acids	8

Multivitamin/mineral - Amino acids	1

Creatine	4


Characteristic	Number	Percent

Age (in years)

15–24	5	33.3

25–34	6	40

35 or above	4	26.7

Education

Elementary & secondary school	2	13.3

Diploma	4	26.7

University	9	60

Marital status

Single	10	66.7

Married	5	33.3

Occupation

Housewife	6	40

Employed	4	26.7

Student	5	33.3

Total	15	100

Characteristic	Number	Percent

University	9	60

Marital status

Single	10	66.7

Married	5	33.3

Occupation

Housewife	6	40

Employed	4	26.7

Student	5	33.3

Total	15	100


Pathway	Number of Proteins in Pathway	Proteins from Gene List	P-value	FDR	Genes

Pathways in cancer (K)	327	7	0.0004	1.40E-02	E2F1,PTEN,AKT2,MSH6,HSP90AA1,JUN,VEGFA

Direct p53 effectors (N)	133	5	0.0002	1.40E-02	E2F1,PTEN,SP1,JUN,SMARCA4

Hepatitis B (K)	146	5	0.0004	1.38E-02	E2F1,PTEN,AKT2,JUN,YWHAQ

Nonsense-mediated decay (R)	106	5	0.0001	1.55E-02	RPL30,UPF1,SMG7,RNPS1,RPL18A

RNA transport (K)	164	5	0.0006	1.50E-02	EEF1A1,UPF1,RNPS1,EIF4G2,NUP205

E2F transcription factor network (N)	68	4	0.0002	1.44E-02	E2F1,KAT2B,SP1,RRM2

Estrogen signaling pathway (K)	100	4	0.0009	1.69E-02	AKT2,HSP90AA1,SP1,JUN

Glucocorticoid receptor regulatory network (N)	77	4	0.0003	1.34E-02	SMARCD1,HSP90AA1,JUN,SMARCA4

HIF-1-alpha transcription factor network (N)	66	4	0.0002	2.03E-02	NPM1,SP1,JUN,VEGFA

Huntington disease (P)	121	4	0.0017	2.79E-02	GAPDH,AKT2,AP2A2,JUN

Processing of capped intron-containing pre-mRNA (R)	138	4	0.0028	3.33E-02	DDX23,PCBP1,RNPS1,NUP205

Prostate cancer (K)	89	4	0.0006	1.56E-02	E2F1,PTEN,AKT2,HSP90AA1

Regulation of androgen receptor activity (N)	49	4	0.0001	1.70E-02	KAT7,HSP90AA1,KAT2B,JUN

Regulation of telomerase (N)	68	4	0.0002	1.44E-02	E2F1,HSP90AA1,SP1,JUN


 	 	Mean difference	SD (±)	P

Flat SimK (D)	IOL Master-Galilei	0.155	0.156	<0.001

IOL Master-WAM 5500	0.007	0.187	0.302

Galilei-WAM 5500	−0.148	0.195	<0.001

Steep SimK (D)	IOL Master-Galilei	0.171	0.168	<0.001

IOL Master-WAM 5500	−0.055	0.227	0.172

Galilei-WAM 5500	−0.226	0.236	<0.001

Corneal astigmatism (D)	IOL Master-Galilei	0.016	0.249	0.662

IOL Master-WAM 5500	−0.061	0.265	0.055

Galilei-WAM 5500	−0.078	0.292	0.022

ACD (mm)	IOL Master-Galilei	−0.269	0.158	<0.001

WTW (mm)	IOL Master-Galilei	−0.080	0.274	0.009


Programs	Species	Algorithms	Advantages	Disadvantages

Diana-microT	Human	Seed match, thermodynamics	Prefers target structure before seed pairing.	Absence of cooperativity and multiplicity of miRNAbinding sites.Conservation filter.

miRDB	Human, mouse, rat, dog, chicken	SVM classifier	Editable Wikipedia based interface for functionalannotation.	Feature selection procedure ismissing.

miRWalk	Human, mouse, rat	Seed match, statistical model	Provides binding sites within promoter, 5’-UTR, CDS,and 3’-UTR regions.Amalgamates 10 prediction datasets and other uniquefeatures such as validated information on miRNAs associated with genes,diseases, cell lines, pathways, etc.	Free energy of the duplex is missing,however; it integrates other algorithms which consider free energy.

miRanda	Human, mouse, rat, fly, worm	Complementarity, free energy, conservation	Offers tissue-based miRNA expression profile.	Low precision.Conservation filter.

miTarget	Any	Seed match, free energy, SVM classifier	Validated miRNA targets information collected fromliterature search is used as training dataset.	A simple filtering for feature selection method.

PicTar	Vertebrates, flies, worms	Seed match, free energy, conservation, HMM	Considers cross-species conservation to reduce falsepositives.	Non-conservative sites prediction.

PITA	Human, mouse, fly, worm	Seed match, free energy	Considers secondary structure for prediction.	Low efficiency to existing algorithms.

RNA22	Human, mouse, fly, worm	Pattern recognition	Serves interactive exploration.It does not consider cross-species conservationfilter.	Low efficiency to existing algorithms.

RNAhybrid	Any	Seed match, free energy, statistical model	Extension of classical RNA secondary structureprograms.	Unable to distinguish functional and non-functionalsites.

TargetScan	Mammals, flies, worms, fish	Seed match, free energy, conservation	Broadly scans for conserved 8nt and 7nt sites.	Restricts to seed matching and conservation.

Programs	Species	Algorithms	Advantages	Disadvantages

Diana-microT	Human	Seed match, thermodynamics	Prefers target structure before seed pairing.	Absence of cooperativity and multiplicity of miRNAbinding sites.Conservation filter.

miRDB	Human, mouse, rat, dog, chicken	SVM classifier	Editable Wikipedia based interface for functionalannotation.	Feature selection procedure ismissing.

miRWalk	Human, mouse, rat	Seed match, statistical model	Provides binding sites within promoter, 5’-UTR, CDS,and 3’-UTR regions.Amalgamates 10 prediction datasets and other uniquefeatures such as validated information on miRNAs associated with genes,diseases, cell lines, pathways, etc.	Free energy of the duplex is missing,however; it integrates other algorithms which consider free energy.

miRanda	Human, mouse, rat, fly, worm	Complementarity, free energy, conservation	Offers tissue-based miRNA expression profile.	Low precision.Conservation filter.

miTarget	Any	Seed match, free energy, SVM classifier	Validated miRNA targets information collected fromliterature search is used as training dataset.	A simple filtering for feature selection method.

Pi	Vertebrates, fl	Seed match, free energy, conservation,	Consi	Non-conservativ

Programs	Species	Algorithms	Advantages	Disadvantages

cTar	ies, worms	 HMM	ders cross-species conservation to reduce falsepositives.	e sites prediction.

PITA	Human, mouse, fly, worm	Seed match, free energy	Considers secondary structure for prediction.	Low efficiency to existing algorithms.

RNA22	Human, mouse, fly, worm	Pattern recognition	Serves interactive exploration.It does not consider cross-species conservationfilter.	Low efficiency to existing algorithms.

RNAhybrid	Any	Seed match, free energy, statistical model	Extension of classical RNA secondary structureprograms.	Unable to distinguish functional and non-functionalsites.

TargetScan	Mammals, flies, worms, fish	Seed match, free energy, conservation	Broadly scans for conserved 8nt and 7nt sites.	Restricts to seed matching and conservation.


Self-esteem

Body satisfaction

Appearance importance

Mental health

- Anxiety

- Depression

Binge eating

Stressful life events

-frequency

-impact

-coping

Emotion regulation

- reappraisal

- suppression

Resilience factors

- Total

- Personal strength

- Structural style

- Social competence

- Family cohesion

- Social resources

Relationship satisfactiona


Parameter	Description

L	ORF length in codons

x	average number of transcripts per cell

g	ribosome density in number of ribosomes per 100 codons

w	number of ribosomes attached to a single transcript

m	transcript mean lifetime

I	mean translation initiation time

E	mean translation elongation time

e	mean time required for elongation of one codon of a transcript

b	number of proteins produced from a single transcript during its lifespan

B	total number of protein molecules produced from all transcripts of a gene

A	number of protein molecules per cell taken from high-throughput studies

R	average number of proteins produced from a gene per second


Tissue/Organ	Weighting factor

Breast, colon, lungs, red marrow, remainder, stomach	0.12

Gonads	0.08

Bladder, liver, esophagus, thyroid	0.04

Bone surfaces, brain, salivary glands, skin	0.01

Tissue/Organ

Breast, colon, lungs, red marrow, remainder, stomach

Gonads

Bladder, liver, esophagus, thyroid

Bone surfaces, brain, salivary glands, skin


Load Cases	No. of Locations	Load Cases	No. of Locations

Load Case 3-1	3	Load Case 3-7	4

Load Case 3-2	5	Load Case 3-8	6

Load Case 3-3	7	Load Case 3-9	8

Load Case 3-4	9	Load Case 3-10	10

Load Case 3-5	11	Load Case 3-11	12

Load Case 3-6	2	Load Case 3-12	13


	Bipolar I disorder (N = 14) N (%)	Bipolar spectrum disorder (N = 26) N (%)	Bipolar disorder total (N = 40) N (%)	Significance Fisher exact test

Recognized past depressive episodes	11 (78.6)	22 (84.6)	33 (82.5)	ns

Recognized past (hypo)manic episodes	3 (21.4)	6 (23.1)	9 (22.5)	ns

Consulted health professional for depressive episodes	11 (78.6)	19 (73.1)	30 (75.0)	ns

Consulted health professional for (hypo)manic episodes	5 (35.7)	2 (7.7)	7 (17.5)	P = 0.039

Hospitalization for a manic episode	7 (50)	0 (0)	7 (17.5)	P = 0.000

Indicated a past diagnosis of bipolar disorder	4 (28.6)	1 (3.8)	5 (12.5)	P = 0.043

Treatment for bipolar disorder	4 (28.6)	1 (3.8)	5 (12.5)	P = 0.043

Recognized past depressive episodes

Recognized past (hypo)manic episodes

Consulted health professional for depressive episodes

Consulted health professional for (hypo)manic episodes

Hospitalization for a manic episode

Indicated a past diagnosis of bipolar disorder

Treatment for bipolar disorder


Genetic model	OR (95% CI)	P heterogeneity

Co-dominant model	CC	1

	CT	1.072 (0.843, 1.362)b	0.025


Direction of the Acceleration Loaded	Maximum Differential Stress of x-Component (MPa)	Maximum Differential Stress of y-Component (MPa)	Maximum Differential Stress of z-Component (MPa)

x-axis	0.00048	14.7	0.00036

y-axis	0.0009	0.00025	0.00065

z-axis	0.00014	0.000172	0.000354


Participant	No motor constant load VOL	No motor constant load FES	No motor incremental load VOL	No motor incremental load FES	Motor constant load VOL	Motor constant load FES	Motor incremental load VOL	Other cycling trials completed

1			×	× 				No motor constant load with FES alternating on:off in 1 minute increments

2	×	×

3	×				×	×

4					×	×	×	No motor-Brief trial without FES assistance


Event sequence	WBC (×109)	Eosinophils in PB (%, AEC)	Eosinophils in BM (%)	Blasts in BM (%)	Diagnosis	Intervention	Disease status

Initial presentation	44.6	1, 0.45	1	7	CMML-1	SGI-110	Refractory

After 2 months	65.1	9, 5.8	5	4	CMML-1	SGI-110	Progression

After 1 month	126	11, 13.8	16	12	Myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasm with eosinophilia, and PDGFRA rearrangement	Fludarabine + Cytarabine	Progression

After 1 month	6.4	1, 0.06	1	26	AML with PDGFRA rearrangement	Imatinib (with Idarubicin + Cutarabine)	Remission


Gene name	Forward primer	Reverse primer

IL-6	5′-ATCTGCCCTTCAGGAACAGC-3′	5′-AGCCTCCGACTTGTGAAGTG-3′

STAT3	5′-CAAAGAAAACATGGCCGGCA-3′	5′-GGGGGCTTTGTGCTTAGGAT-3′

JAK-1	5′-ATGGAGTTTCTGCCTTCGGG-3′	5′-TTCTTGCTGCTAAGTCCCGG-3′

MEK5	5′-TCGTGCCATGGAGAACCA-3′	5′-CGCGCCACTATTTGGAATCT-3′

FADD	5′-CCAAACAAGTGCAAGAGCCC-3′	5′-AGGATTGCAGAGTGAGCCAC-3′

Bcl2	5′-CTTCTCTCGTCGCTACCGTC-3′	5′-CATGACCCCACCGAACTCAA-3′

BCL-XL	5′-CTTCTCTCGTCGCTACCGTC-3′	5′-GTGAGGTGGAAGGGACCATG-3′

EGF	5′-TGTGGGCTGAGAAGAAGCTG-3′	5′-GAGTACCAGATCTGCCGCTC-3′

GAPDH	5′-AACTCCCATTCCTCCACCTT-3′	5′-GAGGGCCTCTCTCTTGCTCT-3′

Gene name	imer	verse primer

IL-6	5′-ATCTGCCCTTCAGGAACAGC-3′	5′-AGCCTCCGACTTGTGAAGTG-3′

STAT3	5′-CAAAGAAAACATGGCCGGCA-3′	5′-GGGGGCTTTGTGCTTAGGAT-3′

JAK-1	5′-ATGGAGTTTCTGCCTTCGGG-3′	5′-TTCTTGCTGCTAAGTCCCGG-3′

MEK5	5′-TCGTGCCATGGAGAACCA-3′	5′-CGCGCCACTATTTGGAATCT-3′

FADD	5′-CCAAACAAGTGCAAGAGCCC-3′	5′-AGGATTGCAGAGTGAGCCAC-3′

Bcl2	5′-CTTCTCTCGTCGCTACCGTC-3′	5′-CATGACCCCACCGAACTCAA-3′

BCL-XL	5′-CTTCTCTCGTCGCTACCGTC-3′	5′-GTGAGGTGGAAGGGACCATG-3′

EGF	5′-TGTGGGCTGAGAAGAAGCTG-3′	5′-GAGTACCAGATCTGCCGCTC-3′

GAPDH	5′-AACTCCCATTCCTCCACCTT-3′	5′-GAGGGCCTCTCTCTTGCTCT-3′


	Total	FOBT	Colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy

% Ordered	48	33	26

% Completed	43	23	26


Method	FPS

Ours	K-SVD & Lasso	482

K-SVD & Ridge	34

K-SVD & Elastic Net	27

DMM & SVM	87

DMM & RF	215

LBP & SVM	62

LBP & RF	159

	MEMM [12]	10

Orderlet [24]	25

DNBC [36]	7

Ours	DMM & RF	215

LBP & SVM	62

LBP & RF	159

	MEMM [12]	10

Orderlet [24]	25

DNBC [36]	7


Lymphoma type	Mean MFI relative to normal B cells (SEM)

	I	IgG		C


GOJ subtypes	Type I (Adenocarcinoma of distal oesophagus)	Type II (True cardia carcinoma)	Type III (Sub-cardial carcinoma)

Endoscopic criteria	Tumour mass arises 1 to 5 cm above the endoscopic cardia	Tumour mass arises 1 cm above to 2 cm below the endoscopic cardia	Tumour mass arises 2 to 5 cm below the area of the endoscopic cardia

Differing Characteristics	• Male predominance• Arise in association with Barrett's oesophagus (80%)• More likely to have hiatus hernia or history of GORD	• More similarities to Type III tumours than Type I• Barrett's mucosa identified in 10%	• Barrett's mucosa identified in only 2%• 60% have a diffuse growth pattern and 70% undifferentiated

Lymph node metastases	To mediastinal and abdominal lymph node stations	Mainly to abdominal lymph node stations	Mainly to abdominal lymph node stations

Precursor lesions	Barrett's oesophagus	Possible short segment Barrett's oesophagus or IM at the gastric cardia	Helicobacter pylori and IM of the subcardia region

Optimal surgical treatment	Transthoracic or transhiatal oesophagectomy	Controversial; may include either extended total gastrectomy or transthoracic or transhiatal oesophagogastrectomy	Extended total gastrectomy

GOJ subtypes	Type I (Adenocarcinoma of distal oesophagus)	Type II (True cardia carcinoma)	Type III (Sub-cardial carcinoma)

Lymph node metastases	To mediastinal and abdominal lymph node stations	Mainly to abdominal lymph node stations	Mainly to abdominal lymph node stations

Precursor lesions	Barrett's oesophagus	Possible short segment Barrett's oesophagus or IM at the gastric cardia	Helicobacter pylori and IM of the subcardia region

Optimal surgical treatment	Transthoracic or transhiatal oesophagectomy	Controversial; may include either extended total gastrectomy or transthoracic or transhiatal oesophagogastrectomy	Extended total gastrectomy


CAM preparation	% (n)

Homeopathy

 Schuessler Salts	3.1 (11)

Dietary supplements

 Minerals

Magnesium	13.5 (48)

Calcium	9.0 (32)

Zinc	2.5 (9)

Iron	2.0 (7)

 Single vitamins

Vitamin C	2.3 (8)

Vitamin B	1.4 (5)

Vitamin D	0.8 (3)

 Combination (mineral/vitamin/other)	4.5 (16)

Herbs

 Without specific indication

Chamomile (Matricaria recutita) tea	6.5 (23)

Unspecified “herbal” tea	5.1 (18)

Fennel, anise, caraway (Foeniculum vulgare, Pimpinella anisum, Carum carvi) tea	4.8 (17)

Peppermint (Mentha piperita) tea	3.7 (13)

 Medicinal formulation

Bronchial tea	2.8 (10)

Kidney-Bladder tea	2.5 (9)

Gastrointestinal tea	2.3 (8)

 Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba)	3.9 (14)

 Valerian (Valeriana officinalis)	2.8 (10)

 St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum)	1.4 (5)

External applications

 Ointments

 Arnica (Arnica montana)	5.6 (20)

 Calendula (Calendula officinalis)	3.1 (11)

 Mountain pine (Pinus Montana) foot cream/balm/footbath	3.1 (11)

 Rubbing alcohol	3.1 (11)

Juices

 Unspecified “vegetable” juice	0.6 (2)

 Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi) juice	0.3 (1)

CAM preparation	% (n)

Minerals

Magnesium	13.5 (48)

Calcium	9.0 (32)

Zinc	2.5 (9)

Iron	2.0 (7)

Single vitamins

Vitamin C	2.3 (8)

Vitamin B	1.4 (5)

Vitamin D	0.8 (3)

Combination (mineral/vitamin/other)	4.5 (16)

Herbs

Without specific indication

Chamomile (Matricaria recutita) tea	6.5 (23)

Unspecified “herbal” tea	5.1 (18)

Fennel, anise, caraway (Foeniculum vulgare, Pimpinella anisum, Carum carvi) tea	4.8 (17)

Peppermint (Mentha piperita) tea	3.7 (13)

Medicinal formulation

Bronchial tea	2.8 (10)

Kidney-Bladder tea	2.5 (9)

Gastrointestinal tea	2.3 (8)

Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba)	3.9 (14)

Valerian (Valeriana officinalis)	2.8 (10)

St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum)	1.4 (5)

External applications

Ointments

Arnica (Arnica montana)	5.6 (20)

Calendula (Calendula officinalis)	3.1 (11)

Mountain pine (Pinus Montana) foot cream/balm/footbath	3.1 (11)

Rubbing alcohol	3.1 (11)

Juices

Unspecified “vegetable” juice	0.6 (2)

Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi) juice	0.3 (1)


Target genea	Forward primer, reverse primer and probe sequences (5'-3')	Location within sequences	Gene Bank accession no.

nleG6-2 (Z2150)	ATATGCTCTCTATATGATAAGGATG	1928877-1928901	AE005174

	AAAGTGACATTCGTCTTTTCTCATA	1928996-1928872

	[6FAM]CGTTAGTGCAACTTGTTGAAACTGGTGGAA[BHQ1]	1928902-1928931

nleG5-2 (Z2151)	AGACTATTCGTGGAGAAGCTCAAG	1929199-1929222	AE005174

	TATTGAAGGCCAATCTGGATG	1929337-1929317

	[6FAM]TGGATATTTTATGGGAAGTCTTAACCAGGATGG[BHQ1]	1929269-1929301

espK	ATTGTAACTGATGTTATTTCGTTTGG	1673295-1673320	AE005174

	GRCATCAAAAGCGAAATCACACC	1673419-1673397

	[6FAM]CAGATACTCAATATCACAATCTTTGATATATAAACGACC[BHQ1]	1673330-1673368

bfpA	CCAGTCTGCGTCTGATTCCA	2756-2775	FM180569

	CGTTGCGCTCATTACTTCTGAA	2816-2795

	TAAGTCGCAGAATGC-MGB	2777-2791


	Capital cost ($MM)	Additional chemical cost ($MM/year)	Description

Preprocessing unit	$10.17	$1.90	Preprocessing unit includes tanks for preprocessing and belt transfer conveyors, where the preprocessed biomass may be additionally washed

Wastewater treatment unita	$21.70	$3.00	Additional cost account for the increase of the wastewater treatment capacity and treatment chemicals

	Capital cost ($MM)	Additional chemical cost ($MM/year)

Preprocessing unit	$10.17	$1.90

Wastewater treatment unita	$21.70	$3.00

Description

Preprocessing unit includes tanks for preprocessing and belt transfer conveyors, where the preprocessed biomass may be additionally washed

Additional cost account for the increase of the wastewater treatment capacity and treatment chemicals


Antibiotics	S. aureus (n = 30)Resistant frequency (%)	MRSA (n = 8)Resistant frequency (%)

Penicillin G	22 (73)	8 (100)

Ciprofloxacin	11 (36.7)	6 (75.0)

Gentamicin	10 (33.3)	5 (62.5)

Amikacin	3 (10)	1 (12.5)

Erythromycin	10 (33.3)	5 (62.5)

Cotrimoxazole	6 (20)	4 (50.0)

Tetracycline	6 (20)	3 (37.5)

Rifampicin	6 (20)	3 (37.5)

Vancomycin	0	0

Teicoplanin	0	0

Cefoxitin	8 (26.7)	8 (100)

Oxacillin	8 (26.7)	8 (100)

Clindamycin	8 (26.7)	3 (37.5)

Antibiotics	S. aureus (n = 30)Resistant frequency (%)	MRSA (n = 8)Resistant frequency (%)

Teicoplanin	0	0

Cefoxitin	8 (26.7)	8 (100)

Oxacillin	8 (26.7)	8 (100)

Clindamycin	8 (26.7)	3 (37.5)


Index	Target group	Number of drugs

Training dataset	Test dataset	Total

1	G Protein-coupled Receptors	272	35	307

2	Nuclear Receptors	82	13	95

3	Ion Channels	109	9	118

4	Enzymes	325	31	356

—	Total	788	88	876

Index	Target group	Training dataset	Test dataset	Total

1	G Protein-coupled Receptors	272	35	307

2	Nuclear Receptors	82	13	95

3	Ion Channels	109	9	118

4	Enzymes	325	31	356

—	Total	788	88	876


Variable	CAP due to other definite bacterial pathogensn = 621	p1	MPP n = 307	p2	CAP with no known bacterial etiology n = 3604

Age (∅ ± SD)	61 ± 17 years	.000	41 ± 16 years	.000	61 ± 18 years

Male gender	58%	.000	41%	.000	56%

Outpatient/hospitalized	22%/78%	.000	56%/44%	.000	36%/64%

CRB 65 Score0-1-2-3-4 (%)	33-46-16-4-1	.000	72-25-3-0.4-0	.000	39-43-15-2-0.4

Packyears(∅ ± SD)	32 ± 25	.000	15 ± 14	.000	29 ± 23

Pleural effusion	17%	.000	6%	.001	13%

Dyspnoea	80%	.000	69%	ns	72%

Pleural pain	47%	.000	34%	ns	42%

Confusion	11%	.000	2%	.001	8%

Oxygen requirement	57%	.000	25%	.000	41%

Malignancy	9%	.000	2%	.000	10%

Chronic respiratory disease	38%	.000	20%	.000	36%

Renal insufficiency	8%	.001	2%	.000	8%

Congestive heart failure	19%	.000	4%	.000	19%

Diabetes	20%	.000	3%	.000	16%

Respiratory sample obtained*	42%	.000	58%	.000	30%

Leucocytes (median)/μl	13 200	.000	8850	.000	11 000

CRP (median) mg/l	173	.000	60	.001	73

Duration of antibiotic therapy(∅ ± SD)	13 ± 6 days	.000	11 ± 4 days	ns	11 ± 5 days

LOS in hospitalized patients(∅ ± SD)	14 ± 11 days	.000	9 ± 5 days	.000	12 ± 9 days

Deaths within 30 days	54 (8.7%)	.000	2 (0.7%)	.000	234 (6.5%)

Variable	CAP due to other definite bacterial pathogensn = 621	p1	MPP n = 307	p2	CAP with no known bacterial etiology n = 3604

Renal insufficiency	8%	.001	2%	.000	8%

Congestive heart failure	19%	.000	4%	.000	19%

Diabetes	20%	.000	3%	.000	16%

Respiratory sample obtained*	42%	.000	58%	.000	30%

Leucocytes (median)/μl	13 200	.000	8850	.000	11 000

CRP (median) mg/l	173	.000	60	.001	73

Duration of antibiotic therapy(∅ ± SD)	13 ± 6 days	.000	11 ± 4 days	ns	11 ± 5 days

LOS in hospitalized patients(∅ ± SD)	14 ± 11 days	.000	9 ± 5 days	.000	12 ± 9 days

Deaths within 30 days	54 (8.7%)	.000	2 (0.7%)	.000	234 (6.5%)


Gene name	Control Fold change Peak to Trough	Alcohol Fold change Peak to Trough	Ratio (Alcohol fed/control)

clock	3.1	3.5	1.1

Bmal1	14.9	10.7	0.7

Npas2	38.5	8.0	0.2

per1	5.9	6.2	1.1

per2	6.2	3.3	0.5

per3	23.5	9.6	0.4

cry1	4.8	8.9	1.9

cry2	9.9	4.0	0.4

Rev-erbα	17.0	11.0	0.6

Rev-erbβ	6.9	2.1	0.3

Gene name

clock

Bmal1

Npas2

per1

per2

per3

cry1

cry2

Rev-erbα

Rev-erbβ


	AUC	Cut-off value	Sensitivity, % (95 % CI)	Specificity, % (95 % CI)	Likelihood ratio

BAFF	0.823	1.7 ng · mL−1	67.6 (49.4 to 82.6)	94.7 (73.9 to 99.8)	12.85


Parameters	df	F-Value	p-value

Drug	1	2.288	0.138

Timepoint	6.932	2.163	0.038*

Stimulation	3	11.423	0.001*

Drug × stimulation	3	8.673	0.001*

Timepoint × stimulation	30	2.056	0.001*

Drug × timepoint	5.446	1.478	0.192

Drug × timepoint × stimulation	30	1.831	0.027*

Parameters	df	F-Value	p-value

Drug × timepoint	5.446	1.478	0.192

Drug × timepoint × stimulation	30	1.831	0.027*


Pathway2	Sex	Diet	PAPOLG genotype	Sex × diet	Sex × gene	Diet × gene

Amino acids (85)	1123	3	8	1	2	4

Carbohydrates (23)	9	0	3	2	1	0

Cofactors and vitamins (15)	3	1	4	0	1	0

Energy (9)	1	0	1	1	0	1

Lipids (141)	15	7	29	6	6	31

Nucleotides (14)	1	2	3	0	0	2

Peptides (14)	0	1	0	0	0	0

Xenobiotics (46)	4	3	1	6	0	1

Total (347)	44	17	50	16	10	39

Median number after Y scrambling3	20	17	20	20	20	20

4	<0.001	NS	<0.001	NS	<0.001	<0.001


 	Hexanoyl-carnitine	Octenoyl-carnitine	Octanoyl-carnitine	Decenoyl-carnitine	Decanoyl-carnitine	Dodecenoyl-carnitine	Tetradecenoyl-carnitine	Linoleyl-carnitine	Stearoyl-carnitine

Hexanoylcarnitine	1	0.26	0.94	0.82	0.94	0.73	0.58	0.16	0.19

Octenoylcarnitine	0.26	1	0.18	0.50	0.19	0.35	0.27	0.28	0.10

Octanoylcarnitine	0.94	0.18	1	0.81	0.99	0.69	0.57	0.12	0.14

Decenoylcarnitine	0.82	0.50	0.81	1	0.83	0.82	0.60	0.28	0.16

Decanoylcarnitine	0.94	0.19	0.99	0.83	1	0.75	0.61	0.11	0.15

Dodecenoylcarnitine	0.73	0.35	0.69	0.82	0.75	1	0.72	0.22	0.21

Tetradecenoylcarnitine	0.58	0.27	0.57	0.60	0.61	0.72	1	0.20	0.18

Linoleylcarnitine	0.16	0.28	0.12	0.28	0.11	0.22	0.20	1	0.59

Stearoylcarnitine	0.19	0.10	0.14	0.16	0.15	0.21	0.18	0.59	1

	Hexanoyl-carnitine	Octenoyl-carnitine	Octanoyl-carnitine	Decenoyl-carnitine	Decanoyl-carnitine	Dodecenoyl-carnitine	Tetradecenoyl-carnitine	Linoleyl-carnitine	Stearoyl-carnitine

Octenoylcarnitine	0.26	1	0.18	0.50	0.19	0.35	0.27	0.28	0.10

Octanoylcarnitine	0.94	0.18	1	0.81	0.99	0.69	0.57	0.12	0.14

Decenoylcarnitine	0.82	0.50	0.81	1	0.83	0.82	0.60	0.28	0.16

Decanoylcarnitine	0.94	0.19	0.99	0.83	1	0.75	0.61	0.11	0.15

Dodecenoylcarnitine	0.73	0.35	0.69	0.82	0.75	1	0.72	0.22	0.21

Tetradecenoylcarnitine	0.58	0.27	0.57	0.60	0.61	0.72	1	0.20	0.18

Linoleylcarnitine	0.16	0.28	0.12	0.28	0.11	0.22	0.20	1	0.59

Stearoylcarnitine	0.19	0.10	0.14	0.16	0.15	0.21	0.18	0.59	1


	Coefficient (Standard Error)

Independent Variable	Initial Family Lifestyle	Family LifestyleAge 3	Family LifestyleAge 5	Family LifestyleAge 7

	α (Eq. 4)

Previous Latent Family Lifestyle, α	–	1.094*** (0.007)	1.094*** (0.007)	1.094*** (0.007)

	β(Eqs. 3 and 4)

Currently High SES	0.028*** (0.008)	–	–	–

Currently Low SES	−0.072*** (0.008)	–	–	–

Maternal Education at Birth	0.013*** (0.003)	–	–	–

Single Parent	−0.044*** (0.010)	−0.002 (0.007)	− 0.003 (0.005)	−0.012** (0.005)

	Coefficient (Standard Error)

Independent Variable	Initial Family Lifestyle	Family LifestyleAge 3

	α (Eq. 4)

Previous Latent Family Lifestyle, α	–	1.094*** (0.007)

	β(Eqs. 3 and 4)

Currently High SES	0.028*** (0.008)	–

Currently Low SES	−0.072*** (0.008)	–

Maternal Education at Birth	0.013*** (0.003)	–

Single Parent	−0.044*** (0.010)	−0.002 (0.007)

Coefficient (Standard Error)

Family LifestyleAge 5	Family LifestyleAge 7

α (Eq. 4)

1.094*** (0.007)	1.094*** (0.007)

β(Eqs. 3 and 4)

–	–

–	–

–	–

− 0.003 (0.005)	−0.012** (0.005)


Patient	Age (years)	Gender	Location	Primary malignancy	Metastases type	Treatment for primary malignancy

1	69	M	Right	Kidney cancer	S	Surgery, chemotherapy

2	65	F	Left	Lung cancer	M	Surgery, chemotherapy

3	46	M	Right 	Melanoma	M	Surgery, chemotherapy

4	70	F	Left 	Kidney cancer	M	Surgery

5	80	M	Right 	Colon cancer	S	Surgery, chemotherapy

6	81	F	Right 	Colon cancer	M	Surgery, chemotherapy

7	60	M	Left 	Kidney cancer	S	Surgery

8	68	F	Left 	Kidney cancer 	S	Surgery

9	59	M	Left 	Stomach cancer	S	Surgery, chemotherapy

Patient	Age (years)	Gender	Location	Primary malignancy	Metastases type	Treatment for primary malignancy

5	80	M	Right	Colon cancer	S	Surgery, chemotherapy

6	81	F	Right	Colon cancer	M	Surgery, chemotherapy

7	60	M	Left	Kidney cancer	S	Surgery

8	68	F	Left	Kidney cancer	S	Surgery

9	59	M	Left	Stomach cancer	S	Surgery, chemotherapy


	Model I*	Model II**

Variable names	HR (95% CI)	P	HR (95% CI)	P

Care recipient's gender

 Female	1.00		1.00

 Male	3.97 (1.17 - 13.42)	0.027	5.13 (2.25 - 11.69)	< 0.0001

Informal care-giving arrangement

 Spousal care	1.00		1.00

 Daughter-in-law care	4.09 (1.23 - 13.58)	0.022	4.40 (1.60 - 12.10)	0.004

 Other categories (biological daughter care/other relative care/living alone)	1.55 (0.45 - 5.39)	0.491	1.26 (0.55 - 2.90)	0.580

Interaction

 Male gender * Daughter-in-law care	0.09 (0.01 - 0.57)	0.011	0.08 (0.02 - 0.46)	0.004

 Male gender * Other categories	0.66 (0.14 - 3.11)	0.601

	Model I*

Variable names	HR (95% CI)

Care recipient's gender

Female	1.00

Male	3.97 (1.17 - 13.42)

Informal care-giving arrangement

Spousal care	1.00

Daughter-in-law care	4.09 (1.23 - 13.58)

Other categories (biological daughter care/other relative care/living alone)	1.55 (0.45 - 5.39)

Interaction

Male gender * Daughter-in-law care	0.09 (0.01 - 0.57)

Male gender * Other categories	0.66 (0.14 - 3.11)


Characteristics	Adjusting for age and gender	Simple logistic regression	Multiple logistic regression

OR (95% CI)	P	OR (95% CI)	P	OR (95% CI)	P

Adropin (ng/mL)	0.285 (0.180–0.452)	<0.001	0.288 (0.183–0.453)	<0.001	0.270 (0.160–0.455)	<0.001

MetS	—	—	1.506 (0.865–2.621)	0.148	—	—


Condition	Femoral Taper Mean + Standard Deviation (Newtons)	Acetabular Taper Mean + Standard Deviation (Newtons)

10 million cycles dynamic fatigue	12,957 + 1797	3429 + 347

50 million cycles dynamic fatigue	12,506 + 774	4329 + 443

Conditio	Femoral Taper Mean + Standard Deviatio	Acetabular Taper Mean + Standard

n	n (Newtons)	Deviation (Newtons)

10 million cycles dynamic fatigue	12,957 + 1797	3429 + 347

50 million cycles dynamic fatigue	12,506 + 774	4329 + 443


	Lctg (n = 7)	Fccg (n = 9)

	Pre	Post	Difference	Pre	Post	Difference

ONE LEG PRESS (1 RM* IN kg)

Right	151 ± 31	152 ± 34	1 ± 4	128 ± 14	130 ± 18	2 ± 8

Left	150 ± 38	148 ± 37	−1 ± 5	122 ± 12	123 ± 14	1 ± 7

ONE LEG EXTENSION (1 RM* IN kg)

Right	47 ± 8	46 ± 7	−1 ± 2	44 ± 6	45 ± 8	1 ± 3

Left	45 ± 8	44 ± 9	0 ± 3	41 ± 7	43 ± 8	2 ± 3


Variables

Age, years, mean (SD)

Gender

Female

Male

HIV status

Negative

Positive

Unknown

Disease classification

PTB

PTB and EPTB

TB classification

New

Re-treatment

Smear conversion statusa

Negative

Positive

Pre-treatment smear grading

Scanty

AFB+

AFB++

AFB+++

Not recorded

Sub-district

Bitou

George

Hessequa

Kannaland

Knysna

Mossel Bay

Oudtshoorn


Criterion	Data extracted

Country research conducted	Country

Study design	Between-subjects, within-subject, laboratory, field.

Participant characteristics	Total sample size; number of male and female participants; mean, median, standard deviation and range for age and BMI and BMI assessment method if assessed (self-report or objectively measured).

Moderating variables	Individual differences in eating behaviour traits [dieting status; restrained eating (scale used) or any other psychometric scales]; any other moderators examined.

Cue type and level of engagement	Type of cue: Specific item (e.g. slim models, foods); level of engagement: explicit, incidental, sub-conscious; cue validation

Test food	Interval between cue exposure and assessment of food intake; Test foods used: snack, meal, sweet, savoury, food name.

Mechanism for effects tested?	Yes, no; type of assessment used.

Main outcome	Food intake in ounces, piece count, grams and energy intake; assessment method for food intake (weighed, piece count)

Risk of bias	Random allocation to conditions, randomisation methods, allocation concealment, blinding (use of a cover story and participants' beliefs about the study aims; whether the researcher was aware of the study aims or condition that had been administered), completion of outcome reporting (excluded participants), procedures used to control for appetite, individual or social setting, administration of psychometric scales.

Criterion	Data extracted

Risk of bias	Random allocation to conditions, randomisation methods, allocation concealment, blinding (use of a cover story and participants' beliefs about the study aims; whether the researcher was aware of the study aims or condition that had been administered), completion of outcome reporting (excluded participants), procedures used to control for appetite, individual or social setting, administration of psychometric scales.


Coefficientsa

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients

B

1	(Constant)	1.556

Age	-0.003

Diabetes Mellitus	0.365

GFR	0.001

Serum Creatinine	-0.099

Weight	-0.001

Proteinuria	7.064E-5


CoW structure	Computation	Measurement [43]

	L. ICA	R. ICA	BA	L. ICA	R. ICA	BA

Type 1	4.81	4.85	2.36	5.07	5.18	2.75

Type 2	6.14	3.50	2.36	6.12	3.93	2.35

CoW structure	Computation	Measurement [43]

	L. ICA	R. ICA	BA	L. ICA	R. ICA	BA

Type 3	4.80	5.70	1.49	5.28	5.91	1.50


Demographics and clinical characteristics	n (%)

Age (mean ± SD)	55.4 ± 17.3

Male	131 (76.6)

Medical use before admission

 NSAIDs	43 (25.1)

 PPIs ≤ 2 weeks	28 (16.4)

 Antibiotics ≤ 4 weeks	13 (7.6)

Prior history of peptic ulcers	42 (24.6)

Prior history of H. pylori eradication	12 (7.0)

Presenting symptoms

 Hematemesis	88 (51.5)

 Melena	77 (45)

 Hematochezia	6 (3.5)

Preendoscopic PPIs use

 High-dose, intravenous	133 (77.8)

 Low-dose, intravenous	8 (4.6)

 Oral	3 (1.8)

 None	27 (15.8)

Hemodynamic instability at admission (heart rate > 100 beats per minute and/or systemic blood pressure < 100 mmHg)	47 (27.5)

Transfusion requirement	47 (27.5)


Cerebral structure	Embryonic day	Genotype/normalised volume (mm3 × 10−2)

Gldc+/+	GldcGT1/+	GldcGT2/+	GldcGT1/GT2

Mesencephalic vesicle	16.518.5	30 ± 515 ± 2*	34 ± 413 ± 1*	35 ± 316 ± 2*	30 ± 314 ± 2*

Body of the LVs	16.518.5	15 ± 27 ± 1*	13 ± 28 ± 1**	11 ± 17 ± 1**	13 ± 323 ± 9***

Base of the posterior horn of LVs	16.518.5	10 ± 511 ± 5	10 ± 29 ± 1	13 ± 512 ± 3	13 ± 79 ± 6

Fourth ventricle	16.518.5	14 ± 27 ± 1*	12 ± 15 ± 1*	14 ± 24 ± 1*	10 ± 16 ± 1*

Fourth ventricle choroid plexus	16.518.5	95 ± 110 ± 1	10 ± 18 ± 1	11 ± 19 ± 4	80 ± 110 ± 1

Cerebellum	16.518.5	11 ± 0.0122 ± 2*	13 ± 121 ± 3*	15 ± 119 ± 1*	12 ± 121 ± 2*


	With Hashimoto’s	Without Hashimoto’s	P value

Number of patients	653	5456


	β coefficient	95% CI	p

EBM score	−0.33	−0.53	−0.12	<0.01

% admissions in urgency	0.02	−0.07	0.10	0.95

ward (surgical/medical)	0.64	−4.71	5.99	0.81

% appropriateness in admissions	−0.66	−0.77	−0.55	<0.01

constant	85.27	73.33	97.20	<0.01

	β coefficient	95% CI	p

ward (surgical/medical)	0.64	−4.71	5.99	0.81

% appropriateness in admissions	−0.66	−0.77	−0.55	<0.01

constant	85.27	73.33	97.20	<0.01


	IORT, n = 267a	EB-APBI, n = 206

N, median	%,range	N, median

Age

Years	68	59–90	67

pT stage

pTis	18	7%	26

pT1a	12	5%	14

pT1b	80	30%	50

pT1c	130	49%	89

pT2	26	10%	27

pN stage (invasive)

pN0	227	92%	172

pN1mi/pN1a	20	8%	6

unknown	1	0%	2

BR stage (invasive)

Grade 1	81	33%	61

Grade 2	109	44%	91

Grade 3	56	23%	25

unknown	2	1%	3

ER (invasive)

Positive	232	94%	169

PR (invasive)

Positive	187	75%	138

Her2neu (invasive)

Positive	15	6%	10

Systemic therapy

No	157	59%	127

HT	91	34%	60

CT ± HT	19	7%	17


	Hospitalisations withAKI diagnosis (N = 230)(%)	Hospitalisations without AKI diagnosis (N = 7574)(%)	P Value

Age (years)			< 0.001

 < 65	10.9	31.4

 65-74	22.2	29.2

 75-84	41.7	27.9

 ≥ 85	25.2	11.5

Sex (Male)	53.0	36.3	< 0.001

Smoking history			0.037

 Non-smoker	28.7	37.7

 Ex-smoker	59.6	53.4

 Current smoker	11.3	8.6

 Missing	0.4	0.3

Co-diagnosis of COPD	60.4	50.0	0.002

Outpatient eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)			<0.001

 > 60	33.0	53.8

 45-60	17.4	11.0

 30-45	21.3	4.2

 15-30	10.0	1.3

 No measurement	18.3	29.8

History of AKI	20.4	4.4	< 0.001

Chronic conditions

 Heart failure	19.6	9.0	< 0.001

 Cirrhosis	0.9	0.6	0.638

 Diabetes	26.1	13.1	< 0.001

 Dementia	4.8	2.9	0.107

 Prostatic hypertrophy	17.0	7.5	< 0.001

Drugs with nephrotoxic potential

 NSAIDs	28.3	22.5	0.038

 Aminoglycoside nebuliser	1.3	0.1	0.001

 Aminoglycoside injection	1.3	0.7	0.227

 ACEI or ARBs	35.2	21.9	< 0.001

 Diuretics	44.8	29.5	< 0.001

Sepsis diagnosis	12.2	1.0	< 0.001

	Hospitalisations withAKI diagnosis (N = 230)(%)	Hospitalisations without AKI diagnosis (N = 7574)(%)	P Value

Aminoglycoside nebuliser	1.3	0.1	0.001

Aminoglycoside injection	1.3	0.7	0.227

ACEI or ARBs	35.2	21.9	< 0.001

Diuretics	44.8	29.5	< 0.001

Sepsis diagnosis	12.2	1.0	< 0.001


Among plants in population	Among populations

Population	Range of length	Average length	Population pair	Length

Uss	8-41	17.33	Uss - Spa	24

Spa	9-30	22.57	Uss - Dgor	22

Dgor	15-38	23.0	Uss - Part	33

Pozh	14-43	28.0	Part - Drech	50

Nad	21-36	29.07	Drech - Chu	25

Part	12-30	22.06	Part - Yak	19

Yak	22-57	35.13	Yak - Olg	35

Chu	15-44	25.0	Pozh -Nad	24

Drech	12-51	24.88	Pozh - Part	27

Olg	14-52	36.5

Average		26.35		28.78

Among plants in population	Among populations

Population	Range of length	Average length	Population pair

Uss	8-41	17.33	Uss - Spa

Spa	9-30	22.57	Uss - Dgor

Dgor	15-38	23.0	Uss - Part

Pozh	14-43	28.0	Part - Drech

Nad	21-36	29.07	Drech - Chu

Part	12-30	22.06	Part - Yak

Yak	22-57	35.13	Yak - Olg

Chu	15-44	25.0	Pozh -Nad

Drech	12-51	24.88	Pozh - Part

Olg	14-52	36.5

Average		26.35


	Normal range	ED admission	ICU admission

HR, bpm	—	143	117

MAP, mmHg	—	65	77

PaO2/FiO2	—	72,7	120

Body temperature, °C	—	38.1	37.9

Lactate, mmol/L	0.5–1.6	3.4	1.4

Creatinine, mg/dl	<1.2	1.95	1.41

GOT, U/L	<35	202	290

GPT, U/L	<45	248	320

gGT, U/L	<55	316	238

CK, U/L	<190	1014	1553

Troponin T, ng/ml	0–0.03	0.274	Na

CRP, mg/dl	<1	5.51	9.27

WBC, G/L	4.0–10.0	10.35	8.77


	Factor	Odds ratio (95 % confidence interval)	p-value

Time period	Pre-intervention	Reference

Post-intervention	1.543 (0.956–2.491)	0.074

Monthly trend	Pre-intervention	1.009 (0.983–1.036)	0.487

Post-intervention	1.048 (1.007–1.091)	0.023

Season	Dry	Reference

Wet	0.974 (0.845–1.123)	0.708

Total outpatient attendance	Per 1,000	0.919 (0.883–0.956)	<0.001


Microorganism Isolated	Total No. 241 (100)

Pseudomonas aeruginosa	51 (21.16)

aMDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa	16 (6.64)

Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus	11 (4.56)

Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus	6 (2.49)

Acinetobacter sp	3 (1.24)

Moraxella catarrhalis	7 (2.9)

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia	4 (1.66)

Enterobacteriaceae	12 (4.98)

 Escherichia coli	5 (2.07)

 Proteus spp	3 (1.24)

 Klebsiella pneumonia	3 (1.24)

 Serratia spp	1 (0.41)

Haemophilus influenzae	27 (11.2)

Streptococcus pneumoniae	25 (10.37)

Achromobacter xylosoxidans	5 (2.07)

Mycoplasma pneumoniae	6 (2.49)

Chlamydia pneumoniae	1 (0.41)

Atypical mycobacteria	4 (1.66)

Aspergillus spp	12 (4.98)

Candida spp	15 (6.22)

Virus	25 (10.37)

 Coronavirus	1 (0.41)

 Metapneumovirus	4 (1.65)

 Rhinovirus	10 (4.14)

 Influenza A	3 (1.24)

 Influenza B	2 (0.82)

 Parainfluenza 3	2 (0.82)

 Respiratory Syncytial virus	3 (1.24)

Others	11 (4.56)


Maintenance Time (ms)	Rise Time (ms)

Doped LC	VA LC

3	4.72	193

5	6.96	115

10	–	108


#	Misincorporation	Untemplated	Sequence 5′-GCAUGGGCCC ... -3′

24		+C	AUGC <underline>C</underline> AUGC AUGC UUGC N0-3

20		+CC	AUGC <underline>CC</underline> AUGC AUGC UUGC N0-3

2	G→C	+C	AU<underline>C</underline>C <underline>C</underline> AUGC AUGC UUGC N0-3

38	G→C		AU<underline>C</underline>C AUGC AUGC UUGC N0-3

14	(U/G)→C		A<underline>C</underline>C AUGC AUGC UUGC N0-3

4		+A(C/U)C	AUGC <underline>A(C/U)C</underline> AUGC AUGC UUGC

1			AUGC AUGC UUGC

1		ΔG	AUC AUGC UUGC

Misincorporation	Untemplated	Sequence 5′-GCAUGGGCCC ... -3′

	+C	AUGC C AUGC AUGC UUGC N0-3

	+CC	AUGC CC AUGC AUGC UUGC N0-3

G→C	+C	AUCC C AUGC AUGC UUGC N0-3

G→C		AUCC AUGC AUGC UUGC N0-3

(U/G)→C		ACC AUGC AUGC UUGC N0-3

	+A(C/U)C	AUGC A(C/U)C AUGC AUGC UUGC

		AUGC AUGC UUGC

	ΔG	AUC AUGC UUGC


Site	Eligible visits	BMD testing	Initiation of any osteoporosis medication	Initiation of any nutritional supplements (calcium, vitamin D)

	Median (IQR)	Total	Median (IQR)	Total	Rate‡(95% CI)	Median (IQR)	Total	Rate (95% CI)	Median (IQR)	Total	Rate (95% CI)

Combined†

O	240.0 (	12,44	10.	550	4.42 (4.07-4.80)	1.		0.66 (0.5	3	1	1.


 	Chi-square tests

 	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson chi-square	.036a	3	.998

Likelihood ratio	.036	3	.998

Fisher's exact test	.074

Linear-by-linear	.004c	1	.952

Association

N of valid cases	288

	Chi-square tests

	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson chi-square	.036a	3	.998

Likelihood ratio	.036	3	.998

Fisher's exact test	.074

Linear-	.00		.

	Chi-square tests

	Value	df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

by-linear	4c	1	952

Association

N of valid cases	288


State	Description	Probability*

Normal	No abnormality	0.78

Adenoma <10 mm	Individual has adenoma that is <10 mm in diameter	0.1668

Adenoma ≥10 mm	Individual has adenoma that is ≥10 mm in diameter	0.0464

Surveillance	Individuals are in the surveillance state once they have had an adenoma ≥ 10 mm removed	0

CRC Dukes’ A	Individual has developed CRC and is at Dukes stage A	0.0036

Treatment Dukes’ A	Individual with Dukes stage A has been diagnosed and will not take part in any further screening	0

CRC Dukes’ B	Individual has developed CRC and is at Dukes stage B	0.0016

Treatment Dukes’ B	Individual with Dukes stage B has been diagnosed and will not take part in any further screening	0

CRC Dukes’ C	Individual has developed CRC and is at Dukes stage C	0.0012

Treatment Dukes’ C	Individual with Dukes stage C has been diagnosed and will not take part in any further screening	0

CRC Dukes’ D	Individual has developed CRC and is at Dukes stage D	0.0004

Treatment Dukes’ D	Individual with Dukes stage D has been diagnosed and will not take part in any further screening	0

Dead CRC	Death from CRC	0

Dead other causes	Death from colonoscopy	0


Factors (Number)	Univariate model	Multivariate model #1	Multivariate model #2

HR	95% CI	P	HR	95% CI	P	HR	95% CI	P

Pathological risk factors

Perineural invasion (Y/N) (13/90)	1.111	0.434–2.846	0.827

Lymphovascular invasion (Y/N) (16/87)	1.132	0.440–2.915	0.797

Extra-parenchymal extension (Y/N) (45/58)	2.045	1.077–3.886	0.029				1.006	0.469–2.157	0.988

Extra-capsular spread (Y/N) (26/77)	3.236	1.665–6.290	0.001	1.799	0.850–3.811	0.125	1.792	0.846–3.795	0.128


Characteristic	Intervention arm	Control arm

N = 609	N = 667

Children’s characteristics

Female sex, n (%)	329 (54.0)	336 (50.4)

Mean age, months (SD)	30.4 (15.9)	31.5 (16.4)

Caregivers’ characteristics

Female sex, n (%)	562 (92.3)	625 (93.7)

Age in years, mean (SD)	30.9 (9.4)	30.5 (8.7)

Education level, n (%)*

None	59 (9.7)	62 (10.4)

Primary	381 (62.7)	450 (67.7)

Post primary	168 (27.6)	146 (22.0)


Outcome and instrument	Method	Data collection time

T0	T1	T2

Degree of integration

Self-constructed questionnaire	Mailed questionnaire	x	 	x

Satisfaction health professionals

Self-constructed questionnaire	Mailed questionnaire	x	 	x

Relational coordination Survey	Mailed questionnaire	x	 	x

Self-reported satisfaction	Diaries	x	x

 	Interviews	 	 	x

Focus groups	x	x	x

Satisfaction frail elderly

CQ-index	Interview elderly	x	x	x

Self-constructed questionnaire	Interview elderly	x	x	x

Satisfaction caregiver

CQ-index	Interview caregiver or mailed questionnaire	x	x	x

Self-constructed questionnaire	Interview caregiver or mailed questionnaire	x	x	x

d instrument	Method

T0	T1	T2

Degree of integration

Self-constructed questionnaire	Mailed questionnaire	x		x

Satisfaction health professionals

Self-constructed questionnaire	Mailed questionnaire	x		x

Relational coordination Survey	Mailed questionnaire	x		x

Self-reported satisfaction	Diaries	x	x

	Interviews			x

Focus groups	x	x	x

Satisfaction frail elderly

CQ-index	Interview elderly	x	x	x

Self-constructed questionnaire	Interview elderly	x	x	x

Satisfaction caregiver

CQ-index	Interview caregiver or mailed questionnaire	x	x	x

Self-constructed questionnaire	Interview caregiver or mailed questionnaire	x	x	x


	Fetal cotyledonary tissue	Maternal caruncular tissue

		fdPAG (mg) and [PAG/TP ratio (%)]		fdPAG (mg) and [PAG/TP ratio (%)]

Purification step	TP (mg)	RIA-438	RIA-706	TP (mg)	RIA-438	RIA-706

20-40% A.	1,40	3.16 [0.	0.12 [0.01	1,	1.23 [	0.06 [


Factor	Bup

Apgar score

1min	9.0(8.0,9.0)

5min	10.0(9.0,10.0)

Umbilical oxygen partial pressure(mmHg)	24.8±10.3

Umbilical dioxide partial pressure(mmHg)	41.9±5.1

Umbilical glucose(mmol/L)	3.5±0.6

Umbilical lactate(mmol/L)	1.5(1.4,1.6)

Umbilical blood PH	7.4±0.0


Red light

GO term	P value

MF: structural constituent of ribosome	3.95E–29

CC: ribosome	9.50E–25

BP: translation	1.22E–22

CC: integral to membrane	1.19E–06

BP: cell redox homeostasis	1.96E–06

CC: mitochondrion	8.95E–05

MF: glycerone kinase activity	9.31E–05

A total of 1,000 genes were submitted to the GOBU functional enrichment tool, which resulted in 689 unique genes with annotations. Terms are ranked by P value of over–representation and are included in list if P <1E–04. BP: Biological process; CC: Cellular component; MF: Molecular function.

Blue light

GO term	P value

CC: chloroplast	4.67E–33

MF: structural constituent of ribosome	1.66E–29

CC: ribosome	5.14E–27

BP: translation	1.63E–20

BP: reductive pentose–phosphate cycle	1.47E–16

CC: photosystem II	2.36E–10

BP: photosynthesis, light harvesting	6.62E–10

CC: photosystem I	8.56E–10

CC: stromule	2.32E–09

MF: chlorophyll binding	2.53E–08

CC: thylakoid	6.47E–08

BP: photorespiration	1.00E–07

CC: chloroplast envelope	1.12E–07

BP: photosynthesis	3.92E–07

CC: oxygen evolving complex	5.16E–07

CC: cytosolic ribosome	3.22E–06

MF: rRNA binding	1.68E–05

BP: cell redox homeostasis	2.21E–05

BP: translational elongation	2.26E–05

MF: ribulose–bisphosphate carboxylase activity	2.86E–05

BP: nitrate assimilation	5.10E–05

MF: glycerone kinase activity	7.63E–05

Red light

GO term

MF: structural constituent of ribosome

CC: ribosome

BP: translation

CC: integral to membrane

BP: cell redox homeostasis

CC: mitochondrion

MF: glycerone kinase activity

A total of 1,000 genes were submitted to the GOBU functional enrichment tool, which resulted in 689 unique genes with annotations. Terms are ranked by P value of over–representation and are included in list if P <1E–04. BP: Biological process; CC: Cellular component; MF: Molecular function.

Blue light

GO term

CC: chloroplast

MF: structural constituent of ribosome

CC: ribosome

BP: translation

BP: reductive pentose–phosphate cycle

CC: photosystem II

BP: photosynthesis, light harvesting

CC: photosystem I

CC: stromule

MF: chlorophyll binding

CC: thylakoid

BP: photorespiration

CC: chloroplast envelope

BP: photosynthesis

CC: oxygen evolving complex

CC: cytosolic ribosome

MF: rRNA binding

BP: cell redox homeostasis

BP: translational elongation

MF: ribulose–bisphosphate carboxylase activity

BP: nitrate assimilation

MF: glycerone kinase activity

P value

3.95E–29

9.50E–25

1.22E–22

1.19E–06

1.96E–06

8.95E–05

9.31E–05

A total of 1,000 genes were submitted to the GOBU functional enrichment tool, which resulted in 689 unique genes with annotations. Terms are ranked by P value of over–representation and are included in list if P <1E–04. BP: Biological process; CC: Cellular component; MF: Molecular function.

P value

4.67E–33

1.66E–29

5.14E–27

1.63E–20

1.47E–16

2.36E–10

6.62E–10

8.56E–10

2.32E–09

2.53E–08

6.47E–08

1.00E–07

1.12E–07

3.92E–07

5.16E–07

3.22E–06

1.68E–05

2.21E–05

2.26E–05

2.86E–05

5.10E–05

7.63E–05


INNO-LIA	p31	LAg-Avidity EIA	BED CEIA			Decision tree

n		Seroconversion	Very early	Early	Recent	Long term	Advanced

Negative/ID	Recent	Recent	Recent	24	Congruent	24

Positive	Recent	Recent	Recent	81		81

Positive	Long-term	Recent	Recent	56			56

Positive	Long-term	Long-term	Recent	74				71		3

Positive	Long-term	Long-term	Long-term	313					313

Positive	Recent	Long-term	Recent	8	Incongruent						8

Positive	Long-term	Recent	Long-term	1					1

Positive	Recent	Long-term	Long-term	9					9

				566

Positive	Long-term	Recent	Recent	56	Congruent			56

Positive	Long-term	Long-term	Recent	74				71		3

Positive	Long-term	Long-term	Long-term	313					313

Positive	Recent	Long-term	Recent	8	Incongruent						8

Positive	Long-term	Recent	Long-term	1					1

Positive	Recent	Long-term	Long-term	9					9

				566


ECLS strategy	Possible indication(s)

VV ECMO + atrial septostomy	Refractory hypoxia and/or pulmonary hypertension on VV ECMO avoiding sternotomy

VV ECMO + transeptal return to left atrium	Refractory hypoxia and/or pulmonary hypertension on VV ECMO avoiding sternotomy

Venoarterial ECMO + transeptal access from left atrium and right atrium	Refractory left ventricular distension on venoarterial ECMO

ECLS strategy	Possible indication(s)

VV ECMO + transeptal return to left atrium	Refractory hypoxia and/or pulmonary hypertension on VV ECMO avoiding sternotomy

Venoarterial ECMO + transeptal access from left atrium and right atrium	Refractory left ventricular distension on venoarterial ECMO


		VHV	Health center

MEAN

Direct cost
(Kina; Kina 1 = USD 0.48)		−1.2977***
(0.408)

Walking distance (km)		−0.6843***
(0.198)

Antimalarial drug availability (no = 0/yes = 1)		2.0290***
(0.742)


Regular Menus	Carbohydrate-Controlled Menus	3000 mg Menus	2000 mg Menus


Groups	Standard error	Mean difference	Significance (P ≤ 0.05)	95% Confidence interval for mean

Lower bound	Upper bound

Dentistry versus medicine	0.775	−0.536	0.489	−2.06	0.99

Dentistry versus arts	0.632	−1.784	0.005	−3.02	−0.54

Dentistry versus computer science	0.727	−1.766	0.015	−3.19	−0.34

Groups	Standard error	Mean difference	Significance (P ≤ 0.05)	95% Confidence interval for mean

Lower bound	Upper bound

Dentistry versus medicine	0.775	−0.536	0.489	−2.06	0.99

	0.63	−1.		−3	−0

Dentistry versus arts	2	784	0.005	.02	.54

Dentistry versus computer science	0.727	−1.766	0.015	−3.19	−0.34


Unique region ID	VFDB ID	GIs	Gene	Putative functions	Organisms	% Identity	E-value

C8R1	VFG1693	GI 1	int	Prophage P4 integrase	Escherichia coli CFT073	33	1.1E-45

C10R1	VFG0893	-	papA_2	PapA protein	Escherichia coli CFT073	33	2.1E-16

C10R1	VFG0075	-	InlA	Internalin A	Listeria monocytogenes (serovar 1/2a) EGD-e	30	1.4E-16

C13R2	VFG0783	-	intL	Putative integrase for prophage 933L and the LEE pathogenicity island	Escherichia coli O157:H7 EDL933	27	1.3E-16

C15R4	VFG0038	GI 2	bplA	probable oxidoreductase	Bordetella pertussis Tohama I	28	2.3E-19

C15R4	VFG0344	GI 2	hitC	iron(III) ABC transporter, ATP	Haemophilus influenzae Rd	33	6.7E-23

C15R5	VFG0082	-	aldA	aldehyde dehydrogenase	Vibrio cholerae N16961	31	1.2E-47

C15R6	VFG0598	-	intC	Sai integrase	Shigella flexneri (serotype 2a) 301	47	4.9E-93

C18R3	VFG0672	GI 6	int	integrase	Shigella flexneri (serotype 2a)	66	5E-162

C20R4	VFG1124	-	VC1791	conserved hypothetical protein	Vibrio cholerae N16961	41	4.2E-39

C20R7	VFG0925	-	fepC	Ferric enterobactin transport ATP	Escherichia coli CFT073	33	2.3E-23

C20R7	VFG0922	-	chuU	Putative permease of iron compound ABC transport system	Escherichia coli CFT073	39	3.8E-29

C20R8	VFG0358	-	fyuA/psn	yersiniabactin receptor protein	Yersinia pestis CO92	26	1.4E-34

C20R8	VFG0167	-	pchR	transcriptional regulator PchR	Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1	41	1.1E-26

C26R1	VFG1102	GI 12	hsdM	DNA methylase HsdM	Vibrio cholerae N16961	25	4.6E-17

C26R1	VFG1098	GI 12	hsdR	type I restriction enzyme HsdR	Vibrio cholerae N16961	24	1.3E-21

C26R2	VFG2417	-	ecpE	hypothetical protein	Escherichia coli O157:H7 EDL933	47	5.7E-41

C26R2	VFG2416	-	ecpD	putative receptor	Escherichia coli O157:H7 EDL933	56	1.2E-108

C26R2	VFG2415	-	ecpC	putative enzyme	Escherichia coli O157:H7 EDL933	55	8.5E-142

C26R2	VFG2412	-	ecpB	hypothetical protein	Escherichia coli O157:H7 EDL933	48	1.1E-50

C26R2	VFG2414	-	ecpA	hypothetical protein	Escherichia coli O157:H7 EDL933	57	7.2E-44

C26R2	VFG2044	-	bvgA	Virulence factors transcription regulator	Bordetella pertussis Tohama I	47	7.7E-53

C27R1	VFG1433	GI 13	csvA	CS7 fimbria major subunit CsvA precursor	Escherichia coli	39	6.8E-22

C27R1	VFG0584	GI 13	yjcC	putative diguanylate cyclase	Salmonella enterica (serovar typhimurium) LT2	29	4.8E-28

C32R1	VFG1584	GI 14	orf50	hypothetical protein	Escherichia coli 536	26	1.9E-13

C32R1	VFG1584	GI 14	orf50	hypothetical protein	Escherichia coli 536	26	4.7E-18

C32R2	VFG1888	-	letS	sensory box histidine kinase	Legionella pneumophila Philadelphia 1	39	1.1E-41

C32R2	VFG0584	-	yjcC	putative diguanylate cyclase	Salmonella enterica (serovar typhimurium) LT2	32	6.9E-32

C36R3	VFG1092	GI 16	int3	integrase, phage family	Vibrio cholerae N16961	26	9.3E-15

C36R3	VFG1443	GI 16	ompA	outer membrane protein A	Escherichia coli	38	1.8E-54

C36R3	VFG1548	GI 16	prfC	PrfC protein	Escherichia coli 536	39	1E-164

C36R3	VFG1547	GI 16	prfD	PrfD protein	Escherichia coli 536	51	2.7E-61

C39R1	VFG0266	-	hmbR	hemoglobin receptor	Neisseria meningitidis MC58 (serogroup B)	31	1.4E-45

C39R1	VFG0266	-	hmbR	hemoglobin receptor	Neisseria meningitidis MC58 (serogroup B)	36	6.5E-34

Unique region ID	VFDB ID	GIs	Gene	Putative functions	Organisms

C8R1	VFG1693	GI 1	int	Prophage P4 integrase	Escherichia coli CFT073

C10R1	VFG0893	-	papA_2	PapA protein	Escherichia coli CFT073

C10R1	VFG0075	-	InlA	Internalin A	Listeria monocytogenes (serovar 1/2a) EGD-e

C13R2	VFG0783	-	intL	Putative integrase for prophage 933L and the LEE pathogenicity island	Escherichia coli O157:H7 EDL933

C15R4	VFG0038	GI 2	bplA	probable oxidoreductase	Bordetella pertussis Tohama I

C15R4	VFG0344	GI 2	hitC	iron(III) ABC transporter, ATP	Haemophilus influenzae Rd

C15R5	VFG0082	-	aldA	aldehyde dehydrogenase	Vibrio cholerae N16961

C15R6	VFG0598	-	intC	Sai integrase	Shigella flexneri (serotype 2a) 301

C18R3	VFG0672	GI 6	int	integrase	Shigella flexneri (serotype 2a)

C20R4	VFG1124	-	VC1791	conserved hypothetical protein	Vibrio cholerae N16961

C20R7	VFG0925	-	fepC	Ferric enterobactin transport ATP	Escherichia coli CFT073

C20R7	VFG0922	-	chuU	Putative permease of iron compound ABC transport system	Escherichia coli CFT073

C20R8	VFG0358	-	fyuA/psn	yersiniabactin receptor protein	Yersinia pestis CO92

C20R8	VFG0167	-	pchR	transcriptional regulator PchR	Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1

C26R1	VFG1102	GI 12	hsdM	DNA methylase HsdM	Vibrio cholerae N16961

C26R1	VFG1098	GI 12	hsdR	type I restriction enzyme HsdR	Vibrio cholerae N16961

C26R2	VFG2417	-	ecpE	hypothetical protein	Escherichia coli O157:H7 EDL933

C26R2	VFG2416	-	ecpD	putative receptor	Escherichia coli O157:H7 EDL933

C26R2	VFG2415	-	ecpC	putative enzyme	Escherichia coli O157:H7 EDL933

C26R2	VFG2412	-	ecpB	hypothetical protein	Escherichia coli O157:H7 EDL933

C26R2	VFG2414	-	ecpA	hypothetical protein	Escherichia coli O157:H7 EDL933

C26R2	VFG2044	-	bvgA	Virulence factors transcription regulator	Bordetella pertussis Tohama I

C27R1	VFG1433	GI 13	csvA	CS7 fimbria major subunit CsvA precursor	Escherichia coli

C27R1	VFG0584	GI 13	yjcC	putative diguanylate cyclase	Salmonella enterica (serovar typhimurium) LT2

C32R1	VFG1584	GI 14	orf50	hypothetical protein	Escherichia coli 536

C32R1	VFG1584	GI 14	orf50	hypothetical protein	Escherichia coli 536

C32R2	VFG1888	-	letS	sensory box histidine kinase	Legionella pneumophila Philadelphia 1

C32R2	VFG0584	-	yjcC	putative diguanylate cyclase	Salmonella enterica (serovar typhimurium) LT2

C36R3	VFG1092	GI 16	int3	integrase, phage family	Vibrio cholerae N16961

C36R3	VFG1443	GI 16	ompA	outer membrane protein A	Escherichia coli

C36R3	VFG1548	GI 16	prfC	PrfC protein	Escherichia coli 536

C36R3	VFG1547	GI 16	prfD	PrfD protein	Escherichia coli 536

C39R1	VFG0266	-	hmbR	hemoglobin receptor	Neisseria meningitidis MC58 (serogroup B)

C39R1	VFG0266	-	hmbR	hemoglobin receptor	Neisseria meningitidis MC58 (serogroup B)


	Photoelectric	Detector with CO Sensor

	CO Concentration (ppm)	CO Dose (ppm minute)	CO Concentration (ppm)	CO Dose (ppm minute)

Shortest time of alarm	576	30,859	25	587

733	31,384	38	425

502	17,855	53	1121

639	22,690	52	802

643	18,985	35	276

993	57,893	36	515

-	-	44	965

-	-	30	437

-	-	47	902


Factors	Weight	Parameters	Weight

1. Environmental background	0.10	1.1 elevation	0.25

1.2 Slope	0.07

1.3 geomorphological types	0.36

1.4 accumulated temperature (> 0 °C)	0.11

1.5 wetness index	0.21

2. Water/land resources	0.37	2.1 precipitation	0.22

2.2 river density	0.11

2.3 land-use types	0.67

3. Socio-economic development	0.53	3.1 railway density	0.25

3.2 road density	0.13

3.3 population density	0.62

Factors	Weight	Parameters	Weight

2. Water/land resources	0.37	2.2 river density	0.11

2.3 land-use types	0.67

3. Socio-economic development	0.53	3.1 railway density	0.25

3.2 road density	0.13

3.3 population density	0.62


Hypothesis	Cyt b	16S	Concatenated

Monophyly of “Mixed Genera” and “Parougia”	n.a.1	0.501	n.a.1

Monophyly of “Mixed Genera” and “Ophryotrocha”	0.097	n.a.1	0.227

Monophyly of Ophryotrocha	0.003	0.010	0.001

Monophyly of Ophryotrocha Seep 1 and 2	n.a.2	<0.001	n.a.2

Monophyly of Ophryotrocha Seep 3–5	0.229	n.a.1	n.a.1

Monophyly of Ophryotrocha Seep 1–5	n.a.3	<0.001	n.a.3


Strategy	Country	Cases	Tests	Prevalence (per 10,000)	CI 95%

Intensified monitoring in AS positive flocks	Finland	0	36	0	0 - 973.9

	France	11	14965	7.4	3.7 - 13.1

	Greece	0	67	0	0 - 535.7

	Norway	0	75	0	0 - 480.0

	Portugal	3	4612	6.5	1.3 - 19.0

	Sweden	0	47	0	0.0 - 754.9

Intensified monitoring in CS positive flocks	France	7	31113	2.2	0.9 - 4.6

Selective culling in AS positive flocks	Belgium	0	223	0	0 - 164.1

	Denmark	0	168	0	0 - 217.2

	France	5	10462	4.8	1.6 - 11.1

	Italy	1	2260	4.4	0.1 - 24.6

	The Netherlands	0	60	0	0 - 596.3

	Norway	0	1033	0	0 - 35.6

	Portugal	2	1763	11.3	1.4 - 40.9

Selective culling in CS positive flocks	Belgium	0	295	0	0 - 124.3

	France	4	12087	3.3	0.9 - 8.5

	Greece	3	10310	2.9	0.6 - 8.5

	Italy	2	8565	2.3	0.3 - 8.4

Special genetic selection in AS positive flocks	Italy	0	351	0	0 - 104.5

Stamping out in AS positive flocks	Denmark	0	17	0	0 - 1950.6

	Finland	0	173	0	0 - 211.0

	Iceland	1	467	21.4	0.5 - 118.7

	Italy	1	1309	7.6	0.2 - 42.5

	Norway	0	1156	0	0 - 31.9

	Sweden	0	195	0	0 - 187.4

Stamping out in CS positive flocks	Iceland	0	367	0	0 - 100.0

	Italy	0	3231	0	0 - 11.4

	Norway	0	343	0	0 - 107.0

Strategy	Country	Cases	Tests	Prevalence (per 10,000)	CI 95%

	France	4	12087	3.3	0.9 - 8.5

	Greece	3	10310	2.9	0.6 - 8.5

	Italy	2	8565	2.3	0.3 - 8.4

Special genetic selection in AS positive flocks	Italy	0	351	0	0 - 104.5

Stamping out in AS positive flocks	Denmark	0	17	0	0 - 1950.6

	Finland	0	173	0	0 - 211.0

	Iceland	1	467	21.4	0.5 - 118.7

	Italy	1	1309	7.6	0.2 - 42.5

	Norway	0	1156	0	0 - 31.9

	Sweden	0	195	0	0 - 187.4

Stamping out in CS positive flocks	Iceland	0	367	0	0 - 100.0

	Italy	0	3231	0	0 - 11.4

	Norway	0	343	0	0 - 107.0


	Attended predictable	Attended unpredictable	Unattended predictable	Unattended unpredictable

Mean	175.38	171.38	171.81	173.50

Range	165–182	141–187	142–188	161–181


nr	Item description	loading	α1	α2	ITC

	Factor 1: Communication with ophthalmologist		0.89

Q7	Ophthalmologist treated me with respect	0.88		0.88	0.66

Q8	Ophthalmologist listened carefully	0.90		0.87	0.73

Q9	Ophthalmologist explained things clearly	0.75		0.88	0.67

Q10	Ophthalmologist spent enough time	0.85		0.87	0.74

Q11	Ophthalmologist went seriously into merits of my questions	0.81		0.87	0.78

Q12	Ophthalmologist shared decision making	0.68		0.87	0.74

Q13	Ophthalmologist took specific wishes into account	0.68		0.87	0.74

Q16	Ophthalmologist talked about things that went wrong	0.40		0.91	0.49

	Factor 2: Communication with nurses		0.72

Q30	Nurses treat me with respect	0.84		0.66	0.56

Q31	Nurses listened carefully	0.84		0.59	0.63

Q32	Nurses explained things clearly	0.80		0.62	0.56

Q38	Information was adequately coordinated*	0.41		0.76	0.41

	Factor 3: Communication about medication		0.79

Q50	Questions asked about allergic iodine	0.91		0.69	0.65

Q51	Questions asked about allergic medication	0.92		0.58	0.74

Q52	Clear information about side-effects medication	0.61		0.83	0.51

	Factor 4: Rest items		0.52

Q16	Ophthalmologist talked about things that went wrong	0.41		0.43	0.33

Q38	Information was adequately coordinated	0.53		0.36	0.44

Q39	Care was adequately coordinated	0.57		0.36	0.40

Q63	How often did insurers compensate for costs medication	0.46		0.61	0.12

nr	Item description	loading	α1	α2	ITC

Q30	Nurses treat me with respect	0.84		0.66	0.56

Q31	Nurses listened carefully	0.84		0.59	0.63

Q32	Nurses explained things clearly	0.80		0.62	0.56

Q38	Information was adequately coordinated*	0.41		0.76	0.41

	Factor 3: Communication about medication		0.79

Q50	Questions asked about allergic iodine	0.91		0.69	0.65

Q51	Questions asked about allergic medication	0.92		0.58	0.74

Q52	Clear information about side-effects medication	0.61		0.83	0.51

	Factor 4: Rest items		0.52

Q16	Ophthalmologist talked about things that went wrong	0.41		0.43	0.33

Q38	Information was adequately coordinated	0.53		0.36	0.44

Q39	Care was adequately coordinated	0.57		0.36	0.40

Q63	How often did insurers compensate for costs medication	0.46		0.61	0.12


			GRADING	ADC	fp	Dp	Dt

Spearman Correlation Coefficient	GRADING	Correlation Coefficient	1,000	,687*	,737*	−,326	,674*

		P value		,000	,000	,090	,000

	ADC	Correlation Coefficient	,687*	1,000	,483*	−,128	,835*

		P value	,000		,006	,518	,000

	fp	Correlation Coefficient	,737*	,483*	1,000	−,615*	,245

		P value	,000	,006		,001	,183

	Dp	Correlation Coefficient	−,326	−,128	−,615*	1,000	,290

		P value	,090	,518	,001		,135

	Dt	Correlation Coefficient	,674*	,835*	,245	,290	1,000

		P value	,000	,000	,183	,135

			GRADING	ADC

Spearman Correlation Coefficient	GRADING	Correlation Coefficient	1,000	,687*

		P value		,000

	ADC	Correlation Coefficient	,687*	1,000

		P value	,000

	fp	Correlation Coefficient	,737*	,483*

		P value	,000	,006

	Dp	Correlation Coefficient	−,326	−,128

		P value	,090	,518

	Dt	Correlation Coefficient	,674*	,835*

		P value	,000	,000


	n	Gender female	Age (years)*	Height (cm)*	Weight (kg)*	BMI (kg/m2)*

Residents	64	n = 53 (82.8%)	83.2 ± 8.1	161.9 ± 9.3	72.1 ± 16.1	27.4 ± 5.4

	n	Gender female	Age (years)*	Height (cm)*	Weight (kg)*	BMI (kg/m2)*

Caregivers	29	n = 29 (100%)	42.0 ± 11.7	166.7 ± 6.2	76.3 ± 16.6	27.3 ± 5.9


Factors analyzed	RAI (−) patients

Risk ratio (CI)	p value

Age (years)	0.034 (0.000–48.227)	0.362

Male gender	1.170 (0.279–4.911)	0.830

Microscopic ETE	0.794 (0.096–6.551)	0.830

Diameter of largest tumor	0.621 (0.148–2.609)	0.515

Sum diameter of all tumors	1.624 (0.388–6.802)	0.507


Groups	I	N	Total

H	5	7	12

L	7	4	11

Total	12	11	23


Cluster	Observed cases	Expected Cases	RR	LLR	P value

(a) Without covariate adjustment

Most likely cluster	3388	2754.18	1.27	78.04	<0.001

Secondary cluster 1	496	319.35	1.57	42.43	<0.001

Secondary cluster 3	525	382.84	1.38	24.08	<0.001

Secondary cluster 4	1992	1775.27	1.13	13.84	<0.001

Secondary cluster 5	119	71.95	1.66	12.88	<0.001

Not significant cluster	52	33.23	1.57	4.52	0.654

(b) With adjustment of race/ethnic status of population

Most likely cluster	4550	3843.34	1.23	74.66	<0.001

Secondary cluster 1	476	363.25	1.32	16.21	<0.001

Not significant cluster	119	85.39	1.40	5.91	0.26

Not significant cluster	1209	1111.12	1.09	4.41	0.68

Not significant cluster	713	640.85	1.12	4.04	0.80

Not significant cluster	413	370.87	1.12	2.35	1.00


 	 	NIHSS	MMSE

Man, 84 years	He fell when he put his glasses on the small table beside his bed	5	27

Man, 86 years	He fell on his way from the bedroom to the kitchen	2	23

Woman, 73 years	She fell when the door of the elevator hit her	6	29

Man, 77 years	The staff at his nursing home found him on the floor in the bathroom	2	20

Woman, 84 years	She lost the grip and fell when she tried to draw herself up from the wheelchair	6	21

Woman, 94 years	She fell backwards into the wheelchair but it turned over and she fell on the floor	12	15

Man, 89 years	He fell on his way from the bedroom to the kitchen	0	13

Man, 58 years	On his way from the bedroom to the front door, he stumbled on a carpet and fell	2	24

Man, 87 years	He was going to sit down but missed the chair and fell on the floor	8	12

Man, 69 years	He was going to sit down in his wheelchair but missed it and fell on the floor	4	—

Woman, 87 years	During the night she fell in her home	2	—

Man, 81 years	He arrived at the hospital after fall in her home	5	—

Woman, 76 years	She fell in her home and hit her hip	8	—

Woman, 86 years	She fell from a chair	3	—

Woman, 83 years	She fell during the evening and hit her hip	2	—

Woman, 86 years	Unspecified fall. She complained from pain in the right leg	7	—


Class	Subclass	Pathway

Biosynthesis	Polyamines	Betaine biosynthesis

		Polyamine biosynthesis

	Fatty acids and lipids	Phospholipid biosynthesis

		Fatty acid biosynthesis - initial steps

		Fatty acid elongation - saturated

	Cofactors, prosthetic groups, electron carriers	Pyridine nucleotide biosynthesis

		Thioredoxin pathway

		Glutathione biosynthesis

		Pantothenate and coenzyme A biosynthesis

		Pyridoxal 5'-phosphate salvage pathway

		Polyisoprenoid biosynthesis

		FormylTHF biosynthesis

	Cell structures	Colanic acid building blocks biosynthesis

		GDP-mannose metabolism

	Carbohydrates	Gluconeogenesis

		Trehalose degradation - low osmolarity

	Aminoacyl-tRNAs	tRNA charging pathway

	Amino acid biosynthesis	Proline biosynthesis I

		Glycine biosynthesis I

		Serine biosynthesis

Degradation	Sugars and polysaccharides	Glucose 1-phosphate metabolism

		Galactose metabolism

		Trehalose degradation - low osmolarity

		Glycogen degradation

		Ribose degradation

	Other degradation	Removal of superoxide radicals

	Nucleosides and nucleotides	(Deoxy)ribose phosphate metabolism

	Fatty acids	Fatty acid oxidation pathway

	Carboxylates, other	Acetate degradation

	Amino acids, amines	L-serine degradation

	Alcohols	Glycerol metabolism

Energy metabolism		Pyruvate dehydrogenase

		TCA cycle - aerobic respiration

		Glycolysis

		Oxidative branch of the pentose phosphate pathway

		Nonoxidative branch of the pentose phosphate pathway


	Multiple sclerosis	Normal controls

Number	N = 31	N = 18

Age (years) (mean ± SD)	43.3 ± 8.7	43.6 ± 8.1

Women, number (%)	21 (68 %)	14 (78 %)

Disease category, number (%)

 Relapsing-remitting	26 (84 %)	-

 Secondary progressive	4 (13 %)	-

 Primary progressive	1 (3 %)	-

Disease durationa (years) (mean ± SD)	9.0 ± 8.3	-

Expanded Disability Status Scale score (mean ± SD)	2.1 ± 2.1	-

Timed 25-foot walk (mean ± SD)	6.0 ± 5.2	-

T1 normalized cord area (mm2) (mean ± SD)	77.7 ± 10.6	81.4 ± 7.0

T2 normalized cord area (mm2) (mean ± SD)	70.2 ± 10.5	75.1 ± 9.0

	Multiple sclerosis	Normal controls

Women, number (%)	21 (68 %)	14 (78 %)

Disease category, number (%)

Relapsing-remitting	26 (84 %)	-

Secondary progressive	4 (13 %)	-

Primary progressive	1 (3 %)	-

Disease durationa (years) (mean ± SD)	9.0 ± 8.3	-

Expanded Disability Status Scale score (mean ± SD)	2.1 ± 2.1	-

Timed 25-foot walk (mean ± SD)	6.0 ± 5.2	-

T1 normalized cord area (mm2) (mean ± SD)	77.7 ± 10.6	81.4 ± 7.0

T2 normalized cord area (mm2) (mean ± SD)	70.2 ± 10.5	75.1 ± 9.0


	All	Non-C9/GRN	C9orf72	GRN

pTDP	NeuN	pTDP-4	N		Ne	p	Ne


PWM	GATA-3 bound sequences	GATA-3 not bound sequences

Total hits	TP sequences	FN	Sensitivity	Total hits	Total sequences with hits	TN

New-mono	45095	21289	7040	75%	39276	19760	8569

New-di	58409	23378	4951	83%	52897	22450	5879


Study	Conduit	Number of patients	Skeletonized Group	Key Findings	Adverse Events

Ref	Type	RA/GEA	Skel	Control	Age (Yrs ± S.D.)	Gender M/F

Kamiya et al [13]	A	GEA	70	98	60 ± 9.2	51/80	Significantly increases luminal diameter Composite grafts effective for multiple grafting	No deaths 15 Atrial Fibrillation

Rukosujew et al [21]	A	RA	20	20	n/a	N/a	Significantly increases harvesting time Length significantly increased by skeletonization with scissors Endothelial damage seen in all groups	Not recorded

Amano et al [12]	B	RA	131	112	65.8 ± 8.9	102/80	Proximal diameter of RA significantly larger in skeletonized conduits Significant increase in sequential RA grafting	2 MI, 2 Respiratory Failures, 4 CVA, 2 Mediastinitis, 2 Deaths

Li et al [20]	C	GEA	59	21	66.7 ± 8.8	46/19	No significant difference in harvest time or number of distal anastomoses	1 CVA, 1 Respiratory Failure, 1 Death

Kamiya et al [23]	C	GEA	168	60	65 ± 11.5	131/47	Functional patency significantly better in skeletonized group	20 Atrial Fibrillation, 1 MI, 2 Re-exploration for bleeding

Study	Conduit	Number of patients	Skeletonized Group	Key Findings	Adverse Events

Re		RA	Skel	Contro	Age (Yrs ±	Gender

f	Type	/GEA		l	 S.D.)	 M/F

Kamiya et al [13]	A	GEA	70	98	60 ± 9.2	51/80	Significantly increases luminal diameter Composite grafts effective for multiple grafting	No deaths 15 Atrial Fibrillation

Rukosujew et al [21]	A	RA	20	20	n/a	N/a	Significantly increases harvesting time Length significantly increased by skeletonization with scissors Endothelial damage seen in all groups	Not recorded

Amano et al [12]	B	RA	131	112	65.8 ± 8.9	102/80	Proximal diameter of RA significantly larger in skeletonized conduits Significant increase in sequential RA grafting	2 MI, 2 Respiratory Failures, 4 CVA, 2 Mediastinitis, 2 Deaths

Li et al [20]	C	GEA	59	21	66.7 ± 8.8	46/19	No significant difference in harvest time or number of distal anastomoses	1 CVA, 1 Respiratory Failure, 1 Death

Kamiya et al [23]	C	GEA	168	60	65 ± 11.5	131/47	Functional patency significantly better in skeletonized group	20 Atrial Fibrillation, 1 MI, 2 Re-exploration for bleeding


Trial Characteristics	Percent (number) of Trials

Study Type

 Individual patient RCT	76.25% (61/80)

 Factorial RCT	6.25% (5/80)

 Cluster RCT	17.5% (14/80)

Number of study arms

 Two	83.75% (67/80)

 Three	7.5% (6/80)

 Four	8.75% (7/80)

Patient Population

 Adults	91.25% (73/80)

 Children	6.25% (5/80)

 Infants	1.25% (1/80)

 Mixed (Adults & Children)	1.25% (1/80)

Study Intervention

 Drug	46.25% (37/80)

 Surgery	8.75% (7/80)

 Education	10.0% (8/80)

 Other	27.5% (22/80)

 Procedure	3.75% (3/80)

 Weight loss	3.75% (3/80)

Funding Source

 Academic	73.75% (59/80)

 Industry	26.25% (21/80)

Trial start-up meeting described	8.75% YES (7/80)

Trial run-in phase described	8.75% YES (7/80)

GCP adherence reported	6.25% YES (5/80)

Lead Investigator reports previous research experience	62.5% YES (50/80)

Trial results

 Harm	2.5% (2/80)

 Neutral	32.5% (26/80)

 Positive	65.0% (52/80)

Management structure

 MC, SC & others (explicit structure)	26.25% (21/80)

 MC or SC only (basic structure)	21.25% (17/80)

 Not reported	52.8% (42/80)


Transmission route	Cases (n = 30)	Controls(n = 50)	Odds ratio	95% Confidence intervals	P value

Blood transfusion (without proper screening)

 • Yes	11	7	3.56	1.061–12.220	0.038

 • No	19	43	1.00	(Reference)

Mutual sharing of house hold contents

 • Yes	25	42	7.50	2.217–26.946	0.0001

 • No	05	08	1.00	(Reference)

Surgery history

 • Positive	9	5	3.86	1.009–15.374	0.048

 • Negative	21	45	1.00	(Reference)

Dental treatment

 • Yes	12	11	3.87	1.192–12.827	0.021

 • No	18	39	1.00	(Reference)


Targeted protein	Peptide number	Sequence	Specificity Tm.I/Tm.II#	Global proteomics 2007 study (Bertin et al., 2011)	Cell cultures	2007 COWG	2009 COWG	2009 COWG	2011 COWG	2012 COWG

AioA	1	ACVVNQGLSSTR	Tm.I/Tm.II	X	CB1, CB2, CB3, CB6	X	–	–	–	–

	2	IQIFPAK	Tm.II (Carn2_0821 only)*	X	–	–	–	–	–	–

	3	DFIANHTEGFDAAVK	Tm.II (Carn2_1469 only)*	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

	4	DFIANHTEGFEAAVK	Tm.II (Carn2_0821, Carn2_1330)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

	5	FWINNGR	Tm.I/Tm.II	X	CB1, CB2, CB6	X	–	–	–	–

	6	YPAADFPIPR	Tm.I/Tm.II	X	CB1, CB2, CB3, CB6	X	X	X	X	X

	7	YPASSVPIPR	T. intermedia K12 (Tm.I)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

	8	DFIAQHTEGFEAAVK	Tm.I	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

	9	IQVFPAK	Tm.I/Tm.II	–	CB1, CB2, CB3, CB6	X	–	–	–	–

	10	ITGVPVAQIK	Tm.I/Tm.II	X	CB1, CB2, CB3, CB6	X	X	X	X	X

	11	LIFTGIQTPTVR	Tm.I/Tm.II	X	CB2, CB3, CB6	X	X	X	X	X

AioB	12	AVAVTGLIYGR	Tm.I/Tm.II	X	CB1, CB6	X	X	X	X	X

RpoA	13	SETELLK	Tm.I/Tm.II	–	CB1, CB2, CB3, CB6	X	–	–	–	–

	14	SIGHIVLDASFSPVR	Tm.I	–	–	–	–	–	–	–

	15	SIQVEALGPLR	Tm.II	X	–	–	X	X	X	X

	16	SIQVESLGHNR	Tm.I	–	–	–	–	–	–	–


	No type 2 diabetes (n = 609)	Type 2 diabetes (n = 253)	p-value

Age, years	58 ± 8.6	64 ± 7.0	< 0.001

Male sex, n (%)	296 (49 %)	176 (70 %)	< 0.001

Partner, n (%)	515 (85 %)	208 (85 %)	0.98

Educational level, % low/middle/high	12/39/49	28/47/25	<0.001

HbA1c, %	5.65 ± 0.37	6.91 ± 0.88	< 0.001

Diabetes duration, years	-	7 [3–11]

Diabetes medication, % no/oral/insulin	-	22/57/21

Smoking, % never/former/current	34/49/17	22/64/14

 Pack years	4 [0–18]	15 [0–33]	< 0.001

Body mass index, kg/m2	26.3 ± 4.0	29.8 ± 4.7	< 0.001

Systolic blood pressure, mmHg	133 ± 18	146 ± 19	< 0.001

Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg	76 ± 10	78 ± 10	0.004

Total cholesterol, mmol/l	5.5 ± 1.1	4.4 ± 1.0	< 0.001

HDL cholesterol, mmol/l	1.40 ± 0.41	1.12 ± 0.40	< 0.001

LDL cholesterol, mmol/l	3.5 ± 1.0	2.6 ± 0.9	< 0.001

Triglycerides, mmol/l	1.3 ± 0.9	1.8 ± 1.0	< 0.001

	No type 2 diabetes (n = 609)

Age, years	58 ± 8.6

Male sex, n (%)	296 (49 %)

Partner, n (%)	515 (85 %)

Educational level, % low/middle/high	12/39/49

HbA1c, %	5.65 ± 0.37

Diabetes duration, years	-

Diabetes medication, % no/oral/insulin	-

Smoking, % never/former/current	34/49/17

Pack years	4 [0–18]

Body mass index, kg/m2	26.3 ± 4.0

Systolic blood pressure, mmHg	133 ± 18

Diastolic blood pressure, mmHg	76 ± 10

Total cholesterol, mmol/l	5.5 ± 1.1

HDL cholesterol, mmol/l	1.40 ± 0.41

LDL cholesterol, mmol/l	3.5 ± 1.0

Triglycerides, mmol/l	1.3 ± 0.9


Primary clinical diagnostic category	All diagnoses included in primary clinical diagnostic categories

I. Non-Proliferative*	Non-Proliferative only

Fibroadenoma

II. Proliferative changes without atypia	Usual ductal hyperplasia

Columnar cell hyperplasia/columnar cell changes

Sclerosing adenosis

Radial Scar/complex sclerosing lesion

Flat epithelial atypia

Intraductal papilloma w/o atypia

III. Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH)	Atypical ductal hyperplasia

Intraductal papilloma with atypia

IV. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)	Ductal carcinoma in situ

V. Invasive breast cancer	Invasive (ductal or lobular or other special type)

Primary clinical diagnostic category

I. Non-Proliferative*

II. Proliferative changes without atypia

III. Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH)

IV. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)

V. Invasive breast cancer

All diagnoses included in primary clinical diagnostic categories

Non-Proliferative only

Fibroadenoma

Usual ductal hyperplasia

Columnar cell hyperplasia/columnar cell changes

Sclerosing adenosis

Radial Scar/complex sclerosing lesion

Flat epithelial atypia

Intraductal papilloma w/o atypia

Atypical ductal hyperplasia

Intraductal papilloma with atypia

Ductal carcinoma in situ

Invasive (ductal or lobular or other special type)


Feature	FluxTransgenics	Phytotracker	QTreds

Operational system	Web Application, can be accessed from any OS.	Mac OS or Microsoft Windows.	Web Application, can be accessed from any OS.

Data storage	MySQL Relational Database.	FileMaker Pro.	MySQL Relational Database.

Process support	Most laboratory processes. Adaptable to any workflow.	Pre-defined workflow.	Adaptable to any workflow.

Access control	Permissions are granted to user or roles. Roles, or groups, can be created by administrator user.	Permissions are granted only to users. The concept of roles is non existent.	Permissions are granted to user or roles. But the roles are fixed (cannot be created).

Feature	FluxTransgenics	Phytotracker	QTreds

Data storage	MySQL Relational Database.	FileMaker Pro.	MySQL Relational Database.

Process support	Most laboratory processes. Adaptable to any workflow.	Pre-defined workflow.	Adaptable to any workflow.

Access control	Permissions are granted to user or roles. Roles, or groups, can be created by administrator user.	Permissions are granted only to users. The concept of roles is non existent.	Permissions are granted to user or roles. But the roles are fixed (cannot be created).


Genetic characteristic	Frequency,%

VKORC1 (N = 96)

 Gene

GG (wild type)	84 (87.5)

GA	12 (12.5)

AA	–

 Allele

G	180 (93.8)

A	12 (6.2)

CYP4F2 (N = 116)

 Gene

CC (wild type)	28 (24.1)

CT	80 (69.0)

TT	8 (6.9)

 Allele

C	136 (58.6)

T	96 (41.4)

CYP2C9*2 (N = 86)

 Gene

CC (wild type)	86 (100)

CT	–

TT	–

 Allele

C	172 (100)

T	–

CYP2C9*3 (N = 84)

 Gene

AA (wild type)	84 (100)

AC	–

CC	–

 Allele

A	168 (100)

C	–


	ASAQ	AL

No. of included patients (intention-to-treat)	62	61

PCR-uncorrected responses on day 28

Wit	7; 	9; 1


		SKO

WASI matrix reasoning	18/32 (T = 49)

Digit span forwards	3 digits

Repetition	63/90

Reading [from Brown and Ure (1969)]	11/72

Graded non-word reading test	0/20

Spoken non-word–written non-word match

Level I (e.g., bep-civ)	7/10

Level II (e.g., bem-bav)	5/10

British picture vocabulary scale (short)	26/32

Pyramid and palm trees test

3 pictures	45/52

3 written words	34/52

McKenna and Warrington (1978)

Naming	Animals	3/10 (30%)

	Man-made artifacts	3/10 (30%)

	Colors	2/10 (20%)

	Body part	3/10 (30%)

	Countries	9/10 (90%)

	TOTAL	20/50 (40%)

Comprehension	Animals	10/10 (100%)

	Man-made artifacts	10/10 (100%)

	Colors	7/10 (70%)

	Body part	6/10 (60%)

	Countries	10/10 (100%)

	TOTAL	43/50 (86%)

		SKO

WASI matrix reasoning	18/32 (T = 49)

Digit span forwards	3 digits

Repetition	63/90

Reading [from Brown and Ure (1969)]	11/72

Graded non-word reading test	0/20

Spoken non-word–written non-word match

Level I (e.g., bep-civ)	7/10

Level II (e.g., bem-bav)	5/10

British picture vocabulary scale (short)	26/32

Pyramid and palm trees test

3 pictures	45/52

3 written words	34/52

McKenna and Warrington (1978)

Naming	Animals	3/10 (30%)

	Man-made artifacts	3/10 (30%)

	Colors	2/10 (20%)

	Bo	3/10


Flow type	The flow is fast and in vasculitis direction and velocity are important for diagnosis

PRF and wall filters	Different PRF for different vessels:

 Temporal and facial arteries, PRF range = 2–3.5 kHz

 Carotis, subclavian and axillary arteries, PRF range = 3–4 kHz

 Vertebral and occipital arteries, PRF range = 0.7–1.5 kHz

High PRF ensures display of correct flow direction and velocity

Wall filters are linked controls and with a high PRF, the wall filter will also be high to eliminate motion artefacts from moving arterial walls

Choice of Doppler	CD as it displays the mean blood velocity

Spectral Doppler for indicating correct insonation angle and for calculating the correct velocity of the flow

Doppler frequency	Optimal frequency varies according to the location of the vessel

Higher for temporal arteries lower for the larger arteries because of penetration

Gain	Gain should be adjusted according to noise level for both CD and spectral Doppler but with a minimum of blooming

Colour priority	If adjustable, then it should be kept high to ensure Doppler filling in the vessel

Focus	At the level of region of interest to ensure optimal Doppler sensitivity

Flow type	The flow is fast and in vasculitis direction and velocity are important for diagnosis

Choice of Doppler	CD as it displays the mean blood velocity

Spectral Doppler for indicating correct insonation angle and for calculating the correct velocity of the flow

Doppler frequency	Optimal frequency varies according to the location of the vessel

Higher for temporal arteries lower for the larger arteries because of penetration

Gain	Gain should be adjusted according to noise level for both CD and spectral Doppler but with a minimum of blooming

Colour priority	If adjustable, then it should be kept high to ensure Doppler filling in the vessel

Focus	At the level of region of interest to ensure optimal Doppler sensitivity


Parameter	Logistic Regression

	Odds Ratio	95% CI	P-value

Women's age (years)	0.96	0.87 to 1.06	0.44

Men's age (years)	0.98	0.91 to 1.05	0.61

Duration of infertility (years)	0.81	0.63 to 1.03	0.10

MSOME (%)-Normal spermatozoa	1.28	1.08 to 1.51	0.003

Follicles ≥17 mm (n)	1.40	0.53 to 3.68	0.49

DNA fragmentation (%)	0.97	0.97 to 1.02	0.26

Total sperm count (x106/ml)	1.00	0.99 to 1.01	0.59

Motility (% spermatozoa)(rapid + slow progression)	0.98	0.96 to 1.01	0.13

Leukocytes (x106) (mean ± SD)	1.77	0.46 to 6.70	0.39

Parameter

Women's age (years)

Men's age (years)

Duration of infertility (years)

MSOME (%)-Normal spermatozoa

Follicles ≥17 mm (n)

DNA fragmentation (%)

Total sperm count (x106/ml)

Motility (% spermatozoa)(rapid + slow progression)

Leukocytes (x106) (mean ± SD)


Facilitators	N	Barriers	N

Concern over impacts of smoking on children’s health	22	Light smoking	10

Economic concern	20	Refusal of use of smoking cessation aids	9

Different smoking environment between China and Canada	22	Having friends or colleagues who smoke	7

Smoking cessation supports from wives and other people	14	Difficulty in getting rid of the habit	6

Smoking cessation supports from health professionals	8	The need for coping stress, and killing time	8

Concern over impacts of smoking on own health	11


Position and academic responsibility	All (n = 993)	Community-based (n = 294)	DGH-based (n = 412)	Tertiary (n = 279)

Consultants	84%	60%	96%	96%

Non-consultant career grades	12%	34%	4%	1%

Other positions	4%	6%	1%	4%

With academic responsibility	18%	9%	10%	36%

Position and academic responsibility	All (n = 993)	Community-based (n = 294)	DGH-based (n = 412)	Tertiary (n = 279)

Consultants	84%	60%	96%	96%

Non-consultant career grades	12%	34%	4%	1%

Other positions	4%	6%	1%	4%

With ac		9	10	3

Position and academic responsibility	All (n = 993)	Community-based (n = 294)	DGH-based (n = 412)	Tertiary (n = 279)

ademic responsibility	18%	%	%	6%


Parameter	n (%)

Operational procedure

 TEA	22 (40.7)

 Thrombectomy/embolectomy	14 (25.9)

 Bypass	13 (24.1)

 Resection of the dissection membrane	11 (20.3)

 SMA-transposition	7 (13.0)

 Visceral surgery	8 (14.8)

 Explorative laparotomy	3 (5.6)

Cause of occlusion

 Arterial embolism	16 (29.6)

 Arteriosclerosis combined with local thrombosis	13 (24.0)

 Arterial thrombosis	12 (22.2)

 Arterial dissection	9 (16.7)

 Local dissection	2 (3.7)

 Unclear cause of occlusion	2 (3.7)

Parameter

Operational procedure

TEA

Thrombectomy/embolectomy

Bypass

Resection of the dissection membrane

SMA-transposition

Visceral surgery

Explorative laparotomy

Cause of occlusion

Arterial embolism

Arteriosclerosis combined with local thrombosis

Arterial thrombosis

Arterial dissection

Local dissection

Unclear cause of occlusion


DNA Source	Position in MYD88 Exon 5 Amplicon

19t	+58g	+1245a	+1524t

SMRT	Illumina	SMRT	Illumina	SMRT	Illumina	SMRT	Illumina

Tumor DLBCL773	8t + 65C	8t + 22C	73g	All g	3a + 70G	1G	73t	No reads

Tumor DLBCL778	17t + 73C	5t + 44C	90g	All g	90a	No reads	90t	No reads

Tumor DLBCL799	26t + 29C	16t + 21C	37g + 18T	5g + 4T	55a	No reads	55t	No reads

Tumor DLBCL816	88t + 19C	8t + 3C	107g	All g	53a + 54G	No reads	107t	No reads

Tumor DLBCL894	165t + 50C	27t + 14C	215g	All g	315a	No reads	315t	No reads

Tumor DLBCL832	75t	All t	75g	All g	75a	No reads	75t	No reads

Cell line Ly3	79C	2t + 10C	79g	All g	79G	No reads	63t + 16A	No reads

Cell line Ly10	16t + 28C	7t + 5C	44g	All g	16a + 28G	No reads	44t	No reads

Cell line SKI	310t	All t	310g	All g	151a + 159G	No reads	310t	No reads

Cell line Karpas422	11t	All t	11g	All g	11a	No reads	11t	2t

Cell line Ly1	121t	All t	121g	All g	121a	No reads	121t	No reads

DNA Source	Position in MYD88 Exon 5 Amplicon

19t	+58g	+1245a	+1524t

SMRT	Illumina	SMRT	Illumina	SMRT	Illumina	SMRT	Illumina

Cell line Karpas422	11t	All t	11g	All g	11a	No reads	11t	2t

Cell line Ly1	121t	All t	121g	All g	121a	No reads	121t	No reads


	Placebo	Rapid CORT	Slow CORT

Reaction times neutral, in ms	674(17)	702(23)	650(20)

Reaction times aversive, in ms	687(17)	709(23)	664(20)

Emotional interference on reaction times, in Δms	12(7)	7(7)	14(6)

Correct responses neutral, in %	95.03(1.03)	95.29(0.64)	96.63(0.64)

Correct responses aversive, in %	95.24(0.90)	93.96(0.77)	96.80(0.63)

Emotional interference on correct responses, in Δ%	0.21(0.44)	−1.33(0.50)*	0.17(0.77)

–	–	–	–

	Placebo	Rapid CORT	Slow CORT

Reaction times aversive, in ms	687(17)	709(23)	664(20)

Emotional interference on reaction times, in Δms	12(7)	7(7)	14(6)

Correct responses neutral, in %	95.03(1.03)	95.29(0.64)	96.63(0.64)

Correct responses aversive, in %	95.24(0.90)	93.96(0.77)	96.80(0.63)

Emotional interference on correct responses, in Δ%	0.21(0.44)	−1.33(0.50)*	0.17(0.77)

–	–	–	–


		Factor

	Items	1	2	3

5.	Did you understand the method for border molding at the buccal side?	.957	.029	−.087

7.	Did you understand the method for border molding at the lingual side?	.953	−.095	.010

4.	Did you understand the method for border molding at the retromolar pad?	.821	.077	−.053

3.	Did you understand how to adjust the custom trays?	.649	.113	−.039

9.	Did you understand the mobility of mucosa?	.643	−.292	.134

1.	Did you understand how to use the impression material?	.588	.061	−.080

8.	Did you understand the image of the denture shapes?	.449	.058	.231

2.	Did you understand how to use the alcohol torch?	.446	.129	.117

19.	Is practical training well organized?	−.113	.794	−.052

13.	Did you understand the instructions of the teacher?	.083	.738	−.094

21.	Do you value practical training overall?	.161	.645	.046

20.	Is practical training easily comprehensible?	−.004	.606	.106

12.	Was the level of practical training appropriate for students?	−.059	.538	.140

15.	Did you find proper literature and references?	.061	−.081	.840

14.	Did you prepare for or review practical training?	−.027	.032	.785

16.	Are you satisfied with what you have learned?	−.046	.168	.652

	Interfactor correlation

	 1	–	.339	.459

	 2		–	.449

	 3			–

	Percent of variance explained	33.309	13.669	6.813

	Cronbach’s alpha	.893	.800	.818

	Mean	3.700	4.390	3.380

	SD	.991	.748	1.040


Characteristic	%

Males	67.3

Age, median (range)	40 (21–79)

Education level*

 Less than high school	31.4

 High school	39.2

 College	29.4

Employment status*

 Employed	25.0

 Unemployed	75.0

Alcohol use*	51.5

Intravenous drug use*	34.4

Clinical AIDS	9.5

CD4 count <200 cells/μL*	41.8

Received antiretroviral treatment	64.4

Anemia: Hb < 12 g/dL women, < 13 g/dL men	41.5

Characteristic	%

Education level*

Less than high school	31.4

High school	39.2

College	29.4

Employment status*

Employed	25.0

Unemployed	75.0

Alcohol use*	51.5

Intravenous drug use*	34.4

Clinical AIDS	9.5

CD4 count <200 cells/μL*	41.8

Received antiretroviral treatment	64.4

Anemia: Hb < 12 g/dL women, < 13 g/dL men	41.5


Variable	No	ΔCt (Mean ± SD)

		SAA1	SAA4


Gene Set	Number of Genes in Original Set	Number of Genes Present in GWAS Data	Number of SNPs Present in GWAS Data	Self-Contained p-Value (α = 2.8 × 10−3)	Competitive p-Value (α = 0.05)

All synaptic genes	1028	956	61413	0.0393 *	0.1733

Ion balance/transport	43	40	1454	0.0118	NA

Cell metabolism	57	51	1059	0.0429	NA

Endocytosis	26	26	1075	0.0554	NA

Cell adhesion and trans-synaptic signaling	81	76	13550	0.0709	NA

Exocytosis	87	83	4855	0.0962	NA

Protein cluster	47	42	4182	0.1491	NA

Peptide/neurotrophin signals	28	25	1742	0.1659	NA

Structural plasticity	98	90	4655	0.1764	NA

Tyrosine kinase signaling	7	7	1281	0.2030	NA

Neurotransmitter metabolism	29	27	1059	0.2959	NA

RNA and protein synthesis, folding and breakdown	71	64	1152	0.4994	NA

Ligand-gated ion channel signaling	36	32	2935	0.6500	NA

G-protein-coupled receptor signaling	41	40	3129	0.6578	NA

Unassigned	61	53	2258	0.6644	NA

Intracellular signal transduction	150	145	9563	0.7001	NA

G-protein relay	27	25	946	0.7047	NA

Intracellular trafficking	80	75	2024	0.7334	NA

Excitability	59	56	4508	0.7914	NA


Perdriolle degree difference	JIS (R2 = 0.40)	AIS (R2 = 0.29)

Independent variables	B coefficient	Standard error	p	B coefficient	Standard error	p

 	Complete (reference)	-	-	-	-	-

Adherence	Incomplete A	1.92	1.19	0.109	1.35	0.78

Incomplete B	4.23	0.89	0.000	3.97	0.56

Incomplete C	3.35	1.22	0.007	1.94	0.44

Incomplete D	4.65	1.27	0.000	2.46	0.54

Gender	2.15	1.29	0.099	0.18	0.58

Age baseline	0.18	0.31	0.558	0.09	0.13

Length of treatment	0.05	0.01	0.001	0.05	0.01

Perdriolle at baseline	−0.04	0.08	0.633	-0.02	0.04

Type of brace	Lyon (Reference)	-	-	-	-	-

Milwaukee	−0.18	1.08	0.865	0.21	0.52

Pasb	−0.47	1.09	0.669	−0.93	0.34

Perdriolle degree difference	JIS (R2 = 0.40)	AIS (R2 = 0.29)

Independent variables	B coefficient	Standard error	p	B coefficient	Standard error	p

Adherence	Incomplete A	1.92	1.19	0.109	1.35	0.78

Incomplete B	4.23	0.89	0.000	3.97	0.56

Incomplete C	3.35	1.22	0.007	1.94	0.44

Incomplete D	4.65	1.27	0.000	2.46	0.54

Gender	2.15	1.29	0.099	0.18	0.58

Age baseline	0.18	0.31	0.558	0.09	0.13

Length of treatment	0.05	0.01	0.001	0.05	0.01

Perdriolle at baseline	−0.04	0.08	0.633	-0.02	0.04

Type of brace	Lyon (Reference)	-	-	-	-	-

Milwaukee	−0.18	1.08	0.865	0.21	0.52

Pasb	−0.47	1.09	0.669	−0.93	0.34


Disease	Underlying Disease(s)	Incidence/Prevalence Used to Estimate Burden	Comments	Reference

Oesophageal candidiasis	HIV/AIDS	22% of patients with CD4 counts <200 × 106/mL and 5% of ARV-treated patients		[17]

Candidaemia	Multiple hospitalized patients	5/100,000 population, 33% occurring in intensive care	Few patients managed in ICU currently.	[18]

Candida peritonitis	Major abdominal surgery, pancreatitis	50% of the ICU population with candidaemia		[19]

Recurrent vaginal candidiasis (<underline>></underline>4×/year)	Pre-menopausal women	6% prevalence	Based on mean self-reported disease in Europe and US, reduced by 33% because of incorrect diagnosis.	[20]

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis	Asthma	2.5% of adults with asthma	Rare in children	[21]

Severe asthma with fungal sensitisation	Severe asthma	33% of the 10% of the most severe adult asthmatics 	Uncommon in children. Fungal sensitization prevalence not known for Cameroon.	[22]

Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis	Tuberculosis (TB), COPD, prior pneumothorax, asthma, lung surgery	22% of patients with a cavity of pulmonary TB survivors (22%), 2% of those without a cavity. Patients with other pulmonary conditions contribute an additional 25% of cases		[23,24,25]

Invasive aspergillosis	Leukaemia, lymphoma, COPD	10% of acute myeloid leukaemia, an equal number of cases in all other haematological conditions + 1.3% of patients with COPD admitted to hospital	Patients with other conditions not included, including HIV/AIDS.	[26]

Cryptococcal meningitis	HIV/AIDS	11% over 2 years in patients with CD4 counts <200 × 106/mL	The annual incidence rises as the CD4 count falls	[8,9,10]

Pneumocystis pneumonia	HIV/AIDS	15% over 2 years in patients with CD4 counts <200 × 106/mL	Common in children but not estimated separately. Cases in non-AIDS cases not estimated.	[27,28]

Histoplasmosis	HIV/AIDS	1.5% over 2 years in patients with CD4 counts <200 × 106/mL		[29]

Tinea capitis	Children 1–15 years	8.1%	The most conservative estimate is 8.1% in school aged children. There will be a slight over-estimate by including babies under 2 years.	[2]

Disease	Underlying Disease(s)	Incidence/Prevalence Used to Estimate Burden	Comments	Reference

Oesophageal candidiasis	HIV/AIDS	22% of patients with CD4 counts <200 × 106/mL and 5% of ARV-treated patients		[17]

Candidaemia	Multiple hospitalized patients	5/100,000 population, 33% occurring in intensive care	Few patients managed in ICU currently.	[18]

Candida peritonitis	Major abdominal surgery, pancreatitis	50% of the ICU population with candidaemia		[19]

Recurrent vaginal candidiasis (>4×/year)	Pre-menopausal women	6% prevalence	Based on mean self-reported disease in Europe and US, reduced by 33% because of incorrect diagnosis.	[20]

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis	Asthma	2.5% of adults with asthma	Rare in children	[21]

Severe ast	Severe as	33%	Uncommon in children. 	[

hma with fungal sensitisation	thma	 of the 10% of the most severe adult asthmatics	Fungal sensitization prevalence not known for Cameroon.	22]

Chronic pulmonary aspergillosis	Tuberculosis (TB), COPD, prior pneumothorax, asthma, lung surgery	22% of patients with a cavity of pulmonary TB survivors (22%), 2% of those without a cavity. Patients with other pulmonary conditions contribute an additional 25% of cases		[23,24,25]

Invasive aspergillosis	Leukaemia, lymphoma, COPD	10% of acute myeloid leukaemia, an equal number of cases in all other haematological conditions + 1.3% of patients with COPD admitted to hospital	Patients with other conditions not included, including HIV/AIDS.	[26]

Cryptococcal meningitis	HIV/AIDS	11% over 2 years in patients with CD4 counts <200 × 106/mL	The annual incidence rises as the CD4 count falls	[8,9,10]

Pneumocystis pneumonia	HIV/AIDS	15% over 2 years in patients with CD4 counts <200 × 106/mL	Common in children but not estimated separately. Cases in non-AIDS cases not estimated.	[27,28]

Histoplasmosis	HIV/AIDS	1.5% over 2 years in patients with CD4 counts <200 × 106/mL		[29]

Tinea capitis	Children 1–15 years	8.1%	The most conservative estimate is 8.1% in school aged children. There will be a slight over-estimate by including babies under 2 years.	[2]


 Tissue	Concentration (μg g–1 fresh weight of tissue)

(–)-Kolavenol	Hardwickiic acid	Salvinorin B	Salvinorin A

Leaf	0.200 ± 0.031	2.00 ± 0.27	31.0 ± 1.6	30.0 ± 2.3

Gland	1100 ± 170	15 000 ± 1100	150 000 ± 24 000	250 000 ± 13 000


Ideas for better cooperation	examples

Mutual accessibility	• use of faxes: obligatory processes, standardised forms, notation on urgency• establish telephone consulting hours for the GP• acute telephone calls: availability of mobile number of GP• contact nurse in the nursing home: competent, informed, skilled, cross-shift, one mobile phone per living area (residential unit)

Fix date for GP’s visit	• fixed date: nursing home sets date, fixed weekday, timing of a 30 min period of time• announcements and arrangements: via fax, timely cancellation of date by GP• central telephone number in nursing home for information transfer

PreparationCompany during GPs’visits Postprocessing	• prior to visit: communication via fax, nurse compiles and prepares records, (standardised) prioritisation of inquiries• preparation: chart round by GP and nurse• resident visit: preferably with nurse, standardised documentation• postprocessing: realisation in the responsibility of the nurse• soft skills: reliability, trust, openness, agreements, sufficient time

TransparencyDefinition of tasks	• regular exchange of medical information• periodical assessment of diagnosis and therapy (GP)• reliable/competent reporting (nurse)• name badges• clarification of responsibilities and expectations• information about processes in the nursing home and GP practice

Appreciation and respect	• mutual respect, trust, tolerance of mistakes• establishment of a communication culture• acknowledgement of nurse /GP competencies (feedback, enough time, listening, GP asks for suggestions from nurses)• to be on equal level, provision of patient care in partnership


Genotype	Treatment

WT	Naive

Vehicle

Paclitaxel

σ1R-KO	Naive

Vehicle

Paclitaxel