Statement regarding condition

With a typical asthmatic patient, how often do you actually talk about exercise?	Never or rarely: 12 (4.4)	Sometimes: 85 (31.1)	Usually or always: 176 (64.5)

How relevant do you think talking to asthmatic patients about exercise will be in your intended practice?	Not at all: 8 (3.0)	Somewhat: 95 (35.3)	Highly: 166 (61.7)

How much training have you had on talking to asthmatic patients about exercise?	None: 90 (33.2)	Some: 116 (42.8)	Extensive: 65 (24.0)

Data presented as n (%)

Statement regarding condition	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree

	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)

Doctors need more training in preventive care	151 (55.1)	111 (39.6)	9 (3.2)	2 (0.7)	1 (0.4)

I will be able to provide more credible and effective counseling if I eat a healthy diet	103 (36.8)	128 (45.7)	29 (10.4)	13 (4.6)	3 (1.1)

I will be able to provide more credible and effective counseling if I exercise and stay fit	116 (42.2)	129 (46.9)	21 (7.6)	8 (2.9)	1 (0.4)

I will be able to provide more credible and effective counseling if I maintain a healthy weight	117 (42.4)	135 (48.9)	19 (6.9)	5 (1.8)	0 (0)


Locus	P Value

All HSR	SJS/TEN	DILI	NIR	HSS

HLA-A	894	.015	.429	.672	.135


Damage Case	I	D1	D2	D3	D4	D5	D6	D7	D8

Damage quantity of E3 (%)	0	3 	5 	15 	18 	18 	18 	18 	18

Damage quantity of E7 (%)	0	0 	0 	0 	0 	3 	5 	15 	18

Damage Case	I

Damage quantity of E3 (%)	0

Damage quantity of E7 (%)	0


Steps	Selected questions and issues raised by the example case study “Maria Morales”

1. Identify and frame in own words: What is the underlying moral conflict?	Can a parents’ right to not have an intervention done with their child be overridden by the state (for someone else’s good)? Furthermore: Can parents exercise their will on behalf of their children?

2. Identify and frame in ethical words: Which ethical principles are relevant, how can they be specified and might they be in conflict to each other?	Overall, the principles respect for autonomy and health maximisation seem to be affected and seem to mutually exclude each other. But one also has to ask whose autonomy is at stake. Parents’ autonomy – but what about the future autonomy of children? Furthermore, the immunising doctor might be indecisive whether to advocate for autonomy, health maximisation or non-maleficence.

3. Zoom further in: Do I have all relevant information? Can I get more background information to understand all particularities?	What are the potential side effects of measles immunisation? How severe are measles for children? About how many persons (to be vaccinated against their parents’ will) can be protected, which effect would such an immunisation programme have on the incidence of measles and which side-effects could actually be prevented?

4. Are alternative solutions feasible with less moral issues/costs?	Can there be alternative approaches to mandatory measles immunisation? Can one raise immunisation rates by informing, advertising, setting incentives for parents?

5. Further Specification: Do the specifications change with more information?	If there are alternative ways that are less infringing on the respect for autonomy but rather support the health maximisation and the protection of those who cannot be immunised (ensuring non-maleficence), then these alternatives have a higher moral value.

6. Weighing: Are all conflicting principles and their specifications still of equal value?	If other measures (incentive setting, education campaigns for immunisation) can be successfully implemented elsewhere, mandatory immunisation seems less necessary. Yet, autonomy of the parents (who are safeguarding the autonomy of their children) attains even more weight.

7. What do I conclude from the specification and weighing? What would be my solution to the problem?	Mandatory measles immunisation would – in this very particular situation – not be necessary in order to achieve best health and given that it would infringe autonomy of parents (and allegedly of children), it should not be applied.

8. Integrity: Can I personally accept the conclusion drawn?	It seems to be a suitable solution to – at least first – try other measures, rather than being in charge of forcing parents and children to have children’s bodies ‘invaded’ against their ‘guards’ will.

9. Act and convince: I act according to my judgment and convince colleagues and others also based on ethical reasoning.	I try to find resources within my professional budget and start action to promote immunisation with other means.

Steps

1. Identify and frame in own words: What is the underlying moral conflict?

2. Identify and frame in ethical words: Which ethical principles are relevant, how can they be specified and might they be in conflict to each other?

3. Zoom further in: Do I have all relevant information? Can I get more background information to understand all particularities?

4. Are alternative solutions feasible with less moral issues/costs?

5. Further Specification: Do the specifications change with more information?

6. Weighing: Are all conflicting principles and their specifications still of equal value?

7. What do I conclude from the specification and weighing? What would be my solution to the problem?

8. Integrity: Can I personally accept the conclusion drawn?

9. Act and convince: I act according to my judgment and convince colleagues and others also based on ethical reasoning.

Selected questions and issues raised by the example case study “Maria Morales”

Can a parents’ right to not have an intervention done with their child be overridden by the state (for someone else’s good)? Furthermore: Can parents exercise their will on behalf of their children?

Overall, the principles respect for autonomy and health maximisation seem to be affected and seem to mutually exclude each other. But one also has to ask whose autonomy is at stake. Parents’ autonomy – but what about the future autonomy of children? Furthermore, the immunising doctor might be indecisive whether to advocate for autonomy, health maximisation or non-maleficence.

What are the potential side effects of measles immunisation? How severe are measles for children? About how many persons (to be vaccinated against their parents’ will) can be protected, which effect would such an immunisation programme have on the incidence of measles and which side-effects could actually be prevented?

Can there be alternative approaches to mandatory measles immunisation? Can one raise immunisation rates by informing, advertising, setting incentives for parents?

If there are alternative ways that are less infringing on the respect for autonomy but rather support the health maximisation and the protection of those who cannot be immunised (ensuring non-maleficence), then these alternatives have a higher moral value.

If other measures (incentive setting, education campaigns for immunisation) can be successfully implemented elsewhere, mandatory immunisation seems less necessary. Yet, autonomy of the parents (who are safeguarding the autonomy of their children) attains even more weight.

Mandatory measles immunisation would – in this very particular situation – not be necessary in order to achieve best health and given that it would infringe autonomy of parents (and allegedly of children), it should not be applied.

It seems to be a suitable solution to – at least first – try other measures, rather than being in charge of forcing parents and children to have children’s bodies ‘invaded’ against their ‘guards’ will.

I try to find resources within my professional budget and start action to promote immunisation with other means.


GenBank Accession Number	Previous name	New name

CAA78718	X. laevis Apx	xShroom1

NP_597713	H. sapiens APXL2	hShroom1

CAA58534	H. sapiens APXL	hShroom2

ABD19518	M. musculus Apxl	mShroom2

AAF13269	M. musculus ShroomL	mShroom3a

AAF13270	M. musculus ShroomS	mShroom3b

NP_065910	H. sapiens Shroom	hShroom3

ABD59319	X. laevis Shroom-like	xShroom3

NP_065768	H. sapiens KIAA1202	hShroom4a

AAK95579	H. sapiens SHAP-A	hShroom4b

DQ435686	M. musculus KIAA1202	mShroom4

ABA81834	D. melanogaster Shroom	dmShroom

EAA12598	A. gambiae Shroom	agShroom

XP_392427	A. mellifera Shroom	amShroom

XP_783573	S. purpuratus Shroom	spShroom


Family	Plant species	Plant part	Extraction	Repellency%

				(minutes post application)

				60	120	180

Asteraceae	Litogyne gariepina	Roots	DCM	75	52	57

Buddlejaceae	Nuxia floribunda	Leaves	DCM/MeOH(1:1)	43	42	35

Chenopodiaceae	Chenopodium opulifolium	Roots	Water	97	17	30

Lamiaceae	Leucas martinicensis	Leaves	DCM	60	57	49

Malvaceae	Sida cordifolia	Whole Plant	DCM/MeOH(1:1)	40	23	10

Negative control			Distilled water	10	20	20

Negative control			Acetone	17	20	33

Positive control			DEET	100	100	100

Family	Plant species	Plant part	Extraction	Repellency%

				(minutes post application)

				60	120	180

Buddlejaceae	Nuxia floribunda	Leaves	DCM/MeOH(1:1)	43	42	35

Chenopodiaceae	Chenopodium opulifolium	Roots	Water	97	17	30

Lamiaceae	Leucas martinicensis	Leaves	DCM	60	57	49

Malvaceae	Sida cordifolia	Whole Plant	DCM/MeOH(1:1)	40	23	10

Negative control			Distilled water	10	20	20

Negative control			Acetone	17	20	33

Positive control			DEET	100	100	100


Squirrel monkey

Capuchin

Moor macaque

Pigtailed macaque

Baboon

Gorilla

Chimpanzee

Human


HD score grade	Breed	Total

Boxer	Doberman	Great Dane	Golden Retriever	German Shepherd	Hungarian Vizla	Labrador Retriever	Rottweiler	Rhodesian Ridgeback

>18	-	1	-	-	77		10	10	-	98

13-18	-	-	1	1	139	1	26	22	3	193

9-12	3	5	2	-	147	-	30	30	6	223

7-8	-	1	-	-	20	-	5	14	1	41

4-6	-	2	-	-	13	-	1	15	4	35

1-3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1

Total	3	9	3	1	396	1	72	92	14	591


	Pain increase at 6-weeks.	Pain increase at 6-months.

	NRS Points (95% confidence interval)	P value	NRS Points (95% confidence interval)	P value

Preoperative anxiety (yes/no)	−.30 (−1.22–.63)	.52	.42 (−.63–1.46)	.43

Age (years)	−.02 (−.04–.01)	.31	.00 (−.03–.03)	.98

BMI (points)	−.06 (−.16–.05)	.29	.13 (.01–.25)	.04*

Sex (male)	−.22 (− 1.15–.71)	.64	−.46 (− 1.51–.59)	.39

Preoperative pain (points)	.36 (.18–.54)	.00*	.36 (.16–.56)	.00*

Chronic pain (yes/no a)	.88 (−.08–1.85)	.07	.55 (−.54–1.63)	.32


Antibodies	Species	Dilution	Source	Code no.

P2X2	Rabbit	1:100	Alomone	APR-003

IP3R3	Mouse	1:100	Transduction Lab.	610313

Syntaxin-1	Mouse	1:100	Sigma	S0664

Serotonin	Mouse	1:100	Abcam	ab16007

Antibodies	Species	Dilution	Source	Code no.

Serotonin	Mouse	1:100	Abcam	ab16007


No.	Statement	Rank	Z-score

Defining statements

Agrees strongly with the following statements

12	I value more time for my personal life	3	1.59

16	I want to be in a large city	3	1.53

32	The fact that subspecialists can also be general internists is important to me	2	1.20

20	I want something that pays well given how long we’ve trained	2	1.13

25	I’d like to do a combination of inpatient and outpatient	2	1.12

13	Lifestyle and more control over my practice are important	2	1.10

31	A two-year GIM fellowship is a deterrent	1	1.04

35	I want to be valued in what I’m doing	1	1.02

14	I want to be in a field that is in demand	1	1.01

Disagrees strongly with the following statements

36	GIM is a dumping ground for patients nobody wants	-2	-1.13

9	The negative interactions with attendings were important	-2	-1.21

7	GIM patients are too complex	-2	-1.33

23	I prefer an outpatient-based practice	-2	-1.33

29	I am willing to do as many years as it takes to get the job and subspecialty I want	-3	-1.94

17	I want to work in a smaller community	-3	-2.33

Distinguishing statements

Agrees with the following statements more than other factors

16	I want to be in a large city	3	1.53*

32	The fact that subspecialists can also be general internists is important to me.	2	1.20*

31	A two-year GIM fellowship is a deterrent	1	1.04*

22	Some specialties are not fairly remunerated and this is an important consideration	1	0.76*

Disagrees with the following statements more than other factors

18	The resources of a fellowship program are important	-1	-0.51

11	My decision was predominantly based on experiences as a resident	-1	-0.90*

29	I am willing to do as many years as it takes to get the job and subspecialty I want	-3	-1.93*

No.	Statement

Defining statements

Agrees strongly with the following statements

12	I value more time for my personal life

16	I want to be in a large city

32	The fact that subspecialists can also be general internists is important to me

20	I want something that pays well given how long we’ve trained

25	I’d like to do a combination of inpatient and outpatient

13	Lifestyle and more control over my practice are important

31	A two-year GIM fellowship is a deterrent

35	I want to be valued in what I’m doing

14	I want to be in a field that is in demand

Disagrees strongly with the following statements

36	GIM is a dumping ground for patients nobody wants

9	The negative interactions with attendings were important

7	GIM patients are too complex

23	I prefer an outpatient-based practice

29	I am willing to do as many years as it takes to get the job and subspecialty I want

17	I want to work in a smaller community

Distinguishing statements

Agrees with the following statements more than other factors

16	I want to be in a large city

32	The fact that subspecialists can also be general internists is important to me.

31	A two-year GIM fellowship is a deterrent

22	Some specialties are not fairly remunerated and this is an important consideration

Disagrees with the following statements more than other factors

18	The resources of a fellowship program are important

11	My decision was predominantly based on experiences as a resident

29	I am willing to do as many years as it takes to get the job and subspecialty I want

Rank	Z-score

Defining statements

Agrees strongly with the following statements

3	1.59

3	1.53

2	1.20

2	1.13

2	1.12

2	1.10

1	1.04

1	1.02

1	1.01

Disagrees strongly with the following statements

-2	-1.13

-2	-1.21

-2	-1.33

-2	-1.33

-3	-1.94

-3	-2.33

Distinguishing statements

Agrees with the following statements more than other factors

3	1.53*

2	1.20*

1	1.04*

1	0.76*

Disagrees with the following statements more than other factors

-1	-0.51

-1	-0.90*

-3	-1.93*


Culture days	Control explants	Explants+MNF

Cultured	Lost	Cultured	Lost

3	25	1	13	0

6	25	3	13	1

9	25	4	13	1

	75	8	39	2

Total: 114 explants

Culture days	Control explants

Cultured

3	25

6	25

9	25

	75

Total: 114 explants

Control explants	Explants+MNF

Lost	Cultured	Lost

1	13	0

3	13	1

4	13	1

8	39	2

Total: 114 explants


3rd level ATC Code Prediction using different initializations and comparison to STP

Initialization method	Supervised learning	SuperPred	ChEMBL (Perfect 1st level)	STP

Prediction method	A(3)	CA(3)(N(3))	A(3)	CA(3)(N(3))	A(3)	CA(3)(N(3))	A(3)	CA(3)(N(3))


 	Multivariate

Odds ratio	95% CI	p

Sm	0.391	0.145-1.056	0.064

Global longitudinal strain	1.457	1.002-2.119	0.049

Global circumferential strain	1.560	0.912-2.669	0.105

Global radial strain	0.952	0.818-1.107	0.533


Body site

Neck

Shoulder

Upper back

Upper limbs

Low back

Upper leg/ knee

Lower Leg

Ankle/Feet


Average computation times [sec]	Fully automatic	Semi-automatic

CPU	GPU	CPU	GPU

Linear registration	112	109	140	130

Nonlinear registration	172	145	176	173

Combining transformations	42	42	42	42

Warping of image channels	79	78	76	75

Automatic quality assessment	35	35	36	36

Sum [sec]	440	409	470	456

Sum [min]	7	7	8	8


1a/2a/STAB ratio (mmol/mmol/mmol)	Solvent (mL)	Catalyst	Reaction time (h)	Yielda (%)

1/1/1	THF	–	50	42

1/1/1.45	THF	–	50	61

1/1/1	DCE	–	50	91

1/1.5/1.5	DCE	–	50	98

1/1/1.5	DCE	–	4	59

1/1/1.5	DCE	–	24	86

1/1/1.5	DCE	Amberlyst-15	4	89

1/1/1.5	DCE	AcOH	4	98


Characteristics	Number	Percentage (%)

Gender

Male	60	70.6

Female	25	29.4

Age

≤ 60	53	62.4

> 60	32	37.6

Nationality

The Han	60	70.6

The Zhuang	25	29.4

Histology

Squamous carcinoma	25	29.4

Adenocarcinoma	60	70.6

Differentiation

Well and moderate	58	68.2

Poor	27	31.8

Metastasis lymphatics

Yes	28	32.9

No	57	67.1

TNM stage

I + II	48	56.5

III + IV	37	43.5

Surgery status

Lobectomy	79	92.9

Pneumonectomy	6	7.1

Chemotherapy status(74 cases)

GP regimens	34	45.9

NP regimens	29	39.2

TP regimens	11	14.9

ECOG Performance status

0	22	25.9

1	63	74.1


	All studies	Level of methodological quality

	Poor	Fair to good

	Acceptable	Total	% Acceptable	Acceptable	Total	% Acceptable	Acceptable	Total	% Acceptable

Inter-rater reliability

Weight-handling and strength

ICC	6	6	100.0%	6	6	100.0%


Experiment	Climatea	Land coverb	Managed grassland areac	Atmospheric CO2 concentration	Management strategy

Ehistd	Varied for 1901–2010	Varied for 1901–2010	Varied for 1901–2010	Varied for 1901–2010	Adaptive management change algorithm simulating potential livestock density

Econtrol	Varied for 2011–2100	Constant as in 2010	Constant as in 2010	Varied for 2011–2100 (A1B scenario)	Adaptive management change algorithm simulating potential livestock density

Enoco2	Varied for 2011–2100	Constant as in 2010	Constant as in 2010	Constant as in 2010	Adaptive management change algorithm simulating potential livestock density

EfixD	Varied for 2011–2100	Constant as in 2010	Constant as in 2010	Varied for 2011–2100 (A1B scenario)	Adaptive management change algorithm with constant livestock density

Experiment	Climatea	Land coverb	Managed grassland areac	Atmospheric CO2 concentration	Management strategy

Ehist		Varied for 	Varied 	Varied for 19	Adaptive management change algorithm simulating potential livesto

d	Varied for 1901–2010	1901–2010	for 1901–2010	01–2010	ck density

Econtrol	Varied for 2011–2100	Constant as in 2010	Constant as in 2010	Varied for 2011–2100 (A1B scenario)	Adaptive management change algorithm simulating potential livestock density

Enoco2	Varied for 2011–2100	Constant as in 2010	Constant as in 2010	Constant as in 2010	Adaptive management change algorithm simulating potential livestock density

EfixD	Varied for 2011–2100	Constant as in 2010	Constant as in 2010	Varied for 2011–2100 (A1B scenario)	Adaptive management change algorithm with constant livestock density


			Log2(ratio)

Accession number	Gene description	Localisation	Treatment comparison

			S/M	MA/M	SA/M

At1g57770	Amine oxidase family	Chloroplast	nde	1.59	0.80

At3g14420	(S)-2-hydroxy-acid oxidase, peroxisomal, putative/glycolate oxidase, putative/short chain alpha-hydroxy acid oxidase, putative Proline oxidase, mitochondrial/osmotic stress-	Peroxisome	-1.08	1.33	nde

At3g30775	responsive proline dehydrogenase (POX) (PRO1) (ERD5)	Mitochondrion	nde	2.51	1.22

At3g53950	Glyoxal oxidase-related	Endomembrane system	nde	1.00	nde

At4g16760	Acyl-CoA oxidase (ACX1)	Peroxisome	0,87	nde	1.48

At5g65110	Acyl-CoA oxidase (ACX2)	Peroxisome	0.91	nde	1.83

Accession number	Gene description

At1g57770	Amine oxidase family

At3g14420	(S)-2-hydroxy-acid oxidase, peroxisomal, putative/glycolate oxidase, putative/short chain alpha-hydroxy acid oxidase, putative Proline oxidase, mitochondrial/osmotic stress-

At3g30775	responsive proline dehydrogenase (POX) (PRO1) (ERD5)

At3g53950	Glyoxal oxidase-related

At4g16760	Acyl-CoA oxidase (ACX1)

At5g65110	Acyl-CoA oxidase (ACX2)

	Log2(ratio)

Localisation	Treatment comparison

	S/M	MA/M	SA/M

Chloroplast	nde	1.59	0.80

Peroxisome	-1.08	1.33	nde

Mitochondrion	nde	2.51	1.22

Endomembrane system	nde	1.00	nde

Peroxisome	0,87	nde	1.48

Peroxisome	0.91	nde	1.83


Reference	No. of case reports	Patient case conditions	Prophylaxis used	Treatment that cleared infection	Isolate(s) cultured	Geographic location	Year published

Wang et al., 2011	1	Mandibulectomy with planned tissue flap reconstruction, infection and necrosis of the flap	Ciprofloxacin	Cefepime	A. hydrophila	Missouri, USA	2011

Sartor et al., 2013	1	Infection of skin flap of hand crush injury	Ciprofloxacin	Cotrimoxazole	A. hydrophila	Marseille, France	2013

Giltner et al., 2013	1	Mandibular osteotomy, necrosis of mandibular flap and wound surrounding the distraction arm device	Ciprofloxacin	Vancomycin	A. hydrophila, Morganella morganii	California, USA	2013

Wilmer et al., 2013	1	Amputation of three digits and necrosis of amputation sites	Ciprofloxacin	Co-trimoxazole	A. hydrophila	British Columbia, Canada	2013

Patel et al., 2013	1	Breast reconstruction, infection of the implant	Ciprofloxacin, vancomycin	Aztreonam	A. hydrophila	Washington D.C., USA	2013

van Alphen et al., 2014	2	Replantation of four fingers resulting in flap necrosis after leech therapy, followed by amputation	Ertapenem	Ceftriaxone and co-trimoxazole	A. hydrophila	Minnesota, USA	2014

		Replantation of two fingers failed following leech therapy, amputation	Ciprofloxacin	Cefepime, metronidazole, vancomycin; followed by ceftriaxone	A. hydrophila, Proteus vulgaris, Morganella morganii

Reference	No. of case reports	Patient case conditions

Wang et al., 2011	1	Mandibulectomy with planned tissue flap reconstruction, infection and necrosis of the flap

Sartor et al., 2013	1	Infection of skin flap of hand crush injury

Giltner et al., 2013	1	Mandibular osteotomy, necrosis of mandibular flap and wound surrounding the distraction arm device

Wilmer et al., 2013	1	Amputation of three digits and necrosis of amputation sites

Patel et al., 2013	1	Breast reconstruction, infection of the implant

van Alphen et al., 2014	2	Replantation of four fingers resulting in flap necrosis after leech therapy, followed by amputation

		Replantation of two fingers failed following leech therapy, amputation

Prophylaxis used	Treatment that cleared infection	Isolate(s) cultured	Geographic location	Year published

Ciprofloxacin	Cefepime	A. hydrophila	Missouri, USA	2011

Ciprofloxacin	Cotrimoxazole	A. hydrophila	Marseille, France	2013

Ciprofloxacin	Vancomycin	A. hydrophila, Morganella morganii	California, USA	2013

Ciprofloxacin	Co-trimoxazole	A. hydrophila	British Columbia, Canada	2013

Ciprofloxacin, vancomycin	Aztreonam	A. hydrophila	Washington D.C., USA	2013

Ertapenem	Ceftriaxone and co-trimoxazole	A. hydrophila	Minnesota, USA	2014

Ciprofloxacin	Cefepime, metronidazole, vancomycin; followed by ceftriaxone	A. hydrophila, Proteus vulgaris, Morganella morganii


Subscale	Group	Baseline score	One month after the onset of intervention	Two months after the onset of intervention	Between groups difference

Irritability	N-Acetylcysteine + risperidone	13.2(5.3)	10.0(4.1)	9.7(4.1)	F1,29= 4.9, P<0.035

Placebo+Risperidone	16.7(7.8)	15.5(7.9)	15.1(7.8)

Hyperactivity and Noncompliance	N-Acetylcysteine + risperidone	29.3(6.4)	21.4(7.7)	18.3(6.9)	F1,29= 2.4, P=0.12

Placebo+Risperidone	31.9(8.9)	26.8(11.0)	24.3(12.1)

Lethargy and Social Withdrawal	N-Acetylcysteine + risperidone	11.9(6.5)	9.0(5.7)	8.5(6.5)	F1,28= 0.4, P=0.53

Placebo+Risperidone	12.2(8.3)	11.0(7.8)	10.9(7.5)6

Stereotypic Behavior	N-Acetylcysteine + risperidone	6.6(4.5)	4.5(3.6)	3.9(2.7)	F1,28= 2.8, P=0.1

Placebo+Risperidone	8.5(6.3)	7.7(6.2)	7.8(6.6)

Inappropriate Speech	N-Acetylcysteine + risperidone	3.9(3.7)	3.8(3.7)	3.2(3.4)	F1,29= 1.8, P=0.1

Placebo+Risperidone	5.7(3.8)	5.3(3.7)	5.2(4.0)

Inappropriate Speech	Placebo+Risperidone	5.7(3.8)	5.3(3.7)	5.2(4.0)	F1,29= 1.8, P=0.1


	Weaned pigs	Growing pigs	Gilts

Number of animals	9 (6 to 11)	23 (20 to 25)	24 (18 to 29)

Degree

Binary	7a (0 to 16)	5b (1 to 18)	5b (0 to 22)


Region	Side	MNI coordinates	T value

Pre-cuneus	R	4	-70	36	32.78

	L	-7	-74	42	32.12

Cuneus	R	10	76	38	32.62

	L	-10	-68	42	31.25

Inferior temporal gyrus area (includes fusiform gyrus)	R	54	-34	-26	11.18

	L	-48	-56	-14	18.78

Pre-central gyrus	R	42	-14	48	15.81

Post-central gyrus	R	44	-26	46	13.96

Superior temporal gyrus	R	50	-44	16	11.18

	L	-50	-44	18	16.92

Basal forebrain	R	22	10	-18	12.87

	L	-24	8	-18	12.87

Inferior frontal gyrus	R	42	28	16	12.18

	L	-42	24	18	12.24

Inferior frontal orbital	L	-34	40	-14	9.71

Lobe occipital Superior	R	22	-80	40	26.90

	L	-18	-80	34	25.88

Superior frontal gyrus	R	20	-8	64	6.69

	L	-20	-6	66	6.70

Region

Pre-cuneus

Cuneus

Inferior temporal gyrus area (includes fusiform gyrus)

Pre-central gyrus

Post-central gyrus

Superior temporal gyrus

Basal forebrain

Inferior frontal gyrus

Inferior frontal orbital

Lobe occipital Superior

Superior frontal gyrus


Characteristics	No. of cases	miR-140 expression	P value

Low (median ≤0.278)	High (median >0.278)

Age	0.667

< 60 years	22	10	12

≥ 60 years	38	18	20

Gender	0.778

 Male	33	16	17

 Female	27	12	15

Tumor size	0.602

< 5 cm	23	12	11

≥ 5 cm	37	16	21

Stage	0.045*

 I/II	28	1	27

 III/IV	32	27	5

Differentiation	0.076

 Well/moderate	24	13	11

 Poor	36	15	21

Metastasis	0.031*

 No	31	7	24

 Yes	29	21	8

Characteristics	No. of cases	miR-140 expression	P value

Low (median ≤0.278)	High (median >0.278)

Poor	36	15	21

Metastasis	0.031*

No	31	7	24

Yes	29	21	8


Absolute Contraindications	Relative Contraindications

Clinical instability or significant pain suggestive of ruptured EP	Presence of fetal cardiac activity

Heterotopic pregnancy with viable and desired IUP	β-hCG level over 5000 mIU/mL

Liver function tests more than 2 times the upper limit of normal	An ectopic mass size greater than 4 cm in largest dimension

White blood cell count of <1500/uL	Patient refusal of blood transfusion

Platelet count <100,000/uL	Patient inability to follow up

Creatinine ≥1.5 mg/dL

Current breastfeeding

Active pulmonary disease

Active peptic ulcer disease

Moderate to severe anemia

Sensitivity to methotrexate


Item	Details	Intervention

1. Acupuncture rationale	1a) Style of acupuncture	Traditional needle acupuncture and intradermal acupuncture

1b) Reasoning for treatment provided based on historical context, literature sources, and/or consensus methods, with references where appropriate	Selected traditional acupuncture points on the 12 meridian system based on the systematic review by Yeung and clinical experiences

1c) Extent to which treatment was varied	No variation

2. Details of needling	2a) Number of needle insertions per subject per session (mean and range where relevant)	Five needle insertions per 1 session

2b) Names (or location if no standard name) of points used (uni/bilateral)	Neiguan (PC6), Sanyinjiao (SP6), Shenmen (HT7), Zhaohai (KI6), Shenmai (BL62), all unilateral.

2c) Depth of insertion, based on a specified unit of measurement or on a particular tissue level	Depth of needle insertion was at least 5 to10 mm and intradermal acupunctured was 1 to 2 mm

2d) Response sought	De-qi sensation felt by practitioner and subject

2e) Needle stimulation	No stimulation and just retention without movement Intradermal acupuncture fixed with skin tape and subjects educated to self finger-press on them at nighttime

2f) Needle retention time	Twenty-minute retention for needles, intradermal acupuncture patched 48 to 72 hours until next session

2 g) Needle type (diameter, length, and manufacturer or material)	Needles: 0.25 × 40 mm, stainless steel (Dong Bang Medical Co. Ltd, Korea)

Intradermal acupuncture: 0.18 × 1.3 × 1.5 mm, stainless steel (Dong Bang Medical Co. Ltd, Korea)

3. Treatment regimen	3a) Number of treatment sessions	Three sessions

3b) Frequency and duration of treatment sessions	Three times per week, interval of 1 to 4 days between sessions

4. Other components of treatment	4a) Details of other interventions administered to the acupuncture group	Sleep hygiene education

4b) Setting and context of treatment, including instructions to practitioners, and information and explanations to patients	Same practitioner treats every subject at every session in the same outpatient clinic

5. Practitioner background	5) Description of participating acupuncturists (qualification or professional affiliation, years in acupuncture practice, other relevant experience)	Licensed traditional Korean medicine doctor at the Kyung Hee East-West Neo Medical Center at Gangdong with more than 10 years of acupuncture treatment experience

6. Control or comparator interventions	6a) Rationale for the control or comparator in the context of the research question, with sources that justify this choice	Sham acupuncture points

6b) Precise description of the control or comparison group. If sham acupuncture or any other type of acupuncture-like control is used, provide details as for items 1 to 3 above	Same as intervention group except 2b) and 2d)

2b) No acupuncture points located away from acupuncture points at least 10 mm

2d) Without De-qi sensation

Item	Details

1. Acupuncture rationale	1a) Style of acupuncture

1b) Reasoning for treatment provided based on historical context, literature sources, and/or consensus methods, with references where appropriate

1c) Extent to which treatment was varied

2. Details of needling	2a) Number of needle insertions per subject per session (mean and range where relevant)

2b) Names (or location if no standard name) of points used (uni/bilateral)

2c) Depth of insertion, based on a specified unit of measurement or on a particular tissue level

2d) Response sought

2e) Needle stimulation

2f) Needle retention time

2 g) Needle type (diameter, length, and manufacturer or material)

3. Treatment regimen	3a) Number of treatment sessions

3b) Frequency and duration of treatment sessions

4. Other components of treatment	4a) Details of other interventions administered to the acupuncture group

4b) Setting and context of treatment, including instructions to practitioners, and information and explanations to patients

5. Practitioner background	5) Description of participating acupuncturists (qualification or professional affiliation, years in acupuncture practice, other relevant experience)

6. Control or comparator interventions	6a) Rationale for the control or comparator in the context of the research question, with sources that justify this choice

6b) Precise description of the control or comparison group. If sham acupuncture or any other type of acupuncture-like control is used, provide details as for items 1 to 3 above

Intervention

Traditional needle acupuncture and intradermal acupuncture

Selected traditional acupuncture points on the 12 meridian system based on the systematic review by Yeung and clinical experiences

No variation

Five needle insertions per 1 session

Neiguan (PC6), Sanyinjiao (SP6), Shenmen (HT7), Zhaohai (KI6), Shenmai (BL62), all unilateral.

Depth of needle insertion was at least 5 to10 mm and intradermal acupunctured was 1 to 2 mm

De-qi sensation felt by practitioner and subject

No stimulation and just retention without movement Intradermal acupuncture fixed with skin tape and subjects educated to self finger-press on them at nighttime

Twenty-minute retention for needles, intradermal acupuncture patched 48 to 72 hours until next session

Needles: 0.25 × 40 mm, stainless steel (Dong Bang Medical Co. Ltd, Korea)

Intradermal acupuncture: 0.18 × 1.3 × 1.5 mm, stainless steel (Dong Bang Medical Co. Ltd, Korea)

Three sessions

Three times per week, interval of 1 to 4 days between sessions

Sleep hygiene education

Same practitioner treats every subject at every session in the same outpatient clinic

Licensed traditional Korean medicine doctor at the Kyung Hee East-West Neo Medical Center at Gangdong with more than 10 years of acupuncture treatment experience

Sham acupuncture points

Same as intervention group except 2b) and 2d)

2b) No acupuncture points located away from acupuncture points at least 10 mm

2d) Without De-qi sensation


Content of Hg2+ added to various samples (n = 7)

PEI-AuNP probe	DMA

Sample	Added amount 	Detected amount (μM)	Coeffi	Reco	LOD (n	Detected amount


Reasons of unwillingness or hesitation	Will not be vaccinated	Indecisive	Total

Possible side effects	267 (74.8)	251 (82.0)	518 (78.1)

Lack of comprehensive field evaluation before marketing	266 (74.5)	241 (78.8)	507 (76.5)

Implementation in our country before wide implementation in other countries	199 (55.9)	184 (60.1)	383 (57.9)

Vaccines which will be administered here are different than the vaccines in the US	153 (42.9)	137 (44.9)	290 (43.8)

Do not have trust in the effectiveness of the vaccine	157 (44.0)	114 (37.3)	271 (40.9)

Do not trust Ministry of Health's practices	147 (41.2)	104 (34.0)	251 (37.9)

Due to the risk of acquiring H1N1 following vaccination	71 (19.9)	66 (21.6)	137 (20.7)

The disease is mild	59 (16.5)	34 (11.1)	93 (14.0)

Contracting the disease is safer	34 (9.5)	13 (4.2)	47 (7.1)

Other	30 (8.4)	15 (4.9)	45 (6.8)

Reasons of unwillingness or hesitation

Possible side effects

Lack of comprehensive field evaluation before marketing

Implementation in our country before wide implementation in other countries

Vaccines which will be administered here are different than the vaccines in the US

Do not have trust in the effectiveness of the vaccine

Do not trust Ministry of Health's practices

Due to the risk of acquiring H1N1 following vaccination

The disease is mild

Contracting the disease is safer

Other


Ionphore of mercury(II) electrodes in FIA system	LR (M)	DL (M)

4,7,13,16-tetrathenoyl-1,10-dioxa-4,7,13, 16-tetraazacyclooctadecane [23]	3.16 × 10−6–1 × 10−3	3.16 × 10−6

7,16-dithenyl-l,4,10,13-tetraoxa-7, 16-diazacyclooctadecane [28]	3.16 × 10−6–1 × 10−3	3.16 × 10−6

[This study]	5 × 10−6–1 × 10−1	5 × 10−6

Ionphore of mercury(II) electrodes in FIA system	LR (M)	DL (M)

7,16-dithenyl-l,4,10,13-tetraoxa-7, 16-diazacyclooctadecane [28]	3.16 × 10−6–1 × 10−3	3.16 × 10−6

[This study]	5 × 10−6–1 × 10−1	5 × 10−6


	Magnesium group(n = 30)	Control group(n = 30)	P-value*

Age (y)	25 ± 3	26 ± 3	0.41

Height (cm)	162 ± 3	162 ± 3	0.42

Weight (kg)	72 ± 4	72 ± 4	0.84

Gestational age (week)	39 ± 1	39 ± 1	0.60

Duration of surgery (min)	45 ± 7	47 ± 7	0.41


Diagnostic characteristics	Two parameters	Three parameters	Four parameters

Sensitivity	96.5%	89.5%	63.2%

Specificity	66.0%	87.2%	95.7%

Positive predictive value	77.5%	89.5%	94.7%

Negative predictive value	93.9%	87.2%	68.2%

Diagnostic accuracy	82.7%	88.5%	77.9%

Youden index	62.5%	76.7%	58.9%

Kappa value	0.641	0.767	0.569

Diagnostic characteristics	Two parameters	Three parameters	Four parameters

Specificity	66.0%	87.2%	95.7%

Positive predictive value	77.5%	89.5%	94.7%

Negative predictive value	93.9%	87.2%	68.2%

Diagnostic accuracy	82.7%	88.5%	77.9%

Youden index	62.5%	76.7%	58.9%

Kappa value	0.641	0.767	0.569


Outcome variables	Total%	Gender (%)

n = 775		Boys(n = 354)	Girls(n = 421)

Physical activity				***

≤ 2 hours MVPA/day (low)	49.4	37.3	59.6

≥ 2 hours MVPA/day (high)	50.6	62.7	40.4

Fruit and vegetable consumption				**

≤ 5 portions/day (low)	47.6	53.1	43.0

≥ 5 portions/day (high)	52.4	46.9	57.0

Groups

High PA/High FV	25.8	28.2	23.8

High PA/Low FV	24.8	34.5	16.6	***

Low PA/High FV	26.6	18.6	33.3	***

Low PA/Low FV	22.8	18.6	26.4	***

Outcome variables	Total%	Gender (%)

n = 775		Boys(n = 354)	Girls(n = 421)

≤ 5 portions/day (low)	47.6	53.1	43.0

≥ 5 portions/day (high)	52.4	46.9	57.0

Groups

High PA/High FV	25.8	28.2	23.8

High PA/Low FV	24.8	34.5	16.6	***

Low PA/High FV	26.6	18.6	33.3	***

Low PA/Low FV	22.8	18.6	26.4	***


Treatment	Dose(p.o.)	Time (sec) spent in	No. of entry in	% of total time (sec) spent in	% of entries in

Openarm	Closearm	Openarm	Closearm	Openarm	Closearm	Openarm	Closearm

SSL400	400 mg/kg	16.6±0.51***	237±1.95***	0.8±0.37	9.0±0.45	6.55±0.04***	93.45±0.15	8.16±0.37	91.84±0.45


Items	Inpatients	Outpatients

	One-day stay	One visit

Staff salaryc	228.17d	80.52

QDU (1) and (2) visitse	na	127.24

Diagnostic testsf	83.48	218.77

Therapeutic proceduresg	1.67	0.54

Pharmaceuticals and consumables	9.95	0.87

Consultationsh	2.47	0.32

Adverse events	0.50	0.09

Depreciation	2.18	3.70

Total costs	328.42	432.05


Characteristics		Sweden (%)	Italy (%)	p*

Number of respondents		272	149

Gender	Male	166 (61.0)	113 (75.8)

	Female	106 (39.0)	36 (24.2)	.002

	Missing data	0	0

Age	<40 y	28 (10.3)	18 (12.2)	ns

	40- < 54 y	170 (62.7)	87 (58.8)

	≥55 y	73 (26.9)	43 (29.1)

	Missing data	0	0

Living with partner	Yes	235 (88.8)	121 (81.2)	ns

	No	37 (11.2)	28 (18.8)

	Missing data	0	0

Number of children	0	39 (14.6)	40 (27.2)	.000

	1-2	131 (49.1)	86 (58.5)

	3 or more	97 (36.3)	21 (14.3)

	Missing data	5	2

Work-related factors

Recent degrading experiences/harassment at work	Yes	49 (18.0)	45 (30.2)	ns

	No	212 (77.9)	102 (68.5)

	Missing data	11	2

Perpetrator, superior	Yes	27 (9.9)	38 (25.5)	.000

	No	245 (90.1)	111 (74.5)

	Missing data	0	0

Perpetrator, colleague	Yes	23 (8.5)	17 (11.4)	ns

	No	249 (91.5)	132 (88.6)

	Missing data	0	0

Hours on night call, mean (SD)		8.82 (13.1)	5.93 (4.57)	.028

Taken care of in the organisation, mean (SD)		2.49 (1.03)	1.60 (0.93)	.000

Regular meetings to discuss situations at work, mean (SD)		2.92 (0.88)	2.66 (0.90)	.005

Role conflict, mean (SD)		2.93 (0.88)	3.04 (0.95)	ns

Empowering leadership, mean (SD)		2.92 (1.13)	2.57 (1.23)	.004

Work/home interface and behavioural factors

Work demands interfere with family life, mean (SD)		3.71 (0.95)	3.77 (1.01)	ns

Family life interferes with work, mean (SD)		2.66 (1.13)	2.50 (1.03)	ns

Sickness presenteeism, mean (SD)		3.19 (1.16)	3.34 (1.09)	ns

Compensatory leave, mean (SD)		1.33 (0.77)	1.25 (0.68)	ns

Psychological distress

Suicidal ideation in last 12 months, number (%)	Yes	32 (11.8)	26 (17.4)	ns

	No	235 (86.4)	120 (80.5)

	Missing data	5	3

Depression, mean (SD)		2.09 (0.47)	2.01 (0.44)	ns

Burnout exhaustion, mean (SD)		2.57 (0.51)	2.49 (0.58)	ns

Burnout disengagement, mean (SD)		2.28 (0.52)	2.17 (0.57)	ns

Characteristics		Sweden (%)	Italy (%)	p*

	Missing data	5	2

Work-related factors

Recent degrading experiences/harassment at work	Yes	49 (18.0)	45 (30.2)	ns

	No	212 (77.9)	102 (68.5)

	Missing data	11	2

Perpetrator, superior	Yes	27 (9.9)	38 (25.5)	.000

	No	245 (90.1)	111 (74.5)

	Missing data	0	0

Perpetrator, colleague	Yes	23 (8.5)	17 (11.4)	ns

	No	249 (91.5)	132 (88.6)

	Missing data	0	0

Hours on night call, mean (SD)		8.82 (13.1)	5.93 (4.57)	.028

Taken care of in the organisation, mean (SD)		2.49 (1.03)	1.60 (0.93)	.000

Regular meetings to discuss situations at work, mean (SD)		2.92 (0.88)	2.66 (0.90)	.005

Role conflict, mean (SD)		2.93 (0.88)	3.04 (0.95)	ns

Empowering leadership, mean (SD)		2.92 (1.13)	2.57 (1.23)	.004

Work/home interface and behavioural factors

Work demands interfere with family life, mean (SD)		3.71 (0.95)	3.77 (1.01)	ns

Family life interferes with work, mean (SD)		2.66 (1.13)	2.50 (1.03)	ns

Sickness presenteeism, mean (SD)		3.19 (1.16)	3.34 (1.09)	ns

Compensatory leave, mean (SD)		1.33 (0.77)	1.25 (0.68)	ns

Psychological distress

Suicidal ideation in last 12 months, number (%)	Yes	32 (11.8)	26 (17.4)	ns

	No	235 (86.4)	120 (80.5)

	Missing data	5	3

Depression, mean (SD)		2.09 (0.47)	2.01 (0.44)	ns

Burnout exhaustion, mean (SD)		2.57 (0.51)	2.49 (0.58)	ns

Burnout disengagement, mean (SD)		2.28 (0.52)	2.17 (0.57)	ns


Study population	Survey no.	Time of survey	Survey population	No. examined (%)	No. positive for mf (%)	Mf GMI* for all examined	Mf GMI* for positives

		Nov-10	504	)#	§ (4.7)		3.1

	8	Nov-11	504	312 (61.9)#	7§ (2.2)	0.16¤	487.3

Kisimatui	7	Nov-10	651	389 (59.8)#	34§ (8.7)	0.55¤	159.1

	8	Nov-11	651	367 (56.4)#	24§ (6.5)	0.33¤	77.2


		Composite SES measure	Adults in poverty measure

	Individual	Group	Multilevel	Group	Multilevel

Individual-level education

Low	1.00 (reference)		1.00 (reference)		1.00 (reference)

Me	1.		1.		1.28 (0.83–1.9


	Global	Septal	Regional

	MBF	PN	MBF	PN	MBF	PN


Scenario	Intervention	Baseline	2020 coverage targets	2025 coverage targets	2030 coverage targets

1. Sustain	All	Maintain coverage of all interventions at 2011–2013 levels

2. Accelerate	Vector controlLLINIRS	Means of 2011–2013 country-specific coverage	80% with LLIN replaced every 3 years	90% with LLIN replaced every 2 years	Maintain coverage

	Other measures	10% additional coverage with complementary control measures for resistance management

	SMC	0%	80%	95%	Maintain

	IPTp	0%	80%	90%	Maintain

	Blood tests, using RDTs or microscopy	20%		90%

		10% G6PD testing		90%

	Treatment of uncomplicated cases	2013 country-specific coverage	90% at public facilities, 50% in communities	.	75% community based treatment

	Treatment of severe cases	100% hospitalised cases treated with quinine	100% hospitalised cases treated with injectable artesunate	50% severe cases with rectal artesunate in communities	75% severe cases with rectal artesunate in communities

Scenario	Intervention	Baseline

1. Sustain	All	Maintain coverage of all interventions at 2011–2013 levels

2. Accelerate	Vector controlLLINIRS	Means of 2011–2013 country-specific coverage

	Other measures	10% additional coverage with complementary control measures for resistance management

	SMC	0%

	IPTp	0%

	Blood tests, using RDTs or microscopy	20%

		10% G6PD testing

	Treatment of uncomplicated cases	2013 country-specific coverage

	Treatment of severe cases	100% hospitalised cases treated with quinine

2020 coverage targets	2025 coverage targets	2030 coverage targets

Maintain coverage of all interventions at 2011–2013 levels

80% with LLIN replaced every 3 years	90% with LLIN replaced every 2 years	Maintain coverage

10% additional coverage with complementary control measures for resistance management

80%	95%	Maintain

80%	90%	Maintain

	90%

	90%

90% at public facilities, 50% in communities	.	75% community based treatment

100% hospitalised cases treated with injectable artesunate	50% severe cases with rectal artesunate in communities	75% severe cases with rectal artesunate in communities


Dataset	# Total genes (T)	# Instances (n)	# Classes (C)

Colon tumor	2000	62	2

Central nervous system 	7129	60	2

Leukaemia	6817	72	2

Breast cancer	24481	97	2

Ovarian cancer	15154	253	2

MLL	12582	72	3

SRBCT	2308	83	4

Lung cancer	12533	181	5


 	Regression coefficient	S.E	Odds ratio	95% C.I	P value

Retrovirus status

(positive vs negative)	1.67	0.70	5.68	1.35 - 21.20	0.02

Gender (male vs female)	0.85	0.47	2.30	0.96 - 6.00	0.07

Age (years)	0.12	0.05	1.10 1	1.01 - 1.25	0.02

Constant	−1.34	0.40	 	 	<0.02

	Regression coefficient	S.E

Retrovirus status

(positive vs negative)	1.67	0.70

Gender (male vs female)	0.85	0.47

Age (years)	0.12	0.05

Constant	−1.34	0.40


	Number	pAkt	P value

		Median	Range

Total	141	36.0	0–255.0

Ethnicity

 African-American	72	35.7	0–174.0

 Latina	69	36.6	0–255.0	0.992

Age at diagnosis

 <50 years	73	31.0	0–255.0

 ≥ 50 years	68	39.0	0–174.0	0.678

Tumor size

 <5 cm	90	32.2	0–174.0

 ≥ 5 cm	51	36.6	0–255.0	0.117

Lymph node status

 Positive	89	45.0	0–255.0

 Negative	52	27.5	0–135.0	0.001

AJCC stage

 0–II	88	33.3	0–174.0

 III–IV	53	42.0	0–255.0	0.160

Histological grade

 Well to moderately differentiated	44	30.0	0–174.0

 Poorly differentiated	97	40.8	0–255.0	0.094

ER/PR status

 ER/PR+	81	30.0	0–255.0

 ER/PR-	60	47.3	0–170.0	0.164

HER2/neu status (IHC)

 Positive	46	44.5	0–255.0

 Negative	95	30.0	0–168.9	0.009


Plant	Tissue	InsP6 (μM)	Ins(1,2,4,5,6)P5 (μM)

Zea mays	leaves	101–198 (3)	nd

Oryza sativa	leaves	9–49 (6)	nd

Arabidopsis thaliana	leaves	29–89 (9)	2–22 (5)

Arabidopsis thaliana	seedlings	47–110 (4)	nd

Nicotiana tabacum	leaves	11–24 (3)	nd

Solanum lycopersicum	leaves	39–65 (3)	nd

Trifolium repens	leaves	21 (1)	6 (1)

Acer rubrum	leaves	35 (1)	2 (1)

Ginkgo biloba	leaves	61 (1)	nd

Camelina sativa	leaves	70 (1)	6 (1)

Glycine max	leaves	nd (1)	nd

Pueraria labata	leaves	nd (1)	nd


Gene Symbol	Gene name

MBD2	Methyl-CpG binding domain protein 2

FMO3	Flavin containing monooxygenase 3

RORC	RAR-related orphan receptor C

SGCG	Sarcoglycan, gamma (35kDa dystrophin-associated glycoprotein)

PNKD	Paroxysmal nonkinesigenic dyskinesia

RNASE1	Ribonuclease, RNase A family, 1 (pancreatic)

NKRF	NFKB repressing factor

PFKM	Phosphofructokinase, muscle

MOCS1	Molybdenum cofactor synthesis 1

TRA2A	Transformer 2 alpha homolog


					Genetic effect	Genotype-by-age effect	Genetic + genotype-by-age effects

SNPa	Chrb	Position	Alleles	MAF	LRT1	-log(p)	LRT2	-log(p)	LRT3	-log(p)

rs17631940	17	30842243	A/G	0.49	23.99	6.01	1.02	0.50	25.00	5.43

					Genetic effect	Genotype-by-age effect	Genetic + genotype-by-age effects

SNPa	Chrb	Position	Alleles	MAF	LRT1	-log(p)	LRT2	-log(p)	LRT3	-log(p)

rs1476112	18	170690	T/G	0.08	14.40	3.83	13.43	3.61	27.83	6.04

rs8102150	19	922139	G/C	0.03	7.05	2.10	23.09	5.81	30.14	6.55


Variables	Cases(n=73)	Controls(n=146)

Having ANC visit

Yes	56(76.7%)	121(82.9%)

No	17(23.3%)	25(17.1%)

Gestational Age at first ANC

First trimester	11(24.4%)	18(17.1%)

Second trimester	23(51.1%)	59(56.2%)

Third trimester	11(24.4%)	28(26.7%)

TT vaccination

Yes	47(64.4%)	105(71.9%)

No	26(35.6%)	41(28.1%)

Dose of TT vaccination

Single dose	6(12.8%)	20(19.0%)

Two to Three doses	35(74.5%)	73(69.5%)

Four to Five doses	6(12.8%)	12(11.4%)

Postnatal visit within 7 days

Yes	34(46.6%)	72(49.3%)

No	39(53.4%)	74(50.7%)

Previous birth intervals

Less than two years	15(20.5%)	18(12.3%)

Two years	7(9.6%)	9(6.2%)

More than two years	51(69.9%)	119(81.5%)

Walking distance from the nearest health facility

< 1 hour	24(32.9%)	51(34.9%)

1-2 hours	42(57.5%)	91(62.3%)


First author	Year	Country	Patient (M/F)	Age (year)	Technology	Lgr5 positive threshold	HR (95 % CI) of OS	HR (95 % CI) of DFS	Quality score

Liu	2014	China	363 (200/166)	59mean	IHC	NA	2.604 (1.894–3.584)	NA	7

He	2014	China	53 (29/24)	NA	IHC	NA	2.482 (1.52–4.283)	NA	7

Gao	2014	China	44 (22/20)	59median	IHC	The percentage of stained cells ≥ 10 %	2.299 (0.922–5.714)	NA	6

Wu	2012	China	192 (120/72)	62median	IHC	Multiplying the intensity and the quantity score > 5	2.768 (1.619–4.732)	NA	8

Hsu	2013	China	296 (169/127)	63.5mean	IHC	The percentage of stained cells multiplied by the intensity scores ≥180	NA	2.21 (1.11–4.37)	7

Saiqusa	2012	Japan	52 (41/11)	64.5median	IHC	The percentage of stained cells ≥ 50 %	1.061 (0.299–3.771)	4.942 (1.39–17.577)	6

Ziskin	2012	America	891 (467/424)	71.4mean	ISH	Intensity score >1	1.15 (0.95–1.4)	NA	7

Valladares-Ayerbes	2012	Spain	54 (33/21)	62.7mean	QRT-PCR	11.6	2.517 (0.924–6.858)	2.995 (1.192–7.527)	8

Takahashi	2011	Japan	180 (105/75)	NA	QRT-PCR	Median value	0.909 (0.535–1.543)	3.3 (1.49–7.33)	6

Bao	2012	China	246 (131/115)	63mean	IHC	The percentage of stained cells ≥ 5 %	1.122 (0.866–1.448)	NA	4

Peng	2010	China	169 (101/68)	57mean	IHC	The percentage of stained cells ≥ 10 %	2.16 (1.35–3.45)	NA	7

Takeda	2010	Japan	60 (32/28)	65.7mean	IHC	The percentage of stained cells ≥ 5 %	NA	NA	7

First author	Year

Liu	2014

He	2014

Gao	2014

Wu	2012

Hsu	2013

Saiqusa	2012

Ziskin	2012

Valladares-Ayerbes	2012

Takahashi	2011

Bao	2012

Peng	2010

Takeda	2010

Country	Patient (M/F)	Age (year)	Technology	Lgr5 positive threshold	HR (95 % CI) of OS	HR (95 % CI) of DFS	Quality score

China	363 (200/166)	59mean	IHC	NA	2.604 (1.894–3.584)	NA	7

China	53 (29/24)	NA	IHC	NA	2.482 (1.52–4.283)	NA	7

China	44 (22/20)	59median	IHC	The percentage of stained cells ≥ 10 %	2.299 (0.922–5.714)	NA	6

China	192 (120/72)	62median	IHC	Multiplying the intensity and the quantity score > 5	2.768 (1.619–4.732)	NA	8

China	296 (169/127)	63.5mean	IHC	The percentage of stained cells multiplied by the intensity scores ≥180	NA	2.21 (1.11–4.37)	7

Japan	52 (41/11)	64.5median	IHC	The percentage of stained cells ≥ 50 %	1.061 (0.299–3.771)	4.942 (1.39–17.577)	6

America	891 (467/424)	71.4mean	ISH	Intensity score >1	1.15 (0.95–1.4)	NA	7

Spain	54 (33/21)	62.7mean	QRT-PCR	11.6	2.517 (0.924–6.858)	2.995 (1.192–7.527)	8

Japan	180 (105/75)	NA	QRT-PCR	Median value	0.909 (0.535–1.543)	3.3 (1.49–7.33)	6

China	246 (131/115)	63mean	IHC	The percentage of stained cells ≥ 5 %	1.122 (0.866–1.448)	NA	4

China	169 (101/68)	57mean	IHC	The percentage of stained cells ≥ 10 %	2.16 (1.35–3.45)	NA	7

Japan	60 (32/28)	65.7mean	IHC	The percentage of stained cells ≥ 5 %	NA	NA	7


Probe set	Gene symbol	Locus	Description	Fold difference	q-value

209735_at	ABCG2	4q22	ATP-binding cassette, sub-family G (WHITE), member 2	−1.29	0.031

208868_s_at	GABARAPL1	12p13.2	GABA(A) receptor-associated protein like 1	−1.17	0.043

208813_at	GOT1	19q24.1-q25.1	glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase 1, soluble (aspartate aminotransferase 1)	−1.17	0.043

212878_s_at	KLC1	14q32.3	kinesin light chain 1	−1.14	0.044

208002_s_at	ACOT7	1p36	acyl-CoA thioesterase 7	−1.14	0.033

213897_s_at	MRPL23	11p15.5	mitochondrial ribosomal protein L23	−1.10	0.043

211382_s_at	TACC2	10q26	transforming, acidic coiled-coil containing protein 2	−1.10	0.033

214365_at	TPM3	1q21.2	tropomyosin 3	−1.10	0.037

213738_s_at	ATP5A1	18q21	ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial F1 complex, alpha subunit 1, cardiac muscle	−1.10	0.031

221909_at	RNFT2	12q24.22	ring finger protein, transmembrane 2	−1.10	0.033

201322_at	ATP5B	12q13.13	ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial F1 complex, beta polypeptide	−1.10	0.049

203272_s_at	TUSC2	3p21.3	tumor suppressor candidate 2	−1.09	0.049

218332_at	BEX1	Xq22.1	brain expressed, X-linked 1	−1.09	0.033

201077_s_at	NHP2L1	NA	NHP2 non-histone chromosome protein 2-like 1 (S. cerevisiae)	−1.09	0.041

201410_at	PLEKHB2	2q21.1	pleckstrin homology domain containing, family B (evectins) member 2	−1.08	0.033

219760_at	LIN7B	19q13.3	lin-7 homolog B (C. elegans)	−1.08	0.049

221315_s_at	FGF22	19p13.3	fibroblast growth factor 22	−1.08	0.042

221706_s_at	USE1	19p13.11	unconventional SNARE in the ER 1 homolog (S. cerevisiae)	−1.07	0.042

202967_at	GSTA4	6p12.1	glutathione S-transferase alpha 4	−1.07	0.049

207839_s_at	TMEM8B	9p13.3	transmembrane protein 8B	−1.07	0.042

221746_at	UBL4A	Xq28	ubiquitin-like 4A	−1.07	0.033

208971_at	UROD	1p34	uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase	−1.07	0.043

202486_at	AFG3L2	18p11	AFG3 ATPase family gene 3-like 2 (S. cerevisiae)	−1.06	0.044

Probe set	Gene symbol	Locus	Description	Fold difference	q-value

221315_s_at	FGF22	19p13.3	fibroblast growth factor 22	−1.08	0.042

221706_s_at	USE1	19p13.11	unconventional SNARE in the ER 1 homolog (S. cerevisiae)	−1.07	0.042

202967_at	GSTA4	6p12.1	glutathione S-transferase alpha 4	−1.07	0.049

207839_s_at	TMEM8B	9p13.3	transmembrane protein 8B	−1.07	0.042

221746_at	UBL4A	Xq28	ubiquitin-like 4A	−1.07	0.033

208971_at	UROD	1p34	uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase	−1.07	0.043

202486_at	AFG3L2	18p11	AFG3 ATPase family gene 3-like 2 (S. cerevisiae)	−1.06	0.044


	CDS score 3-4	1		15

	CDS score ≥5	1948	22.4	773	8.9

Duration of hospitalization

	1 day	417	4.8

	2-5 days	4374	50.4

	> 5days	3890	44.8

Admission type

	Emergency	3966	45.7

	Planned	4715	54.3

Admission for surgery

	Yes	4360	50.2

	No	4321	49.8


	No antibody	Erbitux ® (anti-ErB1)	Herceptin ® (anti-ErB2)

U87Ctrl	130.1±4.4	98.3±8.6(*)	125.6±7.9 (ns)


Purchase status	Condition

Loss	Near-miss

Non-purchasers	20.18 (20.41)	34.74 (25.15)

Purchasers	19.43 (9.64)	61.00 (17.94)*


	HSFD	HUFD	HDSD	HRSD

	g/Kg	g/Kg	g/Kg	g/Kg

Protein

	Casein	254.1	254.1	212.9	212.9

Lipid

	Corn oil			11.1	11.1

	Olive oil		364.5

	Lard	364.5

Carbohydrates

	Corn starch	305	305	675

	Banana starch				675

	Sucrose	33.8	33.8	67	67

Vit. & Min.	15	15	15	15

Caloric value (Kcal/g)	5.6	5.6	3.9	3.9


Normal endothelial cells	Vasculogenic mimicry cells

Similarities

VE-cadherin positive

E-selectin positive

CD34 positive

Differences

TIE-2 positive	TIE-2 negative

VEGFR-1, 2 positive	VEGFR-1, 2 negative

P-selectin positive	P-selectin negative

VCAM-1/CD106 positive	VCAM-1/CD106 negative

CD31/PECAM-1 positive	CD31/PECAM-1 negative *13 (Subpopulations PECAM-1 positive melanoma cells)

TIE-1 negative	TIE-1 positive

VEGF-C negative	VEGF-C positive

Neuropilin 1 negative	Neuropilin 1 positive

Endoglin negative	Endoglin positive

Tissue factor pathway inhibitor 1 (TFPI1) negative	Tissue factor pathway inhibitor 1 (TFPI1) positive

Laminin 5 gamma 2 chain (LAMC2) negative	Laminin 5 gamma 2 chain (LAMC2) positive

EphA-2 negative	EphA-2 positive

Normal endothelial cells	Vasculogenic mimicry cells

TIE-1 negative	TIE-1 positive

VEGF-C negative	VEGF-C positive

Neuropilin 1 negative	Neuropilin 1 positive

Endoglin negative	Endoglin positive

Tissue factor pathway inhibitor 1 (TFPI1) negative	Tissue factor pathway inhibitor 1 (TFPI1) positive

Laminin 5 gamma 2 chain (LAMC2) negative	Laminin 5 gamma 2 chain (LAMC2) positive

EphA-2 negative	EphA-2 positive


Agent	Normal dose	Estimated GFR (creatinine clearance: CrCl)

Zidovudine	300 mg twice a day orally	100 mg thrice a day orally

Lamivudine	150 mg twice a day orally	30–49 mL/min = 150 mg once a day orally15–29 mL/min = 100 mg once a day orally5–14 mL/min = 50 mg once a day orally<5 mL/min = 25 mg once a day orally

Stavudine	30 mg twice a day orally	26–50 mL/min = 15 mg twice a day orally<26 mL/min = 15 mg once a day orally

Didanosine	>60 kg: 200 mg twice a day orally <60 kg, 125 mg twice a day orally	30–59 mL/min = 200 mg once a day orally10–29 mL/min = 150 mg once a day orally<10 mL/min = 100 mg once a day orally30–59 mL/min = 150 mg once a day orally10–29 mL/min = 100 mg once a day orally<10 mL/min = 75 mg once a day orally

Tenofovir	300 mg once a day orally	30–49 mL/min = 300 mg every second day10–29 mL/min = 300 mg every third day<10 mL/min = 300 mg once weekly


ASIC channel type	pH sensitivity (pH50) [21]	Predominant localization	Likely cellular localization	Potential function	References

ASIC1A	5.8–6.8	Central and peripheral nervous systems	Axons, cell bodies, dendrites	Cell death following injury, epilepsy, pain signaling, neuroinflammation, neurodegeneration, fear behavior	[21–35]

ASIC1B	6.1–6.2	Peripheral nervous system	Axons, cell bodies		[21, 36]

ASIC2A	4.5–4.9	Central and peripheral nervous systems	Axons, cell bodies, dendrites	Modulate ASIC1, ASIC2b, and ASIC3 function, autonomic circulatory control	[21, 37–40]

ASIC2B	Associates with other channels to have pH sensitivity	Central and peripheral nervous systems	Axons, axons terminals, cell bodies	Modulate ASIC1 function, autonomic circulatory control, acidosis-induced neuronal death	[37, 38, 41]

ASIC3	6.4–6.6	Peripheral and central nervous systems	Axons, axons terminals, cell bodies	Pain signaling, fear conditioning with exogenous expression, anxiety and aggression	[21, 42–50]

ASIC4	Not pH sensitive	Central nervous system		Fear and anxiety through ASIC1a antagonism	[51]

ASIC channel type	pH sensitivity (pH50) [21]	Predominant localization	Likely cellular localization	Potential function	References

ASIC1B	6.1–6.2	Peripheral nervous system	Axons, cell bodies		[21, 36]

ASIC2A	4.5–4.9	Central and peripheral nervous systems	Axons, cell bodies, dendrites	Modulate ASIC1, ASIC2b, and ASIC3 function, autonomic circulatory control	[21, 37–40]

ASIC2B	Associates with other channels to have pH sensitivity	Central and peripheral nervous systems	Axons, axons terminals, cell bodies	Modulate ASIC1 function, autonomic circulatory control, acidosis-induced neuronal death	[37, 38, 41]

ASIC3	6.4–6.6	Peripheral and central nervous systems	Axons, axons terminals, cell bodies	Pain signaling, fear conditioning with exogenous expression, anxiety and aggression	[21, 42–50]

ASIC4	Not pH sensitive	Central nervous system		Fear and anxiety through ASIC1a antagonism	[51]


	Total female participants n(%)	Female with DNA methylation data, n(%)	P value

Factors	n = 750	n = 245

Maternal history of asthma

Yes	80 (10.8)	30 (12.3)	0.50

No	662 (89.2)	213 (87.7)

Missing	8	2

Maternal smoking during pregnancy

Yes	188 (25.3)	47 (19.3)	0.05

No	555 (74.7)	197 (80.7)

Missing	7	1

Maternal body mass index (kg/m2)


Component 	Slices 	LUTs 	FFs 	Freq.

 Network stack 	1788 	 1380 	 2790 	127.6 MHz

 Adapters 	 624	 643 	 981 	 186.4 MHz

 Bus 	 284 	210 	335 	 220 MHz

Component	Slices	LUTs	FFs	Freq.

Bus	284	210	335	220 MHz


Gene name	Protein description	Cellular component	Biological process	Predominant normal tissue expression	Spectral counts	Position in B596 NAS fraction (sorted by spectral counts)

CCDC86	Cytokine-induced protein with coiled-coil domain	Nucleus	Unknown	Testis	106	22/236

H2AFY	Core histone macro-H2A.1	Nucleus	Chromatine Structure	Lung	42	44/236

MECP2	Methyl-CpG-binding protein 2	Nucleus	Chromatine Structure	Brain	16	85/236

NUMA1	Nuclear mitotic apparatus protein 1	Nucleus	Cell cycle	Lung	14	90/236

LYAR	Cell growth-regulating nucleolar protein	Nucleus	Cell cycle	Testis	10	106/236

STMN2	Stathmin-2	Cytoskeleton	Microtubule polymerization	Brain	1	219/236


Sequence	Length (aa)	Position(s) in HXB2 (aa)	Positions in HIVconsv (aa)	Presence of exact match in LANL-HSD	NetMHC binding affinity (nM)	HLA allele	PEAKS score (−10logP)	Sample collection time(s) (h)

YKRWIILGLNK	11	Gag 262–272	58–68	No	11,608	A*03:01	15.30	1.5

KRWIILGLNK	10	Gag 263–272	59–68	Yes	6,379	A*03:01	16.35	2.5

IYKRWIILGLNK	12	Gag 261–272	57–68	No	1,472	A*03:01	15.32	3.5

IILGLNK	7	Gag 266–272	62–68	No	NA	A*03:01	14.82	2.5, 3.5

FPISPIETVPVKL	13	Pol 155–167	194–206	No	163 (WB)	B*07:02	56.52	3.5, 6

SPIETVPVKL	10	Pol 158–167	197–206	Yes	191 (WB)	B*07:02	41.33	2.5, 3.5, 6

AIFQSSMTK	9	Pol 313–321	351–360	Yes	20 (SB)	A*03:01	47.95	2.5, 3.5, 6

RKGGIGGYSAG	11	Pol 902–912	663–673	Yes	20,750	B*07:02	14.82	6

RTWKSLVK	8	Vif 19–26	412–419	No	39 (SB)	A*03:01	28.89	6

KIWPS-RWKPKa	10	Gag/Pol	131–140	NA	71 (WB)	A*03:01	19.25	6

KLTP-WVPAHKa	10	Env/Pol	518–527	NA	19 (SB)	A*03:01	40.52	6

Sequence	Length (aa)	Position(s) in HXB2 (aa)	Positions in HIVconsv (aa)	Presence of exact match in LANL-HSD	NetMHC binding affinity (nM)	HLA allele	PEAKS score (−10logP)	Sample collection time(s) (h)

YKRWIILGLNK	11	Gag 262–272	58–68	No	11,608	A*03:01	15.30	1.5

KRWIILGLNK	10	Gag 263–272	59–68	Yes	6,379	A*03:01	16.35	2.5

IYKRWIILGLNK	12	Gag 261–272	57–68	No	1,472	A*03:01	15.32	3.5

IILGLNK	7	Gag 266–272	62–68	No	NA	A*03:01	14.82	2.5, 3.5

FPIS		Pol 155–16			163 (WB	B*07:0	56.	3.5


No. of embryos (repeat)	Cleavage (%)	Blastocyst (%)	No. of cells in blastocysts

1356 (6)	846 (76.3 ± 4.0)	367 (26.7 ± 3.9)	54.6 ± 13.6


Serum biochemical factors	Malignant cholestasis	Stone induced cholestasis	P value


Cycle Rate(Hz)	AveragePhase 0%Displacement(mm)	SD ofPhase 0%Displacement(mm)	AveragePhase 50%Displacement(mm)	SD ofPhase 50%Displacement(mm)

0.2	20.01	0.04	−19.65	0.08

0.33	19.96	0.05	−19.64	0.11

1	20.73	.08	−18.87	0.59


Serum parameter	Case	Control	Between groups comparison (P-value)a

	N	Baseline (mean ± SD	Follow-up (mean ± SD)	N	Baseline (mean ± SD)	Follow-up (mean ± SD)

FT3 (pmol/L)	103	4.34 ± 0.6	4.57 ± 0.2b	412	4.85 ± 0.7	4.30 ± 0.5b	<0.001

FT4 (pmol/L)	103	9.06 ± 1.1	13.4 ± 1.0b	412	14.7 ± 2.8	13.5 ± 1.0b	<0.001

Anti-TPO (kU/L)	103	162.8 ± 120	43.4 ± 116b	412	21.5 ± 54.8	18.8 ± 26.7	<0.001


Food Ingestion Rate (FIR) Limitation (g/day)	As	Cd	Cr	Cu	Pb	Zn

Based on target hazard quotients (THQ)

Cultured fish	Muscle	/	/	339,296	3027	1253	1018

Mixed tissues	/	5162	526,225	1057	2227	452

Wild fish	Muscle	/	10,707	49,497	6168	4894	1183

Mixed tissues	1529	1352	135,527	1506	1420	396

Based on carcinogenic risk (CR)

Cultured fish	Muscle	/	/	/	/	3684	/

Mixed tissues	/	/	/	/	6550	/

Wild fish	Muscle	/	/	/	/	14,396	/

Mixed tissues	340	/	/	/	4178	/

Based on estimated weekly intake (EWI)

Cultured fish	Muscle	/	/	465	36,284	1072	3253

Mixed tissues	/	4950	721	12,673	1907	1445

Wild fish	Muscle	/	10,267	68	73,932	4190	3780

Mixed tissues	10,475	1297	186	18,052	1216	1265

Food Ingestion Rate (FIR) Limitation (g/day)	As	Cd	Cr

Based on target hazard quotients (THQ)

Cultured fish	Muscle	/	/	339,296

Mixed tissues	/	5162	526,225

Wild fish	Muscle	/	10,707	49,497

Mixed tissues	1529	1352	135,527

Based on carcinogenic risk (CR)

Cultured fish	Muscle	/	/	/

Mixed tissues	/	/	/

Wild fish	Muscle	/	/	/

Mixed tissues	340	/	/

Based on estimated weekly intake (EWI)

Cultured fish	Muscle	/	/	465

Mixed tissues	/	4950	721

Wild fish	Muscle	/	10,267	68

Mixed tissues	10,475	1297	186


Strategy in small animal models	Advantages	Disadvantages

Knockout mice	Susceptible to a wide range of clinical isolates of viruses	Cannot study immune responses properly due to abnormal innate immunity

Can study pathogenesis of a new pathogen rapidly	Some viruses may not cause disease in knockout mice

	Cannot test drugs and vaccines effectively

	Can be age-sensitive: older mice may lose their susceptibility to the pathogen

Virus adaptation to host via sequential passaging	Can cause uniform lethality	Not always successful in creating a lethal variant

Good for screening drugs and vaccines	Can be time consuming to create a lethal variant

Wild-type mice are widely available	Not clinical isolate of virus and thus may harbour important differences in pathogenesis

Transduction with adenoviral vectors encoding the entry receptor to confer sensitivity	Useful when no other known small animal models exist (i.e., MERS)	Need to know the identity of the receptor

Can test with clinical isolate of virus	Time consuming to create the recombinant adenovirus

Strategy in small animal models	Advantages	Disadvantages

Knockout mice		Can be age-sensitive: older mice may lose their susceptibility to the pathogen

Virus adaptation to host via sequential passaging	Can cause uniform lethality	Not always successful in creating a lethal variant

Good for screening drugs and vaccines	Can be time consuming to create a lethal variant

Wild-type mice are widely available	Not clinical isolate of virus and thus may harbour important differences in pathogenesis

Transduction with adenoviral vectors encoding the entry receptor to confer sensitivity	Useful when no other known small animal models exist (i.e., MERS)	Need to know the identity of the receptor

Can test with clinical isolate of virus	Time consuming to create the recombinant adenovirus


Patient nr	Gender	Age of onset	PMD (hours)	Disease duration (years)	ALS type

1	F	66	6	4.5	Sporadic ALS

2	F	61	Unknown	1	Sporadic ALS

3	M	56	10	3.5	Sporadic ALS

4	F	80	Unknown	2	Sporadic ALS

5	M	68	Unknown	3.5	Familial ALSa

6	F	57	9.5	3.5	Sporadic ALS

7	M	62	Unknown	4	Sporadic ALS

8	M	72	Unknown	X	Sporadic ALS

9	M	68	Unknown	3.5	Sporadic ALS

10	M	54	Unknown	1.5	Familial ALSa

11	F	58	10–11	2	Sporadic ALS


Protein	# Unique peptides	% Coverage

CUL4A	6	10.2

DDB1	4	7.9

TOP2A	14	10.1

MCM6	1	1.8

MCM7	1	1.2


Parameters	0 days (mean ± SD)

Malondialdehyde (MDA) (nmoL/mL)	3.78 ± 0.24

Lipid hydroperoxide (nmoL/mL)	3.63 ± 0.19

Catalase (kU/L)	31.53 ± 8.41

Superoxide dismutase (SOD) (U/mL)	67.25 ± 6.43

Glutathione-S-transferase (GST) (U/mL)	28.41 ± 4.02

Glutathione (GSH) (nmoL/mL)	279.3 ± 23.26

Vitamin C (mg/dL)	0.76 ± 0.07

Cholesterol (mg/dL)	167.22 ± 10.33

Triglyceride (TG) (mg/dL)	172.10 ± 14.44

High density lipoprotein (HDL) (mg/dL)	42.21 ± 5.17


Weight management services and products	Perceived availability of services and products (‘Are the following services or products available at the community pharmacy that you go to?’)	Utilization of services and products obtained (‘Have you ever used the following services or bought the following products at the community pharmacy that you go to?’)

Yes n (%)	No n (%)	Not sure n (%)	Yes n (%)	No n (%)	Not sure n (%)

Pharmacy services

 Measurement of weight	409 (56.0)	276 (37.8)	45 (6.2)	234 (32.1)	396 (54.2)	100 (13.7)

 Measurement of height	367 (50.3)	313 (42.9)	50 (6.8)	194 (26.6)	453 (62.1)	81 (11.1)

 Calculation of body mass index	337 (46.2)	337 (46.2)	56 (7.7)	157 (21.5)	494 (67.7)	79 (10.8)

 Measurement of waist/hip circumference	261 (35.8)	401 (54.9)	68 (9.3)	118 (16.2)	560 (76.7)	52 (7.1)

 Measurement of body fat percentage	250 (34.2)	395 (54.1)	83 (11.4)	89 (12.2)	586 (80.3)	55 (7.5)

 Measurement of blood pressure	591 (81.0)	127 (17.4)	12 (1.6)	260 (35.6)	306 (41.9)	164 (22.5)

 Measurement of blood glucose	581 (79.6)	133 (18.2)	16 (2.2)	234 (32.1)	338 (46.3)	158 (21.6)

 Measurement of blood cholesterol	532 (72.9)	166 (22.7)	32 (4.4)	194 (26.6)	394 (54.0)	141 (19.3)

 Advice on physical activity to achieve weight loss	353 (48.4)	312 (42.7)	64 (8.8)	211 (28.9)	402 (55.1)	117 (16.0)

 Advice on healthy eating to achieve weight loss	337 (46.2)	324 (44.4)	68 (9.3)	206 (28.2)	429 (58.8)	95 (13.0)

 Referral to doctors and/or dieticians for weight loss	189 (25.9)	439 (60.1)	102 (14.0)	43 (5.9)	645 (88.4)	42 (5.8)

 Referral to slimming centers for weight loss	141 (19.3)	477 (65.3)	109 (14.9)	35 (4.8)	653 (89.5)	41 (5.6)

 Referral to other programs	25 (3.4)	479 (65.6)	85 (11.6)	9 (1.2)	505 (69.2)	99 (13.6)

Weight management products and resources

 Supplements (e.g. powdered drinks, herbal products and other non-drug products)	553 (75.8)	151 (20.7)	26 (3.6)	181 (24.8)	385 (52.7)	164 (22.5)

 Creams	323 (44.2)	270 (37.0)	137 (18.8)	55 (7.5)	648 (88.8)	27 (3.7)

 Oral medications	388 (53.2)	238 (32.6)	104 (14.2)	76 (10.4)	553 (75.8)	100 (13.7)

 Information materials (e.g. brochures, leaflets, popular diet books and video CDs)	283 (38.8)	308 (42.2)	139 (19.0)	80 (11.0)	589 (80.7)	61 (8.4)


Therapeutictarget	Treatment	Route ofadministration	Result

Indeterminate	Hypothermia	IV	−

	Hypothermia	Peritoneal	−

MMTP	Delcasetrib	IV before reperfusion	−

	TR040303	IV before reperfusion	−

	Bendavia	IV before reperfusion	−

	Ciclosporin A	IV before reperfusion	+ −

Nitric oxidesignaling	Nitrite sodium	IV	−

	Nitrite sodium	Intracoronary	−

	Nitric oxide	Inhaled	−

Pro-survivalkinase	Copertide	IV	+

	Exenatide	IV	+

Indeterminate	Metoprolol	IV	+

Indeterminate	Post-conditioning	IC balloon inflations	+ + − −

Indeterminate	RIC	Limb ischemia	+ + + ++ + + −

Therapeutictarget	Treatment	Route ofadministration

Indeterminate	Hypothermia	IV

	Hypothermia	Peritoneal

MMTP	Delcasetrib	IV before reperfusion

	TR040303	IV before reperfusion

	Bendavia	IV before reperfusion

	Ciclosporin A	IV before reperfusion

Nitric oxidesignaling	Nitrite sodium	IV

	Nitrite sodium	Intracoronary

	Nitric oxide	Inhaled

Pro-survivalkinase	Copertide	IV

	Exenatide	IV

Indeterminate	Metoprolol	IV

Indeterminate	Post-conditioning	IC balloon inflations

Indeterminate	RIC	Limb ischemia

Result

−

−

−

−

−

+ −

−

−

−

+

+

+

+ + − −

+ + + ++ + + −


DFTD	CTVT

∼ 16 years old	∼ 10 000 years old

Passed by biting	Passed during coitus

Close to 100% mortality	Not fatal (Progression, Stationary and Regression phases)

No significant infiltration of lymphocytes	Significant infiltration of lymphocytes during regression

Schwann cell origin	Haematopoietic origin (perhaps a macrophage cell)

MHC class I and class II negative	MHC class I and class II negative during progression

Epigenetic regulation of MHC genes	Epigenetic regulation of MHC genes

Sensitive to interferon-γ	Sensitive to interferon-γ

Unknown role of immunosuppressive cytokines	Cytokine regulation of immune response by transforming growth factor-β and interleukin-6

Low genetic diversity of host	Host is outbred


Cytokine	Luminex	Affymetrix

IL-1α	2.1	5.4

IL-1β	5.4	2.6

IL-2	Spore only, low expressed	Spore only, low expressed

IL-3	Spore only, low expressed	Not expressed

IL-4	Spore only, low expressed	Not expressed

IL-5	Not expressed	Mock only, low expressed

IL-6	23.7	27.2

IL-7	1.4	0.7

IL-8	0.9	1.5

IL-10	4.6	2.5

IL-12p40	1.4	3.1

IL-12p70	2.0	Not available

IL-13	Spore only, low expressed	1.4

IL-15	Not expressed	1.5

GM-CSF	3.6	1.6

IFN-γ	5.8	3.8

TNF-α	51.6	10.6

Eotaxin	Spore only, low expressed	1.1

MCP-1	2.0	1.7

RANTES	4.7	3.3

MIP-1α	1.7	3.0

IP-10	1.7	Not available

IFN-α	0.8	2.0


Interventions	Mean difference	Standard error	p-value	95% confidence interval

FISA&DM	FIS	−6.80	3.60	0.59	−16.93 to 3.34

 	Promotion of the survey	−11.11*	3.57	0.02	−21.21 to −1.01

 	Multiple letters	−16.65*	3.63	<0.001	−26.89 to −6.40

 	Control	−10.02	3.60	0.06	−20.19 to 0.15

FIS	Promotion of the survey	−4.32	3.47	1.00	−14.13 to 5.50

 	Multiple letters	−9.65	3.53	0.06	−19.82 to 0.12

 	Control	−3.22	3.50	1.00	−13.11 to 6.67

Promotion of the survey	Multiple letters	−5.53	3.51	1.00	−15.46 to 4.40

 	Control	1.10	3.50	1.00	−8.76 to 10.95

Multiple letters	Control	6.63	3.54	0.62	−3.38 to 16.63


BaselineUsual Activities	Specific "usually enjoyed activity" identified

	No	Yes

	n (%)	n (%)	Importance(IQR)	Total

No problems	46 (48.9)	142 (45.7)	76 (30)	188

Some problems	45 (47.9)	142 (45.7)	88 (30)	187

Unable	3 (3.2)	27 (8.7)	93 (21)	30

Total	94	311		405

12 monthsUsual Activities	12 months "able to take part in usually enjoyed activity"

	no	yes	Total

No problems	21 (42.0)	120 (63.5)	141

Some problems	24 (48.0)	66 (34.9)	90

Unable	5 (10.0)	3 (1.6)	8

Total	50	189	239

BaselineUsual Activities

No problems

Some problems

Unable

Total

12 monthsUsual Activities

No problems

Some problems

Unable

Total


	Cohort N = 151

Age (mean years ± SD)	30 ± 11

<18 years of age	43 (28)

Range (years)	13–61

Race

African-American	57 (38)

Caucasian	57 (38)

Hispanic	37 (24)

County of residence

Dallas	130 (86)

Out of county (TX)	18 (12)

Out of state	3 (2)

Mode of transport to the hospital

Emergency medical services	16 (11)

Police	69 (46)

Self	64 (42)

Unknown	2 (1)

Trauma service evaluation	15 (10)


	Estimate	Standard Error	Z Value	P(>|Z|)

Clean and Income	−0.00	0.00	− 0.75	0.45

Clean and White	−0.95	1.52	−0.63	0.53

Clogged and Income	0.00	0.00	0.85	0.40

Clogged and White	0.64	1.70	0.38	0.70

Bottle and Income	−0.00	0.00	−0.89	0.37

Bottle and White	−0.31	1.47	−0.21	0.83

Handicap and Income	−0.00	0.00	−2.09	0.04

Handicap and White	1.42	1.65	0.86	0.39


Factors	ReactivationN = 97	No ReactivationN = 189	UnivariateP value	MultivariateP Value	Odds ratio(95% CI)

Hematological malignancy			0.332	NA

 AML	29	46

ALL	3	10

Lymphoma	46	96

CML/MPN	1	5

CLL	2	3

Myeloma	10	21

MDS/AA	6	8

Age > 65 year			0.052	0.198

 Yes	11	57

 No	86	132

Gender			0.781	NA

 Man	55	106

 Woman	42	83

Hepatitis C			0.180	0.453

 Yes	4	4

 No	93	185

Liver cirrhosis			0.906	NA

 Yes	4	7

 No	93	182

Hepatocellular carcinoma			0.032	<0.001	0.101(0.029–0.355)

 Yes	3	1

 No	94	188

Diabetes mellitus			0.388	NA

 Yes	10	20

 No	87	169

Allogeneic transplantation			0.113	0.269

 Yes	28	31

 No	69	158

Antiviral prophylaxis			<0.001	<0.001	4.631(2.902–7.390)

 Yes	26	145

 No	71	44


	D-dimer	Plasminogen	PAI-1

	(ng/mL)	(%)	(ng/mL)

Idiopathic ON

mean (SD)	241 (132)	115 (18) b	4.6 (2.6)

median	173	118	4.7

range	86–553	72–149	1.2–10.5

Corticosteroid-associated ON


Author	 Design	Subjects	Most common sport	Cardiovascular disease found

Corrado et al. [1]	Prospective	23/300 athletes, ages 12–35 	(1) Soccer(2) Swimming	(1) CADa(2) ARVC

de Noronha et al. [6]	Prospective	118 cases, mean age 28	(1) Soccer(2) Running	(1) Isolated LVHb(2) Normal heart(3) ARVC

Maron et al. [3]	Retrospective	60 international athletes (ages 19 ± 3) and 213 US Athletes (ages 14 ± 9 years)	Soccer	Commotio Cordis

Maron et al. [2]	Retrospective	1866 athletes (ages 16 ± 4)	(1) Basketball(2) Football(3) Soccer	(1) HCMb (2) CCA

Bille et al. [4]	Retrospective	388 athletes 	(1) Soccer(2) Running(3) Basketball	(1) HCMb (2) CCA

Allouche et al. [7]	Retrospective	32 athletes	(1) Running(2) Soccer	(1) HCMb (2) ARVC

Suárez-Mier and Aguilera [8]	Retrospective	61 athletes, mean ages 31.9 ± 14	(1) Cycling(2) Soccer	(1) ARVCc (2) Isolated LVH

McConnell and Collins [9]	Case study	24 y.o. female	Soccer	Hypoplastic left coronary artery

Chen and Sheppard [10]	Case study	22 y.o. male	Soccer	Ebstein anomaly due to hemangioma

Zeller et al. [11]	Case study	26 y.o. male	Soccer	Marked early repolarization on ECG two weeks prior to SCD; autopsy was normal

Pellissier et al. [12]	Case study	15 y.o. male	Soccer	Left coronary artery arising from the right anterior sinus with an oblique course between the aorta and the pulmonary artery trunk

Pacchioni et al. [13]	Case study	18 y.o. male	Soccer	ARVC

Ronneberger et al. [14]	Case study	8 y.o. male	Soccer	Myxomatous mitral valve with lacerations of the posterior cusp and the left vestibular endocardium and left ventricular hypertrophy

Ottaviani et al. [15]	Case study	13 y.o. male	Soccer	Abnormal origin of left coronary artery from the right aortic sinus of Valsalva

Iskandar and Thompson [16]	Case study	14 y.o male 	Soccer	Acute angle takeoff of the left main coronary artery and a transverse slit-like opening with a fibrous cushion, which created a kink near its origin

Meel [17]	Case study	22 y.o. male	Soccer	Abnormal origin of the left coronary artery from the right sinus of Valsalva

Author	Design	Subjects	Most common sport	Cardiovascular disease found

Iskandar and Thompson [16]	Case study	14 y.o male	Soccer	Acute angle takeoff of the left main coronary artery and a transverse slit-like opening with a fibrous cushion, which created a kink near its origin

Meel [17]	Case study	22 y.o. male	Soccer	Abnormal origin of the left coronary artery from the right sinus of Valsalva


Participanta	Classifications for sensory profile quadrantsb	Number of quadrants affected

Low registration	Sensation seeking	Sensory sensitivity	Sensation avoiding

1	More than most	Less than most	More than most	More than most	4

2	More than most	Similar to most	More than most	More than most	3

3	More than most	Less than most	Much more than most	More than most	4

4	More than most	Similar to most	More than most	More than most	3

5	More than most	Similar to most	More than most	More than most	3

6	More than most	Similar to most	More than most	Similar to most	2

7	Similar to most	Similar to most	Less than most	Similar to most	1

8	More than most	Less than most	Similar to most	Similar to most	2

9	Similar to most	Less than most	Similar to most	Similar to most	1

10	Similar to most	Less than most	Much more than most	Similar to most	2

11	More than most	Less than most	More than most	Similar to most	3

12	More than most	Similar to most	More than most	More than most	3

13	Much more most	Similar to most	Much more than most	More than most	3

14	Much more most	Similar to most	More than most	Similar to most	2

Percentage of participants scoring outside the normal range	79	43	93	50

Average quadrant scores, ranges and standard deviations	M = 43 (26–57)	M = 44 (35–54)	M = 42 (22–55)	M = 43 (28–55)

SD = 7.48	SD = 6.22	SD = 8.84	SD = 8.57


	Fieldl	Field3	Field4	Field6	Field7

Dose 3c	30.6	33.8	34.3	30.8	34.8


Arthrosis grade on MRI	Preoperatively	Postoperatively

0	8	7

1	17	13

2	23	25

3	7	8

4	6	8

P Value	Z = − 0.911	P = 0.36


	True	Healthy Control	sALS Patient	ALS Mutation Carrier	fALS Patient

Prediction

healthy Control	14(16)	6(-)	0(1)	0(0)

sALS Patient	3(-)	8(-)	2(-)	0(-)

ALS Mutation Carrier	0(1)	2(-)	8(7)	1(2)

fALS Patient	0(0)	2(-)	2(4)	5(4)

	True	Healthy Control	sALS Patient	ALS Mutation Carrier	fALS Patient

Prediction

ALS Mutation Carrier	0(1)	2(-)	8(7)	1(2)

fALS Patient	0(0)	2(-)	2(4)	5(4)


Nr.	Effect	Effect type	Estimate	Std-Error	P-value	N

a	Age class (mother = 0)	Fixed	−0.1	0.25	0.672	2

Site (Tuanan = 0)	Fixed	−0.52	0.25	0.035	2

Individual	Random	-	-	-	15 (32)

b	Age	Fixed	0.02	0.1	0.863	cont.

Site (Tuanan = 0)	Fixed	−0.69	0.3	0.021	2

Individual	Random	-	-	-	8 (17)

Nr.	Effect	Effect type	Estimate	Std-Error	P-value	N

a	Age class (mother = 0)	Fixed	−0.1	0.25	0.672	2

Site (Tuan		−0.5

	an = 0)	Fixed	2	0.25	0.035	2

Individual	Random	-	-	-	15 (32)

b	Age	Fixed	0.02	0.1	0.863	cont.

Site (Tuanan = 0)	Fixed	−0.69	0.3	0.021	2

Individual	Random	-	-	-	8 (17)


	Total number of participating residents (% of total)	Number of residents with burnout (% of total)	p-value of difference in burnout rate per characteristic

Gender

 Male	96 (40.7)	45 (46.9)

 Female	140 (59,3)	53 (37.9)

			0.17

Years in training

 1	52 (22.2)	22 (42.3)

 2	23 (9.7)	11 (47.8)

 3	31 (13.1)	8 (25.8)

 4	50 (21.2)	24 (48.0)

 5	45 (19.1)	18 (40.0)

 6	25 (10.6)	11 (44.0)

 7	8 (3.4)	2 (25.0)

			0.49

Type of specialty

 Surgical	57 (24.2)	26 (45.6)

 Medical	144 (61.0)	59 (41.0)

 Supportive	34 (14.4)	12 (35.3)

 missing	1 (0.4)

			0.62

Satisfaction with work/life balance

 Very dissatisfied	31 (13.1)	21 (67.7)

 Dissatisfied	4 (1.7)	2 (50.0)

 Neutral	69 (29.2)	14 (20.3)

 Satisfied	130 (55.1)	61 (46.9)

 Very satisfied	2 (0.8)	0 (0.0)

			< 0.001

Quality of life

 As bad as it can be	12 (5.1)	10 (83.3)

 Bad	59 (25.0)	37 (62.7)

 Neutral	79 (33.5)	37 (46.8)

 Good	77 (32.6)	14 (18.2)

 As good as it can be	9 (3.8)	0 (0.0)

			< 0.001

Burned outa	98 (41.5)

 Emotionally exhaustedb	125 (53.0)

 Depersonalizedb	125 (53.0)

 Reduced personal accomplishmentb	60 (23.4)

	Total number of participating residents (% of total)	Number of residents with burnout (% of total)	p-value of difference in burnout rate per characteristic

Satisfied	130 (55.1)	61 (46.9)

Very satisfied	2 (0.8)	0 (0.0)

			< 0.001

Quality of life

As bad as it can be	12 (5.1)	10 (83.3)

Bad	59 (25.0)	37 (62.7)

Neutral	79 (33.5)	37 (46.8)

Good	77 (32.6)	14 (18.2)

As good as it can be	9 (3.8)	0 (0.0)

			< 0.001

Burned outa	98 (41.5)

Emotionally exhaustedb	125 (53.0)

Depersonalizedb	125 (53.0)

Reduced personal accomplishmentb	60 (23.4)


Prevention level	Goal	Child-protective examples

Zero-order	Prevent the development of a hazard	Urban planning to reduce GHGs from vehicular traffic and increase pedestrian access, resulting in improved air quality and increased physical activity (Sheffield and Galvez 2009)

Primary	Block interaction between hazard and human	Relocation of low-lying island populations facing increased risk of flooding, or distribution of mosquito nets

Secondary	Prevent effects after exposure to the hazard	Activation of early warning systems before heat waves

Tertiary	Reduce morbidity and mortality, avoid complications, and restore function	Postdisaster restoration of chronic care services

Prevention level	Goal

Zero-order	Prevent the development of a hazard

Primary	Block interaction between hazard and human

Secondary	Prevent effects after exposure to the hazard

Tertiary	Reduce morbidity and mortality, avoid complications, and restore function

Child-protective examples

Urban planning to reduce GHGs from vehicular traffic and increase pedestrian access, resulting in improved air quality and increased physical activity (Sheffield and Galvez 2009)

Relocation of low-lying island populations facing increased risk of flooding, or distribution of mosquito nets

Activation of early warning systems before heat waves

Postdisaster restoration of chronic care services


Mode	Controlled/Known Parameters	Parameters to Estimate

Calibration	Main measurement parameters	System calibration parameters

Normal estimation	System calibration parameters	Main measurement parameters


	Mean (SD)	95%-CI	Minimum	Maximum

Etanercept (n = 233)


Abbreviation	Description, Definition

 	Tissue mapping in specific compartments

ABM	Adipose bone marrow

TV	Total volume of the body (from ankle to wrist), without INF

TVV	Total visceral volume: includes intrathoracic and intraabdominal volume.

TSV	Total somatic volume (TV without TVV).

TLT	Total lean tissue

VLT	Visceral lean tissue: includes lean tissue of intrathoracic and intraabdominal organs.

SLT	Somatic lean tissue: mostly muscles

TAT	Total adipose tissue (without INF)

SAT	Somatic adipose tissue (TAT without VAT)

TAST	Total adipose soft tissue (TAT without ABM)

SAST	Somatic adipose soft tissue (TAT without ABM and VAT)

SCAT	Subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAST without IMAT)

IMAT	Intermuscular adipose tissue (SAST without SCAT)

VAT	Visceral adipose tissue (IAAT + MAT without INF)

IAAT	Intraabdominal adipose tissue: retroperitoneal and intraperitoneal (mesenteric, omental) fat depots (without INF)

MAT	Intrathoracic, mainly mediastinal adipose tissue

INF	(Undigested) intraluminal nutrition fat in the gastrointestinal tract

 	Tissue mapping of body segments

TV-LE	Total volume of lower extremities (apex trochanter major to ankle joint)

TV-TR	Total volume of trunk (acromion to apex of trochanter major)

TV-UE	Total volume of upper extremities (wrist to acromion level)

LT-LE	Lean tissue volume of lower extremities (apex trochanter major to ankle joint)

LT-TR	Lean soft tissue volume of trunk (acromion to apex of trochanter major)

LT-UE	Lean soft tissue volume of upper extremities (wrist to acromion level)

SAST-LE	Adipose soft tissue volume of lower extremities (apex trochanter major to ankle joint)

SAST-TR	Adipose soft tissue volume of trunk (acromion to apex of trochanter major)

SAST-UE	Adipose soft tissue volume of upper extremities (wrist to acromion level)

Abbreviation

ABM

TV

TVV

TSV

TLT

VLT

SLT

TAT

SAT

TAST

SAST

SCAT

IMAT

VAT

IAAT

MAT

INF

TV-LE

TV-TR

TV-UE

LT-LE

LT-TR

LT-UE

SAST-LE

SAST-TR

SAST-UE

Description, Definition

Tissue mapping in specific compartments

Adipose bone marrow

Total volume of the body (from ankle to wrist), without INF

Total visceral volume: includes intrathoracic and intraabdominal volume.

Total somatic volume (TV without TVV).

Total lean tissue

Visceral lean tissue: includes lean tissue of intrathoracic and intraabdominal organs.

Somatic lean tissue: mostly muscles

Total adipose tissue (without INF)

Somatic adipose tissue (TAT without VAT)

Total adipose soft tissue (TAT without ABM)

Somatic adipose soft tissue (TAT without ABM and VAT)

Subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAST without IMAT)

Intermuscular adipose tissue (SAST without SCAT)

Visceral adipose tissue (IAAT + MAT without INF)

Intraabdominal adipose tissue: retroperitoneal and intraperitoneal (mesenteric, omental) fat depots (without INF)

Intrathoracic, mainly mediastinal adipose tissue

(Undigested) intraluminal nutrition fat in the gastrointestinal tract

Tissue mapping of body segments

Total volume of lower extremities (apex trochanter major to ankle joint)

Total volume of trunk (acromion to apex of trochanter major)

Total volume of upper extremities (wrist to acromion level)

Lean tissue volume of lower extremities (apex trochanter major to ankle joint)

Lean soft tissue volume of trunk (acromion to apex of trochanter major)

Lean soft tissue volume of upper extremities (wrist to acromion level)

Adipose soft tissue volume of lower extremities (apex trochanter major to ankle joint)

Adipose soft tissue volume of trunk (acromion to apex of trochanter major)

Adipose soft tissue volume of upper extremities (wrist to acromion level)


PSQI components score	Casesn = 314	Controlsn = 102	P value

Subjective sleep quality	1.01 ± 0.77	0.89 ± 0.79	0.127

Sleep latency	0.98 ± 0.89	0.69 ± 0.88	0.001

Sleep duration	0.68 ± 0.79	1.29 ± 0.86	0.000

Habitual sleep efficiency	0.95 ± 1.03	0.25 ± 0.64	0.000

Sleep disorders	1.21 ± 0.69	0.74 ± 0.63	0.000

Use of sleep medications	0.10 ± 0.46	0.01 ± 0.09	0.055

Daytime dysfunction	1.69 ± 0.95	1.63 ± 1.00	0.635

Total	6.62 ± 3.62	5.50 ± 2.51	0.020


Dataset		SparseAssembler	Gossamer	Minia	SGA	Diginorm-Velvet	DiMA	ZeMA

B. impatiens	Amazon Instance / Cost ($)	M3/10.9		M2/7.24		M3/6.14	M3/6.04	M2/0.93

	Amazon Time (h:m:s)	13:38:23	Failed	60:20:16	Failed	7:40:16	7:33:15	7:47:42

	Local Time (h:m:s)	13:30:22		48:42:50		7:40:31	7:32:41	7:13:36


Gene/exon	Sequences	Tann

β-globin	Forward primer: 5'-GTGCACCTGACTCCTGAGGAGA-3'Reverse primer: 5'-CCTTGATACCAACCTGCCCAG-3'Probe: 5'-FAM-AAGGTGAACGTGGATGAAGTTGGTGG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex1	Forward primer: 5'-CAGCGGCTCTCCTGGGTTAAA-3'Reverse primer: 5'-TACGACTCCCAGCAGGCCCT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-CCTAGGAATGCGCACGCGCGGAG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex2	Forward primer: 5'-ATCTCAGGCATGAATGTCAGATT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-TGACCAGTTGCGTGTGATTT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-ATGAGCAATGGAGCTGGCGGCATCC-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex3	Forward primer: 5'-CATTGTGCAGAGACCGTGGAGAA-3'Reverse primer: 5'-GCTGAGGTCCACCCGAGTCAA-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-AAATGAATGCAACTGGAGGCGACGACCC-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex4	Forward primer: 5'-TAGCCACTTCTTCTGCTTTT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-TGCACTGTACCCTGAGTTTT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-ATTGCAAAGGCCCCTGTCAAAGAGTGCA-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex5	Forward primer: 5'-TCTTGCTGGGATGATGTTTTAATTCCAAA-3'Reverse primer: 5'-TTGCAATAAGAGGAATGAAT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-AATGCCAATCCCCACACTGCCCTGG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex6	Forward primer: 5'-CCGTGGAGGGAAGTGACACTAT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-TGCACCTGATCGCAACAAAT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-TGTGCGCGTAATGCAAGTGATGTTCCG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex7	Forward primer: 5'-GGGTCGTGAACAAACTGCCGATCATT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-AGGAGCCCCGTCCTGGTTTT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-AAGCAAATCACGTGGCGGGAGTTGCAC-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex8	Forward primer: 5'-TCACTCACCTGCTCTTCTCCCAGAAT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-CAGAGTGAAAGTGACGTTTT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-TCAAGGAGTTGGGACAGCCAGCTGTTGG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex9	Forward primer: 5'-ACCCCACAGCCCAGGCCATT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-TGCAGATGGGGGGCGTGTTA-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-TTCGCAGGTGACTTTCCTCTGGTCAGGC-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex10	Forward primer: 5'-GCTTGGAGGAATGAGTAGGGCATT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-GTTTGCCTTCTGCCGGGAAT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-AGGCTTCAAATACGGCACTGCACTCCCC-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex11	Forward primer: 5'-TGGTGGTTTTCTTGATGGTTT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-AACGCCTTTCCTCTTTGTTT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-TCGGCGGCTCTTTCATCGACTCTGTAGG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex12	Forward primer: 5'-CACGATCTTCCTGAGAAGTCAGACAAT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-ACAACACTGCATGCGGCAAA-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-TCTGCGTAGTGTGGGTAAGAGCATGCGG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

Gene/exon	Sequences	Tann

β-globin	Forward primer: 5'-GTGCACCTGACTCCTGAGGAGA-3'Reverse primer: 5'-CCTTGATACCAACCTGCCCAG-3'Probe: 5'-FAM-AAGGTGAACGTGGATGAAGTTGGTGG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex1	Forward primer: 5'-CAGCGGCTCTCCTGGGTTAAA-3'Reverse primer: 5'-TACGACTCCCAGCAGGCCCT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-CCTAGGAATGCGCACGCGCGGAG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

	Forward primer: 5'-ATCTCAGGCATGAATGTCAGATT-3'Reverse primer

Gene/exon	Sequences	Tann

PARK2\ex2	: 5'-TGACCAGTTGCGTGTGATTT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-ATGAGCAATGGAGCTGGCGGCATCC-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex3	Forward primer: 5'-CATTGTGCAGAGACCGTGGAGAA-3'Reverse primer: 5'-GCTGAGGTCCACCCGAGTCAA-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-AAATGAATGCAACTGGAGGCGACGACCC-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex4	Forward primer: 5'-TAGCCACTTCTTCTGCTTTT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-TGCACTGTACCCTGAGTTTT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-ATTGCAAAGGCCCCTGTCAAAGAGTGCA-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex5	Forward primer: 5'-TCTTGCTGGGATGATGTTTTAATTCCAAA-3'Reverse primer: 5'-TTGCAATAAGAGGAATGAAT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-AATGCCAATCCCCACACTGCCCTGG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex6	Forward primer: 5'-CCGTGGAGGGAAGTGACACTAT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-TGCACCTGATCGCAACAAAT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-TGTGCGCGTAATGCAAGTGATGTTCCG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex7	Forward primer: 5'-GGGTCGTGAACAAACTGCCGATCATT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-AGGAGCCCCGTCCTGGTTTT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-AAGCAAATCACGTGGCGGGAGTTGCAC-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex8	Forward primer: 5'-TCACTCACCTGCTCTTCTCCCAGAAT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-CAGAGTGAAAGTGACGTTTT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-TCAAGGAGTTGGGACAGCCAGCTGTTGG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex9	Forward primer: 5'-ACCCCACAGCCCAGGCCATT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-TGCAGATGGGGGGCGTGTTA-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-TTCGCAGGTGACTTTCCTCTGGTCAGGC-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex10	Forward primer: 5'-GCTTGGAGGAATGAGTAGGGCATT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-GTTTGCCTTCTGCCGGGAAT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-AGGCTTCAAATACGGCACTGCACTCCCC-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex11	Forward primer: 5'-TGGTGGTTTTCTTGATGGTTT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-AACGCCTTTCCTCTTTGTTT-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-TCGGCGGCTCTTTCATCGACTCTGTAGG-RTQ1-3'	60°C

PARK2\ex12	Forward primer: 5'-CACGATCTTCCTGAGAAGTCAGACAAT-3'Reverse primer: 5'-ACAACACTGCATGCGGCAAA-3'Probe: 5'-ROX-TCTGCGTAGTGTGGGTAAGAGCATGCGG-RTQ1-3'	60°C


	SCS	CCS	TCS

Log evidence	14084	14072	14058


Cell line	EGFR mutation status	Sulforaphane

IC50 (μM) a

A549	Wild-type	10.2 ± 0.15

CL1-5	Wild-type	9.7 ± 0.33

H3255	L858R b	14.5 ± 0.21

PC9/gef c	Exon 19 del.	7.3 ± 0.25

H1975	L858R/T790M d	5.9 ± 0.18

HFB	Wild-type	65.4 ± 0.29


Gene	Length	Forward Sequence (5′>3′)	Reverse Sequence (5′>3′)

Runx2	250 bp	CCACCACTCACTACCACACG	TCAGCGTCAACACCATCATT

Osterix	373 bp	ACCAGGTCCAGGCAACACACCTAC	GCAGTCGCAGGTAGAACGCCCTGC

BMP2	154 bp	GGGACCCGCTGTCTTCTAGT	TCAACTCAAATTCGCTGAGGAC

Osteocalcin	302 bp	AGACAAGTCCCACACAGCAG	GGCGGTCTTCAAGCCATACT

Bone sialoproiten	312 bp	CTGAAGCAGGTGCAGAAGGA	TCTGACCCTCGTAGCCTTCA

Osteopontin	354 bp	CTGGCAGCTCAGAGGAGAAG	GGACATCGACTGTAGGGACG

ALP	211 bp	TAACACCAACGCTCAGGTCC	GTGGTTCACCCGAGTGGTAG

Smad1	97 bp	ACCTGTGGCTTCCGTCTC	ATCGTGGCTCCTTCGTC

Smad4	145 bp	CAGCACTACCACCTGGACTGGA	CTGGAATGCAAGCTCATTGTGAA

Smad5	197 bp	AAGTAGATTCTGCCTGGGATT	AGACGGTGGTGGGATGG

Smad8	169 bp	ATCCCTGGCAATCTGTA	CCCTGGCTGTCCTGTAA

PARP-1	72 bp	GGAAAGGGATCTACTTTGCCG	TCGGGTCTCCCTGAGATGTG

GAPDH	240 bp	TGATGACATCAAGAAGGTGGTGAAG	TCCTTGGAGGCCATGTAGGCCAT

Gene	Length	Forward Sequence (5′>3′)	Reverse Sequence (5′>3′)

PARP-1	72 bp	GGAAAGGGATCTACTTTGCCG	TCGGGTCTCCCTGAGATGTG

GAPDH	240 bp	TGATGACATCAAGAAGGTGGTGAAG	TCCTTGGAGGCCATGTAGGCCAT


Characteristics	Number	Percentage

Socio-demographic characteristics

Gender (n = 674)

Male	278	41%

Female	396	59%

Marital status (n = 679)

Married	232	34%

Single	447	65%

Race (n = 685)

Black	160	23%

Indian	143	21%

White	319	47%

Coloured	53	8%

Medical school characteristics

Profession (n = 654)

Medical doctor	544	79%

Dental practitioner	110	16%

Tertiary institution (n = 677)

University of Cape Town	73	11%

University of the Witwatersrand	84	12%

University of KwaZulu-Natal	101	15%

University of Limpopo	55	8%

University of the Free State	64	9%

University of Pretoria	101	15%

University of the Western Cape	64	9%

Stellenbosch University	101	15%

Walter Sisulu University	34	5%

Provincial bursary obligation (versus not) (n = 670)	142	21%

Student loans (versus not) (n = 678)	142	35%

Characteristics	Number	Percentage

Socio-demographic characteristics

Gender (n = 674)

Male	278	41%

Female	396	59%

Marital status (n = 679)

Married	232	34%

Single	447	65%

Race (n = 685)

Black	160	23%

Indian	143	21%

White	319	47%

Coloured	53	8%

Medical school characteristics

Profession (n = 654)

Medical doctor	544	79%

Dental practitioner	110	16%

Tertiary institution (n = 677)

University of Cape Town	73	11%

University of the Witwatersrand	84	12%

University 		15%

of KwaZulu-Natal	101

University of Limpopo	55	8%

University of the Free State	64	9%

University of Pretoria	101	15%

University of the Western Cape	64	9%

Stellenbosch University	101	15%

Walter Sisulu University	34	5%

Provincial bursary obligation (versus not) (n = 670)	142	21%

Student loans (versus not) (n = 678)	142	35%


Number of donors	Europe	North America	Australasia and South Africa	Total

<50	7	2	5	14

51–100	2	1	2	5

101–1000	2	0	0	2

>1000	0	2	0	2


Model description	RMSEA	CFI	χ2	df	Δχ2	Δdf	Statistical significance

1. Configural model: no constraints imposed	0.02	0.99	8.06	6	-	-	-

2. Factor loadings: constrained equally across groups	0.03	0.97	45.44	19	37.38	13	p < 0.0005


Before treatment compared to first treatment (PET 1–PET 2)

ACC	Midbrain (+0.45), pallidum (+0.61), putamen (+0.34)

Hippocampus	Amygdala (+0.20), insula (+0.37), pallidum (+0.47)

Insula	Pallidum (+0.56)

Before treatment compared to first treatment (PET 1–PET 2)

Insula	Pallidum (+0.56)


	Group OP vs. Group 0T	Group NT vs. Group NP

	T = 4 weeks	T = 8 weeks	T = 4 weeks	T = 8 weeks

Weight	p < 0.01	p < 0.001	p < 0.05	p < 0.01

BMI	NS	NS	NS	NS

Cholesterol	p < 0.001	NS	NS	NS

HDL	NS	p < 0.001	p < 0.05	p < 0.05

LDL	NS	p < 0.01	NS	p < 0.01

Triglycerides	NS	p < 0.001	p < 0.01	p < 0.01

Systolic BP	NS	p < 0.05	p < 0.05	NS

Diastolic BP	p < 0.05	p < 0.001	p < 0.05	p < 0.001

Glucose	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	NS	NS

	Group OP vs. Group 0T	Group NT vs. Group NP

Weight	p < 0.01	p < 0.001	p < 0.05	p < 0.01

BMI	NS	NS	NS	NS

Cholesterol	p < 0.001	NS	NS	NS

HDL	NS	p < 0.001	p < 0.05	p < 0.05

LDL	NS	p < 0.01	NS	p < 0.01

Triglycerides	NS	p < 0.001	p < 0.01	p < 0.01

Systolic BP	NS	p < 0.05	p < 0.05	NS

Diastolic BP	p < 0.05	p < 0.001	p < 0.05	p < 0.001

Glucose	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	NS	NS


	Migration of stem	Rotation of stem

	(mm)	(degrees)

x-axis	0.09	0.36

y-axis	0.13	0.76

z-axis	0.23	0.13

	Migration of stem	Rotation of stem

	(mm)	(degrees)

y-axis	0.13	0.76

z-axis	0.23	0.13


Protein name	Accession	Score	Coverage	Peptide	Fold change

Upregulated proteins

Sarcoplasmic calcium-binding protein 1	comp40442_c0_seq1_No.1	83	16.1	3	8.40

Troponin C isoform 2b	comp22592_c0_seq1_No.1	69	26.3	3	2.78

Clip domain serine proteinase 3	comp19522_c0_seq1_No.1	520	33.8	9	2.40

Copine-8	comp20718_c0_seq2_No.1	841	30.9	14	2.19

Slow muscle myosin S1 heavy chain	comp20546_c0_seq16_No.1	2,058	43.7	26	2.13

Putative secreted salivary gland peptide	comp12272_c1_seq1_No.1	83	22	3	2.23

Chloride intracellular Channel isoform 1	comp20820_c0_seq1_No.1	100	25.7	5	2.11

Myophilin	comp18304_c1_seq2_No.1	1,662	62.4	8	2.03

Spermine synthase	comp18763_c0_seq1_No.1	200	16.1	4	2.02

Putative phosphoglycerate kinase	comp12041_c0_seq1_No.1	897	33.5	13	2.02

Downregulated proteins

Sacsin	comp19443_c0_seq1_No.1	42	0.2	1	31.39

Phospholipase D1	comp1157_c0_seq1_No.1	211	17.4	5	6.97

Low-density lipoprotein receptor	comp20609_c0_seq1_No.1	283	10.2	6	5.77

Pseudomonas aeruginosa pathogenicity island I	comp20408_c0_seq1_No.1	54	7.6	1	3.02

pacifastin-like serine protease inhibitor	comp3991_c0_seq1_No.1	82	15.1	2	2.99

Anti-lipopolysaccharide factor 4	comp12264_c0_seq1_No.1	179	27.6	2	2.82

Anti-lipopolysaccharide factor isoform 4	comp20686_c1_seq1_No.1	126	47.7	4	2.12

Protein name	Accession	Score	Coverage	Peptide

Upregulated proteins

Sarcoplasmic calcium-binding protein 1	comp40442_c0_seq1_No.1	83	16.1	3

Troponin C isoform 2b	comp22592_c0_seq1_No.1	69	26.3	3

Clip domain serine proteinase 3	comp19522_c0_seq1_No.1	520	33.8	9

Copine-8	comp20718_c0_seq2_No.1	841	30.9	14

Slow muscle myosin S1 heavy chain	comp20546_c0_seq16_No.1	2,058	43.7	26

Putative secreted salivary gland peptide	comp12272_c1_seq1_No.1	83	22	3

Chloride intracellular Channel isoform 1	comp20820_c0_seq1_No.1	100	25.7	5

Myophilin	comp18304_c1_seq2_No.1	1,662	62.4	8

Spermine synthase	comp18763_c0_seq1_No.1	200	16.1	4

Putative phosphoglycerate kinase	comp12041_c0_seq1_No.1	897	33.5	13

Downregulated proteins

Sacsin	comp19443_c0_seq1_No.1	42	0.2	1

Phospholipase D1	comp1157_c0_seq1_No.1	211	17.4	5

Low-density lipoprotein receptor	comp20609_c0_seq1_No.1	283	10.2	6

Pseudomonas aeruginosa pathogenicity island I	comp20408_c0_seq1_No.1	54	7.6	1

pacifastin-like serine protease inhibitor	comp3991_c0_seq1_No.1	82	15.1	2

Anti-lipopolysaccharide factor 4	comp12264_c0_seq1_No.1	179	27.6	2

Anti-lipopolysaccharide factor isoform 4	comp20686_c1_seq1_No.1	126	47.7	4


Gene	% Nucleotide identity	% Amino-acid identity

NP	98.9	99.3

P	98.8	98.4

M	98.5	98.7

G	98.2	98.4

L	99.0	99.8


Test	Method description

Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (reducing and non-reducing)	Polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis performed in the presence of sodium dodecyl sulphate (SDS PAGE) under both reducing and non-reducing conditions. Gels were stained using Colloidal Coomassie Blue staining

Size exclusion chromatography	Resolution of aggregated forms from the monomeric form of rFIXFc using high performance liquid chromatography (TSKgelG3000SWXL column)

Coagulation activity	One-stage aPTT method performed in accordance with Pharmacopeia guidelines (USP<32> and Ph.Eur. 2.7.11) with respect to WHO International Standard for Factor IX concentrate

FcRn binding	FcRn competitive binding measured using an amplified luminescent proximity homogenous assay

Activated rFIXFc	Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) based on the binding of hATIII to activated factor IX for the detection of the activated form of rFIXFc

Bioburden	Microbial enumeration test performed in accordance with Pharmacopeia guidelines (USP<61> and Ph.Eur. 2.6.12)

Endotoxin	Kinetic turbidimetric method in accordance with Pharmacopeia guidelines (USP<85> and Ph. Eur. 2.6.14)


	Mercury measure available	No mercury measure

4+ DAs at start of pregnancy	69.6% (1823)	69.9% (4200)

Visited dentist in pregnancy	86.3% (2464)	86.0% (5765)

Had a new DA in pregnancy	22.4% (633)	25.0% (1632)

Had old DA removed in pregnancy	14.8% (420)	15.7% (1021)

Tooth extraction in pregnancy	3.8% (108)	3.9% (251)


Objectives/Social Values	Option which maximises likelihood of success

Equalise access, outcome	Universal (monopoly) Public Insurance/Financing

Maximise choice; diversity + safety netOptimise the max of these 2 objectives	Pure private (competitive) scheme

Both of the above	Mixed public-private scheme


Condition	Major reported impairments of postural responses	Cortical function during impaired standing postural responses

Stroke involving cortex	Feet-in-place responses: change in the distal-to-proximal muscle pattern and delayed muscle onset as well as delayed and slowed rates of force development in the more severely involved limb (Di Fabio et al., 1986; Ikai et al., 2003)	Unaware of studies utilizing measures of cortical neurophysiology during standing postural responses post-stroke

	Stepping responses: paretic limb exhibits delayed foot-lift, low clearance, need for multiple steps, or an inability to initiate a step (Lakhani et al., 2011; Martinez et al., 2013). Steps are non-paretic limb dominant, even when obstacles block the limb (Lakhani et al., 2011; Mansfield et al., 2012). Impairments associate with increased fall risk and, in contrast, greater use of the paretic limb associates with better recovery (Mansfield et al., 2012, 2013)

Advanced age	Age associates with delays and antagonistic co-contraction of muscles, as well as greater displacement and instability (Halicka et al., 2012)	Electroencephalographic (EEG) PEP delayed, bifid (double-peaked), and decreased with age—effects larger in balance impaired elders (Duckrow et al., 1999)

	Dual task costs greater for elderly only in late-phase in-place and stepping responses, more so for stepping and more so if balance impaired elder (Brown et al., 1999; Rankin et al., 2000; Brauer et al., 2001, 2002; Zettel et al., 2008)

Parkinson's disease	Falls, instability, antagonistic co-contraction and lack of modulation based on knowledge of perturbation. Stepping responses may exhibit freezing or have decreased velocity and step length (Jacobs et al., 2005, 2009b; Jacobs and Horak, 2006; Smith et al., 2012)	Increased desynchronization of EEG beta signal, and this increase associates with decreased response adaptation to perturbation magnitude (Smith et al., 2012)

	With dual tasking, in-place responses are not modulated, and falls increase during stepping responses, but postural preparation or freezing unchanged (de Lima-Pardini et al., 2012; Jacobs et al., 2014a)

Low back pain	Increased pre-perturbation muscle activation, increased activation amplitude at distal muscle, but decreased or delayed trunk muscle activation (Jacobs et al., 2011)	Late positive peak PEP larger with LBP; larger PEP correlates with less postural instability, disability, and fear of activity (Jacobs et al., 2014b)


 	PRE TTS implementation	POST TTS implementation

Missed injuries	Study population (N)	Missed injury rate (%)	Patients with Missed injuries (N)	Study population (N)	Missed injury rate (%)

Enderson, 1990	 	N/A	2.0	37	399	9.27

Vles, 2003	 	 	 	49	3,879	1.26

Hoff, 2004	 	 	 	42	432	9.72

Soundappan, 2004	 	 	 	12	76	15.8

Howard, 2006	 	 	 	12	90	13.3

Okello, 2007	 	 	 	78	403	19.4

Janjua, 2008	 	 	 	134	206	65.0

Ursic, 2009	35	981	3.57	62	1,006	6.16

Huynh, 2010	 	 	 	80	5,143	1.56

Overall	35	981	3.57	506	11,634	4.35

	PRE TTS implementation

Missed injuries

Enderson, 1990

Vles, 2003

Hoff, 2004

Soundappan, 2004

Howard, 2006

Okello, 2007

Janjua, 2008

Ursic, 2009	35

Huynh, 2010

Overall	35

PRE TTS implementation	POST TTS implementation

Study population (N)	Missed injury rate (%)	Patients with Missed injuries (N)	Study population (N)	Missed injury rate (%)

N/A	2.0	37	399	9.27

		49	3,879	1.26

		42	432	9.72

		12	76	15.8

		12	90	13.3

		78	403	19.4

		134	206	65.0

981	3.57	62	1,006	6.16

		80	5,143	1.56

981	3.57	506	11,634	4.35