Characteristics	Survivors (n = 64)	Non-survivors (n = 46)	P

At ICU admission

 Age (years old)	60 [45–69]	63 [57–73]	0.03

 Male sex	49 (76.6)	29 (63)	0.12

 Weight (kg)	70 [60–80]	70 [58–79]	0.84

 Body mass index (kg/m2)	24.6 [20.7–27.8]	24.4 [20.7–28]	0.58

 APACHE II	21 [17–25]	26 [22–29]	0.0007

 Simplified Acute Physiology Score 2	52 [41–60]	57 [45–73]	0.05

 History of congestive heart failure	6 (9.4)	6 (13)	0.54

 Liver cirrhosis	0	4 (8.7)	0.03

 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease	15 (23.4)	11 (23.9)	0.96

 Chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis	4 (6.3)	5 (10.9)	0.38

 Cancer (<3 months) 	11 (17.2)	5 (10.9)	0.35

 Diabetes mellitus	15 (23.4)	24 (52.2)	0.002

 Immunodepression	16 (25)	8 (17.4)	0.34

At the day of aminoglycoside administration

 Day since admission	1 [0–5]	2 [0–7]	0.32

 Emergent surgery	17 (26.6)	8 (17.4)	0.26

 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score	9 [7–10]	10 [9–13]	0.004

 Weight (kg)	70 [60–81]	70.5 [60–80]	0.92

 Weight gain since ICU admission (kg)	0 [0–2]	0 [0–3]	0.62

 Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation	7 (10.9)	8 (17.4)	0.33

 Catecholamines	49 (76.6)	40 (87)	0.17

 Norepinephrine (μg/kg/min)	0.26 [0.04–0.61]	0.83 [0.41–1.65]	0.0002

 PaO2/FiO2 ratio	200 [140–280]	147 [103–259]	0.06

 Renal replacement therapy	19 (29.7)	21 (45.7)	0.09

 Glomerular filtration rate (mL/min)	53.5 [29.7–90.4]	29.8 [0–65.9]	0.008

 Lactate level (mmol/L)	1.7 [1.2–3.1]	3.2 [1.4–7]	0.01

 Platelet count (G/L)	205 [105–339]	201 [86–270]	0.47

 Hematocrit level (%)	29.2 [26–31.3]	29.7 [26–32.4]	0.54

 Leucocyte count (G/L)	15.6 [9.4–22.3]	13.4 [7.8–18.7]	0.22

 Glasgow Coma Scale score	15 [14, 15]	15 [12–15]	0.23

 Bilirubin level (mg/dL)	12 [8–17]	145 [9–26]	0.22

 Prothrombin time (%)	72 [57–81]	60 [47–75]	0.01

 Proteinemia (g/L)	58 [49–64]	52 [46–62]	0.1

 Amikacin Cmax between 60 and 80 mg/L	34 (53.1)	13 (28.3)	0.009


Dependent variables	Adjusted R2	Independent variables (partial regression coefficient) b

Tension	0.214***	SOC (−0.408***)

Job demand (quantity) (−0.193**)

Fatigue	0.306**	SOC (−0.390***)

Job demand (quantity) (−0.357***)

Anxiety	0.313***	SOC (−0.352***)

Job demand (quality) (−0.349***)

Low support from supervisor (0.187*)

Depression	0.335***	SOC (−0.411***)

Low support from supervisor (0.197**)

Married (−0.195**)

Job demand (quantity) (−0.158*)

Subjective symptoms	0.092***	SOC (−0.314***)

Vigor	0.395***	SOC (0.275**)

Low job aptitude (−0.206**)

Low support from supervisor (−0.254***)

Self-rated health	0.018*	Physical job load (−0.183**)

Work duration (0.182*)

Low support from colleagues (−0.157*)

Dependent variables	Adjusted R2	Independent variables (partial regression coefficient) b

Subjective symptoms	0.092***	SOC (−0.314***)

Vigor	0.395***	SOC (0.275**)

Low job aptitude (−0.206**)

Low support from supervisor (−0.254***)

Self-rated health	0.018*	Physical job load (−0.183**)

Work duration (0.182*)

Low support from colleagues (−0.157*)


Signs and symptoms of Flammer syndrome	Patient 1	Patient 2	Patient 3	Patient 4

1	Do you suffer from cold hands or feet even in summer time?	+	+	+	+

2	Do you have a low blood pressure?	+	–	+	–

3	Are you less thirsty than others?	+	+	–	–

4	If you have to take medications, do you have the feeling that you react strongly to them?	+	Not known	Not known	+

5	Do you suffer from migraines?	+	Not reported	–	Not reported

6	Do you suffer from tinnitus (ringing in your ears)?	Not reported	+	+	+

7	Do you often feel cold when you are not moving for sometime?	+	+	+	+

8	Do you need a relatively long time to fall asleep, especially when you are cold?	+	+	+	+

9	Do you identify smells better than others?	+	Not reported	+	Not known

10	Have you noticed reversible skin blotches (white or red) when you were excited or angry?	+	+	+	+

Signs and symptoms of Flammer syndrome	Patient 1	Patient 2	Patient 3	Patient 4

5	Do you suffer from migraines?	+	Not reported	–	Not reported

6	Do you suffer from tinnitus (ringing in your ears)?	Not reported	+	+	+

7	Do you often feel cold when you are not moving for sometime?	+	+	+	+

8	Do you need a relatively long time to fall asleep, especially when you are cold?	+	+	+	+

9	Do you identify smells better than others?	+	Not reported	+	Not known

10	Have you noticed reversible skin blotches (white or red) when you were excited or angry?	+	+	+	+


Group	Type	Model	AUC	Specificity	Sensitivity

Early	Parenclitic	-7.44 (Alpha-centrality)	0.624	1	0.189 ± 0.124

	-0.16 (Pill use)

RDLG	-2.09 (GPC1)	0.663	1	0.163 ± 0.087

Late	Parenclitic	0.07 (Connections to MUC16)	0.904	1	0.803 ± 0.077

RDLG	2.14 (MUC16)	0.904	1	0.767 ± 0.082


 	N = 90

None

No contraceptive use (includes abstinence, withdrawal, celibacy)	49

Pregnant or trying to get pregnant	5

Permanent methods

Tubal ligation, partner vasectomy	6

Long-acting methods

Implanon	6

Depo	5

IUD	1

Reversible methods

The pill	4

Condoms	17*

Diaphragm	0

None

No contraceptive use (includes abstinence, withdrawal, celibacy)

Pregnant or trying to get pregnant

Permanent methods

Tubal ligation, partner vasectomy

Long-acting methods

Implanon

Depo

IUD

Reversible methods

The pill

Condoms

Diaphragm


Brain	Grou	Content (ng/mg protein)

	D			5-HT


		Bone densities (HU)

	Number of implant sites	Inside (SD)

Jaw section

Maxilla	31	523.8 (267.5)

Mandible	73	567.6 (228.7)

Region

Anterior	15	659.6 (270.1)

Posterior	89	536.9 (232.1)

Procedure

1-stage	66	571.5 (233.8)

2-stage	38	525.1 (251.9)


Layer	Type	Input	Kernel	Output

1	Convolution	28 × 28 × 1	5 × 5	24 × 24 × 32

2	Max pooling	24 × 24 × 32	2 × 2	12 × 12 × 64

3	Convolution	12 × 12 × 64	5 × 5	8 × 8 × 64

4	Max pooling	8 × 8 × 64	2 × 2	4 × 4 × 64

5	Fully connected	4 × 4 × 64	4 × 4	512 × 1

6	Fully connected	512 × 1	1 × 1	2 × 1

7	Softmax	2 × 1	N/A	Result


Home visits to recipients of programme ITNs	N = 13	95% Conf. Int.

# of household ITNs found matched self-report	13/13 (100%)	-

Total # of ITNs found in all visited households	32	-

Mean ITNs per household	32/13 = 2.5	-

 ITNs in working order and mounted	28/32 (88%)	(72 – 95)

 ITNs torn and not mounted	1/32 (3%)	-

 ITNs torn and still mounted	3/32 (9%)	-

Households in which none of ITNs were mounted	3/13 (33%)	(8 – 50)

Home visits to recipients of programme ITNs	N = 13	95% Conf. Int.

# of 	13	-

Home visits to recipients of programme ITNs	N = 13	95% Conf. Int.

household ITNs found matched self-report	/13 (100%)

Total # of ITNs found in all visited households	32	-

Mean ITNs per household	32/13 = 2.5	-

ITNs in working order and mounted	28/32 (88%)	(72 – 95)

ITNs torn and not mounted	1/32 (3%)	-

ITNs torn and still mounted	3/32 (9%)	-

Households in which none of ITNs were mounted	3/13 (33%)	(8 – 50)


Step	covariate removed	no. of variables	log-l	AIC	cvlog-l

0	all (null model)	0	-675.7	-675.7	-846.8

1	none (final model)	6	-502.1	-509.1	-743.1


Centrality measures (Mi)	|PeC ∩ Mi|	|Mi - PeC|	Non-essential proteins in {Mi - PeC}	Percentage of non-essential proteins in {Mi - PeC} with low PeC

Degree Centrality (DC)	18	82	44	54.5%

Betweenness Centrality (BC)	16	84	47	51.1%

Closeness Centrality (CC)	16	84	51	56.9%

Subgraph Centrality(SC)	11	89	59	64.4%

Eigenvector Centrality(EC)	11	89	59	64.4%

Information Centrality(IC)	17	83	47	55.3%

Bottle Neck (BN)	16	84	53	45.3%

Density of Maximum Neighborhood Component (DMNC)	12	88	42	42.9%

Local Average Connectivity-based method (LAC)	34	66	37	59.5%

Sum of ECC (SoECC)	37	63	31	54.8%

Range-Limited Centrality (RL)	17	83	42	54.8%

L-index (LI)	13	87	55	58.2%

Leader Rank(LR)	16	84	46	52.2%

Normalized α-Centrality (NC)	11	89	59	64.4%

Moduland-Centrality(MC)	11	89	57	66.7%

Centrality measures (Mi)	|PeC ∩ Mi|	|Mi - PeC|	Non-essential proteins in {Mi - PeC}	Percentage of non-essential proteins in {Mi - PeC} with low PeC

Range-Limited Centrality (RL)	17	83	42	54.8%

L-index (LI)	13	87	55	58.2%

Leader Rank(LR)	16	84	46	52.2%

Normalized α-Centrality (NC)	11	89	59	64.4%

Moduland-Centrality(MC)	11	89	57	66.7%


Target of deletion	Animal model	Results of immunization	Reference

Biopterin transporter, LdBT1−/−	Balb/C	Protective immunity, antigen-specific IFN-γ secretion	Papadopoulou et al. (53)

Centrin 1, LdCen−/−	Balb/C mice, hamsters, dogs	Protective immunity against L. donovani and L. braziliensis challenge. Increased IFNγ, IL-2, and TNF producing cells and IFNγ/IL-10 ratio, presence of multifunctional cells	Selvapandiyan et al. (48), Fiuza et al. (58)

Silent information regulatory two single allele deletion, LiSIR2±	Balb/C	Protective immunity, increased antigen-specific IFNγ/IL-10 ratio	Silvestre et al. (55)

Cytochrome c oxidase complex component p27, Ldp27−/−	Balb/C	12-Week survival in host, protective immunity against L. donovani, L. braziliensis, and L. major challenge. Increased IFNγ, IL-2, and TNF producing cells and IFNγ/IL-10 ratio	Dey et al. (49)

Heat shock protein 70, LiHsp70−/−	Balb/C	Cross protection against L. major, high IgG2a relative to IgG1	Carrion et al. (56)


Metric variables	Virginity status	Gender

Femalesa	Malesb

Age at death (wk)	Virgin	99.2 ± 2.4c (7, 141)d	85.2 ± 3.4e (1, 133)

Age at death (wk)	Mated	88.3 ± 5.2 (35, 138)	104.0 ± 3.8 (61, 149)

Total number of litters produced by a dam/stud		8.9 ± 0.7 (2, 16)	10.5 ± 1.1 (1, 19)

Total number of pups at birth produced by a dam/stud		56.8 ± 5.2 (4, 92)	97.2 ± 10.7f (1, 169)

Total number of pups at weaning produced by a dam/stud		52.4 ± 5.0 (3, 88)	92.2 ± 10.1f (1, 162)

Age at last litter (wk)		51.9 ± 2.8 (31, 80)	92.2 ± 4.3g (54, 130)

Time interval between mating & last litter (wk)		34.1 ± 2.8 (6, 55)	40.2 ± 4.3 (2, 78)

Time interval between litters (wk)		3.8 ± 0.1 (3, 5.4)	3.7 ± 0.2 (2, 5.6)

Time interval between last litter & death (wk)		29.2 ± 4.7 (0, 88)	11.8 ± 4.2h (0, 94)


	Wealth quintiles

State	Lowest	Lower	Middle	Higher	Highest	N

Yobe	65.9	24.9	3.9	3.2	2.2	539


Declaration of minimodel	Explanation

<SimulaDerivative name=“rootGrowthRate” function=“usePath” unit=“cm/day”>	Declaration of a minimodel named rootGrowthRate which uses the plugin “usePath” to simulate a growth rate with the unit cm d−1

<SimulaConstant name=“path” type=“string”> rootGrowth </SimulaConstant>	Declaration of a minimodel named “path” which contains a string of the path to which “rootGrowthRate” needs to be coupled

<SimulaConstant name=“multiplier”> 0.1 < /SimulaConstant>	Declaration of a minimodel named “multiplier” which is a simple constant with which the result of minimodel named by “path” should be multiplied

</SimulaDerivative>	Closing of the declaration of minimodel “rootGrowthRate”, so it is clear that “path” and “multiplier” are owned by it

<SimulaVariable name=“rootGrowth” function=“useName+Rate” integrationFunction=“RungeKutta4” unit=“cm” > 1. </SimulaVariable>	Declaration of a minimodel named rootGrowth, which will use function “useName+Rate” to retrieve data and will integrate that data with the default integration function, RungeKutta4. Start value is 1

Declaration of minimodel

<SimulaDerivative name=“rootGrowthRate” function=“usePath” unit=“cm/day”>

<SimulaConstant name=“path” type=“string”> rootGrowth </SimulaConstant>

<SimulaConstant name=“multiplier”> 0.1 < /SimulaConstant>

</SimulaDerivative>

<SimulaVariable name=“rootGrowth” function=“useName+Rate” integrationFunction=“RungeKutta4” unit=“cm” > 1. </SimulaVariable>

Explanation

Declaration of a minimodel named rootGrowthRate which uses the plugin “usePath” to simulate a growth rate with the unit cm d−1

Declaration of a minimodel named “path” which contains a string of the path to which “rootGrowthRate” needs to be coupled

Declaration of a minimodel named “multiplier” which is a simple constant with which the result of minimodel named by “path” should be multiplied

Closing of the declaration of minimodel “rootGrowthRate”, so it is clear that “path” and “multiplier” are owned by it

Declaration of a minimodel named rootGrowth, which will use function “useName+Rate” to retrieve data and will integrate that data with the default integration function, RungeKutta4. Start value is 1


Variable	Intervention	Sham	p*

N	24	10	–

Age [years]	57 (12)	65 (12)	0.079

Gender M/F (%)	67/33%	70/30%	0.999

Education [years]	10 (4)	10 (4)	0.869

Affected hemisphere R/L (%)	50/50%	40/60%	0.715

Etiopathogenesis (%)			0.999

Ischemic	71%	70%

Hemorrhagic	29%	30%

Previous stroke events (%)	21%	30%	0.666

Lesion localization (%)			0.735

Cortical	25%	10%

Subcortical	62%	80%

Both	13%	10%

Time from stroke [mos]	41 (39)	37 (32)	0.797

Smoke (%)	25%	10%	0.644

Hypertension (%)	72%	70%	0.999

Diabetes (%)	8%	30%	0.138

Dyslipidemia (%)	38%	40%	0.999

Stroke familiar history (%)	21%	30%	0.666

THERAPY

Antidepressant	71%	40%	0.130

Antihypertensive	58%	60%	0.999

Antiplatelet	79%	70%	0.666

NIBS SEQUENCE

TMS-tDCS	8	–	–

tDCS-TMS	16

SIDE EFFECTS IN 10 SESSIONS**

TMS	4		–

tDCS	6	3

Drop outs (%)	24%	0%	–


Interaction	Notes	Reference

IL-1α and IL-1β induce autophagy	Induction of autophagy by IL-1 family cytokines suggests a potential negative feedback loop for the control of inflammation by autophagy, as well as a possible anti-microbial response mediated by inflammatory cytokines	Shi and Kehrl (2010)

Inhibition of autophagy increases IL-1α, IL-1β, and IL-18 secretion	Inhibition of (or deficiency in) autophagy leads to increased secretion of IL-1 family cytokines in response to TLR ligands and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. This is dependent on TRIF (in mice), reactive oxygen species, and mitochondrial DNA. These results suggest that autophagy normally regulates endogenous factors that would otherwise induce inflammasome assembly, caspase-1 activation, and subsequent processing and secretion of IL-1β and IL-18. In humans, regulation of IL-1β by autophagy occurs at the transcriptional level	Saitoh et al. (2008), Crisan et al. (2011), Harris et al. (2011), Kleinnijenhuis et al. (2011), Nakahira et al. (2011), Zhou et al. (2011a)

Induction of autophagy reduces IL-1β secretion in vitro and in vivo	Induction of autophagy with drugs (e.g., rapamycin) or starvation reduces secretion of IL-1β by macrophages and dendritic cells in response to LPS with alum or ATP or in response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Induction of autophagy also decreases intracellular levels of pro-IL-1β. In a mouse model of LPS-induced sepsis, rapamycin decreases serum levels of IL-1β.	Crisan et al. (2011), Harris et al. (2011), Shi et al. (2012)

Autophagosomes sequester and degrade IL-1β and inflammasome components	In macrophages stimulated with TLR ligands, autophagosomes sequester IL-1β. The inflammasome component ASC is ubiquitinated in response to inflammasome activation and delivered to autophagosomes. NLRP3 and AIM2 are also sequestered by autophagosomes	Harris et al. (2011), Shi et al. (2012)

Activation of the NLRP3 and AIM2 inflammasomes induces autophagosome formation	Induction of the AIM2 inflammasome by transfection of macrophages with poly(dA:dT) or the NLRP3 inflammasome with uric acid crystals or nigericin leads to an increase in autophagosome formation	Shi et al. (2012)

Autophagy can act as secretory pathway for the release of IL-1β	Induction of inflammasome activation in parallel with autophagy induction can lead to an increase in IL-1β secretion. This novel secretory pathway is dependent on inflammasome assembly, Atg5, Rab8a, and GRASP55 (GORASP2; a mammalian Golgi reassembly stacking protein paralog)	Dupont et al. (2011)

Interaction

IL-1α and IL-1β induce autophagy

Inhibition of autophagy increases IL-1α, IL-1β, and IL-18 secretion

Induction of autophagy reduces IL-1β secretion in vitro and in vivo

Autophagosomes sequester and degrade IL-1β and inflammasome components

Activation of the NLRP3 and AIM2 inflammasomes induces autophagosome formation

Autophagy can act as secretory pathway for the release of IL-1β

Notes	Reference

Induction of autophagy by IL-1 family cytokines suggests a potential negative feedback loop for the control of inflammation by autophagy, as well as a possible anti-microbial response mediated by inflammatory cytokines	Shi and Kehrl (2010)

Inhibition of (or deficiency in) autophagy leads to increased secretion of IL-1 family cytokines in response to TLR ligands and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. This is dependent on TRIF (in mice), reactive oxygen species, and mitochondrial DNA. These results suggest that autophagy normally regulates endogenous factors that would otherwise induce inflammasome assembly, caspase-1 activation, and subsequent processing and secretion of IL-1β and IL-18. In humans, regulation of IL-1β by autophagy occurs at the transcriptional level	Saitoh et al. (2008), Crisan et al. (2011), Harris et al. (2011), Kleinnijenhuis et al. (2011), Nakahira et al. (2011), Zhou et al. (2011a)

Induction of autophagy with drugs (e.g., rapamycin) or starvation reduces secretion of IL-1β by macrophages and dendritic cells in response to LPS with alum or ATP or in response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Induction of autophagy also decreases intracellular levels of pro-IL-1β. In a mouse model of LPS-induced sepsis, rapamycin decreases serum levels of IL-1β.	Crisan et al. (2011), Harris et al. (2011), Shi et al. (2012)

In macrophages stimulated with TLR ligands, autophagosomes sequester IL-1β. The inflammasome component ASC is ubiquitinated in response to inflammasome activation and delivered to autophagosomes. NLRP3 and AIM2 are also sequestered by autophagosomes	Harris et al. (2011), Shi et al. (2012)

Induction of the AIM2 inflammasome by transfection of macrophages with poly(dA:dT) or the NLRP3 inflammasome with uric acid crystals or nigericin leads to an increase in autophagosome formation	Shi et al. (2012)

Induction of inflammasome activation in parallel with autophagy induction can lead to an increase in IL-1β secretion. This novel secretory pathway is dependent on inflammasome assembly, Atg5, Rab8a, and GRASP55 (GORASP2; a mammalian Golgi reassembly stacking protein paralog)	Dupont et al. (2011)


First Author Year (Ref)	Study Years	AA, n 	Caucasian, n 	Age, yrs	Population	Study design	Enrollment states

Marcus et al. 2010 [7]	1989-1999	804	4,543	>65	Older population	Cohort	15 U.S. states**, Washington D.C.

Go et al. 2001 [16]	1996-1997	39,579	519,714	>50*	General population	Cross-sectional	California

Alonso et al. 2009 [17]	1987–2004	4,115	11,292	>55*	General population	Cohort	Maryland,

							Minnesota,

							Mississippi,

							N. Carolina

Afzal et al. 1999 [18]	1996	113	50	>35*	Heart failure	Cohort	Michigan

Ruo et al. 2004 [19]	1999-2000	223	1,150	>35*	Heart failure	Cohort	California

Winkelmayer et al. 2011 [20]	1992–2006	90,217	121,698	>30*	Hemodialysis	Cohort	United States

Upshaw Jr. 2002 [21]	1996–1998	922	1,201	>20	Hospitalized patients	Cohort	Georgia

Shen et al. 2010 [22]	2008	40,293	191,860	>60	Older population	Cross-sectional	California

Smith et al. 2006 [23]	1993–2005	644	1,932	>25*	Post-CABG	Case control	Ohio

Lahiri et al. 2011 [24]	2004–2008	270	731	>25*	Post-CABG	Cohort	Michigan

First Author Year (Ref)	Study Years	AA, n	Caucasian, n	Age, yrs	Population	Study design	Enrollment states

Winkelmayer et al. 2011 [20]	1992–2006	90,217	121,698	>30*	Hemodialysis	Cohort	United States

Upshaw Jr. 2002 [21]	1996–1998	922	1,201	>20	Hospitalized patients	Cohort	Georgia

Shen et al. 2010 [22]	2008	40,293	191,860	>60	Older population	Cross-sectional	California

Smith et al. 2006 [23]	1993–2005	644	1,932	>25*	Post-CABG	Case control	Ohio

Lahiri et al. 2011 [24]	2004–2008	270	731	>25*	Post-CABG	Cohort	Michigan


Indicators	Prevalence per 10,000 (n/N)*	95 % CI

Prevalence of congenital defects	52.0 (142/27201)	44.0–61.0

Prevalence of selected NTDs only	4.0 (11/27201)	2.0–7.0

Prevalence of other congenital defects except NTDs	48.0 (131/27201)	40.0–57.0

Prevalence of congenital defects in Mountain	16.0 (5/3079)	7.0–38.0

Prevalence of congenital defects in Hill	56.0 (85/15156)	45.0–69.0

Prevalence of congenital defects in Terai	58.0 (52/8966)	44.0–76.0

Indicators	Prevalence per 10,000 (n/N)*	95 % CI

Prevalence of congenita	52.0 (	44.0–61

l defects	142/27201)	.0

Prevalence of selected NTDs only	4.0 (11/27201)	2.0–7.0

Prevalence of other congenital defects except NTDs	48.0 (131/27201)	40.0–57.0

Prevalence of congenital defects in Mountain	16.0 (5/3079)	7.0–38.0

Prevalence of congenital defects in Hill	56.0 (85/15156)	45.0–69.0

Prevalence of congenital defects in Terai	58.0 (52/8966)	44.0–76.0


Variable	Frequency	%

Age (mean = 36.8 ± 14.0 yrs)

< 50 years	554	80

≥ 50 years	139	20

Gender

Male	374	54

Female	319	46

Religion

Christian	554	80

Moslem	111	16

Traditional religion	21	3

Other	7	1

Marital status

Married	267	38

Single	281	41

Widowed	68	10

Separated	50	7

Divorced	27	4

Highest education attained

Illiterate	97	14

Primary	104	15

Secondary	360	52

Tertiary	132	19

Monthly income (Cedis)

< 100	180	26

100-999	270	39

1000-1999	21	3

2000-2999	14	2

≥ 3000	14	2

Unemployed	194	28

Stroke risk factors

Alcohol intake	118	17

Hypertension	76	11

Smoking	47	7

Previous stroke	43	6

High cholesterol	25	4

Heart disease	19	3

Diabetes	17	2

At least one stroke risk factor	274	40


Method	Detection range	Reference

Colorimetric	0.05–50 ng/mL	Luan et al., 2015

Surface plasmon resonance	0–10 ng/mL	Zhu et al., 2015

Colorimetric	0.5–100 ng/mL	Wang et al., 2016a

Colorimetric	0.0316–316 ng/mL	Our work


Variable	De Hoogte(n = 90)	Corpus-Noord(n = 133)	F	p	ηp2

Neighborhood Satisfaction (1–5)	3.39 (0.07)	3.88 (0.07)	26.12	<0.001	0.11

Well-Being (Happiness; 0–10)	7.24 (0.14)	7.34 (0.11)	0.34	0.563	0.00

Green Space Quality (1–5; average score)	3.21 (0.07)	3.61 (0.06)	20.04	<0.001	0.08

Green spaces in my neighborhood

1. contain enough recreational facilities (e.g., play equipment, hard court, grass pitches for football).	3.10 (0.11)	3.39 (0.09)	4.13	0.043	0.02

2. provide amenities for sitting, picnic table, litter bins, signs and lighting in the night.	2.74 (0.11)	3.37 (0.09)	18.16	<0.001	0.08

3. have good natural features such as grass, trees and flower beds.	3.37 (0.09)	3.87 (0.07)	17.71	<0.001	0.08

4. are absent of incivilities (e.g., general litter, graffiti, dog mess, evidence of alcohol, drug use, broken glass and noise).	2.95 (0.11)	3.40 (0.09)	10.15	0.002	0.04

5. are easily accessed, there are many access points and enough walking paths, and roads around are not busy.	3.64 (0.08)	3.91 (0.06)	7.36	0.007	0.03

6. are well maintained.	3.47 (0.11)	3.73 (0.09)	3.46	0.06	0.02

Beneficial Affordances of Green Space (1–5; average score)	4.00 (0.08)	3.98 (0.06)	0.05	0.824	0.00

Green spaces in my neighborhood

1. promote the quality of life.	4.12 (0.08)	4.16 (0.07)	0.08	0.779	0.00

2. promote health.	4.12 (0.08)	4.06 (0.07)	0.37	0.544	0.00

3. promote recreational use.	3.90 (0.10)	4.01 (0.08)	0.68	0.411	0.00

4. promote social interaction.	3.86 (0.10)	3.69 (0.08)	1.55	0.214	0.01


TLD placement	Cumulative mSv	mSv per screw	% Reduction

	Robot-Guided (154 screws)	Fluoro-Guided (140 screws)	Robot-guided	Fluoro-guided

Outside of thyroid protector	1.24	3.15	0.0082	0.0225	63.7%

Inside of thyroid protector	0.91	1.95	0.0060	0.0139	56.9%

Outside of trunk protector	1.37	3.35	0.0090	0.0239	62.3%

Inside of trunk protector	0.84	1.84	0.0055	0.0131	57.8%

Eye dosimeter	0.71	2.31	0.0047	0.0165	71.6%

TLD placement	Cumulative mSv

	Robot-Guided (154 screws)

Outside of thyroid protector	1.24

Inside of thyroid protector	0.91

Outside of trunk protector	1.37

Inside of trunk protector	0.84

Eye dosimeter	0.71


Identification criteria

Cardiovascular dysfunction	• Shock

	• Use of continuous vasoactive drugs

	• Cardiac arrest

	• Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation

	• Severe hypoperfusion (lactate > 5 mmol/L or > 45 mg/dL)

	• Severe acidosis (pH < 7.1)

Respiratory dysfunction	• Acute cyanosis

	• Gasping

	• Severe tachypnea (respiratory rate > 40 bpm)

	• Severe bradypnea (respiratory rate < 6 bpm)

	• Severe hypoxemia (PAO2/FiO2 < 200 or O2 saturation < 90 % for ≥60 min)

	• Intubation and ventilation not related to anesthesia

Renal dysfunction	• Oliguria non responsive to fluids/diuretics

	• Dialysis for acute renal failure

	• Severe acute azotemia (creatinine ≥ 300 umol/ml or ≥ 3.5 mg/dL)

Coagulation/hematologic dysfunction	• Failure to form clots

	• Massive transfusion of blood or red cells (≥5 units)

	• Severe acute thrombocytopenia (<50,000 platelets/ml)

Hepatic dysfunction	• Jaundice in the presence of pre-eclampsia

	• Severe acute hyperbilirubinemia (bilirubin > 100 umol/L or > 6.0 mg/dL)

Neurologic dysfunction	• Prolonged unconsciousness (lasting ≥ 12 hours)/coma (including metabolic coma)

	• Stroke

	• Status epilepticus/uncontrollable fits

	• Total paralysis

Uterine dysfunction	• Hemorrhage or infection leading to hysterectomy

Identification criteria

	rest

	• Cardio-pulmonary resuscitation

	• Severe hypoperfusion (lactate > 5 mmol/L or > 45 mg/dL)

	• Severe acidosis (pH < 7.1)

Respiratory dysfunction	• Acute cyanosis

	• Gasping

	• Severe tachypnea (respiratory rate > 40 bpm)

	• Severe bradypnea (respiratory rate < 6 bpm)

	• Severe hypoxemia (PAO2/FiO2 < 200 or O2 saturation < 90 % for ≥60 min)

	• Intubation and ventilation not related to anesthesia

Renal dysfunction	• Oliguria non responsive to fluids/diuretics

	• Dialysis for acute renal failure

	• Severe acute azotemia (creatinine ≥ 300 umol/ml or ≥ 3.5 mg/dL)

Coagulation/hematologic dysfunction	• Failure to form clots

	• Massive transfusion of blood or red cells (≥5 units)

	• Severe acute thrombocytopenia (<50,000 platelets/ml)

Hepatic dysfunction	• Jaundice in the presence of pre-eclampsia

	• Severe acute hyperbilirubinemia (bilirubin > 100 umol/L or > 6.0 mg/dL)

Neurologic dysfunction	• Prolonged unconsciousness (lasting ≥ 12 hours)/coma (including metabolic coma)

	• Stroke

	• Status epilepticus/uncontrollable fits

	• Total paralysis

Uterine dysfunction	• Hemorrhage or infection leading to hysterectomy


	Duration	ARBs	ACEi	CCBs	BBs	Diuretics

Bloom [15]	12	64%	58%***	50%	43%	38%


Main Geographic Region

Sub-Saharan Africans

North-African/Middle East

European

Central-South Asians

Eastern Asians

Oceania

Americans


Patient	Sex	Age (years)	Time from implantation until removal (months)	Implant Material	Location	Reason for removal	Broken Screws?

1	Female	48	11	Ti	PU	Nonunion	No

2	Female	27	23	Ti	DH	Symptoms	Yes

3	Female	34	5	Ti	PU	Infection	No

4	Male	40	48	SS	DH	Contracture	No

5	Male	30	74	SS	PU	Infection	No

6	Female	25	38	Ti	Both	Nonunion	No

7	Male	44	2	Ti	Both	Infection	No

8	Female	43	5	SS	PU	Symptoms	No

9	Female	30	12	Ti	PU	Symptoms	No

10	Female	57	9	Ti	PU	Symptoms	No

11	Female	46	33	SS	Both	Nonunion	No

12	Male	24	8	SS	PU	Infection	No

13	Male	47	4	Ti	DH	Infection	No

14	Female	40	9	SS	Both*	Symptoms	Yes

15	Male	17	53	Ti	Both*	Nonunion	Yes

16	Male	56	25	Ti	DH	Symptoms	Yes

17	Female	35	64	Ti	DH	Infection	Yes

18	Female	48	12	Ti	PU	Symptoms	No

19	Male	27	8	SS	DH	Infection	No

20	Male	66	16	Ti	PU	Nonunion	Yes

21	Male	28	7	Ti	Both	Nonunion	No

Patient	Sex	Age (years)	Time from implantation until removal (months)	Implant Material	Location	Reason for removal	Broken Screws?

14	Female	40	9	SS	Both*	Symptoms	Yes

15	Male	17	53	Ti	Both*	Nonunion	Yes

16	Male	56	25	Ti	DH	Symptoms	Yes

17	Female	35	64	Ti	DH	Infection	Yes

18	Female	48	12	Ti	PU	Symptoms	No

19	Male	27	8	SS	DH	Infection	No

20	Male	66	16	Ti	PU	Nonunion	Yes

21	Male	28	7	Ti	Both	Nonunion	No


Isolate no.	A600	Residual Cr(VI)a (mM)	% Cr(VI) reduced	Cr(VI) transformed per A600 of growth

TSB-1	0.56	0	100	1.79


Lesion [sources]	HPV prevalence	HPV 6/11/16/18 attributable fraction among HPV+ cases	HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58 attributable fraction among HPV+ cases	HPV 31/33/45/52/58 absolute (relative) attributable fraction among HPV+ cases

Genital warts [2]	100%	90%	90%	0% (0%)

CIN 2/3 [2]	100%	45.5%	82.3%	36.8% (80.9%)

VIN2/3 [8]	86.9%	80.9%	93.9%	13.0% (16.1%)


Concrete resistivity ρ (kΩcm)	Probable corrosion rate

>20	Despicable

Between 10 and 20	Low

Between 5 and 10	High

<5	Very high


Target virusesa	Target genesb	Primer sequence, 5′–3′c	Size (bp)	Source or reference

PToV	S	F: ACCCCTGCCTGAGGTTTCYTTR: AGCACGACGTTGTCTRCGTGT	451	Established by our own laboratory

PEDV	S	F: TTCTGAGTCACGAACAGCCAR: CATATGCAGCCTGCTCTGAA	651	Kim et al. (2001) [11]

PKBV	3D	F: TGGATTACAAGTGTTTTGATGCR: TGTCGTAGAACTCCTTGATGAA	313	Established by our own laboratory

 PRV A	 VP6	F: AAAGATGCTAGGGACAAAATTGR: TTCAGATTGTGGAGCTATTCCA	308	 Elschner et al. (2002) [12]

nF: GACAAAATTGTCGAAGGCACATTATAnR: TCGGTAGATTACCAATTCCTCCAG	121

PRV B	NSP2	F: CTATTCAGTGTGTCGTGAGAGG R: GCAGACAAGCTAGCCCGCTTCG	434	Gouvea et al. (1991) [13]

 PRV C	VP6	F: CTCGATGCTACTACAGAATCAGR: AGCCACATAGTTCACATTTCATCC	366	 Gouvea et al. (1991) [13]

nF: CTCGATGCTACTACAGAATCAGnR: GGGATCATCCACGTCATGCGT	328

TGEV	ORF1b	F: GGGTAAGTTGCTCATTAGAAATAATGGR: CTTCTTCAAAGCTAGGGACTG	1006	Kim et al. (2010) [14]

S

AV	RdRp	F11: GARTTYGATTGGRCKCGKTAYGAF12: GARTTYGATTGGRCKAGGTAYGAF21: CGKTAYGATGGKACKATHCF22: AGGTAYGATGGKACKATHCR1: GGYTTKACCCACATICCRAA	422	Chu et al. (2008) [15]

 MRV	L1	F: GCATCCATTGTAAATGACGAGTCTGR: CTTGAGATTAGCTCTAGCATCTTCTG	416	 Decaro et al. (2005) [16]

nF: GCTAGGCCGATATCGGGAATGCAGnR: GTCTCACTATTCACCTTACCAGCAG	344

PSaV and PNoV	RdRp	F: GATTACTCCAAGTGGGACTCCACR: TGACAATGTAATATCACCATA	319	Kim et al. (2010) [14]


Correlation between IGF-I/IGFBP-3 molar ratio and:	Total group (GHD and controls)	GHD group

Height SDS	+0.01	+0.16

BMI SDS for HA	+0.26	+0.24

Ghrelin	−0.35∗	−0.34∗

Leptin	+0.29	+0.34

Adiponectin	−0.15	−0.41∗

Resistin	−0.24	0.0

Triglycerides	+0.4∗	+0.59∗

Cholesterol	+0.22	+0.05

LDL-cholesterol	+0.16	+0.08

HDL-cholesterol	−0.04	−0.59∗

Glucose	+0.18	+0.2

Insulin	+0.41∗	+0.48∗

IRI HOMA	+0.36∗	+0.41∗


Characteristics	Value

No.	%

Material surrounding the base

Mud	10	40

Brick	2	8

Small amount of cement	2	8

Large cement platform	11	44

Tubewell colour

Natural	21	84

Green	3	12

Red	1	4

Sediment in water

Iron	0	0

Sand	1	4

Iron and sand	3	13

None	21	84

Arsenic present∗

No (<50 μg/L)	2	8

Yes (≥50 μg/L)	2	8

Never tested	21	84

	Mean (SD) and range

Temperature (°C)	26.8 (0.5)

	25.8-28.6

pH	7.3 (0.3)

	6.5-7.8

	Median (IQR) and range

Total iron concentration (mg/L)

AAS	11.4 (8.4-15.8)

	0.2-28.0

Test-kit	12.8 (10.8-18.8)

	0.6-32.0

Colorimeter	13.60 (9.60-17.60)

	0.50-49.20

Ferrous iron by colorimeter (mg/L)	6.32 (3.10-10.50)

	0.02-28.60


Organism	Fe' (Free Inorganic Iron)	FOB	FeAB

Not Limited	Fe-Limited	Fe-Limited	Fe-Limited

Synechococcus WH8102	Yes (+)	Yes (+++)	Yes (++)	n/a

Synechococcus WH7803	Yes (+++)	Yes (+++)	Yes (++)	n/a

Synechococcus CCMP1183	Yes (++)	-	-	-

Synechococcus PCC7002	Yes (++)	Yes (+++)	Yes (+)	No

Prochlorococcus MED4	Yes (++)	Yes (+++)	Yes (+)	n/a

Synechocystis PCC6803	Yes (+++)a	Yes (+++)a	Yes (++)a	Yes (++)

Trichodesmium IMS101	-	Yes (+)	-	-

Anabaena UTEX2576	Yes (+++)	Yes (+++)	No*	No

Organism	Fe' (Free Inorganic Iron)

Not Limited	Fe-Limited

Synechococcus WH8102	Yes (+)	Yes (+++)

Synechococcus WH7803	Yes (+++)	Yes (+++)

Synechococcus CCMP1183	Yes (++)	-

Synechococcus PCC7002	Yes (++)	Yes (+++)

Prochlorococcus MED4	Yes (++)	Yes (+++)

Synechocystis PCC6803	Yes (+++)a	Yes (+++)a

Trichodesmium IMS101	-	Yes (+)

Anabaena UTEX2576	Yes (+++)	Yes (+++)

FOB	FeAB

Fe-Limited	Fe-Limited

Yes (++)	n/a

Yes (++)	n/a

-	-

Yes (+)	No

Yes (+)	n/a

Yes (++)a	Yes (++)

-	-

No*	No


Parameter	Insufficient Sleep	Excessive Duration

	OR	95% CI	p-Value	OR	95% CI	p-Value

Hospital capacity/quality

High vs. Low	0.99	(0.72, 1.38)	0.979	1.05	(0.72, 1.52)	0.812

Medium vs. Low	0.33	(0.21, 0.54)	<0.000	2.57	(1.69, 3.90)	<0.000

Residence

Urban vs. Rural	-	-	-	0.64	(0.50, 0.83)	0.001

Nationality

Minority vs. Han nationality	0.45	(0.24, 0.84)	0.012	-	-	-

Without sibling

Yes vs. No	0.8	(0.65, 0.97)	0.024	-	-	-

Education level

Secondary education vs. Basic education	1.32	(0.93, 1.86)	0.117	-	-	-

Higher education vs. Basic education	0.96	(0.73, 1.27)	0.797	-	-	-

Trimester of pregnancy

Second trimester of pregnancy vs. First trimester of pregnancy	0.66	(0.49, 0.90)	0.009	1.08	(0.74, 1.57)	0.705

Third trimester of pregnancy vs. First trimester of pregnancy	0.65	(0.49, 0.86)	0.003	1.51	(1.07, 2.13)	0.020

Job

Manual vs. Non-manual	-	-	-	1.19	(0.86, 1.64)	0.289

Unemployed vs. Non-manual	-	-	-	1.46	(1.13, 1.88)	0.003

Others vs. Non-manual	-	-	-	1.19	(0.86, 1.66)	0.296

Secondhand smoke exposure frequency per week

Every day vs. None	1.43	(1.10, 1.86)	0.008	-	-	-

4–6 days per week vs. None	1.1	(0.73, 1.66)	0.637	-	-	-

1–3 days per week vs. None	1.44	(1.14, 1.80)	0.002	-	-	-

Gestational diabetes mellitus

Yes vs. No	1.51	(0.94, 2.43)	0.085	-	-	-

Parameter	Insufficient Sleep	Excessive Duration

	OR	95% CI	p-Value	OR	95% CI

Hospital capacity/quality

High vs. Low	0.99	(0.72, 1.38)	0.979	1.05	(0.72, 1.52)

Medium vs. Low	0.33	(0.21, 0.54)	<0.000	2.57	(1.69, 3.90)

Residence

Urban vs. Rural	-	-	-	0.64	(0.50, 0.83)

Nationality

Minority vs. Han nationality	0.45	(0.24, 0.84)	0.012	-	-

Without sibling

Yes vs. No	0.8	(0.65, 0.97)	0.024	-	-

Education level

Secondary education vs. Basic education	1.32	(0.93, 1.86)	0.117	-	-

Higher education vs. Basic education	0.96	(0.73, 1.27)	0.797	-	-

Trimester of pregnancy

Second trimester of pregnancy vs. First trimester of pregnancy	0.66	(0.49, 0.90)	0.009	1.08	(0.74, 1.57)

Third trimester of pregnancy vs. First trimester of pregnancy	0.65	(0.49, 0.86)	0.003	1.51	(1.07, 2.13)

Job

Manual vs. Non-manual	-	-	-	1.19	(0.86, 1.64)

Unemployed vs. Non-manual	-	-	-	1.46	(1.13, 1.88)

Others vs. Non-manual	-	-	-	1.19	(0.86, 1.66)

Secondhand smoke exposure frequency per week

Every day vs. None	1.43	(1.10, 1.86)	0.008	-	-

4–6 days per week vs. None	1.1	(0.73, 1.66)	0.637	-	-

1–3 days per week vs. None	1.44	(1.14, 1.80)	0.002	-	-

Gestational diabetes mellitus

Yes vs. No	1.51	(0.94, 2.43)	0.085	-	-


Coded value	Glasgow coma scale score	Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)	Respiratory rate (/min)	Age (years)	Injury Severity Score

4	13-15	> 89	10-29		< 16

3	9-12	76-89	> 29		16-24

2	6-8	50-75	6-9		25-40

1	4-5	1-49	1-5	≥ 55	41-65

0	< 4	No pulse	0	0-54	> 65

Coded value	Glasgow coma scale score	Systolic blood pressure (mmHg)	Respiratory rate (/min)	Age (years)	Injury Severity Score

2	6-8	50-75	6-9		25-40

1	4-5	1-49	1-5	≥ 55	41-65

0	< 4	No pulse	0	0-54	> 65


Grade	Points	Symptoms of neurological behavior

Normal (no neurological deficit)	0	Rats behave normally, can fully outstretch forelimbs toward the ground when lifting tails and dangling.

Mild neurological deficit	1	Rats cannot fully stretch their left forelimbs when lifting tails and dangling.

Moderate neurological deficit	2	Rats have decreased resistance to lateral push and mild neurological behavior.

Severe neurological deficit	3	Rats turn around into a circle, and have mild and moderate neurological behavior.

4	Rats do not walk spontaneously and have a depressed level of consciousness.

Grade	Points	Symptoms of neurological behavior

Normal (no neurological deficit)	0	Rats behave normally, can fully outstretch forelimbs toward the ground when lifting tails and dangling.

Mild neurological deficit	1	Rats cannot fully stretch their left forelimbs when lifting tails and dangling.

Mo		Rats have decreased resistance to lateral push and mild neurologic

derate neurological deficit	2	al behavior.

Severe neurological deficit	3	Rats turn around into a circle, and have mild and moderate neurological behavior.

4	Rats do not walk spontaneously and have a depressed level of consciousness.


	LD 14:10 No Wheels	LDLD 7:5:7:5 Wheels (1)	LDLD 7:5:7:5 Wheels (2)	LDLD 7:5:7:5 No Wheels	LDLD 9:3:9:3 No Wheels (1)	LDLD 9:3:9:3 No Wheels (2)

General Locomotion (GL)	0	1/17	13/18	6/18	8/17	10/14

Body Temperature (Tb)	0	1/17	13/18	6/18	7/16	10/14

	LD 14:10 No Wheels	LDLD 7:5:7:5 Wheels (1)	LDLD 7:5:7:5 Wheels (2)	LDLD 7:5:7:5 No Wheels	LDLD 9:3:9:3 No Wheels (1)	LDLD 9:3:9:3 No Wheels (2)

Body Temperature (Tb)	0	1/17	13/18	6/18	7/16	10/14


Group	Resistive Index before sildenafil	Resistive Index after sildenafil

	Control	Breath hold	Hyperventilation	Control	Breath hold	Hyperventilation

Normal	0.56 ± 0.02	0.51 ± 0.02*	0.7 ± 0.03*	0.58 ± 0.02	0.49 ± 0.02*	0.7 ± 0.02*

DM	0.6 ± 0.02	0.53 ± .02*	0.71 ± 0.02*	0.6 ± .015	0.53 ± .02*	0.72 ± .018*


Number of term births	Total number	%

0	42	21

1–2	82	41

3–4	37	19

5–6	26	13

7–8	4	2

> 9	1	0.5

Not captured	6	3

Mother's age

19 & younger	43	22

20–30	72	36

31–40	61	31


Sr. no.	Retention time (min)	Area (AUC)	Height (mAU)	Area %

4	2.589	8605	1540	5.5057


Brunnstrom Stage	Samples in Testing Set

II	2

III	14

IV	9

V	9

VI	4

Total	38


	max ATP	max NADH	max NADPH

Dissimilation processes	in mol.mol(methanol)-1

MeOH - > CO2 (cytoplasmic FDH)	5	2	2

MeOH - > CO2 (periplasmic FDH)	3	0	0

MeOH + CO2 (Ser cycle) - > Acetyl-CoA - > TCA cycle - > 2 CO2	1	0.5	0.5

MeOH + n CO2 (Ser cycle + EMCP) - > other C2s, C3s, etc - > central pathways - > n+1 CO2	1	0.5	0.5


Element	n	No. of scored sites	Sexuals	Asexuals	t	P

Losses

Dpul_D16	93	4	0	0	n/a	n.s.

Dpul_D5	92	7	0.0028(± 0.0004)	0.00031(± 0.0001)	5.44	< 0.000001

Putative Somatic Gains

Dpul_D16	9		0.0036(± 0.00	0.	2.	0.013


	Mean (SD)	n	t-value

Pretest	Posttest

1. Teamwork and collaboration**	3.89 (0.52)	4.02 (0.56)	676	7.687

2. Negative professional identity*	2.33 (0.79)	2.27 (0.86)	691	−2.178

3. Positive professional identity**	3.74 (0.57)	3.87 (0.60)	692	6.409

4. Roles and responsibilities**	3.24 (0.49)	3.31 (0.69)	695	3.503

	Mean (SD)

Pretest

1. Teamwork and collaboration**	3.89 (0.52)

2. Negative professional identity*	2.33 (0.79)

3. Positive professional identity**	3.74 (0.57)

4. Roles and responsibilities**	3.24 (0.49)


Factors	Subgroup	N	%

Median age at baseline		69.9 y (45–70)

Sex	Male	6	60

Female	4	40

Smoker	Yes	5	50

No	2	20

Unknown	3	30

ECOG PS	0-1	10	100

2	0	0

Histopathology	Adenocarcinoma	9	90

Squamous cell	1	10

Mutational status	EGFR mutation	0	0

ALK translocation	1	10

ROS1 translocation	1	10

None	8	80

Metastasis location	Bone	1	10

Liver	1	10

Contralateral lung	4	40

Adrenal gland	1	10

Brain	3	30

Chemotherapy	CDDP-pemetrexed	7	70

CDDP-gemcitabine	2	20

CDDP-taxotere	1	10

Factors	Subgroup

Median age at baseline

Sex	Male

Female

Smoker	Yes

No

Unknown

ECOG PS	0-1

2

Histopathology	Adenocarcinoma

Squamous cell

Mutational status	EGFR mutation

ALK translocation

ROS1 translocation

None

Metastasis location	Bone

Liver

Contralateral lung

Adrenal gland

Brain

Chemotherapy	CDDP-pemetrexed

CDDP-gemcitabine

CDDP-taxotere


Culture	Strain	growth rate/h-1	rel. growth	lag phase/h	OD600 max

LB, 0% NaCl	NhaD	0.36 ± 0.05	1.4	2	0.85 ± 0.1


Screening strategya	B-coefficient	β-coefficient	P-value	Adjusted R2

Death reduction, %b

 Japan	initiating agesc	−0.696	−0.771	0.000***	0.93

 	terminating agesd	0.598	0.497	0.000***

 United States	initiating ages	−0.401	−0.473	0.000***	0.95

 	terminating ages	0.900	0.797	0.000***

Average life expectency extension, %b

 Japan	initiating ages	−1.078	−0.932	0.000***	0.93

 	terminating ages	0.287	0.186	0.052

 United States	initiating ages	−0.829	−0.835	0.000***	0.93

 	terminating ages	0.526	0.398	0.002**


Location		Number of samples	Standardized mean (μg/m3)	95% Confidence interval

Bedroom	Urban cement roof	30	116	87.8 to 144

Urban tiled roof	12	233	133 to 333

Urban straw roof	4	134	109 to 159

Rural cement roof	19	175	134 to 217

Rural tiled roof	22	125	50.6 to 199

Rural straw roof	9	236	120 to 351

Combined roof urban	47	166	117 to 215

Combined roof rural	50	192	135 to 249

Veranda	Urban	15	592	281 to 902

Rural	16	445	264 to 627

School	Urban	14	121	82.4 to 160

Rural	8	123	37.5 to 209

Outdoors	Urban	19	131	80.7 to 181

Rural	19	202	128 to 276

Kitchen cooking	Biomass together	21	908	614 to 1203

Non-biomass	10	175	63.2 to 286

Kitchen no cooking	Biomass	21	438	− 138 to 1010

Non-biomass	8	213	− 15.8 to 442


Abbreviation	Corresponding pathological diagnosis

NILM	normal, infection, inflammation, lichen planus, leukoplakia, benign epithelial lesion, etc.

LSIL	mild and moderate dysplasia, and SIN1 and SIN2; mentioned in WHO 2005

HSIL	severe dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, and SIN3; mentioned in WHO 2005

SCC	squamous cell carcinoma

Other malig.	other malignancy

IFN	indefinite for neoplasia or non-neoplasia

Abbreviation

NILM

LSIL

HSIL

SCC

Other malig.

IFN

Corresponding pathological diagnosis

normal, infection, inflammation, lichen planus, leukoplakia, benign epithelial lesion, etc.

mild and moderate dysplasia, and SIN1 and SIN2; mentioned in WHO 2005

severe dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, and SIN3; mentioned in WHO 2005

squamous cell carcinoma

other malignancy

indefinite for neoplasia or non-neoplasia


Plasmids	β-Galactosidase Activity in units/mg bacteria	Protein Functions

Negative Control

pT18 + pT25	412.0 ± 82.4	pT18: Empty vector

Positive Control:		pT25: Empty vector

pT18-PknD + pT25-CdsD-FHA-2	996.3 ± 50.0	FliI: Putative flagellar ATPase

Negative Interactions:		FliF: Putative flagellar MS ring protein

pT18-FliI + pT25-FliF	396.4 ± 32.1	FlhA: Putative flagellar integral membrane

pT18-FliF + pT25-Cpn0859	421.1 ± 25.9	protein

pT18-FliI + pT25-Cpn0706	404.4 ± 19.5	Cpn0859: Hypothetical C. pneumoniae

pT18-Cpn0706 + pT25-FlhA	443.0 ± 32.3	protein

Positive Interactions:		Cpn0706: Putative T3S chaperone

pT18-FliF + pT25-FlhA	847.2 ± 21.2	CdsL: Putative T3S ATPase tethering

pT18-FliI + pT25-FlhA	942.9 ± 123.1	protein

pT18-FliI + pT25-CdsL	874.3 ± 59.3	CopN: Putative T3S plug protein

pT18-FliI + pT25-CopN	943.2 ± 74.2	Cpn0322: Putative CdsU ortholog

pT18-Cpn0322 + pT25-FlhA	779.9 ± 32.7

pT18-CdsL + pT25-FlhA	832.1 ± 23.3

Plasmids	β-Galactosidase Activity in units/mg bacteria

Negative Control

pT18 + pT25	412.0 ± 82.4

Positive Control:

pT18-PknD + pT25-CdsD-FHA-2	996.3 ± 50.0

Negative Interactions:

pT18-FliI + pT25-FliF	396.4 ± 32.1

pT18-FliF + pT25-Cpn0859	421.1 ± 25.9

pT18-FliI + pT25-Cpn0706	404.4 ± 19.5

pT18-Cpn0706 + pT25-FlhA	443.0 ± 32.3

Positive Interactions:

pT18-FliF + pT25-FlhA	847.2 ± 21.2

pT18-FliI + pT25-FlhA	942.9 ± 123.1

pT18-FliI + pT25-CdsL	874.3 ± 59.3

pT18-FliI + pT25-CopN	943.2 ± 74.2

pT18-Cpn0322 + pT25-FlhA	779.9 ± 32.7

pT18-CdsL + pT25-FlhA	832.1 ± 23.3

Protein Functions

pT18: Empty vector

pT25: Empty vector

FliI: Putative flagellar ATPase

FliF: Putative flagellar MS ring protein

FlhA: Putative flagellar integral membrane

protein

Cpn0859: Hypothetical C. pneumoniae

protein

Cpn0706: Putative T3S chaperone

CdsL: Putative T3S ATPase tethering

protein

CopN: Putative T3S plug protein

Cpn0322: Putative CdsU ortholog


	Data set 1	Data set 2	Data set 3	Data set 4

Selection method:	Back	For	Back	For	Back	For	Back	For

Slope

Temperature	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+

Precipitation

Market influence	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+

Population density 							+

Built-up area	+	+	+		+	+

Distance to roads

Wetland area	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Cropland area			+	+	+	+

Organic content

Regulatory Quality

ROC	0.908	0.908	0.884	0.880	0.905	0.905	0.908	0.887

	Data set 1	Data set 2	Data set 3	Data set 4

Selection method:	Back	For	Back	For	Back	For	Back	For

Cropland area			+	+	+	+

Organic content

Regulatory Quality

ROC	0.908	0.908	0.884	0.880	0.905	0.905	0.908	0.887


Study	Omeprazole 20 mg Events/Treated	Placebo Events/Treated	Log OR	95% CI	P Value

Bond	93/219 (42.5%)	57/219 (26.0%)	0.74	(0.32 to 1.15),	<.001

Study	Omeprazole 20 mg Events/Treated	Placebo Events/Treated	Log OR	95% CI	P Value

Opera	68/202 (33.7%)	62/203 (30.5%)	0.14	(−0.27 to 0.55)	.252


Anopheline status	Window	Village

	Absent	Present	Low	Mid	High

Fresh fed

Mean	2.49	0.89	2.58	0.84	0.55

p	0.005	0.001

Half g


Patient no.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7

Isolated organism	Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Klebsiella pneumoniae	Klebsiella pneumoniae	Pseudomonas aeruginosa	Pseudomonas aeruginosa

Site of isolation	Bronchial secretions	Cerebrospinal fluid	Bronchial secretions	Tip of central venous catheter	Bronchial secretions	Urine	Blood

Date of isolation (mo/dd/year)	08/07/2001	07/17/2002	07/29/2003	01/16/2004	01/30/ 2004	04/16/ 2004

Days in the ICU until the isolation of the pandrug-resistant strain	40	62	34	33	52	32	0

Prior colistin use (days)	0	23	11	33	31	6	0

Antibiotic combination used after isolation	Colistin + imipenem/ cilastatin, Colistin + meropenem, Colistin + ofloxacin	Two days prior to the isolation, all antibiotics had been stopped	Colistin + meropenem + ofloxacin + gentamicin	Colistin + meropenem	Colistin + ampicillin/sulbactam + trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole	Colistin + ceftazidime	Piperacillin/tazobactam

Dosage/Duration of colistin	2 million IU q8h iv for 35 days, 1 million IU q8h iv for 17 days	1 million IU q8h iv for 23 days	3 million IU q8h iv for 37 days, 1 million IU q8h nebulized for 11 days	2 million IU q8h iv for 16 days, 1 million IU q8h iv for 12 days, 1 million IU q12h iv for 19 days	1 million IU q8h iv for 34 days	2 million IU q8h in for 35 days, 1 million IU q8h iv for 17 days	2.25 gr q8h iv for 10 days

Outcome of the infection	Cure (clinical + microbiological).	No response.Patient died due to meningitis.	Cure (clinical + microbiological).	Clinical cure (microbiological persistence for 1 month).	Deterioration.Superinfection of the respiratory tract by an Acinetobacter baumannii strain. Patient died due to sepsis.	Cure (clinical + microbiological).	Cure (clinical + microbiological).


Population	Location	Insecticide	N	% Mortality [Cl95]	Resistance status

Sites

Banikoara	West-North	DDT	100	4 [−3.68-11.68]	R

Permethrin	100	4 [−3.68-11.68]	R

Deltamethrin	100	28 [10.40- 45.60]	R

Bendiocarb	100	52 [32.42- 71.58]	R

Kandi	West-North	DDT	100	12 [− 0.74-24.74]	R

Permethrin	100	20 [4.32- 35.68]	R

Deltamethrin	100	24 [24.54- 63.46]	R

Bendiocarb	100	72 [54.40- 89.60]	R

Natitingou	East-North	DDT	100	12 [− 0.74-24.74]	R

Permethrin	100	24 [7.26- 40.74]	S

Deltamethrin	100	48 [28.42- 67.58]	R

Bendiocarb	100	76 [59.26- 92.74]	R

Houeyiho	South	DDT	100	8 [−2.63 -18.63]	R

Permethrin	100	8 [−2.63 -18.63]	R

Deltamethrin	100	32 [13.71- 50.29]	R

Bendiocarb	100	60 [40.80- 79.20]	R

Cx. SLAB		DDT	100	100	S

Permethrin	100	100	S

Deltamethrin	100	99	S

Bendiocarb	100	99	S

Resistance status

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

R

S

R

R

R

R

R

R

S

S

S

S


Category	n

Water source

Open wells	2

Hand-pressed wells

Depth < 3m	4

Depth = 3~6 m	4

Depth > 6 m	4

Spring water	1

Tap water	1

Barreled water	1

Villages

MaTian	9

ZhuDui	6

Chinese drinking water standard (GB5749-2006)


Author	Year	Study location	Patient(male/female)	Age	Antibody source	Dilution	Method	Definition of abnormal β-catenin expression	Hazard ratio source	HR(95% CI)

Qiao et al.	2001	Germany	43(23/20)	61.1(42–83)	Transduction Laboratories	1:100	IHC	Cytoplasma	Calculated	6.26(1.52–25.76)

Watanabe et al.	2003	Japan	23(14/9)	58.1(25–85)	Transduction Laboratories	1:100	IHC	Membranous reduced	Primary article	1.71(0.44–6.69)

Wang et al.	2013	China	36(25/11)	58.5(34–76)	Santa Cruz	1:200	IHC	Positive cell	Primary article	2.10(0.77–5.72)

Arensman et al.	2014	USA	41(NR)	NR	NR	NR	IHC	Cytoplasma or nuclea	Primary article	3.16(1.19–8.40)

Wu et al.	2015	China	58(37/21)	65(21–80)	Santa Cruz	1:100	IHC	Nuclear expression	Calculated	6.89(2.96–16.03)


Variable	n (%) responders*

Risk behaviour (multiple responses allowed), referenced to time and location as below

Unprotected anal intercourse

 Without ejaculation

insertive	48 (11.9)

receptive	26 (6.5)

 With ejaculation

insertive	35 (8.7)

receptive	23 (5.7)

 Condom failure

insertive	21 (5.2)

receptive	14 (3.5)

Unprotected vaginal intercourse

 Without ejaculation	30 (7.5)

 With ejaculation	43 (10.7)

 Condom failure	19 (4.7)

Oral uptake of body fluids (blood, sperm)	75 (18.7)

Other risk behaviour	39 (9.7)

Risk situations

Partners involved in the risk situation (multiple responses allowed)

 Steady partner	79 (19.7)

 Casual partner	100 (24.9)

 Anonymous partner	148 (36.8)

HIV serostatus of involved partners

 Positive serostatus	28 (7.0)

 Negative serostatus	107 (26.6)

 Serostatus unknown	190 (47.3)

Location of risk situation

 Privat location (at home)	172 (42.8)

 Bathhouse/Darkroom	52 (12.9)

 Park/cruising area	19 (4.7)

 Private party	10 (2.5)

 Other location	42 (10.4)

Time of risk situation

 0 – 3 days ago	21 (5.2)

 4 – 14 days ago	30 (7.5)

 15 days – 3 months ago	109 (27.1)

 3 – 6 months ago	93 (23.1)

 > 6 months ago	52 (12.9)

Variable	n (%) responders*

Condom failure

insertive	21 (5.2)

receptive	14 (3.5)

Unprotected vaginal intercourse

Without ejaculation	30 (7.5)

With ejaculation	43 (10.7)

Condom failure	19 (4.7)

Oral uptake of body fluids (blood, sperm)	75 (18.7)

Other risk behaviour	39 (9.7)

Risk situations

Partners involved in the risk situation (multiple responses allowed)

Steady partner	79 (19.7)

Casual partner	100 (24.9)

Anonymous partner	148 (36.8)

HIV serostatus of involved partners

Positive serostatus	28 (7.0)

Negative serostatus	107 (26.6)

Serostatus unknown	190 (47.3)

Location of risk situation

Privat location (at home)	172 (42.8)

Bathhouse/Darkroom	52 (12.9)

Park/cruising area	19 (4.7)

Private party	10 (2.5)

Other location	42 (10.4)

Time of risk situation

0 – 3 days ago	21 (5.2)

4 – 14 days ago	30 (7.5)

15 days – 3 months ago	109 (27.1)

3 – 6 months ago	93 (23.1)

> 6 months ago	52 (12.9)


Model type	Volume [mL]

Analytical model	6.51

Model reconstructed from CT imagining	6.65

Model reconstructed from 3D scanning	6.65

Value of the measurement error	0.14


Outcome	Dhaka (%)

	Base n = 5,477

Received ANC	82.5

Received PNC	37.1


Treatment	Dose	No. of writhing (10 min)

Saline	10 ml/kg	64.80 ± 1.77

Diclofenac sodium	10 mg/kg	10.40 ± 0.98**

Au-EM	10 mg/kg	29.57 ± 2.97**

20 mg/kg	19.89 ± 3.98**


Variable	Level	Number of observations

Lame leg position	1=Right front	2

	2=Right hind	22

	3=Left front	3

	4=Left hind	16

Locomotion score	0=Negative (<2)	10

	1=Positive (≥2)	33

CMT score	0=Negative (<3)	19

	1=Positive (≥3)	24

Body condition score	0=Negative (<3)	12

	1=Positive (≥3)	31


	child's weight status

Variables	Obese(n = 140)

	Percentage

Parental nutritional status

Father

Normal wt	22.9

Obese	77.1

Mother

Normal wt	45.7

Obese	54.3

Home environment

Good	8.6

Moderate	42.9

Poor	48.6

Television viewing time

<2 hours/day	25.7

≥2 hours/day	74.3

Eating habits

High	34.3

Moderate	60.7

Low	5.0

Managing expenses

High	17.1

Moderate	65.0

Low	17.9

Time management

High	8.6

Moderate	65.0

Low	17.9


Patient No.	Diagnosis	Reason

1	cerebral hemorrhage	coma, LTMV

2	high paraplegia	LTMV

3	high paraplegia	LTMV

4	HIE	coma, LTMV

5	cerebral hemorrhage	coma, cerebral hernia

6	Guillain-Barre	LTMV

7	cerebral infarction	coma, LTMV

8	severe thoracic wound	sedation, LTMV

9	cerebral hemorrhage	coma, dyspnea

10	pulmonary heart disease	LTMV

11	refractory heart failure	LTMV

12	refractory heart failure	LTMV

13	tetanus	NMBAs, LTMV

14	cerebral infarction	LTMV

15	cardiogenic shock	LTMV

16	cerebral hemorrhage	coma, dyspnea

17	AMI	LTMV

18	high paraplegia	LTMV

19	HIE	coma, LTMV

20	cerebral infarction	LTMV

21	tetanus	NMBAs, LTMV

22	cerebral hemorrhage	coma, dyspnea

23	cardiogenic shock	LTMV

24	pulmonary heart disease	LTMV

25	HIE	coma, LTMV

26	HIE	sedation, LTMV

27	cerebral hemorrhage	glossocoma, coma, LTMV

28	Guillain-Barre	LTMV

29	severe thoracic wound	sedation, LTMV

30	refractory heart failure	LTMV

31	cerebral infarction	glossocoma, LTMV

32	severe thoracic wound	sedation, LTMV

33	traumatic brain injury	sedation, LTMV

34	cerebral hemorrhage	coma, dyspnea

35	high paraplegia	LTMV

36	respiratory failure	LTMV

37	tetanus	NMBAs, LTMV

38	cerebral infarction	LTMV

Patient No.	Diagnosis	Reason

25	HIE	coma, LTMV

26	HIE	sedation, LTMV

27	cerebral hemorrhage	glossocoma, coma, LTMV

28	Guillain-Barre	LTMV

29	severe thoracic wound	sedation, LTMV

30	refractory heart failure	LTMV

31	cerebral infarction	glossocoma, LTMV

32	severe thoracic wound	sedation, LTMV

33	traumatic brain injury	sedation, LTMV

34	cerebral hemorrhage	coma, dyspnea

35	high paraplegia	LTMV

36	respiratory failure	LTMV

37	tetanus	NMBAs, LTMV

38	cerebral infarction	LTMV


Number	Frequency (Hz)	Amplitude (mm)	Measuring Distance (m)	Operating Mode

V-1	8	±4	1.0	Sine-wave

V-2	8	±4	2.0	Sine-wave

V-3	8	±4	3.0	Sine-wave

V-4	8	±4	4.0	Sine-wave

V-5	8	±4	5.0	Sine-wave

V-6	8	±4	6.0	Sine-wave

V-7	8	±4	7.0	Sine-wave

V-8	8	±4	8.0	Sine-wave

V-9	8	±4	9.0	Sine-wave

V-10	8	±4	10.0	Sine-wave

V-11	8	±4	11.0	Sine-wave

V-12	8	±4	12.0	Sine-wave

Measuring Distance (m)	Operating Mode

1.0	Sine-wave

2.0	Sine-wave

3.0	Sine-wave

4.0	Sine-wave

5.0	Sine-wave

6.0	Sine-wave

7.0	Sine-wave

8.0	Sine-wave

9.0	Sine-wave

10.0	Sine-wave

11.0	Sine-wave

12.0	Sine-wave


Response	After IC 2 cycles (%)(n=30)	After IC 4 cycles (%)(n= 19)	After CCRT (%)(n=19)

CR		1 (


Slow waves

	Frequency cycles/min	Amplitude mV	Conduction velocity cm/s

	Mean	Range	Mean	Range	Mean	Range

Healthy volunteers	1.6 ± 0.5	1.3–2.1	0.12 ± 0.01	0–0.2	1.6 ± 0.3	1.2–2.1

ED group	1.4 ± 0.3	1.1–1.7	0.15 ± 0.02	0.11–0.21	1.3 ± 0.06	1.1–1.6

Slow waves

	Frequency cycles/min	Amplitude mV	Conduction velocity cm/s

	Mean	Range	Mean	Range	Mean

Healthy volunteers	1.6 ± 0.5	1.3–2.1	0.12 ± 0.01	0–0.2	1.6 ± 0.3

ED group	1.4 ± 0.3	1.1–1.7	0.15 ± 0.02	0.11–0.21	1.3 ± 0.06

Slow waves

Conduction velocity cm/s

Range

1.2–2.1

1.1–1.6


Subcategory	Exposed	Non-exposed	Total	P value	OR (95% CI)

n	Percent	n	Percent	n	Percent

If bitten by a rabid animal (N = 70)

Wash with soap and water	2	3.9	0	0.0	2	2.9	1	NA

Seek medical care	16	31.4	10	52.6	26	37.1	0.163	0.41 (0.14–1.21)

Do not know or do nothing	33	64.7	7	36.8	40	57.1	0.056	3.14 (1.05–9.39)

Other	0	0.0	1	5.3	1	1.4	0.195	0.18 (0.09–0.34)

Vaccinated against rabies (N = 92)

Post-exposure prophylaxis (bat exposure)	1	1.4	1	5.3	2	2.2	0.372	0.25 (0.015–4.19)

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (military service)	1	1.4	0	0.0	1	1.1	1	NA


Both sexes (95% CI)	Male (95% CI)	Female (95% CI)


Characteristic	Description	N (%)

Gender

	Male	17 (44.7)

	Female	21 (55.3)

Age (years)

	30–39	7 (18.4)

	40–49	6 (15.8)

	50–59	16 (42.1)

	60–69	7 (18.4)

	70 and over	2 (5.3)

Employment

	Employed	35 (92.1)

	Unemployeda	3 (7.9)

Education

	Higher education	19 (50.0)

	Secondary education	12 (31.6)

	Other qualification	4 (10.5)

	None	3 (7.9)

Area of residence

	Notional intervention area	19 (50.0)

	Notional control area	19 (50.0)

Recruitment group

	Intercept	15 (39.5)

	Cohort	23 (60.5)

Behaviour change

	None	11 (28.9)

	More active (away from car)	13 (34.2)

	Less active (towards car)	10 (26.3)

	Change which does not affect activity levels	4 (10.5)

Interviewed previously

	Yes	3 (7.9)

	No	35 (92.1)

Total		38


COMPASS-31 domains	Expanded Disability Status Scale

Correlation coefficient (ρ)	P

orthostatic intolerance	0.079	0.303

vasomotor	0.073	0.341

secretomotor	0.179	0.019

gastrointestinal	0.333	<0.001

bladder	0.563	<0.001

pupillomotor	0.095	0.214

Total score	0.266	<0.001

COMPASS-31 domains	Expanded Disability Status Scale

Correlation coefficient (ρ)	P

orthostati	0.0

c intolerance	79	0.303

vasomotor	0.073	0.341

secretomotor	0.179	0.019

gastrointestinal	0.333	<0.001

bladder	0.563	<0.001

pupillomotor	0.095	0.214

Total score	0.266	<0.001


Response Variable	Comparison	Test	Litters 1–5 (n = 45)	Litters 1–4 (n = 35)

Survival	Across P and 3 dosages of T	Chi-Square	0.0327	0.1362

Survival	P versus pooled T	Chi-Square	0.0039	0.0210

Survival curve (survival over time)	P versus pooled T	Kaplan-Meier	0.0165	0.0658

Weight change	P versus pooled T	t test	0.0014	0.0038

Weight change/h	P versus pooled T	t test	0.0073	0.0132

Brain lesions and neurological signs	Relationship 	Fisher’s exact test	<0.0001	<0.0001

Brain lesions and death	Relationship	Fisher’s exact test	<0.0001	<0.0001

Total brain lesion score	S versus D	t test	<0.0001	<0.0001

Total brain lesion score	P versus T	t test	0.0010	0.0440

% Efficacy against death †	P versus T	1-Relative Risk	<0.0004	<0.001

% Efficacy against brain lesions ‡	P versus T	1-Relative Risk	<0.0004	<0.0086

Response Variable	Comparison	Test	Litters 1–5 (n = 45)	Litters 1–4 (n = 35)

Survival	Across P and 3 dosages of T	Chi-Square	0.0327	0.1362

Survival	P versus pooled T	Chi-Square	0.0039	0.0210

Survival curve (survival over time)	P versus pooled T	Kaplan-Meier	0.0165	0.0658

Weight change	P versus pooled T	t test	0.0014	0.0038

Weight change/h	P versus pooled T	t test	0.0073	0.0132

Brain lesions and neurologic	Relationship	Fisher’s exact test	<0.00	<0.

Response Variable	Comparison	Test	Litters 1–5 (n = 45)	Litters 1–4 (n = 35)

al signs			01	0001

Brain lesions and death	Relationship	Fisher’s exact test	<0.0001	<0.0001

Total brain lesion score	S versus D	t test	<0.0001	<0.0001

Total brain lesion score	P versus T	t test	0.0010	0.0440

% Efficacy against death †	P versus T	1-Relative Risk	<0.0004	<0.001

% Efficacy against brain lesions ‡	P versus T	1-Relative Risk	<0.0004	<0.0086


Demographics	N	%

Gender

 Female	362	59.9

 Male	209	34.6

 not reported	33	5.5

Racial/Ethnic Group

 Asian/Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	9	1.5

 Black	17	2.8

 Hispanic	13	2.2

 White	523	86.6

 Other	9	1.5

 not reported	33	5.5

University Affiliation

 Student	401	66.4

 Faculty	65	10.8

 Staff	90	14.9

 Both student & staff/faculty	24	4.0

 Neither Student nor staff/faculty	24	4.0

Pre-test ST Stage

 Precontemplation	478	79.1

 Contemplation	126	20.9

Access to Car

 I own my own vehicle	535	88.6

 I share a Vehicle	27	4.5

 Neither own nor share	40	6.6

 not reported	2	0.3

Own a Bicycle

 Yes	119	19.7

 No	443	73.3

 not reported	42	7.0

	Mean	SD

Age	28.3	13.9


	Diabetic Nephropathy

	OR

Gender

Females	0.23

Age bands

Range 40–44	0.32

Range 44–49	0.42

Range 50–54	0.39

Range 55–59	0.54

Range 60–64	0.57

Range 65–69	0.76

Range 70–74	0.91

Range 74–79	1.01

Range 80–84	1.18

Range 85 and over	1.17

Reference (Male <40)	−4.22


Diagnosis	N° of cases	N° of images

Melanoma	94	288

Atypical nevi	1785	2677

Benign nevi	18160	21155

Congenital nevi	189	331

Blue nevi	60	105

Combined nevi	18	21

Ungueal nevi	5	7

Lentigo	45	53

Melanosis	80	107

Basal cell carcinomas	55	60

Total	20491	24804

Diagnosis	N° of cases	N° of images

Melanoma	94	288

Atypical nevi	1785	2677

Benign nevi	18160	21155

Congenital nevi	189	331

Blue n	60	10

evi		5

Combined nevi	18	21

Ungueal nevi	5	7

Lentigo	45	53

Melanosis	80	107

Basal cell carcinomas	55	60

Total	20491	24804


Chinese name	Full scientific name	Parts of plant use	Dose of dry plant (grams)	Dose after extraction (grams)

Xian Ling Pi	Epimedium brevicornum Maxim	Overground part	30	1.5

Tu Si Zi	Cuscuta chinensis Lam.	Mature seed	10	0.5

Du Zhong	Eucommia ulmoides Oliver	Plant bark	15	0.75

Huai Niu Xi	Achyranthes bidentata Bl.	Root	15	6

Ye Xia Zhu	Phyllanthus urinaria Linn.	Whole plant	15	6

Huang Qi	Astragalus membranaceus (Fisch.) Bge.	Root	15	1.5

Bai Shu	Atractylodes macrocephala koidz	Rhizome	15	2.55

Fu Ling	Poria cocos (Schw.) Wolf	Sclerotium	15	1.5

Zhu Ling	Polyporus umbellatus (Pers.) Fries	Sclerotium	10	1.0

Zhi Ke	Fructus Aurantii	Immature fruits (pulp removed)	15	2.55

Dan Shen	Salvia miltiorrhiza Bge.	Root and rhizome	20	3

San Qi	Panax notoginseng (Burk.) F. H. Chen	Root	5	5

Yu Jin	Radix curcumae	Tuberous root	15	0.75

Gou Qi Zi	Lycium barbarum L.	Mature fruit	15	6

Total	 	 	210	38.6

Chinese name	Full scientific name	Parts of plant use	Dose of dry plant (grams)	Dose after extraction (grams)

Tu Si Zi	Cuscuta chinensis Lam.	Mature seed	10	0.5

Du Zhong	Eucommia ulmoides Oliver	Plant bark	15	0.75

Huai Niu Xi	Achyranthes bidentata Bl.	Root	15	6

Ye Xia Zhu	Phyllanthus urinaria Linn.	Whole plant	15	6

Huang Qi	Astragalus membranaceus (Fisch.) Bge.	Root	15	1.5

Bai Shu	Atractylodes macrocephala koidz	Rhizome	15	2.55

Fu Ling	Poria cocos (Schw.) Wolf	Sclerotium	15	1.5

Zhu Ling	Polyporus umbellatus (Pers.) Fries	Sclerotium	10	1.0

Zhi Ke	Fructus Aurantii	Immature fruits (pulp removed)	15	2.55

Dan Shen	Salvia miltiorrhiza Bge.	Root and rhizome	20	3

San Qi	Panax notoginseng (Burk.) F. H. Chen	Root	5	5

Yu Jin	Radix curcumae	Tuberous root	15	0.75

Gou Qi Zi	Lycium barbarum L.	Mature fruit	15	6

Total			210	38.6


Results	Frequency	Percentage

Sputum with one smear positive	20	50

Sputum with two smear positive	4	10

Sputum with three sputum smear positive	13	32.5

Sputum with smear negative	3	7.5


	2005–2007	2002–2004

Sub-categories	n	%	n	%

chronic hypertension	38	6.1	37	5.9

proteinuric hypertension	173	27.8	171	27.2

eclampsia	344	55.3	347	55.3

HELLP syndrome	54	8.7	70	11.1

rupture of the liver	10	1.6	3	0.5

acute fatty liver	3	0.48	0	0.0

Total	622		628


 	Sampling method

Location	Fluorescent marker	Adenosine triphosphate and microbiologic sampling

Bed rail	Between raised control buttons on the outer surface of the railing closest to room door	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Overbed tray table	On the upper surface of the table, adjacent to and centered on the edge of the table closest to the hand-operated height adjustment mechanism	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Call button	On the hand-held device, centered between the emergency button and speaker	Adjacent to fluorescent marker, including raised control buttons

Bedside telephone	Top center of the surface of the receiver, on the obverse side of the earpiece	Adjacent to the fluorescent marker including lateral dial surfaces

Bedside table	Corner closest to the patient bed on the drawer-side (front) top surface [if more than one table is present in the room, the table located to the patient’s right]	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Chair	On the surface of the seat, in the rear corner closest to the patient bed [if more than one chair present in the room, the chair located closest to the patient bed]	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Room sink	Corner of the surface adjacent to the basin, closest to the wall and room door	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Room light switch	Upper left corner of the wall plate	Surface of the light switch plate, over a 2×2-inch surface around but not touching the switch itself

Room door knob, inner	Upper middle of the door plate behind the handle	Surface of the door plate, over a 2×2-inch surface around but not touching the handle

Bathroom light switch	Upper left corner of the wall plate [if electrical sockets are present in upper left, then the upper right corner]	Surface of the light switch pad, over a 2×2-inch surface around but not touching the switch itself

Bathroom hand rail (adjacent to toilet)	Lateral surface of the portion of the handrail farthest from the toilet	Adjacent to the fluorescent mark, with a circumferential sampling of a 2-inch length of railing

Bathroom sink	Corner of the surface adjacent to the basin, to the left and rear of the sink surface	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Toilet seat	Rear left corner of the seat on the upper surface	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Toilet flush handle	Superior surface of the handle closest to the plumbing connection	Adjacent to the fluorescent marker, with a circumferential sampling of 1/2 of the handle length

Bedpan cleaner	Surface of the cleaning mechanism behind the spray head (excluding the handle)	Adjacent to fluorescent marker, sampling all surfaces of a lateral half of the cleaning mechanism for a 2-inch length

	Sampling method

Location	Fluorescent marker	Adenosine triphosphate and microbiologic sampling

Bed rail	Between raised control buttons on the outer surface of the railing closest to room door	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Overbed tray table	On the upper surface of the table, adjacent to and centered on the edge of the table closest to the hand-operated height adjustment mechanism	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Call button	On the hand-held device, centered between the emergency button and speaker	Adjacent to fluorescent marker, including raised control buttons

Bedside telephone	Top center of the surface of the receiver, on the obverse side of the earpiece	Adjacent to the fluorescent marker including lateral dial surfaces

Bedside table	Corner closest to the patient bed on the drawer-side (front) top surface [if more than one table is present in the room, the table located to the patient’s right]	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Chair	On the surface of the seat, in the rear corner closest to the patient bed [if more than one chair present in the room, the chair located closest to the patient bed]	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Room sink	Corner of the surface adjacent to the basin, closest to the wall and room door	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Room light sw	Upper left corner of the wall plat	Surface of the light switch plate, over a 2×2-inch surface around but not touching the switch itse

	Sampling method

Location	Fluorescent marker	Adenosine triphosphate and microbiologic sampling

itch	e	lf

Room door knob, inner	Upper middle of the door plate behind the handle	Surface of the door plate, over a 2×2-inch surface around but not touching the handle

Bathroom light switch	Upper left corner of the wall plate [if electrical sockets are present in upper left, then the upper right corner]	Surface of the light switch pad, over a 2×2-inch surface around but not touching the switch itself

Bathroom hand rail (adjacent to toilet)	Lateral surface of the portion of the handrail farthest from the toilet	Adjacent to the fluorescent mark, with a circumferential sampling of a 2-inch length of railing

Bathroom sink	Corner of the surface adjacent to the basin, to the left and rear of the sink surface	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Toilet seat	Rear left corner of the seat on the upper surface	Adjacent to fluorescent marker

Toilet flush handle	Superior surface of the handle closest to the plumbing connection	Adjacent to the fluorescent marker, with a circumferential sampling of 1/2 of the handle length

Bedpan cleaner	Surface of the cleaning mechanism behind the spray head (excluding the handle)	Adjacent to fluorescent marker, sampling all surfaces of a lateral half of the cleaning mechanism for a 2-inch length


 	Responders	Non-responders

Gender	13 female, 24 male	4 female, 14 male

Race	50 caucasian, 11 AA	23 caucasian, 8 AA

Log-viral load	14 ± 3.7	15.6 ± 1.6

Metavir	1.6 ± 1.7	1.7 ± 2.3


Primers	Sequence	Enzyme

FLT3-ITD	GCAATTTAGGTATGAAAGCCAGC	-

 	CTTTCAGCATTTTGACGGCAACC

FLT3-TKD	CCGCCAGGAACGTGCTTG	EcoRV

 	GCAGCCTCACATTGCCCC

Primers	Sequence	Enzyme

FLT3-TKD	CCGCCAGGAACGTGCTTG	EcoRV

	GCAGCCTCACATTGCCCC


Variables	TUBA1C-Low	TUBA1C-High	pvalue

Reccurence			0.031

 No	18	11

 Yes	2	8

differentiate			0.103

 1-2	9	3

 3-4	20	25

Primary Tumor stage			0.056

 1-2	26	19

 3-4	3	9

Membrane			0.171

 No	19	11

 Yes	6	8

daughter_nodule			0.079

 No	27	21

 Yes	2	7

embolus			0.029

 No	26	18

 Yes	3	10

AFP			0.014

 Low(<20)	16	7

 High(>20)	11	22

Variables	TUBA1C-Low	TUBA1C-High

Reccurence

No	18	11

Yes	2	8

differentiate

1-2	9	3

3-4	20	25

Primary Tumor stage

1-2	26	19

3-4	3	9

Membrane

No	19	11

Yes	6	8

daughter_nodule

No	27	21

Yes	2	7

embolus

No	26	18

Yes	3	10

AFP

Low(<20)	16	7

High(>20)	11	22


 	Measurement at:	 	Measurement at:

Hemodynamics	 	Acid Base Balance

Noradrenalin requirement (mg/h)	BL – T120	Anion Gap (mmol/L)	BL – T120

Heart rate (min-1)	BL – T120	HCO3- (mmol/L)	BL – T120

ABP systolic (mmHg)	BL – T120	BE (mmol/L)	BL – T120

ABP diastolic (mmHg)	BL – T120	pH	BL – T120

Central venous pressure (mmHg)	BL – T120	paCO2 (mmHg)	BL – T120

Blood loss (mL)	BL – T120

Hemoglobin (g/dL)	BL – T120	Stewart Acid Base Approach [A-] (mmol/L)	BL – T120

Hematocrit (%)	BL – T120	Effective Strong Ion Difference (mmol/L)	BL – T120

Urine quantity (mL)	BL – T120	Strong Ion Gap (mmol/L)	BL – T120

Administered amount of RL/ABIS (mL)	BL – T120	[Albumin] (g/L)	BL – T120

 	 	[Serum-Lactate] (mmol/L)	BL – T120

Serum-Electrolytes([Na+][Cl-] [K+] [Mg++] [Ca++])	BL – T120	[A-]: = Serum-concentration of week acids	BL – T120

	Measurement at:		Measurement at:

Hemodynamics		Acid Base Balance

No	BL – T1		BL –

radrenalin requirement (mg/h)	20	Anion Gap (mmol/L)	 T120

Heart rate (min-1)	BL – T120	HCO3- (mmol/L)	BL – T120

ABP systolic (mmHg)	BL – T120	BE (mmol/L)	BL – T120

ABP diastolic (mmHg)	BL – T120	pH	BL – T120

Central venous pressure (mmHg)	BL – T120	paCO2 (mmHg)	BL – T120

Blood loss (mL)	BL – T120

Hemoglobin (g/dL)	BL – T120	Stewart Acid Base Approach [A-] (mmol/L)	BL – T120

Hematocrit (%)	BL – T120	Effective Strong Ion Difference (mmol/L)	BL – T120

Urine quantity (mL)	BL – T120	Strong Ion Gap (mmol/L)	BL – T120

Administered amount of RL/ABIS (mL)	BL – T120	[Albumin] (g/L)	BL – T120

		[Serum-Lactate] (mmol/L)	BL – T120

Serum-Electrolytes([Na+][Cl-] [K+] [Mg++] [Ca++])	BL – T120	[A-]: = Serum-concentration of week acids	BL – T120


Parameter	AT BASELINE	AT 24-WeeksPost E-Cigarette	p value‡

Sustained 50% (excluding quitters) reduction in cigarette smoking (n = 13)

Age	40.1 (± 7.7)†	6 (5, 6)*	< 0.001

Sex	8M; 5F	8 (6, 11)*	0.001

Smoking Years	24.5 (± 8.7)†

Cigarettes/day	25 (20, 30)*

eCO	18 (14, 33)*

Sustained 80% (excluding quitters) reduction in cigarette smoking (n = 5)

Age	40.6 (± 10.4)†	3 (3, 6)*	0.043

Sex	4M; 1F	6 (4, 10)*	0.042

Smoking Years	25.4 (± 11.8)†

Cigarettes/day	30(25, 35)*

eCO	15 (14, 44)*

Sustained 100% (quitters) reduction in cigarette smoking (n = 9)

Age	44.7 (± 9.3)†	0 (0, 0)*	0.008

Sex	8M; 1F	3 (2, 3)*	0.008

Smoking Years	29 (± 9.6)†

Cigarettes/day	25 (23, 30)*

eCO	31 (23, 41)*

Sustained > 50% (including quitters) reduction in cigarette smoking (n = 22)

Age	42 (± 8.5)†	3 (0, 6)*	< 0.001

Sex	16M; 6F	5.5 (3, 9.5)*	< 0.001

Smoking Years	26.3 (± 9.1)†

Cigarettes/day	25 (20, 30)*

eCO	27 (15.5, 37.5)*

Smoking Failure (< 50% smoking reduction) (n = 5)

Age	45.6 (± 7.9)†	20 (20, 20)*	0.157

Sex	2M; 3F	28 (17, 31)*	0.892

Smoking Years	31.2 (± 7)†

Cigarettes/day	25 (20, 25)*

eCO	18 (16, 32)*

Parameter	AT BASELINE	AT 24-WeeksPost E-Cigarette	p value‡

Sustained 50% (excluding quitters) reduction in cigarette smoking (n = 13)

Age	40.1 (± 7.7)†	6 (5, 6)*	< 0.001

Sex	8M; 5F	8 (6, 11)*	0.001

Smoking Years	24.5 (± 8.7)†

Cigarettes/day	25 (20, 30)*

eCO	18 (14, 33)*

Sustained 80% (excluding quitters) reduction in cigarette smoking (n = 5)

Age	40.6 (± 10.4)†	3 (3, 6)*	0.043

Sex	4M; 1F	6 (4, 10)*	0.042

Smoking Years	25.4 (± 11.8)†

Cigarettes/day	30(25, 35)*

eCO	15 (14, 44)*

Sustained 100% (quitters) reduction in cigarette smoking (n = 9)

Age	44.7 (± 9.3)†	0 (0, 0)*	0.008

Sex	8M; 1F	3 (2, 3)*	0.008

Smoking Years	29 (± 9.6)†

Cigarettes/day	25 (23, 30)*

eCO	31 (23, 41)*

Sustained > 50% (including quitters) reduction in cigarette smoking (n = 22)

Ag	42 (± 8.	3	< 0

Parameter	AT BASELINE	AT 24-WeeksPost E-Cigarette	p value‡

e	5)†	 (0, 6)*	.001

Sex	16M; 6F	5.5 (3, 9.5)*	< 0.001

Smoking Years	26.3 (± 9.1)†

Cigarettes/day	25 (20, 30)*

eCO	27 (15.5, 37.5)*

Smoking Failure (< 50% smoking reduction) (n = 5)

Age	45.6 (± 7.9)†	20 (20, 20)*	0.157

Sex	2M; 3F	28 (17, 31)*	0.892

Smoking Years	31.2 (± 7)†

Cigarettes/day	25 (20, 25)*

eCO	18 (16, 32)*


Risk factors for invasive candidiasis	Unadjusted odds ratio	95% Confidence interval

Malignancy	3.22	1.36-7.6

Presence of a central venous catheter	13.4	4.8-37.42

Presence of a arterial catheter	1.77	1.02-3.06

Receipt of total parenteral nutrition	5.3	2.8-10.05

Neutropenia within 15 days	5.58	1.12-27.79

Non-candidal blood stream infection within 15 days	2.47	1.35-4.52

Receipt of antifungal agents within 15 days	2.86	1.44-5.66

Receipt of antibiotics within 15 days	5.44	1.87-15.77

Parenteral or oral vancomycin during 1-3 days	2.56	1.27-5.16

Parenteral or oral vancomycin ≥4 days	3.17	1.73-5.82

Extended-spectrum cephalosporins ≥4 days	2.31	1.26-4.22

Carbapenems ≥4 days	3.29	1.1-9.89

Aminoglycosides	2.09	1.17-3.74

Agents covering anaerobic organisms ≥4 daysa	2.3	1.29-4.11


	SPPC (n = 39)	Conventional (n = 38)	p-value

LFC, mean (SD)	85° (4)	84° (3)	0.1

LFC, range	74–94° 	79–89°

LFC, number of outliers > 3°	16/39	33/38	< 0.001

LFC, ICC	0.99	0.99

LTC, mean (SD)	94° (4)	87° (3) 	< 0.001

LTC, range	87–102°	75–92°

LTC, number of outliers > 3°	14	21	0.02

LTC, ICC	0.99	0.99


	OCA2 c.808-3C>G	OCA2 c.2080-2A>G

Wild type score	5.2	11.5

Mutant score	-5.3	0.6


Dataset	Dissimilarity	Linkage	Data permutation method

Simulated6	Euclidean	complete	Independently for each coordinate (column)

(1 - Pearson correlation)	average

Leukemia	Euclidean	Ward	Independently for each gene (column)

(1 - Pearson correlation)	average

T10	Euclidean	Ward	Independently for each chromosome; identically for all cores (columns) in a chromosome

(1 - Pearson correlation)	average

Organelles	(1 - Pearson correlation)	Ward	Independently for each protein (column)

(1 - Pearson correlation)	average

Chondrosarcoma	(1 - Spearman correlation)	Ward	Independently for each surface marker (column)

(1 - Kendall correlation)	average

	Manhattan	Ward

Dataset	Dissimilarity	Linkage	Data permutation method

Chondrosarcoma	(1 - Spearman correlation)	Ward	Independently for each surface marker (column)

(1 - Kendall correlation)	average

	Manhattan	Ward


Predictor	P-value	Sub-hazard Ratio	95% CI

EHD >1 site / 1 site outside the lung	0.001	3.0	1.6 - 5.9

Kras mutant	0.009	2.0	1.2 - 3.3

CEA >30 ng/ml	0.056	1.9	0.98 - 3.7

Predictor	P-value	Sub-hazard Ratio	95% CI

EHD >1 site / 1 site outside the lung	0.001	3.0	1.6 - 5.9

Kras mutant	0.009	2.0	1.2 - 3.3

			0.

Predictor	P-value	Sub-hazard Ratio	95% CI

CEA >30 ng/ml	0.056	1.9	98 - 3.7


Dose Diff‐DTA		Head and Neck	Prostate

Criteria	QA Method	Mean	SD	Mean	SD

%‐3 mm)	SGAC	99.6	.4	0.0

	FBF	99.5	0.3	100.0	0.1

	PGAC‐WOC	99.6	0.6	99.7	0.5

	PG‐FBF	93.3	2.3	87.5	3.9


Clinical parameter	Diabetic subjects	Controls	P (ANOVA)

	PCO (n = 64)	Non-PCO (n = 41)	PCO (n = 22)	Non-PCO (n = 38)


ID	Short description	T	AP	AS	AR

X1	partOfSpeech(token)	✓		✓

X2	syntCat(token)	✓		✓

X3	partOfSpeech(L3)	✓		✓

X4	syntCat(L3)	✓		✓

X5	syntCatPathFromRoot(token)	✓

X6	syntCatCollapsedPathFromRoot(token)	✓

X7	syntCatPositionPathFromRoot(token)	✓

X8	ancestor (token,[1..3])	✓

X9	lowestCommonAncestor (token,neighbourOf (token,left,1))	✓

X10	distanceBetween(token, X9)	✓

X11	posString (trigger)		✓		✓

X12	syntCatString (trigger)		✓		✓

X13	posStringDupl (trigger)		✓		✓

X14	syntCatStringDupl (sent)		✓		✓

X15	containsMainVerb(trigger)		✓		✓

X16	mainVerb(sent)			✓

X17	voiceOfVerb(trigger)				✓

ID	Short description	T	AP	AS	AR

X3	partOfSpeech(L3)	✓		✓

X4	syntCat(L3)	✓		✓

X5	syntCatPathFromRoot(token)	✓

X6	syntCatCollapsedPathFromRoot(token)	✓

X7	syntCatPositionPathFromRoot(token)	✓

X8	ancestor (token,[1..3])	✓

X9	lowestCommonAncestor (token,neighbourOf (token,left,1))	✓

X10	distanceBetween(token, X9)	✓

X11	posString (trigger)		✓		✓

X12	syntCatString (trigger)		✓		✓

X13	posStringDupl (trigger)		✓		✓

X14	syntCatStringDupl (sent)		✓		✓

X15	containsMainVerb(trigger)		✓		✓

X16	mainVerb(sent)			✓

X17	voiceOfVerb(trigger)				✓


	Mean (SD)	Min.	Max.	P value

Supine position


SITE	Baseline assessment	Training	Post-test assessment	8 week follow-up assessment	All 4 steps

N	N	n	n (%)	n

MKT	15	26	22	14/22 (63.6%)	5

MLA	20	26	21	20/21 (95.2%)	10

WPA	14	19	16	13/16 (81.3%)	9

ALL SITES	49	71	59	47/59 (79.7%)	24

SIT	Baseline assessmen	Traini	Po	8 week fo	All 4


Pollen type	Location (log mean)	Location (log mean)	Log mean difference	p value	95% Confidence interval

Lower bound	Upper bound

Acer (Maple)	A (0.110)	D (0.210)	− 0.099	0.015	− 0.179	− 0.020

A (0.110)	E (0.230)	− 0.116	0.005	− 0.196	− 0.037

C (0.150)	D (0.210)	− 0.083	0.042	− 0.163	− 0.003

Fraxinus (Ash)	No significant difference among locations

Morus (Mulberry)	D (0.540)	E (0.170)	0.360	0.051	− 0.001	0.722

Pollen type	Location (log mean)	Location (log mean)	Log mean difference	p value	95% Confidence interval

Lower bound	Upper bound

Olea europea (Olive)	A (0.076)	B (0.156)	− 0.080	0.012	− 0.143	− 0.018

A (0.076)	D (0.162)	− 0.086	0.007	− 0.148	− 0.024

B (0.156)	C (0.088)	0.067	0.035	0.005	0.130

C (0.088)	D (0.162)	− 0.073	0.021	− 0.135	− 0.011

Pinaceae (Pine)	No significant difference among locations

Platanus (Sycamore)	B (0.044)	D (0.156)	− 0.112	0.017	− 0.204	− 0.021

C (0.057)	D (0.156)	− 0.099	0.034	− 0.191	− 0.008

Ulmus (Elm)	No significant difference among locations


	Forward	Reverse

G6Pase	ATGACTTTGGGATCCAGTCG	TGGAACCAGATGGGAAAGAG

PEPCK	CTGGCACCTCAGTGAAGACA	TCGATGCCTTCCCAGTAAAC

LGP	CCAGAGTGCTCTACCCCAAT	CCACAAAGTACTCCTGTTTCAGC

GS	GACACTGAGCAGGGCTTTT	GGGCCTGGGATACTTAAAGC

CPT1α	ACCCTGAGGCATCTATTGACAG	ATGACATACTCCCACAGATGGC

MCAD	GGCAAATGCCTGTGATTCTT	CCATTGCGATCTTGAAACCT

GK	TCCCTGTAAGGCACGAAGACAT	ATTGCCACCACATCCATCTCA

CS	TGCCCACACAAGCCATTTG	CTGACACGTCTTTGCCAACTT

SIRT4	CGCTGCTCAAGATCCCTAAG	GCGACACAGCTACTCCATCA

SIRT6	GGCTACGTGGATGAGGTGAT	GGCTCAGCCTTGAGTGCTAC

GLUT2	CTGCTCTTCTGTCCAGAAAGC	TGGTGACATCCTCAGTTCCTC

GLUT4	TCGTCATTGGCATTCTGGTTG	AGCTCGTTCTACTAAGAGCAC


miRNA name	Reference genome	Location	Annotation	Strand	Mature sequence

HPV16-miR-H1	NC_001526.2	2635–2716	E1	+	AGUGUAUGAGCUUAAUGAUAA

HPV16-miR-H2	FJ610147.1	56-1/7906–7851	LCR	−	AUGUGUAACCCAAAACGGUUUG

HPV16-miR-H3	NC_001526.2	518–642	LCR	+	CAACUGAUCUCUACUGUUA

HPV16-miR-H5	NC_001526.2	2471–2556	E1	+	GUAAAGCAUAGACCAUUG

HPV16-miR-H6	NC_001526.2	6684–6584	L1	–	AUCAACAACAGUAACAAA

miRNA name	Reference genome	Location	Annotation	Strand	Mature sequence

HPV16-m	N	2635–2	E1	+	AGUGUAUGAGCUUAA

iR-H1	C_001526.2	716			UGAUAA

HPV16-miR-H2	FJ610147.1	56-1/7906–7851	LCR	−	AUGUGUAACCCAAAACGGUUUG

HPV16-miR-H3	NC_001526.2	518–642	LCR	+	CAACUGAUCUCUACUGUUA

HPV16-miR-H5	NC_001526.2	2471–2556	E1	+	GUAAAGCAUAGACCAUUG

HPV16-miR-H6	NC_001526.2	6684–6584	L1	–	AUCAACAACAGUAACAAA


ID	Observation	Year	Quarter	Employment	Tenure	Age	FirmID	MassLayoff	Included IntoOur Sample	Pregnancy

1	1	1981	1	Other	––	24	––	––	Not included	No

1	2	1981	2	Work	0.25	24	12	No	Not included	No

1	3	1981	3	Work	0.50	24	12	No	Not included	No

1	4	1981	4	Work	0.75	24	12	No	Not included	No

1	5	1982	1	Work	1.00	25	12	No	Not included	No

1	6	1982	2	Work	1.25	25	12	No	Not included	No

1	7	1982	3	Work	1.50	25	12	No	Not included	No

1	8	1982	4	Work	1.75	25	12	No	Control	No

1	9	1983	1	Work	2.00	26	12	No	Control	No

1	10	1983	2	Work	2.25	26	12	No	Control	No

1	11	1983	3	Work	2.50	26	12	Yes	Control	No

1	12	1983	4	Work	2.75	26	12	Yes	Control	No

1	13	1984	1	Work	3.00	27	12	Yes	Treated	No

1	14	1984	2	Other	––	27	––	Yes	Not included	No

1	15	1984	3	Other	––	27	––	––	Not included	No

1	16	1984	4	Other	––	27	––	––	Not included	No

1	17	1985	1	Other	––	28	––	––	Not included	Yes

ID	Observation	Year	Quarter	Employment	Tenure	Age	FirmID	MassLayoff	Included IntoOur Sample	Pregnancy

1	17	1985	1	Other	––	28	––	––	Not included	Yes


Age (years)

Sex, male/female

BMI (kg/m2)

BMI categories

< 18.5/<25.5/<30.0/≥30.0 kg/m2

SAPS II at ICU admission

Main problem, medical/surgical

ARDS origin, pulmonary/ extrapulmonary

Late onset of ARDSa

Onset of ARDS: day after initiation of mechanical ventilation

PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg)

Dynamic complianceb (ml/mbar; ml/mbar/kg PBW)

Reason for initiation of mechanical ventilation (only presented when different between groups)c

Postoperative acute respiratory failure

Acute respiratory failure after aspiration

Complications until the onset of ARDS

Sepsisc

Pneumoniac

Cardiovascular failure

Renal failure

Coagulopathy

Liver failure

Metabolic acidosis

Respiratory acidosis

Barotrauma


Group	Material	Code	Manufacturer	Shade	Organic Matrix	Filler	Filler Loading	LOT Number

Bulk-fill composite	SureFil SDR Flow	SDR	Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA	U	Modified UDMA, EBPADMA, TEGDMA	Ba-Al-F-B silicate glass, Sr-Al-F silicate glass	68 wt %	1202174

x-tra base	XB	Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany	U	UDMA, BisEMA	no information	75 wt %	1305261

Filtek Bulk Fill	FBF	3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA	U	BisGMA, UDMA, BisEMA(6), TEGDMA, substituated dimethacrylate, Procrylat resin	silane treated zirconia/silica, ytterbium trifluoride	64.5 wt %	N414680

Conventional flowable composite	Filtek Ultimate Flow	FUF	3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA	A2	BisGMA, TEGDMA, substituated dimethacrylate, Procrylat resin	silane treated zirconia/silica, ytterbium trifluoride	65 wt %	N652740

Group	Material	Code	Manufacturer	Shade	Organic Matrix	Filler	Filler Loading	LOT Number

Bulk-fill composite	SureFil SDR Flow	SDR	Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA	U	Modified UDMA, EBPADMA, TEGDMA	Ba-Al-F-B silicate glass, Sr-Al-F silicate glass	68 wt %	1202174

x-tra base	XB	Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany	U	UDMA, BisEMA	no information	75 wt %	1305261

Filtek Bulk Fill	FBF	3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA	U	BisGMA, UDMA, BisEMA(6), TEGDMA, substituated dimethacrylate, Procrylat resin	silane treated zirconia/silica, ytterbium trifluoride	64.5 wt %	N414680

Conventional flowable comp	Filte	FU	3M		BisGMA, TEGDMA, substituated dimethacrylate, Procrylat resin	silane treated zirconia/silica, y	65 wt

osite	k Ultimate Flow	F	 ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA	A2	tterbium trifluoride	 %	N652740


Diagnostic test	Number (%)

Any laboratory test	73 (22.5)

Urinalysis	71 (21.9)

Bloodwork	30 (9.2)

Any Imaging	96 (29.5)

Plain radiograph	89 (27.4)

CT	15 (4.6)

MRI	2 (0.6)

Plain radiograph and CT	11 (3.4)

CT and MRI	1 (0.3)

Only MRI	1 (0.3)


	NS1-2 gene counts	NS1-2 dis gene counts	NS1-2 aadjusted p-values	NS1-2 disaadjusted p-values

Upregulated gene pathways

 Proteasome	25	15	1.80E−15	2.30E−06

 Aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis	14	9	4.80E−05	2.30E−02

 Focal adhesion	27	22	6.90E−03	2.60E−02

 RIG-I-like receptor signaling	14	10	5.60E−03	6.20E−02

 Toll-like receptor signaling	16	13	2.10E−02	5.30E−02

 Pathways in cancer	33	28	7.80E−02	4.80E−02

 NOD-like receptor signaling	11	8	7.20E−02	1.90E−01

 Apoptosis	12	11	1.90E−01	9.50E−02

 Regulation of actin cytoskeleton	22	16	1.80E−01	3.80E−01

 Antigen processing and presentation	11	9	3.00E−01	3.50E−01

 MAPK signaling	24	22	3.00E−01	1.50E−01

 Gap junction	10	10	3.60E−01	1.90E−01

 VEGF signaling	9	9	3.80E−01	1.90E−01

 Cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction	-	20	-	1.80E−01

Downregulated gene pathways

 Lysosome	28	17	1.50E−11	4.30E−05

 Leukocyte transendothelial migration	13	8	2.00E−01	6.30E−01

 Phosphatidylinositol signaling system	9	9	3.30E−01	1.00E−01

 Toll-like receptor signaling	10	7	3.70E−01	5.80E−01

 Regulation of actin cytoskeleton	16	12	4.30E−01	7.30E−01

 Glycosaminoglycan degradation	4	4	6.60E−01	7.50E−01

 Cell adhesion molecules	11	-	7.10E−01	-

 p53 signaling	-	6	-	8.50E−01

 Cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction	-	13	-	6.80E−01

 Focal adhesion	-	11	-	5.90E−01

 mTOR signaling	-	5	-	5.40E−01


 	Patients with a NRAS negative FN (N = 90)	Patients with a NRAS positive FN (N = 33)	P-value

Average FN size (cm)	2.2 ± 1.5	1.4 ± 0.8	<0.001

Age

 ≤45 years	31 (65%)	17 (35%)	0.086

 >45 years	59 (79%)	16 (21%)

Gender

 Female	71 (74%)	25 (26%)	0.710

 Male	19 (70%)	8 (30%)

Final results of FNs

 Benign	52 (83%)	11 (17%)	0.016

 Malignancy	38 (63%)	22 (37%)

Final results of coexisting nodules∗

 Benign	26 (83%)	10 (28%)	0.080

 Malignancy	12 (63%)	12 (50%)

Total risk of malignancy	53% (47/90)	79% (26/33)	0.008

	Patients with a NRAS negative FN (N = 90)

Average FN size (cm)	2.2 ± 1.5

Age

≤45 years	31 (65%)

>45 years	59 (79%)

Gender

Female	71 (74%)

Male	19 (70%)

Final results of FNs

Benign	52 (83%)

Malignancy	38 (63%)

Final results of coexisting nodules∗

Benign	26 (83%)

Malignancy	12 (63%)

Total risk of malignancy	53% (47/90)


Predicted syndromes	 Recorded syndromes

Qi deficiency of spleen and kidney (n = 80)	Deficiency of both qi and yin (n = 14)

Qi deficiency of spleen and kidney	70 (87.5)	13 (92.9)

Deficiency of both qi and yin	4 (5.0)	1 (7.1)

Other types	6 (7.5)	0

Predicted syndromes

Qi deficiency of spleen and kidney

Deficiency of both qi and yin

Other types

Recorded syndromes

Qi deficiency of spleen and kidney (n = 80)	Deficiency of both qi and yin (n = 14)

70 (87.5)	13 (92.9)

4 (5.0)	1 (7.1)

6 (7.5)	0


Type of publication	Average citation per paper

All papers	12.2

Case reports	6.24

Comparative studies	16.9

Reviews	10.89

Multicenter	23.94

RCT#	25.57

Evaluation	9.92

Top ten	22.75

Collaboration between 2 AL countries	11.2

Collaboration between 3 AL countries	19.2


	Date	Test	Results

Case 1	Apr. 17, 2013	NMDAR antibodies	Serum: positive (+)

CSF: Strong positive (++)

Apr. 18, 2013	Pelvic CT	Left ovarian cystic lesions

Apr. 22, 2013	Pelvic Ultrasound	Left ovarian cyst

May 9, 2013	NMDAR antibodies	Serum: Weakly positive

CSF: positive (+)

May 14, 2013	Anatomopathology	Ovarian mature cystic teratoma

May 22, 2013	NMDAR antibodies	Serum: Negative (−)

CSF: Weakly positive

Case 2	June 16, 2014	NMDAR antibodies	Serum: positive (+)

June 23, 2014	NMDAR antibodies	Serum: Weakly positive

CSF: positive (+)

June 26, 2014	Pelvic Ultrasound	Right ovarian cyst

June 26, 2014	Pelvic MRI	Right ovarian cystic lesions

July 1, 2014	Anatomopathology	Ovarian mature cystic teratoma

July 7, 2014	NMDAR antibodies	Serum: Negative (−)

CSF: positive (+)

	Date	Test

Case 1	Apr. 17, 2013	NMDAR antibodies

Apr. 18, 2013	Pelvic CT

Apr. 22, 2013	Pelvic Ultrasound

May 9, 2013	NMDAR antibodies

May 14, 2013	Anatomopathology

May 22, 2013	NMDAR antibodies

Case 2	June 16, 2014	NMDAR antibodies

June 23, 2014	NMDAR antibodies

June 26, 2014	Pelvic Ultrasound

June 26, 2014	Pelvic MRI

July 1, 2014	Anatomopathology

July 7, 2014	NMDAR antibodies

Results

Serum: positive (+)

CSF: Strong positive (++)

Left ovarian cystic lesions

Left ovarian cyst

Serum: Weakly positive

CSF: positive (+)

Ovarian mature cystic teratoma

Serum: Negative (−)

CSF: Weakly positive

Serum: positive (+)

Serum: Weakly positive

CSF: positive (+)

Right ovarian cyst

Right ovarian cystic lesions

Ovarian mature cystic teratoma

Serum: Negative (−)

CSF: positive (+)


	N = 1129 Lesions in 964 Subjects

Navigation Success (per lesion)a	91.8% (1036/1129)

Navigation Success (per subject)a	94.4% (910/964)

Number of Lesions Biopsied (per subject)	1.2 ± 0.5 (964) [1.0] (1.0–5.0)

Biopsy Tools Used During ENB Index Procedureb

 Aspiration Needle	52.2% (503/964)

 Biopsy Forceps	81.2% (783/964)

 Cytology Brush	47.0% (453/964)

 Needle-Tipped Cytology Brush	20.2% (195/964)

 Triple Needle-Tipped Cytology Brush	23.4% (226/964)

 GenCutTM Core Biopsy Tool	18.9% (182/964)

 Bronchoalveolar Lavage or Washing	37.8% (364/964)

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) usedc	66.1% (601/909)

Molecular/genetic testing attemptedd	28.3% (70/247)

 Molecular/genetic testing successful	80.0% (56/70)

 Inadequate Sample	20.0% (14/70)

Molecular/genetic testing not attemptedd	71.7% (177/247)

 Not Necessary	49.2% (87/177)

 Not Standard Practice	41.2% (73/177)

 Other	9.6% (17/177)

	N = 1129 Lesions in 964 Subjects

Navigation Success (per lesion)a	91.8% (1036/1129)

Navigation Success (per subject)a	94.4% (910/964)

Number of Lesions Biopsied (per s	1.

	N = 1129 Lesions in 964 Subjects

ubject)	2 ± 0.5 (964) [1.0] (1.0–5.0)

Biopsy Tools Used During ENB Index Procedureb

Aspiration Needle	52.2% (503/964)

Biopsy Forceps	81.2% (783/964)

Cytology Brush	47.0% (453/964)

Needle-Tipped Cytology Brush	20.2% (195/964)

Triple Needle-Tipped Cytology Brush	23.4% (226/964)

GenCutTM Core Biopsy Tool	18.9% (182/964)

Bronchoalveolar Lavage or Washing	37.8% (364/964)

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) usedc	66.1% (601/909)

Molecular/genetic testing attemptedd	28.3% (70/247)

Molecular/genetic testing successful	80.0% (56/70)

Inadequate Sample	20.0% (14/70)

Molecular/genetic testing not attemptedd	71.7% (177/247)

Not Necessary	49.2% (87/177)

Not Standard Practice	41.2% (73/177)

Other	9.6% (17/177)


Bacteria	Antibiotics (100 mg ml-1)	Larval Extracts (200 mg ml-1)

L. cuprina	S. peregrina	M. domestica

S. aureus	Chloramphenicol 1.56	100.0	-	-

MRSA	Chloramphenicol 25.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

P. aeruginosa	Gentamicin 1.56	100.0	-	-

E. coli	Gentamicin 0.78	100.0	-	-

Bacteria	Antibiotics (100 mg ml-1)

S. aureus	Chloramphenicol 1.56

MRSA	Chloramphenicol 25.0

P. aeruginosa	Gentamicin 1.56

E. coli	Gentamicin 0.78

Larval Extracts (200 mg ml-1)

L. cuprina	S. peregrina	M. domestica

100.0	-	-

100.0	100.0	100.0

100.0	-	-

100.0	-	-


Infection parameters	Distributions

 	Gonorrhoea	Reference	Chlamydia	Reference

Probability of infection being symptomatic

Male	β (0.9, 0.05)	[12-15]	β (0.30, 0.15)	[12,13]

Female	β (0.4, 0.15)	[12-15]	β (0.15, 0.08)	[12,13]

Duration of latent period (days)	U (3, 5)	[13,16-18]	U (12, 28)	[13,17,19]

Duration of asymptomatic infection in the absence of treatment (days)	Γ (105, 35)	[12,13,20]	Γ (220, 188)	[12,19,21-24]*

Duration of symptomatic infection in the absence of treatment (days)	Γ (105, 35)	[12,13,20]	Γ (112, 35)	[12,25]

Duration of immunity following recovery (days)	Γ (7, 3.5)	-	Γ (45, 15)	-

Transmission probability per sex act

Male to Female	β (0.2, 0.05)	[12,21,26,27]	β (0.16, 0.10)	[12,19,28,29]

Female to Male	β (0.4, 0.10)	[12,21,26,30,31]	β (0.12, 0.06)	[12,19,28,29]

Infection parameters	Distributions

	Gonorrhoea	Reference	Chlamydia	Reference

Duration of asymptomatic infection in the absence of treatment (days)	Γ (105, 35)	[12,13,20]	Γ (220, 188)	[12,19,21-24]*

Duration of symptomatic infection in the absence of treatment (days)	Γ (105, 35)	[12,13,20]	Γ (112, 35)	[12,25]

Duration of immunity following recovery (days)	Γ (7, 3.5)	-	Γ (45, 15)	-

Transmission probability per sex act

Male to Female	β (0.2, 0.05)	[12,21,26,27]	β (0.16, 0.10)	[12,19,28,29]

Female to Male	β (0.4, 0.10)	[12,21,26,30,31]	β (0.12, 0.06)	[12,19,28,29]


 Evaluated parameters	 	DF group (n = 104)*	C group (n = 48)**	P value

Education level	Basic education/training (% of patients)	30.4	8.4	P < 0.001

Secondary without leaving exam (% of patients)	25.5	16.7	NS

Secondary with leaving exam (% of patients)	30.4	33.3	NS

University (% of patients)	13.7	41.7	P < 0.001

Employment status	Full-time job (% of patients)	11.7	29.2	P < 0.001†

Part-time job (% of patients)	4.9	2.1	NS

Business (% of patients)	4.9	18.8	P < 0.001†

Old age pension (% of patients)	34	39.6	NS

Disability pension (% of patients)	41.7	6.2	P < 0.001†

Others (% of patients)	2.9	4.2	NS

Self-support	Fully self-support (% of patients)	38.1	87.2	P < 0.001††

Partially self-support (% of patients)	55.7	12.8	P < 0.001††

Fully dependent on the assistance of other persons (% of patients)	6.2	0	NS

Evaluated parameters		DF group (n = 104)*	C group (n = 48)**	P value

Education level	Basic education/training (% of patients)	30.4	8.4	P < 0.001

Secondary without leaving exam (% of patients)	25.5	16.7	NS

Secondary with leaving exam (% of patients)	30.4	33.3	NS

University (% of patients)	13.7	41.7	P < 0.001

Em	Full-time job (% of patients)	11.7	29.2	P < 0.001†

Part-time job (%	4	2	N

Evaluated parameters		DF group (n = 104)*	C group (n = 48)**	P value

ployment status	 of patients)	.9	.1	S

Business (% of patients)	4.9	18.8	P < 0.001†

Old age pension (% of patients)	34	39.6	NS

Disability pension (% of patients)	41.7	6.2	P < 0.001†

Others (% of patients)	2.9	4.2	NS

Self-support	Fully self-support (% of patients)	38.1	87.2	P < 0.001††

Partially self-support (% of patients)	55.7	12.8	P < 0.001††

Fully dependent on the assistance of other persons (% of patients)	6.2	0	NS


Subjects	-1,026 bp	-277 bp	Haplotype

	G/G	G/T	T/T	A/A	A/G	G/G	GA	TA	GG	TG


Group	Number of subjects	M/F	Age

Low SES	25	14/11	24.4 ± 1.2

Mid SES	27	14/13	23.1 ± 1.2


Physical Examination

Detection of Abnormal Health Conditions

Developmental Screening

Anticipatory Guidance

Parent-child interaction counseling

Consultant for MCHC Staff

Detection of Children at Risk

Growth Surveillance

Vaccination Counseling

Primary Care Physician Communication


Proposal ingredient	Key question	Review criteria	Check (yes/no)

1. The care gap or quality gap	The proposal has clear evidence that a gap in quality exists?	Significance Impact

2. The evidence-based treatment to be implemented	Is the evidence for the program, treatment, or set of services to be implemented demonstrated?	Significance Innovation

3. Conceptual model and theoretical justification	The proposal delineates a clear conceptual framework/theory/model that informs the design and variables being tested?	Approach Innovation

4. Stakeholder priorities, engagement in change	Is there a clear engagement process of the stakeholders in place?	Significance Impact Approach Environment

5. Setting’s readiness to adopt new services/treatments/programs	Is there clear information that reflects the setting’s readiness, capacity, or appetite for change, specifically around adoption of the proposed evidence-based treatment?	Impact Approach Environment

6. Implementation strategy/process	Are the strategies to implement the intervention clearly defined, and justified conceptually?	Significance Impact Innovation

7. Team experience with the setting, treatment, implementation process	Does the proposal detail the team’s experience with the study setting, the treatment whose implementation is being studied, and implementation processes?	Approach Investigator team

8. Feasibility of proposed research design and methods	Does the methods section contain as much detail as possible, as well as lay out possible choice junctures and contingencies, should methods not work as planned?	Approach Investigator team

9. Measurement and analysis section	Does the proposal clarify the key constructs to be measured, corresponding to the overarching conceptual model or theory?	Approach Investigator team

Is a measurement plan clear for each construct?

Does the analysis section demonstrate how relationships between constructs will be tested?

10. Policy/funding environment; leverage or support for sustaining change	Does the proposal address how the implementation initiative aligns with policy trends?	Impact Significance

Proposal ingredient	Key question	Review criteria

1. The care gap or quality gap	The proposal has clear evidence that a gap in quality exists?	Significance Impact

2. The evidence-based treatment to be implemented	Is the evidence for the program, treatment, or set of services to be implemented demonstrated?	Significance Innovation

3. Conceptual model and theoretical justification	The proposal delineates a clear conceptual framework/theory/model that informs the design and variables being tested?	Approach Innovation

4. Stakeholder priorities, engagement in change	Is there a clear engagement process of the stakeholders in place?	Significance Impact Approach Environment

5. Setting’s readiness to adopt new services/treatments/programs	Is there clear information that reflects the setting’s readiness, capacity, or appetite for change, specifically around adoption of the proposed evidence-based treatment?	Impact Approach Environment

6. Implementation strategy/process	Are the strategies to implement the intervention clearly defined, and justified conceptually?	Significance Impact Innovation

7. Team experience with the setting, treatment, implementation process	Does the proposal detail the team’s experience with the study setting, the treatment whose implementation is being studied, and implementation processes?	Approach Investigator team

8. Feasibility of proposed research design and methods	Does the methods section contain as much detail as possible, as well as lay out possible choice junctures and contingencies, should methods not work as planned?	Approach Investigator team

9. Measurement and analysis section	Does the proposal clarify the key constructs to be measured, corresponding to the overarching conceptual model or theory?	Approach Investigator team

Is a measurement plan clear for each construct?

Does the analysis section demonstrate how relationships between constructs will be tested?

10. Policy/funding environment; leverage or support for sustaining change	Does the proposal address how the implementation initiative aligns with policy trends?	Impact Significance


	WCST Error Score

	Component 1	Component 2

	(7.4% Variance)	(6.5% Variance)

Age	0.391

Education	−0.538

Income	−0.295

Proficiency L1	−0.283

Open to experiences	−0.258

QoL		0.437

Attitude L3		0.436

Emotional stability		0.280