Polymorphism	Strand	Primer sequence

rs429358 (APOE)	Sense	5′-GAACTGGAGGAACAACTGAC

Antisense	5′-CGCTCGCGGATGGCGCTGA

rs7412 (APOE)	Sense	5′-GAACTGGAGGAACAACTGAC

Antisense	5′-CGCTCGCGGATGGCGCTGA

rs4680 (COMT)	Sense	5′-GCTACTCAGCTGTGCGCATG

Antisense	5′-ACGTGGTGTGAACACCTGGT

SL6A3 repeat (DAT1)	Sense	5′-TGTGTGCGTGCATGTGG

Antisense	5′-GCTTGGGGAAGGAAGGG

rs1108580 (DBH)	Sense	5′-ACGCCTGGAGTGACCAGAAG

Antisense	5′-CCATCCTCCTTGGCTTTCTC

rs747302 (DRD4)	Sense	5′-CGGAGGGAATGGAGGAGGGA

Antisense	5′-AGACCTGAGCTCAGGCTCTG

Polymorphism	Strand

rs429358 (APOE)	Sense

Antisense

rs7412 (APOE)	Sense

Antisense

rs4680 (COMT)	Sense

Antisense

SL6A3 repeat (DAT1)	Sense

Antisense

rs1108580 (DBH)	Sense

Antisense

rs747302 (DRD4)	Sense

Antisense

Primer sequence

5′-GAACTGGAGGAACAACTGAC

5′-CGCTCGCGGATGGCGCTGA

5′-GAACTGGAGGAACAACTGAC

5′-CGCTCGCGGATGGCGCTGA

5′-GCTACTCAGCTGTGCGCATG

5′-ACGTGGTGTGAACACCTGGT

5′-TGTGTGCGTGCATGTGG

5′-GCTTGGGGAAGGAAGGG

5′-ACGCCTGGAGTGACCAGAAG

5′-CCATCCTCCTTGGCTTTCTC

5′-CGGAGGGAATGGAGGAGGGA

5′-AGACCTGAGCTCAGGCTCTG


Variable	OR	95% CI

Age

 17–24	1.2	0.49, 3.1

 25–34	1.0

 35 and over	0.84	0.29, 2.4

First Pregnancy

 No	1.0

 Yes	0.75	0.29, 1.9

Highest Level of Education Completed

 Less than Secondary School	1.0

 Secondary School or Beyond	3.4*	1.6, 7.3

Number of Durable Goods Owned

 0	1.0

 1–2	2.2	0.60, 7.8

 3–4	3.1	0.80, 11

Employment Status

 Never had a job	1.0

 Currently unemployed	1.1	0.41, 2.8

 Currently employed	0.62	0.28, 1.4

Living with Partner

 No	1.0

 Yes	0.70	0.26, 1.9

Marital Status

 Single	1.0

 Married	2.5	0.74, 8.8

Believe mosquito nets that you have to buy are better quality (more effective in preventing malaria) than nets that are given out for free

 No	1.0

 Yes	0.36*	0.15, 0.88

Believe children suffer from malaria more than adults

 No	1.0

 Yes	0.49	0.22, 1.1

Think mosquito nets are difficult to use

 No	1.0

 Yes	0.19	0.034, 1.0


Characteristics	KRAS WTN (%)	KRAS MUTN (%)	P‐valueKRAS status	PTEN negativeN (%)	PTEN positiveN (%)	P‐valuePTEN status

Al		27 (		56


	Baseline	6 months after RDN	p value

Office systolic blood pressure (mmHg)	180.4 ± 6.79	164.8 ± 8.06	0.01

Office diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)	94.88 ± 4.72	87.88 ± 3.63	0.04

Daytime ABPM systolic (mmHg)	158.3 ± 4.72	154.4 ± 5.53	0.49

Daytime ABPM diastolic (mmHg)	89.43 ± 2.84	88.29 ± 4.32	0.74

Nighttime ABPM systolic (mmHg)	151.3 ± 5.78	138.1 ± 8.00	0.06

Nighttime ABPM diastolic (mmHg)	83.71 ± 2.80	75.57 ± 4.64	0.03


Primer	Sequence (5′-3′)

F3	CTCGTGTCGTGAGATGTTG

B3	GAACGTATTCACCGTGGC

FIP	CCCACTCCATAAGGGCCATGAGGGACTTTAAGGAAACTGCC

BIP	CAATGGTGGCTACAATGGGCTGGCAGAGTACAATCCGAACTG

LoopF	CCACCTTCCTCCAGTTTATCAC

LoopB	CGCGAGGCTAAGCTAATCC

Sequence (5′-3′)

CTCGTGTCGTGAGATGTTG

GAACGTATTCACCGTGGC

CCCACTCCATAAGGGCCATGAGGGACTTTAAGGAAACTGCC

CAATGGTGGCTACAATGGGCTGGCAGAGTACAATCCGAACTG

CCACCTTCCTCCAGTTTATCAC

CGCGAGGCTAAGCTAATCC


History of visit n (%)

Sex	Male	11,028 (60)


	Original CE scale	New CE scale	New CE scale—social cohesion subscale	New CE scale— informal social control subscale

Disorder	−0.39	−0.33	−0.28	−0.33

Exchange	0.43	0.53	0.52	0.41

	Original CE scale	New CE scale	New CE scale—social cohesion subscale	New CE scale— informal social control subscale

Exchange	0.43	0.53	0.52	0.41


Research question	Outcome	Method of analysis	Results from the model data set

All respondents, n = 244	Highly compliant respondents, answering 80% (≥15/18 weeks), n = 161

4A: Association of baseline variables with outcome	Weekly recorded pain days, count variable, assuming a binominal distribution	Multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression or generalized estimating equation assuming a logit link function (Long previous duration reference category)	Subject specific OR = 3.31 (95% CI: 2.1-5.1) Population average OR = 1.96 (95% CI 1.4-2.6) (Note: Interaction duration*week significant)	Subject specific OR = 2.67 (95% CI: 1.6-4.5) Population average OR =1.52 (95% CI 1.1- 2.2) (Note: Interaction duration*week significant)

4B: Association of baseline variables with outcome	Weekly recorded pain days, count variable, assuming a Poisson distribution	Multilevel mixed-effects Poisson regression assuming a log link function (Long previous duration reference category)	Subject specific IRR = 1.92 (95% CI: 1.5 – 2.4) (Note: Interaction duration*week significant)	Subject specific IRR = 1.82 (95% CI: 1.4 – 2.4) (Note: Interaction duration*week significant)

4 C: Association of baseline variables with outcome	Weekly recorded pain days, considered a count variable and assuming a normal distribution	Generalized linear regression or mixed linear model assuming an identity link function	Average difference in pain days for Long duration – Short duration 1.20 (95% CI: 0.8 – 1.5) (Note: Interaction duration*week significant)	Average difference in pain days for Long duration –Short duration 0.95 (95% CI: 0.6-1.4) Note: Interaction duration*week significant)


Antibody	Species	Epitope	Dilution

Santa Cruz #sc-1751	Goat polyclonal (clone C-20)	near C-terminus	1:300

Santa Cruz #sc-48371	Mouse monoclonal (clone D-9)	aa 21-140 (near N-terminus)	1:200

Santa Cruz #sc-28237	Rabbit polyclonal (clone H-120)	aa 21-140 (near N-terminus)	1:300

Abcam #ab140595	Rabbit monoclonal	aa 350 to the C-terminus	1:100

Abcam #ab40693	Rabbit polyclonal	aa 350 to the C-terminus	1:500

ProteinTech #12133-2-AP	Rabbit polyclonal	human TIA1-GST fusion protein	1:100

Antibody	Species	Epitope	Dilution

Santa Cruz #sc-28237	Rabbit polyclonal (clone H-120)	aa 21-140 (near N-terminus)	1:300

Abcam #ab140595	Rabbit monoclonal	aa 350 to the C-terminus	1:100

Abcam #ab40693	Rabbit polyclonal	aa 350 to the C-terminus	1:500

ProteinTech #12133-2-AP	Rabbit polyclonal	human TIA1-GST fusion protein	1:100


Response*	Percent (n = 83)

I managed the patient myself	34

The patient improved while waiting to be seen	29

I referred to a pediatric infectious disease specialist instead	28

I referred to adult rheumatologist instead	20

I referred to a pediatric orthopedist instead	12

I referred to a pediatric hematology/oncology specialist instead	9

Other	9

The distance or time to travel was too long	8

I referred to a pediatric sports medicine specialist instead	4

I referred to a general orthopedist instead	4

The patient’s insurance would not cover a PR referral	1

Response*	Percent (n = 83)

The patient’s insurance would not cover a PR referral	1


	HC 1 (%)	HC 2 (%)

Frequency of product consumption

More than once per day	42	46

Once per day	58	54

Amount of product given per day

<1 sachet	18	4

1 sachet	80	96

>1 sachet	2	0

Child took product as instructed

Yes, always or most of time	83	85

Yes, about half the time	7	0

No, usually not	11	8

No response	1	2

	HC 1 (%)	HC 2 (%)

No, usually not	11	8

No response	1	2


Variables	Subgroup	N	Mean rank	Sum rank	U	p

Lymphovascular invasion	No	85	69.88	5939.50	1285.500	0.010

	Yes	42	52.11	2188.50

PIK3CA gene mutation	Wild type	120	62.23	7467.00	207.000	0.024

	Mutation	7	94.43	661.00


Diagnosis	No.	M:F ratio	Median age (Range)	Diagnostic category	Blind in at least one eye (%)	Previously diagnosed (%)

				1	2	3

POAG with normal IOP	50	26:24	63 (53–99)	36	14	0	4 (8)	2 (4)

POAG with high IOP	22	11:11	66 (51–86)	13	5	4	5 (22.73)	6 (27.27)

Total POAG	72	37:35	65 (51–99)	49	19	4	9 (12.5)	8 (11.11)

Diagnosis	No.	M:F ratio	Median age (Range)	Diagnostic category

				1

POAG with normal IOP	50	26:24	63 (53–99)	36

POAG with high IOP	22	11:11	66 (51–86)	13

Total POAG	72	37:35	65 (51–99)	49

Diagnostic category	Blind in at least one eye (%)	Previously diagnosed (%)

2	3

14	0	4 (8)	2 (4)

5	4	5 (22.73)	6 (27.27)

19	4	9 (12.5)	8 (11.11)


Group	Thickness	Buckling value, μm

ds, μm	db, μm	Experiment	Model

2	42	83	1.55	1.59

3	42	97	1.31	1.42

4	31	83	0.90	1.03

Thickness	Buckling value, μm

ds, μm	db, μm	Experiment	Model

42	83	1.55	1.59

42	97	1.31	1.42

31	83	0.90	1.03


Cells	Stimulus	Effect	Reference

Alveolar macrophages	LPS	↓ inflammatory cytokines	Baldwin et al. [16]

 	Pacifici et al. [17]

Monocytes	LPS	↓ inflammatory cytokines	Zurier et al. [95]

Impairs differentiation to dendritic cells	Roth et al. [122]

Thioglycollate-elicited macrophages	 LPS	↓ tumor necrosis factor-α protein processing	 Zheng and Specter [99]

↑ interleukin-1β	Zhu et al. [94]

LPS/interferon-γ	↓ nitric oxide synthase-2	Coffey et al. [102]

↓ nitric oxide	Mestre et al. [92]

↑ interleukin-10	Correa et al. [109]

Blood mononuclear cells	LPS	↓ interleukin-1α	Watzl et al. [96]

Biphasic dose-response	Berdyshev et al. [97]

Microglial cells	LPS	↓ cytokine mRNA	Puffenbarger et al. [103]

↑ IL-1 receptor antagonist	Molina-Holgado et al. [111]

↓ nitric oxide	Merighi et al. [123]

LPS/interferon-γ	↑ interleukin-10	Correa et al. [110]

↓ nitric oxide	Waksman et al. [124]

Dendritic cells	LPS	↓ TLR4 expression	Xu et al. [106]

BV-2 cells	LPS	↓ NF-κB activity	More et al. [101]

↓ cytokine mRNA

↓ interferon-β mRNA	Kozela et al. [125]

J774 cells	LPS	↓ nitric oxide	Chang et al. [93]

↓ interleukin-6

↓ cyclooxygenase-2

RAW 264.7 cells	LPS	↓ tumor necrosis factor-α protein processing	Fischer-Stenger et al. [100]

↓ nitric oxide synthase-2	Jeon et al. [104]

↓ nitric oxide

↓ NF-κB activity

TLR4-transfected HEK293 cells	LPS	↓ interferon-β mRNA	Downer et al. [126]

↓ IRF3 activity

Glioma U87MG cells	Peptidoglycan	↓ NF-κB activity	Echigo et al. [105]

TLR3-transfected HEK293 cells	Polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid	↑ interferon-β mRNA	Downer et al. [127]

↑ IRF3 activity	Downer et al. [126]

↓ tumor necrosis factor-α

↓ NF-κB activity

Blood mononuclear cells	Polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid	↑ interferon-β mRNA	Downer et al. [126]

↓ tumor necrosis factor-α

Cells	Stimulus	Effect	Reference

Alveolar macrophages	LPS	↓ inflammatory cytokines	Baldwin et al. [16]

	Pacifici et al. [17]

Monocytes	LPS	↓ inflammatory cytokines	Zurier et al. [95]

Impairs differentiation to dendritic cells	Roth et al. [122]

Thioglycollate-elicited macrophages	LPS	↓ tumor necrosis factor-α protein processing	Zheng and Specter [99]

↑ interleukin-1β	Zhu et al. [94]

LPS/interferon-γ	↓ nitric oxide synthase-2	Coffey et al. [102]

↓ nitric oxide	Mestre et al. [92]

↑ interleukin-10	Correa et al. [109]

Blood mononuclear cells	LPS	↓ interleukin-1α	Watzl et al. [96]

Biphasic dose-response	Berdyshev et al. [97]

Microglial 	LP	↓ cytokine mRNA	Puffenbarger et al. [103]

↑ IL	Molina-Holgado et al. [

Cells	Stimulus	Effect	Reference

cells	S	-1 receptor antagonist	111]

↓ nitric oxide	Merighi et al. [123]

LPS/interferon-γ	↑ interleukin-10	Correa et al. [110]

↓ nitric oxide	Waksman et al. [124]

Dendritic cells	LPS	↓ TLR4 expression	Xu et al. [106]

BV-2 cells	LPS	↓ NF-κB activity	More et al. [101]

↓ cytokine mRNA

↓ interferon-β mRNA	Kozela et al. [125]

J774 cells	LPS	↓ nitric oxide	Chang et al. [93]

↓ interleukin-6

↓ cyclooxygenase-2

RAW 264.7 cells	LPS	↓ tumor necrosis factor-α protein processing	Fischer-Stenger et al. [100]

↓ nitric oxide synthase-2	Jeon et al. [104]

↓ nitric oxide

↓ NF-κB activity

TLR4-transfected HEK293 cells	LPS	↓ interferon-β mRNA	Downer et al. [126]

↓ IRF3 activity

Glioma U87MG cells	Peptidoglycan	↓ NF-κB activity	Echigo et al. [105]

TLR3-transfected HEK293 cells	Polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid	↑ interferon-β mRNA	Downer et al. [127]

↑ IRF3 activity	Downer et al. [126]

↓ tumor necrosis factor-α

↓ NF-κB activity

Blood mononuclear cells	Polyinosinic:polycytidylic acid	↑ interferon-β mRNA	Downer et al. [126]

↓ tumor necrosis factor-α


DATASET

M = 2 for ANN

Breast

Colon

Leukemia

Ovarian

Average

M = 10 for ANN

Breast

Colon

Leukemia

Ovarian

Average


 	N, n	Mean performance score	SD	F-test, p-value

Location	67	-	-	0.028*

 National government hospital 1	16	32.6	11.0

 Regional government hospital 2	17	22.5	8.1

 Regional government hospital 3	15	27.4	10.6

 District government hospital 4	12	26.8	9.6

 District private non-profit hospital 5	7	21.3	6.1

Type of near-miss complication	67	-	-	0.7*

 NM haemorrhage	28	27.0	11.8

 NM hypertensive disorder	17	25.9	9.9

 NM obstructed labour	13	28.1	9.2

 NM infection/sepsis	6	27.7	5.6

 NM anaemia	3	18.8	4.4

Project maturity	67	-	-	0.5*

 First half of audits	33	27.5	10.2

 Second half of audits	34	25.9	10.1

Moderation of audit team	50#	-	-	0.030*

 by a midwife	24	23.4	9.1

 by a physician	26	29.7	10.7

Location

National government hospital 1

Regional government hospital 2

Regional government hospital 3

District government hospital 4

District private non-profit hospital 5

Type of near-miss complication

NM haemorrhage

NM hypertensive disorder

NM obstructed labour

NM infection/sepsis

NM anaemia

Project maturity

First half of audits

Second half of audits

Moderation of audit team

by a midwife

by a physician


Use categories	No. of taxa	No. of use reports	Consensus factor

Stomach disorder (diarrhoea/dysentry)	8	178	0.96

Cuts and wounds	4	160	0.98

Fever and headache	6	125	0.96

Skin diseases/skin irritation	2	4	0.67

Worms in stomach	2	120	0.99

Nausea and vomiting	2	73	0.98

Snake and scorpion bites	2	8	0.85

Cough and cold	4	186	0.98

Use categories	No. of taxa

Stomach disorder (diarrhoea/dysentry)	8

Cuts and wounds	4

Fever and headache	6

Skin diseases/skin irritation	2

Worms in stomach	2

Nausea and vomiting	2

Snake and scorpion bites	2

Cough and cold	4


Category	Males	Females	Total

People living with HIV	9	14	23

 Intervention	5	10	15

 Control	4	4	8

Peer Supporters	3	6	9

Program staff	3	4	7

Total	15	24	39

Category	Males	Females

People living with HIV	9	14

Intervention	5	10

Control	4	4

Peer Supporters	3	6

Program staff	3	4

Total	15	24


Study population characteristic	HCV Prevalence (%)	Unadjusted OR (95 % CI)	Adjusted OR (95 % CI)a

Overall	29.8	NA	NA

Ge


Attribute	Total Assessment Score for Pâté Made From	p Value	SEM a

Fresh Livers	Frozen Livers

Color on surface	70.5	67.1	0.29	3.25

Color inside	28.7	47.6	<0.001	3.20

Color likeability	38.6	40.4	0.63	3.62

Texture on cutting	29.9	30.9	0.8	3.63

On-eating firmness	41.3	22.1	<0.001	4.43

On-eating dissolvability	73.9	75.1	0.72	3.31

Flavor strength	52.7	61.9	<0.001	2.21

Fatty	39.0	37.6	0.62	2.65

Livery	40.4	41.0	0.84	2.68

Acidic	8.4	12.8	<0.05	1.93

Rancid	3.6	4.2	0.45	0.69

Sweet	30.6	30.7	0.94	2.33

Attribute	Total Assessment Score for Pâté Made From	p Value	SEM a

Fresh Livers	Frozen Livers

Peppery	21.3	22.3	0.7	2.63

Herby	29.9	33.1	0.2	2.55

Salty	22.2	22.8	0.71	1.49

Residue after eating	20.1	7.8	<0.001	2.84

Flavor likeability	44.8	51.0	<0.05	2.65

Overall likeability	36.0	48.6	<0.001	3.05


	Overall (%)	Non-Hispanic White (%)	Non-Hispanic Black (%)	Hispanic (%)	Other (%)

N	1005	649	118	157	81

During past 12 months, have you received a flu shot or vaccine?

 Yes	42.3	45.4 a	50.9 a	20.8 b	44.4 a

 No	57.7	54.6 a	49.1 a	79.2 b	55.6 a

If yes, in which month did you receive your most recent flu vaccine?

 September	27.7	27.6	33.3	27.6	20.0

 October	40.8	43.8	33.3	27.6	40.0

 November	18.2	16.9	14.8	27.6	28.6

 December	2.6	3.4	1.9	0.0	0.0

 January/February	4.3	3.1 a	5.6 a	13.8 b	5.8 a

How likely are you to get a flu Vaccination this season (2016–2017)—that is, this Fall or Winter?

 Already received	13.5	14.7 a,b	19.3 b	6.5 c	8.8 a,c

 Will definitely get one	26.7	27.6 a	31.1 a	18.2 b	27.5 a,b

 Will probably get one	13.8	12.0 a	10.1 a	18.8 b	25.0 b

 Will probably not get one	18.9	20.8 a	15.1 a,b	19.5 a	8.8 b

 Will definitely not get one	27.0	24.8 a	24.4 a	37.0 b	30.0 a,b

Thinking about 2013, 2014, and 2015, in how many of those years did you get a flu vaccination?

 Received in all three years	35.7	39.7 a	37.9 a	16.4 b	33.8 a

 Received in two years	10.7	9.5	13.8	12.9	12.5

 Received one year	12.5	11.0 a	12.1 a,b	19.3 b	15.0 a,b

 None	41.1	39.7 a	36.2 a	51.4 b	38.8 a,b

Have you ever delayed getting a recommended flu vaccination for reasons other than illness or allergy?

 Yes	19.2	19.8	19.5	17.2	17.3

Have you ever declined getting a recommended flu vaccination for reasons other than illness or allergy?

 Yes	29.5	31.9 a	18.6 b	27.8 a,b	29.6 a,b

	Overall (%)	Non-Hispanic White (%)	Non-Hispanic Black (%)	Hispanic (%)	Other (%)

N	1005	649	118	157	81

During past 12 months, have you received a flu shot or vaccine?

Yes	42.3	45.4 a	50.9 a	20.8 b	44.4 a

No	57.7	54.6 a	49.1 a	79.2 b	55.6 a

If yes, in which month did you receive your most recent flu vaccine?

September	27.7	27.6	33.3	27.6	20.0

October	40.8	43.8	33.3	27.6	40.0

November	18.2	16.9	14.8	27.6	28.6

December	2.6	3.4	1.9	0.0	0.0

January/February	4.3	3.1 a	5.6 a	13.8 b	5.8 a

How likely are you to get a flu Vaccination this season (2016–2017)—that is, this Fall or Winter?

Already received	13.5	14.7 a,b	19.3 b	6.5 c	8.8 a,c

Will definitely get one	26.7	27.6 a	31.1 a	18.2 b	27.5 a,b

Will p	13.8	12.0	1		2

robably get one		 a	0.1 a	18.8 b	5.0 b

Will probably not get one	18.9	20.8 a	15.1 a,b	19.5 a	8.8 b

Will definitely not get one	27.0	24.8 a	24.4 a	37.0 b	30.0 a,b

Thinking about 2013, 2014, and 2015, in how many of those years did you get a flu vaccination?

Received in all three years	35.7	39.7 a	37.9 a	16.4 b	33.8 a

Received in two years	10.7	9.5	13.8	12.9	12.5

Received one year	12.5	11.0 a	12.1 a,b	19.3 b	15.0 a,b

None	41.1	39.7 a	36.2 a	51.4 b	38.8 a,b

Have you ever delayed getting a recommended flu vaccination for reasons other than illness or allergy?

Yes	19.2	19.8	19.5	17.2	17.3

Have you ever declined getting a recommended flu vaccination for reasons other than illness or allergy?

Yes	29.5	31.9 a	18.6 b	27.8 a,b	29.6 a,b


Name 	Amount [mg/100g Star-fruit weight]*

Carotene	0.003 - 0.55

Tartaric acid	4.37

Oxalic acid	9.6

Ketoglutaric acid	2.2

Citric acid	1.32

Vitamin B1 & B2	0.12

Vitamin C	25.8

*on a dry weight basis


Serial no.	Class of Motifs	No. of exclusive IFN-γ peptide	No. of exclusive rest of cytokine inducing peptide

1	None	696	384

2	Koolman-Rohm	1481	219

3	Betts-Russell (Hydorphobic)	1731	187

4	Betts-Russell (Polar)	1318	234

5	Betts-Russell (Small)	1668	186

6	ALL class	3058	679

Serial no.	Class of Motifs	No. of exclusive IFN-γ peptide	No. of exclusive rest of cytokine inducing peptide

1	None	696	384

2	Koolman-Rohm	1481	219

	Betts-Russell (Hy	173	1

3	dorphobic)	1	87

4	Betts-Russell (Polar)	1318	234

5	Betts-Russell (Small)	1668	186

6	ALL class	3058	679


	22q11DSMean (SD)	Median	HCMean (SD)	Median	Statistic (p), effect size (r)

BORB

 Field dependence/independence

Figure-ground segmentation

Single letters	0.90 (0.1)	0.92	0.84 (0.1)	0.84	0.04 (0.23) NS

Paired drawings	0.97 (0.2)	0.97	0.88 (0.1)	0.89	0.40 (0.08) NS

Triplet letters	0.96 (0.1)	0.95	0.95 (0.2)	0.88	0.03 (0.23) NS

 Form perception

Form perception easy sub-tests (easy foreshortened + easy minimal features)	47.20 (2.78)	48.0	49.13 (1.38)	50.0	0.001 (0.43)

Form perception hard sub-tests (hard foreshortened + hard minimal features)	38.91 (4.1)	40.0	41.76 (1.8)	43.0	0.001 (0.43)

 Visual object recognition

Picture naming	12.56 (1.87)	13.0	13.70 (1.66)	14.0	0.001 (0.37)

 Implicit memory

Object decision (easy)	28.04 (3.94)		29.83 (1.49)

Object decision (hard)	24.7 0(3.48)		26.53 (3.03)

 Implicit memory sub-total	53.04 (5.88)	54.0	56.37 (3.36)	57.0	0.003 (0.33)

 Semantic memory

Associative matching	27.29 (3.07)	28.0	29.27 (1.08)	30.0	0.001 (0.44)

 Embedded figures test

Total score	21.10 (4.0)	22.0	22.22 (1.85)	23.0	0.5 (0.09) NS

Reaction time (s)	33.89 (17.1)	30.3	26.76 (12.06)	24.3	0.07 (0.22) NS

	22q11DSMean (SD)	Median	HCMean (SD)	Median

BORB

Field dependence/independence

Figure-ground segmentation

Single letters	0.90 (0.1)	0.92	0.84 (0.1)	0.84

Paired drawings	0.97 (0.2)	0.97	0.88 (0.1)	0.89

Triplet letters	0.96 (0.1)	0.95	0.95 (0.2)	0.88

Form perception

Form perception easy sub-tests (easy foreshortened + easy minimal features)	47.20 (2.78)	48.0	49.13 (1.38)	50.0

Form perception hard sub-tests (hard foreshortened + hard minimal features)	38.91 (4.1)	40.0	41.76 (1.8)	43.0

Visual object recognition

Picture naming	12.56 (1.87)	13.0	13.70 (1.66)	14.0

Implicit memory

Object decision (easy)	28.04 (3.94)		29.83 (1.49)

Object decision (hard)	24.7 0(3.48)		26.53 (3.03)

Implicit memory sub-total	53.04 (5.88)	54.0	56.37 (3.36)	57.0

Semantic memory

Associative matching	27.29 (3.07)	28.0	29.27 (1.08)	30.0

Embedded figures test

Total score	21.10 (4.0)	22.0	22.22 (1.85)	23.0

Reaction time (s)	33.89 (17.1)	30.3	26.76 (12.06)	24.3


Receptor	t1/2

LRP	0.5 min

LDLR	4.8 min

ApoER2	8.1 min

VLDLR	8.2 min

Receptor	t1/2

LRP	0.5 min

LDLR	4.8 min


Index/subtests/development scales	WPPSI-III

N 	IQ/DQ/scores	Subtest mean	Std. deviation	Range

WPPSI verbal IQ (VIQ)	113	84,8	 	16,1	53–133

Information	112	 	7,4	3,3	1–16

Vocabulary	110	 	7,4	2,9	2–16

Word Reasoning	111	 	7,2	3,1	1–15

Comprehension	63	 	9,0	2,9	3–15

Similarities	67	 	7,9	2,6	3–15

WPPSI performance IQ (PIQ)	113	93,6	 	16,7	53–135

Block Design	112	 	10,3	3,6	1–18

Matrix Reasoning	111	 	8,8	3,5	1–16

Picture Concepts	111	 	8,2	3,4	1–17

Picture Completion	67	 	9,6	3,5	2–19

WPPSI Processing speed (PSQ)	85	76,7	 	12,2	49–107

Coding	110	 	5,1	2,9	1–12

Symbol Search	95	 	5,9	2,6	2–14

WPPSI General Language (GLC)	99	89,9	 	17,1	45–128

Receptive Vocabulary	96	 	8,2	3,1	1–15

Picture Naming	95	 	8,5	3,2	2–16

WPPSI full scale IQ (FSIQ)	113	84,5	 	14,7	51–121

Griffiths' verbal functioning	77	33,5	 	15,9	8–72

Griffiths' performance functioning	77	46,7	 	16,3	15–79

Griffiths' global functioning	77	41,6	 	14,5	13–73

VABS Communication	187	71,9	 	18,9	34–120

VABS DLS	187	73,8	 	16,4	38–117

VABS Socialization	187	70,6	 	14,7	46–112

VABS Motor	187	76,4	 	14,5	43–117

VABS total	187	70,5	 	15,0	42–114


Variable

Stroke severity on admission, n (%)

NIHSS 0–5	36 (27.5)

NIHSS 6–10	46 (35.1)

NIHSS 11–16	29 (22.1)

NIHSS >16	17 (13.0)

Undetermined	3 (2.3)

Stroke etiology (TOAST), n (%)

Large artery atherosclerosis	49 (37.4)

Small vessel occlusion	13 (9.9)

Cardioembolic	27 (20.6)

Other/undetermined	42 (32.1)

Imaging data

ASPECTS, median (IQR)

 On admission	10 (9–10)

 24 h after thrombolysis	9 (5–10)

Affected vessel territory, n (%)

 MCA	82 (62.6)

 ICA	11 (8.4)

 MCA + ICA	10 (7.6)

 VB	28 (21.4)

Level of occlusion, n (%)

 No stenosis/occlusion	34 (26.0)

 Stenosis	27 (20.6)

 Occlusion	70 (53.4)

Outcomes, n (%)

Functional outcome at 7 days

 Favorable outcome	49 (37.4)

 No change	42 (32.1)

 Unfavorable outcome	20 (15.3)

Functional outcome at 90 days

 mRS 0–2	57 (43.5)

 mRS 3–6	51 (38.9)

 Undetermined	23 (17.6)

Intracranial hemorrhage (ECASS II)

 aSICH	7 (5.3)

 SICH	6 (4.6)


Group	Body weight in grams (SEM)

Baseline	Post-test

Male	Ctrl	297.2 (3.4)	350.0* (7.1)

SPS	297.5 (4.9)	341.9* (7.9)


Variables	Instruments	Time of Measurement

		Baseline/1 week after discharge ICU	6 months	12 months

Pain (intensity, frequency)	NRS	Q	Q	Q

Anxiety (intensity, frequency)	NRS, HADS-D	Q	Q	Q

Agitation (intensity, frequency)	CAM	Q	Q	Q

Mortality	Survival: Yes/No	Q	Q	Q

Morbidity	International classification of diseases, version 10	MR/Q	MR/Q	MR/Q

Quality of life (HR-QOL)1	SF-36	Q	Q	Q

Variables	Instruments	Time of Measurement

Anxiety (intensity, frequency)	NRS, HADS-D	Q	Q	Q

Agitation (intensity, frequency)	CAM	Q	Q	Q

Mortality	Survival: Yes/No	Q	Q	Q

Morbidity	International classification of diseases, version 10	MR/Q	MR/Q	MR/Q

Quality of life (HR-QOL)1	SF-36	Q	Q	Q


	Baseline	Intervention	Difference	p-value a

Simple reactiontime test

Mean Tput b score (SE)	209 (6)	220 (6)	11 (4)	0.01

Mean reaction time in msec (SE)	293 (9)	279 (9)	-15 (7)	0.03

Complex reactiontime test

Mean Tput b score (SE)	85 (3)	92 (4)	7 (2)	< 0.001

Mean reaction time in msec (SE)	629 (18)	606 (21)	-23 (8)	0.002

Mean % correct (SE)	97.5 (0.4)	98.2 (0.3)	0.7 (0.3)	0.01

Mean lapses c (SE)	5.5 (0.9)	4.3 (1.0)	-1.2 (0.6)	0.05

Mean impulses d (SE)	6.1 (0.8)	4.5 (0.9)	-1.6 (0.4)	< 0.001

	Baseline	Intervention

Simple reactiontime test

Mean Tput b score (SE)	209 (6)	220 (6)

Mean reaction time in msec (SE)	293 (9)	279 (9)

Complex reactiontime test

Mean Tput b score (SE)	85 (3)	92 (4)

Mean reaction time in msec (SE)	629 (18)	606 (21)

Mean % correct (SE)	97.5 (0.4)	98.2 (0.3)

Mean lapses c (SE)	5.5 (0.9)	4.3 (1.0)

Mean impulses d (SE)	6.1 (0.8)	4.5 (0.9)


Platform	Cost (US$)

Vinoculer	5 K

UAV	16–80 K


	Unsuccessful Breastfeeding	Successful Breastfeeding	P-value, Wilcox rank sum test

VAS 6 Hours	n = 10	n = 73

Median (Q1/Q3)	1.5 (0/4)	3 (0/4)	0.56

Mean (Upper/Lower 95%)	2.0 (0.7-3.4)	2.73 (2.1-3.3)

VAS 12 Hours	n = 9	n = 75

Median (Q1/Q3)	1 (0/1)	2 (0/5)	0.39

Mean (Upper/Lower 95%)	1.6 (0-3.3)	2.6 (1.9-3.2)

VAS 24 h	n = 10	n = 80

	Unsuccessful Breastfeeding	Successful Breastfeeding	P-value, Wilcox rank sum test

Mean (Upper/Lower 95%)	4.5 (2/6)	3 (1/5)	0.31

Median (Q1/Q3)	4.1 (2.2-6.1)	3.2 (2.6-3.8)


Author	Sample size	Prevalence (%)	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	PPV (%)	NPV (%)

Gaspari et al. [39]	104	51	87	82	84	86

Watkins et al. [40]	57	68	80	83	91	65

Moak et al. [41]	107	36	76	78	66	86

Herbst et al. [42]	670	47	73	73	71	75

Author

Gaspari et al. [39]

Watkins et al. [40]

Moak et al. [41]

Herbst et al. [42]


Regression parameter	Slope (a)	Intercept (b)	Data point count	R2

value	1.09	0.03	679	0.98

Regression parameter	Slope (a)	Intercept (b)	Data point count	R2

value	1.09	0.03		0


Genogroup rate used	Segregation

5B and 5A	5A and 5B

	5B and Bandim 6

	5B and Bandim 13/14

5B only	5A and 5B

	5B and Bandim 6

	5B and Bandim 13/14

Firth et al. (26)	5A and 5B

	5B and Bandim 6

	5B and Bandim 13/14


Month	2008

Total	Positive

		n	%

January	10	6	60

February	16	3	19

March	18	5	28

April	3	1	33

May	15	2	13

June	15	3	20

July	5	1	20

August	8	2	25

September	5	1	20

October	10	5	50

November	25	11	44

December	13	6	46

Total	143	46	32


Outcome	na

White blood cells (103/mm3)	62

Granulocytes (%)	62

Lymphocytes (%)	62

Monocytes (%)	62

LTL (T/S ratio)	57

hTERT expression (2−ΔΔCT)	58

hTERT methylation (% 5mC)

Position 1	59

Position 2	59

Position 3	59


Matrix	Filler	Code name

PP-SL262MW	–	PP

PP-SL262MW	Sol-gel (catalyst: acetic acid)	PP-Acetic

PP-SL262MW	Sol-gel (catalyst: formic acid)	PP-Formic

PP-SL262MW	Sol-gel (catalyst: ammonium hydroxide)	PP-Base

PP-SL262MW	Natural HNT	PP-HNT

PP-SL262MW	Functionalized HNT	PP-PolyHNT

PP-SL262MW	Untreated CNT	PP-CNT

PP-SL262MW	Functionalized CNT	PP-CNTF

Matrix	Filler	Code name

PP-SL262MW	Functionalized CNT	PP-CNTF


Factors	Domain	Data collected	Sources of information

Technical factors	Reporting system	Type of new tools introduced by the NTCP and their use	Interviews

Availability of tuberculosis and routine information tools	Observation

 	Designer of reporting forms	Designer of the routine information system	Interviews

Changes in the design of routine information after TDTC creation

 	Complexity of the reporting forms	Complexity of the tuberculosis and routine information tools	Interviews

 	Procedures	Rules for tuberculosis and routine data collection,analysis and transmission	Document review

Changes in routine HIS procedures following the creation of the TDTC	Interviews

Organisational factors	Information distribution	Type of reports sent by the hospital before and after the creation of the TDTC	Interviews

Services receiving hospital reports

 	Interest devoted to reporting	Motivation of the TDTC staff for reporting	Interviews

Motivation of the ward staff members for reporting

 	Quarterly HIS supervision	Staff members supervised in the use of thetuberculosis HIS (frequency)	Interviews Observation

Staff members supervised in the use of the routine HIS (frequency)

 	Training	Training received on HIS management: trainees and date	Interviews

Behavioural factors	Level of knowledge of content of HIS forms	Staff members involved in monthly routine reporting	Interviews

Knowledge of the content of HIS tools by hospital staff

 	Skills	Skills in data collection, processing and analysis	Interviews

 	Motivation	Level of motivation	Interviews

Processes	Data collection	Data completeness in registers (tuberculosis and routine care data)	Observation

 	Data processing	Availability of tuberculosis and routine reports(period) at the hospital level	Observation

 	Data analysis	Type of analysis conducted on tuberculosis data and on routine data	Interviews Document review

 	Data transmission	Availability of tuberculosis and routine reports (period)at the district and regional levels	Interviews Observation

 	Data display andfeedback to nurses	Type of data displayed (for tuberculosis and routine care data)	Observation

 	Data quality checking	Procedures of data checking and actors involved	Interviews

Factors	Domain	Data collected	Sources of information

Technical factors	Reporting system	Type of new tools introduced by the NTCP and their use	Interviews

Availability of tuberculosis and routine information tools	Observation

	Designer of reporting forms	Designer of the routine information system	Interviews

Changes in the design of routine information after TDTC creation

	Complexity of the reporting forms	Complexity of the tuberculosis and routine information tools	Interviews

	Procedures	Rules for tuberculosis and routine data collection,analysis and transmission	Document review

Changes in routine HIS procedures following the creation of the TDTC	Interviews

Organisational factors	Information distribution	Type of reports sent by the hospital before and after the creation of the TDTC	Interviews

Services receiving hospital reports

	Interest devoted to reporting	Motivation of the TDTC staff for reporting	Interviews

Motivation of the ward staff members for reporting

	Quarterly HIS supe	Staff members supervised in the use of thetuberculosis HIS (fr	Interviews Ob

	rvision	equency)	servation

Staff members supervised in the use of the routine HIS (frequency)

	Training	Training received on HIS management: trainees and date	Interviews

Behavioural factors	Level of knowledge of content of HIS forms	Staff members involved in monthly routine reporting	Interviews

Knowledge of the content of HIS tools by hospital staff

	Skills	Skills in data collection, processing and analysis	Interviews

	Motivation	Level of motivation	Interviews

Processes	Data collection	Data completeness in registers (tuberculosis and routine care data)	Observation

	Data processing	Availability of tuberculosis and routine reports(period) at the hospital level	Observation

	Data analysis	Type of analysis conducted on tuberculosis data and on routine data	Interviews Document review

	Data transmission	Availability of tuberculosis and routine reports (period)at the district and regional levels	Interviews Observation

	Data display andfeedback to nurses	Type of data displayed (for tuberculosis and routine care data)	Observation

	Data quality checking	Procedures of data checking and actors involved	Interviews


Variables	Average	Minimum	Maximum

Herd size	100	40	220

Milk production (kg/herd/year)	815,429	340,000	1,850,000

Milk production (kg/cow/year)	8,174	5,333	10,434

Number of present young stock per year	69	19	152

Variables	Average	Minimum	Maximum

Number of present young stock per year	69	19	152


Parameter	% found

Tb+3	La+3	Ce+3

Alkaline degradation FMT added = 20ng/ml

<overline>X</overline>±SD	100.68 ± 0.87	100.18 ± 0.59	100.10 ± 0.58

Student’s t test	0.17 (2.78)	0.53 (2.78)	0.72 (2.78)

Variance ratio F test	1.97 (6.94)	1.10 (6.94)	1.14 (6.94)

Alkaline degradation FMT added= 40ng/ml

<overline>X</overline>±SD	100.08 ± 0.84	99.99 ± 0.50	100.15 ± 0.46

Student’s t test	0.84 (2.78)	0.98 (2.78)	0.50 (2.78)

Variance ratio F test	1.84 (6.94)	1.54 (6.94)	1.82 (6.94)

Oxidative degradation FMT added = 20ng/ml

<overline>X</overline>±SD	99.87 ± 0.71	100.88 ± 0.80	99.90 ± 0.67

Student’s t test	0.70 (2.78)	0.07 (2.78)	0.76 (2.78)

Variance ratio F test	1.31 (6.94)	1.66 (6.94)	1.17 (6.94)

Oxidative degradation FMT added = 40ng/ml

<overline>X</overline>±SD	99.82 ± 0.48	99.89 ± 0.52	100.08 ± 0.73

Student’s t test	0.45 (2.78)	0.66 (2.78)	0.82 (2.78)

Variance ratio F test	1.67 (6.94)	1.42 (6.94)	1.39 (6.94)

Intra-day precision (spiked plasma)

<overline>X</overline>±SD	100.28 ± 2.09	99.67 ±1.28	101.24 ± 1.50

Inter-day precision (spiked plasma)

<overline>X</overline>±SD	100.39 ± 1.59	99.44 ± 1.73	100.30 ± 0.87

Intra-day precision (real plasma)

<overline>X</overline>±SD	97.01 ± 0.75	103.21 ± 0.65	102.13 ± 0.74

Parameter	% found

Tb+3	La+3	Ce+3

Alkaline degradation FMT added = 20ng/ml

X±SD	100.68 ± 0.87	100.18 ± 0.59	100.10 ± 0.58

Student’s t test	0.17 (2.78)	0.53 (2.78)	0.72 (2.78)


	J Inertia (Kg/m2)	R Resister (Ohm)	Kt Torque constant (Nm/A)	Km Restoring constant (Nm/rad)

Simulation	Experiment	Simulation	Experiment

X-axis	3.58e-9	42	4.84e-4	6.25e-4	4.34e-4	4.62e-4

Y-axis	55.65e-9	145	2.14e-2	2.17e-2	7.07e-3	6.28e-3


	All	SUDOSCAN Risk Score	p

No Risk	Moderate Risk	Elevated Risk

Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD

Women	n=537	n=162	n=188	n=187

Age (years)	49.7	8.3	42.8	7.8	51.3	6.3	54.0	6.7	<0.0001

BMI (kg/m2)	25.9	4.5	23.2	2.8	25.0	3.2	29.1	4.9	<0.0001


Characteristics	Feminized Male CRC (Total = 26) No. (%)	Non-Feminized Male CRC (Total = 31) No. (%)	Total Males (Total = 57) No. (%)	p-Value

MSS—wild type BRAF	24 (92.3)	17 (56.7)	41 (72.0)	0.0026 *

Wild-type BRAF	26 (100)	23 (74.2)	49 (86.0)	0.0088 *

MMR proficient	24 (92.3)	19 (61.2)	43 (75.4)	0.0107 *


						Prior Probability of Mutation in a BRCA gene

Case #	Cancer diagnosis (index-case)	Age at diagnosis (ys)	Cancer family history*	ASCO criteria	Limited Family Structure	Myriad Prevalence Tables (%)	Couch Prediction Model (%)

1-RJ	Breast	33	MAT Br (F-45)	Yes	No	16.3	20.0

2-RJ	Ovarian	47	PAT Ov (60), Br (F-30), End (64)	Yes	No	46.8	44.0

3-RS	Ovarian	52	MAT Br (F-44), Ov (F-76), Ov (F-66), Ut (F-78), Ut (N/A), Ga (M-68),CRC (M-69), HeN (M-N/A), HeN (M-75)	No	No	46.8	43.0

			PAT Lu (M-N/A), CRC (M-N/A), CRC (F-N/A), Ut (35), Br (M-62), Ga (M-N/A), Br (F-36), Bilat Br (F-45), Br (F-44), Br (F-45)	Yes	No	40.8	33.0

4-RJ	Bilateral Breast	45 and 50	MAT BilatBr (F-45,50), Ov (39) Br (F-49), Bilat Br (F-47,50)	Yes	No	40.7	31.0

5-RJ	Bilateral Breast	46 and 47	PAT Lu (M-N/A), Ga (M-N/A) CRC (M-N/A)	No	Yes	6.9	9.0

6-RJ	Bilateral Breast	33 and 38	-	No	Yes	6.9	15.0

7-RS	Bilateral Breast	35 and 45	MAT Ov (F-58), Ov (F-49), Br (F-90) Br (F-49), Ga (M-70), Liv (M-70)	Yes	No	40.7	47.0

						Prior Probability of Mutation in a BRCA gene

Case #	Cancer diagnosis (index-case)	Age at diagnosis (ys)	Cancer family history*	ASCO criteria	Limited Family Structure	Myriad Prevalence Tables (%)	Couch Prediction Model (%)

1-RJ	Breast	33	MAT Br (F-45)	Yes	No	16.3	20.0

2-RJ	Ovarian	47	PAT Ov (60), Br (F-30), End (64)	Yes	No	46.8	44.0

3-RS	Ovarian	52	MAT Br (F-44), Ov (F-76), Ov (F-66), Ut (F-78), Ut (N/A), Ga (M-68),CRC (M-69), HeN (M-N/A), HeN (M-75)	No	No	46.8	43.0

			PAT Lu (M-N/A), CRC (M-N/A), CRC (F-N/A), Ut (35), Br (M-62), Ga (M-N/A), Br (F-36), Bilat Br (F-45), Br (F-44), Br (F-45)	Yes	No	40.8	33.0

4-RJ	Bilateral Breast	45 and 50	MAT BilatBr (F-45,50), Ov (39) Br (F-49), Bilat Br (F-47,50)	Yes	No	40.7	31.0

	Bila	4	PAT Lu (M-N/A), Ga (M-N/A		Y	6.9	9.0

						Prior Probability of Mutation in a BRCA gene

Case #	Cancer diagnosis (index-case)	Age at diagnosis (ys)	Cancer family history*	ASCO criteria	Limited Family Structure	Myriad Prevalence Tables (%)	Couch Prediction Model (%)

5-RJ	teral Breast	6 and 47	) CRC (M-N/A)	No	es

6-RJ	Bilateral Breast	33 and 38	-	No	Yes	6.9	15.0

7-RS	Bilateral Breast	35 and 45	MAT Ov (F-58), Ov (F-49), Br (F-90) Br (F-49), Ga (M-70), Liv (M-70)	Yes	No	40.7	47.0


Oligo ID	Gene	Purpose	Sequences (5' to 3')

swcM1	M	capture	CTGACTAAGGGAATTTTAGGATTTGTGTTCACGCTCACCG

swcM2	M	capture	TGATTCACAGCATCGGTCTCACAGACAGATGGCTACTACC

swcM3	M	capture	AAGGCTATGGAACAGATGGCTGGATCGAGTGAACAGGCAG

swcH1	HA	capture	GAAGGCAATACTAGTAGTTCTGCTATATACATTTGCAACC

swcH2	HA	capture	CCTGGGAAATCCAGAGTGTGAATCACTCTCCACAGCAAGC

swcH3	HA	capture	GTTTTTGTGGGGTCATCAAGATACAGCAAGAAGTTCAAGC

swcH4	HA	capture	GAAGCAAAATTAAACAGAGAAGAAATAGATGGGGTAAAGC

swcN1	NA	capture	TTCGGTCTGTATGACAATTGGAATGGCTAACTTAATATTA

swcN2	NA	capture	GTGGTTTCCGTGAAATTAGCGGGCAATTCCTCTCTCTGCC

swcN3	NA	capture	CAATGGAACCATTAAAGACAGGAGCCCATATCGAACCCTA

swcN4	NA	capture	ACGCCCTAATGATAAGACAGGCAGTTGTGGTCCAGTATCG

swiM1	M	intermediate	AAAGCCGAGATCGCGCAGAGACTGGAAAGTGTCTTTGCAG *

swiM2	M	intermediate	CCACTAATCAGGCATGAAAACAGAATGGTGCTGGCTAGCA *

swiM3	M	intermediate	GCCTGAGTCCATGAGGGAAGAATATCAACAGGAACAGCAG *

swiM4	M	intermediate	AATGGGAGTGCAGATGCAGCGATTCAAGTGATCCTCTCGT *

swiH1	HA	intermediate	AAGACAAGCATAACGGGAAACTATGCAAACTAAGAGGGGT *

swiH2	HA	intermediate	GTGGAAACACCTAGTTCAGACAATGGAACGTGTTACCCAG *

swiH3	HA	intermediate	AAACGGCTGCTTTGAATTTTACCACAAATGCGATAACACG *

swiN1	NA	intermediate	CTTGGGAATCAAAATCAGATTGAAACATGCAATCAAAGCG *

swiN2	NA	intermediate	GTAAAGACAACAGTGTAAGAATCGGTTCCAAGGGGGATGT*

swiN3	NA	intermediate	CAGTCGCTTGGTCAGCAAGTGCTTGTCATGATGGCATCAA *

swiN4	NA	intermediate	TACGGCAATGGTGTTTGGATAGGGAGAACTAAAAGCATTA *

ABI04mF	M	PCR	TAACCGAGGTCGAAACGTA

ABI04mR	M	PCR	TTACTCTAGCTCTATGTTGACAAA

ABI05hF	HA	PCR	ATGAAGGCAATACTAGTAGTTCTGCT

ABI05hR	HA	PCR	TTCTACACTGTAGAGACCCATTAG

ABI06nF	NA	PCR	ATGAATCCAAACCAAAAGATAATAA

ABI06nR	NA	PCR	TTACTTGTCAATGGTAAATGGCAACT

Oligo ID	Gene	Purpose	Sequences (5' to 3')

swcM1	M	capture	CTGACTAAGGGAATTTTAGGATTTGTGTTCACGCTCACCG

swcM2	M	capture	TGATTCACAGCATCGGTCTCACAGACAGATGGCTACTACC

swcM3	M	capture	AAGGCTATGGAACAGATGGCTGGATCGAGTGAACAGGCAG

swcH1	HA	capture	GAAGGCAATACTAGTAGTTCTGCTATATACATTTGCAACC

swcH2	HA	capture	CCTGGGAAATCCAGAGTGTGAATCACTCTCCACAGCAAGC

swcH3	HA	capture	GTTTTTGTGGGGTCATCAAGATACAGCAAGAAGTTCAAGC

swcH4	HA	capture	GAAGCAAAATTAAACAGAGAAGAAATAGATGGGGTAAAGC

swcN1	NA	capture	TTCGGTCTGTATGACAATTGGAATGGCTAACTTAATATTA

sw		captu	GTGGTTTCCGTGAAATTAGCGGGCAATTCCTCTCTC

Oligo ID	Gene	Purpose	Sequences (5' to 3')

cN2	NA	re	TGCC

swcN3	NA	capture	CAATGGAACCATTAAAGACAGGAGCCCATATCGAACCCTA

swcN4	NA	capture	ACGCCCTAATGATAAGACAGGCAGTTGTGGTCCAGTATCG

swiM1	M	intermediate	AAAGCCGAGATCGCGCAGAGACTGGAAAGTGTCTTTGCAG *

swiM2	M	intermediate	CCACTAATCAGGCATGAAAACAGAATGGTGCTGGCTAGCA *

swiM3	M	intermediate	GCCTGAGTCCATGAGGGAAGAATATCAACAGGAACAGCAG *

swiM4	M	intermediate	AATGGGAGTGCAGATGCAGCGATTCAAGTGATCCTCTCGT *

swiH1	HA	intermediate	AAGACAAGCATAACGGGAAACTATGCAAACTAAGAGGGGT *

swiH2	HA	intermediate	GTGGAAACACCTAGTTCAGACAATGGAACGTGTTACCCAG *

swiH3	HA	intermediate	AAACGGCTGCTTTGAATTTTACCACAAATGCGATAACACG *

swiN1	NA	intermediate	CTTGGGAATCAAAATCAGATTGAAACATGCAATCAAAGCG *

swiN2	NA	intermediate	GTAAAGACAACAGTGTAAGAATCGGTTCCAAGGGGGATGT*

swiN3	NA	intermediate	CAGTCGCTTGGTCAGCAAGTGCTTGTCATGATGGCATCAA *

swiN4	NA	intermediate	TACGGCAATGGTGTTTGGATAGGGAGAACTAAAAGCATTA *

ABI04mF	M	PCR	TAACCGAGGTCGAAACGTA

ABI04mR	M	PCR	TTACTCTAGCTCTATGTTGACAAA

ABI05hF	HA	PCR	ATGAAGGCAATACTAGTAGTTCTGCT

ABI05hR	HA	PCR	TTCTACACTGTAGAGACCCATTAG

ABI06nF	NA	PCR	ATGAATCCAAACCAAAAGATAATAA

ABI06nR	NA	PCR	TTACTTGTCAATGGTAAATGGCAACT


Clinical guidelines directly related to the practice of dentistry	No.

American Dental Association	2

American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry	22

American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association	1

American Academy of Pediatrics	1

American Academy of Sleep Apnea	1

Center for Disease Control	1

US Preventive Services Task Force	2

New York State Department of Health	2

Health Partners	4

University of Texas at Austin	1

Non US Government Agencies	8

Areas covered by other stomatognathic clinical guidelines

Preventive Services	12

Cancer	3

Infectious Diseases	7

TOTAL	67

Clinical guidelines directly related to the practice of dentistry	No.

US Preventive Services Task Force	2

New York State Department of Health	2

Health Partners	4

University of Texas at Austin	1

Non US Government Agencies	8

Areas covered by other stomatognathic clinical guidelines

Preventive Services	12

Cancer	3

Infectious Diseases	7

TOTAL	67


Age group	Outcome	Indicator	Measurement tool

Adults	Healthy eating*	Binary: consumption of five or more portions of fruit and vegetables per day (‘five-a-day’)	Food frequency questionnaire

Adults	Healthy physical activity*	Binary: doing five or more sessions of moderate intensity physical activity per week lasting at least 30 min (‘five-a-week’)	International Physical Activity Questionnaire

Adults	Mental wellbeing - positive	Continuous: Hope Scale score	Hope Scale

Adults	Mental wellbeing - negative	Binary: reports feeling anxious or depressed	EQ5D (1 item)

Adults	Mental wellbeing - negative	Binary: reports visiting GP for anxiety or depression or other emotional problem	Individual questionnaire item

Adolescents	Healthy eating - positive	Binary: frequent consumption of fruit	Individual questionnaire item

Adolescents	Healthy eating negative	Continuous: score summarizing frequency of consumption of chips, sweets or chocolate, and s ugar sweetened soft drinksb	Individual questionnaire items

Adolescents	Healthy physical activity*	Continuous: IPAQ score	Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents

Adolescents	Mental health - negative*	Binary: score above threshold for normal mental health	Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

Adolescents	Mental health - positive wellbeing*	Continuous: positive affect score and negative affect score	Positive and negative affect scale


		Pre Meeting	Meeting	Test

Gender	Males	27	24	NS

	Females	7	9

Age	(av +/- sd)	46.6 +/- 8.6	44.5 +/- 9.3	NS

Experience	(av +/- sd)	18.3 +/- 10.6	18.3 +/- 10.3	NS

Braces/y	(med – 95% IC)	150 (30–965)	200 (28–1725)	NS

	Less than 100	8	5

	100–300	15	12

	Over 300	5	9

Profession	MD-OS	12	9	NS

	MD-PRM	6	9

	CPO	5	8

	PT	9	7

	Oth	2	2

ession	MD-OS	12

	MD-PRM	6	9

	CPO	5	8

	PT	9	7

	Oth	2	2


	PR n=15	GR n=15	p Value

Age: mean (SD)	59.1 (7.2)	51.7 (10.8)	0.04*

Gender, number of patients: M (F)	10 (5)	8 (7)	0.46**

Time since stroke: mean (SD) and range (months)	40.7 (42.6) 6–165	31.3 (28.2) 6–116	0.74*

Ratio of ischaemic to primary intracerebral haemorrhagic stroke	12:3	13:2	–

ARAT: mean (SD) (max 57)	32.9 (8.5)	52.7 (5.49)	<0.01*

Grip mean: (SD) (% unaffected side)	41.4 (14.3)	74.6 (18.57)	<0.01*

Motricity index: mean (SD) (% unaffected side)	65.2 (11.4)	91.9 (4.2)	<0.01*

NHPT: mean (SD) (% unaffected side)	5.8 (5.9)	53.1 (23.7)	<0.01*


Characteristics	Patient 1	Patient 2

Age at first visit to fertility clinic	28 years	31 years

Pubarche (spontaneous)	at 14 years	at 15 years

Heights	170 cm	156 cm

Weight	65 kg	53 kg

Breast development by Tanner scale	Stage V	Stage IV

Sense of odors	Normal	Normal

Karyotype	46, XX	46, XX

MRI of the pituitary	Size: 10 mm x 6 mm x16 mm. Signs of signal reduction in the right half of the posterior pituitary (4 mm x 3 mm x 2 mm), depicting a cyst.	Size: 3.5 mm x 5 mm x 9 mm showing signs of moderate pituitary hypoplasia

Vaginal ultrasound	Uterus: 27 mm x 43 mm x 30 mmEndometrium: 2.3 mmRight ovary: 18 mm x 16 mm with 4 follicles (6 to 8 mm).Left ovary: 17 mm x 18 mm with 5 follicles (6 to 7 mm).Moderate hypoplasia of the uterus and ovaries.	Uterus: 35 mm x 22 mm x30 mmEndometrium: 1.8 mmRight ovary: 21 mm x 18 mm with 3 follicles (3 to 5 mm)Left ovary: 17 mm x 18 mm with 5 follicles (6 to 7 mm). Moderate hypoplasia of the ovaries.

Partner characteristics for IVF with ICSI	Ejaculate volume: 2 mlSperm concentration: 39x106/ml,Motile sperms: 3 %Normal forms by Kruger strict criteria: 2 %.	Ejaculate volume: 5 mlSperm concentration: 31x106/mlMotile sperms: NoneNormal forms by Kruger strict criteria: 1 %.

Characteristics	Patient 1	Patient 2

Weight	65 kg	53 kg

Breast development by Tanner scale	Stage V	Stage IV

Sense of odors	Normal	Normal

Karyotype	46, XX	46, XX

MRI of the pituitary	Size: 10 mm x 6 mm x16 mm. Signs of signal reduction in the right half of the posterior pituitary (4 mm x 3 mm x 2 mm), depicting a cyst.	Size: 3.5 mm x 5 mm x 9 mm showing signs of moderate pituitary hypoplasia

Vaginal ultrasound	Uterus: 27 mm x 43 mm x 30 mmEndometrium: 2.3 mmRight ovary: 18 mm x 16 mm with 4 follicles (6 to 8 mm).Left ovary: 17 mm x 18 mm with 5 follicles (6 to 7 mm).Moderate hypoplasia of the uterus and ovaries.	Uterus: 35 mm x 22 mm x30 mmEndometrium: 1.8 mmRight ovary: 21 mm x 18 mm with 3 follicles (3 to 5 mm)Left ovary: 17 mm x 18 mm with 5 follicles (6 to 7 mm). Moderate hypoplasia of the ovaries.

Partner characteristics for IVF with ICSI	Ejaculate volume: 2 mlSperm concentration: 39x106/ml,Motile sperms: 3 %Normal forms by Kruger strict criteria: 2 %.	Ejaculate volume: 5 mlSperm concentration: 31x106/mlMotile sperms: NoneNormal forms by Kruger strict criteria: 1 %.


Parameter	PA (n = 30)	EH (n = 31)	p

Age (years)	55 ± 11	54 ± 10	NS

Gender (male/female)	8/22	16/14	NS

Body mass index (kg/m2)	26.9 ± 4	25.1 ± 3	NS

SBP/DBP	135 ± 17/82 ± 10	129 ± 11/79 ± 6	NS/NS

Heart rate (bpm)	70 ± 10	70 ± 8	NS

Glycemia (mg/dL)	92 ± 13	94 ± 18	NS


2nd AI	Number of records	Embryonic mortality rate (%)

18–29 D	769,103	23.00

30–60 	592,2	21


Age	Gender	Handedness	Brain areas with Foci

38	Male	Right	Right temporal lobe

54	Female	Right	Left amygdala, left hippocampus, right hippocampus

42	Male	Right	Left amygdala, left hippocampus

35	Male	Left	Right amygdala, right hippocampus

41	Male	Right	Left hippocampus, left frontal lobe

21	Female	Right	Left amygdala, left hippocampus

24	Female	Right	Right amygdala, right hippocampus, right frontal lobe

23	Male	Right	Right amygdala, right hippocampus

54	Female	Right	Left hippocampus

56	Female	Right	Right occipetal lobe

40	Female	Right	Right amygdala, right hippocampus

54	Female	Right	Right hippocampus

20	Male	Right	Right temporal lobe

53	Female	Right	Right amygdala, right hippocampus, left amygdala, left hippocampus


Sampling subjects	Source of sample	Number of sample screened	Positive samples on microbiological analysis	Positive samples on biochemical analysis	Genus specific PCR positive	Serotype identified by multiplex PCR

Human infants (<5 years)	Male	200	23	2	2	Salmonella Enteritidis (n=1), other Salmonella serotypes (n=1)

	Female	200	30	3	3	Salmonella Enteritidis (n=1), Salmonella Typhimurium (n=2)

Young animals (<6 months)	Canine	25	8	2	2	Other Salmonella serotypes (n=2)

	Bovine	15	3	0	0	ND

	Equine	10	0	0	0	ND

Fresh vegetables	Cilantro leaves	10	5	1	1	Salmonella Typhimurium (n=1)

	Tomato	20	3	1	1	Other Salmonella serotypes (n=1)

	Mint leaves	20	0	0	0	ND

Sewage waste		50	20	5	5	Other Salmonella serotypes (n=5)

Sampling subjects	Source of sample	Number of sample screened	Positive samples on microbiological analysis	Positive samples on biochemical analysis	Genus specific PCR positive	Serotype identified by multiplex PCR

Human infants (<5 years)	Male	200	23	2	2	Salmonella Enteritidis (n=1), other Salmonella serotypes (n=1)

	Female	200	30	3	3	Salmonella Enteritidis (n=1), Salmonella Typhimurium (n=2)

Young animals (<6 months)	Canine	25	8	2	2	Other Salmonella serotypes (n=2)

	Bovine	15	3	0	0	ND

	Equine	10	0	0	0	ND

Fresh vegetables	Cilantro leaves	10	5	1	1	Salmonella Typhimurium (n=1)

	Tomato	20	3		1	Other Salmon

				1		ella serotypes (n=1)

	Mint leaves	20	0	0	0	ND

Sewage waste		50	20	5	5	Other Salmonella serotypes (n=5)


 	Waca Playa (Bolivia)	Pitumarca (Peru)

Human Development Index	0.36 a	0.51 b

Life expectancy (years)	52.4 a	70.0 b

National social health security	SUMI: coverage for pregnant women and children under age 5	SIS: coverage for all adult population living in poverty or extreme poverty

Community biomedical facilities	Rudimentary medical post with one auxiliary nurse provides ambulatory health care to 20 villages. Approximately one visit by auxiliary nurse every two months to each village.c	Health center with 11 health professionals, including one medical doctor. One visit by a nurse per month to each village. 4 to 6 health workers trained in each village. c

Distance from community to villages where households were interviewed (km)	5 to 9 c	4 to 5 c

Distance from community to nearest hospital (km)	approximately 40 (dirt road) c	35 (paved road) c

Beds per inhabitant (number)	0.66 d	0.84 e

	Waca Playa (Bolivia)	Pitumarca (Peru)

Distance from community to nearest hospital (km)	approximately 40 (dirt road) c	35 (paved road) c

Beds per inhabitant (number)	0.66 d	0.84 e


	Step 1	Step 2	Step 3

# Minigaps	27	27	15

Assembled nt in the big gap	0	0	12,511

Total nt assembled*	1,808,353	1,808,353	1,828,147


	Subjects	Mild	Moderate	Severe	Not related	Possibly related	Probably related	Definitely related

Sinusitis	11 (6.6)	4 (2.4)	6 (3.6)	1 (0.6)	10 (6.0)	1 (0.6)	0	0

Upper respiratory tract infection	18 (10.8)	15 (9.0)	3 (1.8)	0	18 (10.8)	0	0	0

Urinary tract infection	5 (3.0)	3 (1.8)	2 (1.2)	0	5 (3.0)	0	0	0


Clinical characteristic	CCR7+ MUC1+	CCR7+ MUC1-	CCR7- MUC1+	CCR7- MUC1-	P value

Gender					0.46

Male	57/116	12/116	17/116	30/116

Female	14/37	5/37	9/37	9/37


Panel	Criteria

Professional	• Be 18 years or older, AND• Live in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom or the United States, AND• Have a minimum of 2 years’ experience specialising in research on or treatment of problem gambling.

Lived experience	• Be 18 years or older, AND• Live in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom or the United States, AND• Have a lived experience of gambling problems, but are currently recovered and have experience in an advocacy or peer support role, OR• Are a family member or friend who has assisted a person with a gambling problem and have experience in an advocacy or peer support role.

Panel	Criteria

Professio	• Be 18 years or older, AND• Live in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom or the United States,

nal	AND• Have a minimum of 2 years’ experience specialising in research on or treatment of problem gambling.

Lived experience	• Be 18 years or older, AND• Live in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom or the United States, AND• Have a lived experience of gambling problems, but are currently recovered and have experience in an advocacy or peer support role, OR• Are a family member or friend who has assisted a person with a gambling problem and have experience in an advocacy or peer support role.


Case study

 	DHp: 9 contacts out of 46	RR: 24 contacts out of 68

 	Contacts among top 9	p-value	Contacts among top 24	p-value

MI	3	0.2503	9	0.4864929

MIc	4	0.0800	9	0.4864929


Control	E. coli	p value	Control	S. Typhimurium	p value


Evaluation	Days after Enrolment

	0	3–4	13–15	24–32	84–92

Notification to study center	X

Entry criteria	X

Written Informed Consent	X*	X*

Demography	X

Clinical data	X	X	X	X	X

(Serious) Adverse events	X	X	X	X	X

Mortality		X	X	X	X

Blood culture	X

Urine culture	X			X

Randomization and allocation to study treatment		X

End of treatment assessment			X

Contact – in person	X	X		X

Contact – by phone			X		X


Molecular function	GO Name	Count	%	P value	FDR

GO:0016021	integral to membrane	289	52.07207	1.23979E-32	1.62E-29

GO:0031224	intrinsic to membrane	293	52.79279	1.36024E-31	1.78E-28

GO:0005833	hemoglobin complex	4	0.720721	0.005887046	7.444488585

Pathway	Pathway name	Count	%	P value	FDR

hsa04740	Olfactory transduction	170	30.63063	2.80E-137	3.05E-134

hsa05130	Pathogenic Escherichia coli infection	8	1.441441	0.027376	25.8675045

OMIM_DISEASE		Count	%	P value	FDR

Genetic correlates of brain aging on MRI and cognitive test measures: a genome-wide association and linkage analysis in the Framingham Study	3	0.540541	0.011938	12.52341992

Genome-wide association and linkage analyses of hemostatic factors and hematological phenotypes in the Framingham Heart Study	3	0.540541	0.026364	25.7439374

C1r/C1s deficiency, combined	2	0.36036	0.034033	32.00636058


Follow up point	Variables in the equation	OR (95% CI)	Nagelkerke*	sn/sp

14 days (n = 235)	Pain for >30 days in year	3.2 (1.9 to 5.6)	0.26	90/25

Pain (for every 1 point increase)	0.8 (0.8 to 0.9)

30 days (n = 131)	Duration	 	0.32	92/29

< 1 month	1.0

1–3 months	5.6 (1.8 to 17.0)

>3 months	2.4(1.1 to 5.5)

90 days (n = 150)	 	 	0.45	94/23

Duration

< 1 month	1.0

1–3 months	9.3 (3.0 to 29.0)

 	>3 months	3.0(1.3 to 7.0)

Follow up point	Variables in the equation	OR (95% CI)	Nagelkerke*	sn/sp

14 days (n = 235)	Pain for >30 days in year	3.2 (1.9 to 5.6)	0.26	90/25

Pain (for every 1 point increase)	0.8 (0.8 to 0.9)

30 days (n = 131)	Duration		0.32	92/29

< 1 month	1.0

1–3 months	5.6 (1.8 to 17.0)

>3 months	2.4(1.1 to 5.5)

90 day			0.45	94/23

Duration

< 1 mont	1.


Chemistry	Selection	Counter-selection	Targeted or identified targets	Number of cycles	Reference

Mammalian Cells

DNA	YPEN-1	N9	Pigpen	8	[58]

DNA	B lymphoma cells	No	ND	10	[71]

DNA	Differenciated PC12	PC12	ND	6	[60]

DNA	U251	No	Tenascin-C	21	[67]

2′F-Py RNA	CHO-kinin B1 receptor	No	Kinin B1 receptor	8	[72]

2′F-Py RNA	PC12-MEN2A	PC12/PC12-MEN2A	RET	15	[16]

2′F-Py RNA	CHO-TbRIII	CHO	TbRIII	11	[73]

DNA	aMSCs	No	ND	11	[74]

DNA	CCRF-CEM	Ramos	PTK7	20	[65,70]

DNA	Ramos	No	mmunoglobin heavy mu chain	23	[69,75]

DNA	SAOS-2 osteoblasts	No	ND	10	[68]

DNA	MEAR	BNL	Non-muscle myosin	16	[62]

DNA	NCI-H69	NCI-H661	ND	25	[76]

DNA	EPCs	No	ND	10	[77]

DNA	iDC (mDC)	mDC (iDC)	Several (see reference)	10	[66]

DNA	Burkitt lymphoma cells	No	ND	10	[59]

DNA	A549	HLAMP	ND	25	[78]

DNA	HL60	NB4	ND	16	[64]

2′F-Py RNA	U87MG	T98G	ND	14	[79]

DNA	CT26-E2	CT26	Virus Glycoprotein E2	13	[80]

DNA	Infected A549	Non-infected A549	ND	13	[63]

RNA	SKBR3	SKBR3/siHER-2/MDAMB231	HER-2	20	[81]

DNA	HEK293T-TLR2-Fc	No	TLR2	7	[82]

DNA	Vaccinia virus-infected HeLa	Non-infected HeLa	Hemagglutinin	20	[61]

2′F-Py RNA	HET-SR-1	HET-SR	ND	10	[83]

DNA	Tov-21G/CAOV-3	HeLa	ND	22	[84]

DNA	DLD-1/HCT 116	HCT 116/HT-29	ND	16	[85]

DNA	NIH3T3	IL-17RA-deficient NIH3T3	IL-17RA	12	[86]

Viruses

2′NH2-Py RNA	Human cytomegalovirus	No	Glycoprotein B and H	16	[57]

RNA	Influenza A panama virus	Influenza A Aichi Virus	Haemagglutinin	10	[87]

Bacteria

DNA	B. anthracis spores	No	ND	4	[55]

DNA	M. Tuberculosis H37Rv	M. Tuberculosis BCG	ND	10	[88]

DNA	L. Acidophilus	No	S-layer protein	8	[89]

DNA	S. aureus	Streptococcus/S. epidermidis	ND	5	[90]

DNA	C. Jejuni	Non relevant mix	ND	10	[91]

DNA	P. aeruginosa	S. Maltophilia/A. Baumannii	ND	16	[92]

Parasites

RNA	T. brucei	No	ND	12	[56]

2′F-Py RNA	T. cruzi trypomastigote	Epimastigote	Several (see reference)	8	[93]

2′NH2-Py RNA	T. brucei	No	ND	13	[94]


PRN	PM	MPDR

Mean (mm)	Standard Deviation (mm)	Mean (mm)	Standard Deviation (mm)

PRN 3	10.9	0.4	0.01	0.4

PRN 6	3.4	0.3	−0.01	0.4

PRN 10	29.6	1.5	0.07	0.7

PRN 16	4.8	0.4	0.05	0.6


Venue	Cluster 1 (N = 2715) low-use mean	Cluster 2 (N = 1236) high-use mean	Importance (%)

Sports centre	1.20	2.69	1.00

Cinema or theatre	1.35	2.73	1.00

Vending machine	1.19	2.62	1.00

Street stall or small shop	1.70	2.9	1.00

Newsagent	1.13	2.68	1.00

Petrol station	1.23	2.64	1.00

Cafe	1.81	2.94	1.00

A fast food restaurant (KFC, McDonalds)	1.76	2.83	0.99

A convenience store (7-eleven)	1.84	2.99	0.94

Venue	Cluster 1 (N = 2715) low-use mean	Cluster 2 (N = 1236) high-use mean	Importance (%)

Sports centre	1.20	2.69	1.00

Cinema or theatre	1.35	2.73	1.00

Vending machine	1.19	2.62	1.00

Street stall or small shop	1.70	2.9	1.00

Newsagent	1.13	2.68	1.00

Petrol station	1.23	2.64	1.00

Cafe	1.8	2.9	1.0

	1	4	0

A fast food restaurant (KFC, McDonalds)	1.76	2.83	0.99

A convenience store (7-eleven)	1.84	2.99	0.94


	Group A (n = 31) (Peg-IFNα + RBV + placebo)	Group B (n = 31) (Peg-IFNα + RBV + Silybin, Vit E, phospholipids)	P Value

Psychological disorders	14%	12%	NS

Hypercholesterolemia	16%	32%	P < 0.01

Fatigue	48%	44%	NS

Headache	41%	42%	NS

Musculoskeletal pain	54%	35%	P < 0.01

Myalgia	58%	32%	P < 0.01

Hypertriglyceridemia	44%	30%	P < 0.01

Nausea	31%	24%	P < 0.05

Anorexia	6%	8%	NS

Irritability	30%	22%	P < 0.05

Hyperglycemia	13%	8%	P < 0.05

Weight loss	12%	7%	P < 0.05

Decrease of hemoglobin values at the end of treatment	from 13.6 g/dL (range 11.4–14.4) to 11.6 g/dL (range 10.4–14.2 g/dL)	from 13.6 g/dL (range 11.6–15.9 g/dL) to 10.6 (range 10.4–12.8 g/dL)	NS

	Group A (n = 31) (Peg-IFNα + RBV + placebo)	Group B (n = 31) (Peg-IFNα + RBV + Silybin, Vit E, phospholipids)

Psychological disorders	14%	12%

Hypercholesterolemia	16%	32%

Fatigue	48%	44%

Headache	41%	42%

Musculoskeletal pain	54%	35%

Myalgia	58%	32%

Hypertriglyceridemia	44%	30%

Nausea	31%	24%

Anorexia	6%	8%

Irritability	30%	22%

Hyperglycemia	13%	8%

Weight loss	12%	7%

Decrease of hemoglobin values at the end of treatment	from 13.6 g/dL (range 11.4–14.4) to 11.6 g/dL (range 10.4–14.2 g/dL)	from 13.6 g/dL (range 11.6–15.9 g/dL) to 10.6 (range 10.4–12.8 g/dL)


MIGS ID	Property	Term	Evidence code

	Current classification	Domain Bacteria	TAS [15]

Phylum Proteobacteria	TAS [16]

Class Betaproteobacteria	TAS [17,18]

Order Burkholderiales	TAS [18,19]

Family Burkholderiaceae	TAS [18,20]

Genus Burkholderia	TAS [21-23]

Species Burkholderia sp.	IDA

Strain WSM2230	IDA

	Gram stain	Negative	IDA

	Cell shape	Rod	IDA

	Motility	Motile	IDA

	Sporulation	Non-sporulating	NAS

	Temperature range	Mesophile	IDA

	Optimum temperature	30°C	IDA

	Salinity	Non-halophile	IDA

MIGS-22	Oxygen requirement	Aerobic	IDA

	Carbon source	Varied	IDA

	Energy source	Chemoorganotroph	NAS

MIGS-6	Habitat	Soil, root nodule, on host	IDA

MIGS-15	Biotic relationship	Free living, symbiotic	IDA

MIGS-14	Pathogenicity	Non-pathogenic	IDA

	Biosafety level	1	IDA

	Isolation	Root nodule of Kennedia coccinea	IDA

MIGS-4	Geographic location	Karijini National Park, Australia	IDA

MIGS-5	Soil collection date	September 2001	IDA

MIGS-4.1MIGS-4.2	LatitudeLongitude	117.99-22.5	IDAIDA

MIGS-4.3	Depth	0-10 cm	IDA

MIGS-4.4	Altitude	Not reported


	HIV+ group only

Median Nadir CD4-T+ cells/μL	198	IQR: 31-279

Median current CD4-T+ cells/μL	597	IQR: 342-748

% Plasma undetectable HIV RNA (<50 cp/mL)1	95.5%	-

% CSF Undetectable HIV RNA (<50 cp/mL)2	97.6%	-

Median HIV duration (years)	20.5	IQR: 14-25

% AIDS status (CDC 1993)	70.5%	-

% With past AIDS defining illness	53%	-

Median current cART duration (months)	30	IQR: 12-54

% MSM as HIV risk factor	89%	-

Average educational level (years)	13.82	SD: 2.95

% Current hAND	61.3%	-

% Past hAND	31.8%	-

% APOE any ε4 allele carriers	30.9% (N = 13)	-

% APOE ε4/ε4 allele carriers	7.1% (N = 3)	-

% APOE ε2/ε3 allele carriers	7.1% (N = 3)	-

% APOE ε3/ε3 allele carriers	61.9% (N = 26)	-

	HIV+ group only

Median Nadir CD4-T+ cells/μL	198	IQR: 31-279

Median current CD4-T+ cells/μL	597	IQR: 342-748

% Plasma undetectable HIV RNA (<50 cp/mL)1	95.5%	-

% CSF Undetectable HIV RNA (<50 cp/mL)2	97.6%	-

Median HIV duration (years)	20.5	IQR: 14-25

% AIDS status (CDC 1993)	70.5%	-

% With past AIDS defining illness	53%	-

Median current cART duration (months)	30	IQR: 12-54

% MSM as HIV risk factor	89%	-

Average educational level (years)	13.82	SD: 2.95

% Current hAND	61.3%	-

% Past hAND	31.8%	-

% APOE any ε4 allele carriers	30.9% (N = 13)	-

% APOE ε4/ε4 all		-

ele carriers	7.1% (N = 3)

% APOE ε2/ε3 allele carriers	7.1% (N = 3)	-

% APOE ε3/ε3 allele carriers	61.9% (N = 26)	-


	Important or very important to plan for care

Overall	76.3%

Sex

Male	69.0%¶

Female	82.8%¶

Age

18–34	75.9%

35–54	74.6%

55–64	76.6%

≥65	81.3%

Education

< or completedHigh school	69.2%

Some postsecondary	77.1%

CompletedPostsecondary	79.2%

Income

<$30,000	75.3%

$30,000 to $59,999	74.6%

$60,000–89,999	78.0%

<$90,000	75.7%

Refused	77.8%

Residence

Large urban	74.9%

Other	77.3%

Health conditions

None	73.3%

One	75.3%

Two or more	80.8%

Involved in funeral planning

Never	70.2%*

Once	80.0%*

Twice or more	80.2%*


		ALL

		(n = 504)

Age(years)	Median(IQR)	71 (59–80)

	<40 yr	47 (9.3)

	≧40 yr. <60 yr	88 (17.5)

	≧60 yr. <80 yr	236 (46.8)

	≧80 yr	133 (26.4)

Male		255 (50.6)

Disease	Adrenocortical insufficiency	264 (52.4)

Adrenal crisis	194 (38.5)

Secondary adrenocortical insufficiency	28 (5.6)

Post-procedural adrenocortical hypofunction	10 (2.0)

Steroid withdrawal syndrome	5 (1.0)

Iatrogenic adrenocortical insufficiency	3 (0.6)

Department	Internal medicine	255 (50.6)

Neurosurgery	94 (18.7)

Urology	18 (3.6)

Others	137 (27.2)

Season	Jan - March	149 (29.6)

April–June	112 (22.2)

July - Sept	112 (22.2)

Oct - Dec	131 (26.0)

Age(years)

Male

Disease

Department

Season

	ALL

	(n = 504)

Median(IQR)	71 (59–80)

<40 yr	47 (9.3)

≧40 yr. <60 yr	88 (17.5)

≧60 yr. <80 yr	236 (46.8)

≧80 yr	133 (26.4)

	255 (50.6)

Adrenocortical insufficiency	264 (52.4)

Adrenal crisis	194 (38.5)

Secondary adrenocortical insufficiency	28 (5.6)

Post-procedural adrenocortical hypofunction	10 (2.0)

Steroid withdrawal syndrome	5 (1.0)

Iatrogenic adrenocortical insufficiency	3 (0.6)

Internal medicine	255 (50.6)

Neurosurgery	94 (18.7)

Urology	18 (3.6)

Others	137 (27.2)

Jan - March	149 (29.6)

April–June	112 (22.2)

July - Sept	112 (22.2)

Oct - Dec	131 (26.0)


Taxon	Species	Isoenzyme	Sequence identity, %

Mammals	Homo sapiens - Microcebus murinus	GAPD-1	91

	Homo sapiens - Callitrix jacchus	GAPD-2	94

Teleosts	Tetraodon nigroviridis - Takifugu rubripes	GAPD-1	94

	Tetraodon nigroviridis - Takifugu rubripes	GAPD-2	92

Insects	Drosophila ananassae - Drosophila virilis	GAPD	87


Predictor variable	Odds Ratio	p-value	95% Confidence Interval

Health declaration (N = 1459)

 IVQ33/ITQ50: confidence	0.69	0.017	(0.51, 0.94)

Depression coding: IVQ33ITQ50 model (N = 1459)

 Non-professional background	4.39	0.010	(1.44, 13.40)

 IVQ33/ITQ50: confidence	0.52	0.013	(0.31, 0.87)

Depression coding: ITQ100 model (N = 1619)

 Non-professional background	4.78	0.001	(1.97, 11.60)


Algorithm	Results	Training	Testing

Gmean (%)	TN	FP	TP	FN	Gmean (%)	TN	FP	TP	FN

RA-PSO	STDEV	1.15					1.33


Client Mode	Indicates	Server Mode	Indicates

INIT	Initialization.	INIT	Initialization.

SPEAKER	Client is speaker.	SPEAKERS_TURN	Signal creation

HEARER	Client is hearer.	HEARERS_TURN	Signal recognition

FEEDBACK	Client is receiving feedback.	FEEDBACK	Clients are receiving feedback.

Client Mode	Indicates	Server Mode	Indicates

HEARER	Client is hearer.	HEARERS_TURN	Signal recognition

FEEDBACK	Client is receiving feedback.	FEEDBACK	Clients are receiving feedback.


	Before treatment	After treatment	n

PS	.55 (DP 11.04)	58.89 (DP 12.39)	15


Specimen Source Treatment	n	MIC Range	MIC50 (μg/mL)	MIC90 (μg/mL)

Minimum (μg/mL)	Maximum (μg/mL)

Urogenital

 Gepotidacin 1500 mg	30	≤0.06	1	0.12	0.5

 Gepotidacin 3000 mg	39	≤0.06	1	0.25	0.5

 Gepotidacin total	69	≤0.06	1	0.12	0.5

Pharyngeal

 Gepotidacin 1500 mg	...	...	...	...	...

 Gepotidacin 3000 mg	2a	≤0.06	0.12	...	...

 Gepotidacin total	2a	≤0.06	0.12	...	...

Rectal

 Gepotidacin 1500 mg	1	0.12	0.12	...	...

 Gepotidacin 3000 mg	2	0.12	0.25	...	...

 Gepotidacin total	3	0.12	0.25	...	...


Gene	Gene full name

A

AGBL1	ATP/GTP Binding Protein-Like 1

CYB5A	Cytochrome B5 Type A (Microsomal)

MTRF1L	Mitochondrial Translational Release Factor 1-Like

RGS22	Regulator Of G-Protein Signaling 22

B

CTNNA3	Catenin (Cadherin-Associated Protein), Alpha 3

HS6ST3	Heparan Sulfate 6-O-Sulfotransferase 3


	Pre-dictive ethics	Iterative ethics

1	Ethical risks are generally predictable	Ethical risks may NOT be predictable

2	Ethical procedures should be pre-specified - Ethics as ‘requirement’	Ethical procedures should be emergent to take into account the unfolding context - Ethics as ‘process’

3	Treats participants as being ‘subject to’ research	Treats participants as being ‘subjective participants within’ research

4	Ethics reviews aim to protect participants	Ethics reviews aim to help researchers to think sensitively about how to maintain an ethical stance towards and with research participants

5	Ethics reviews aim to evaluate researchers	Ethics reviews aim to work with researchers to explore ethical concerns

6	Ethics reviews ‘apply’ codes of conduct and treat ethics as a set of ‘accountable standards’	Ethics reviews analyse ethical concerns with researchers in relation to the specific research context

7	Researchers treated as independent from practices of data collection and regarded as implementing a research protocol	Researchers seen as reflexive participants within research

8	Work with a binary of ‘ethical’/‘non-ethical’	Treat ethical problems as multidimensional and contextually framed

	Pre-dictive ethics	Iterative ethics

1	Ethical risks are generally predictable	Ethical risks may NOT be predictable

2	Ethical procedures should be pre-specified - Ethics as ‘requirement’	Ethical procedures should be emergent to take into account the unfolding context - Ethics as ‘process’

3	Treats participants as being ‘subject to’ research	Treats participants as being ‘subjective participants within’ research

4	Ethics reviews aim to protect participants	Ethics reviews aim to help researchers to think sensitively about how to maintain an ethical stance towards and with research participants

5	Ethics reviews aim to evaluate resea	Ethics reviews aim to work with research

	rchers	ers to explore ethical concerns

6	Ethics reviews ‘apply’ codes of conduct and treat ethics as a set of ‘accountable standards’	Ethics reviews analyse ethical concerns with researchers in relation to the specific research context

7	Researchers treated as independent from practices of data collection and regarded as implementing a research protocol	Researchers seen as reflexive participants within research

8	Work with a binary of ‘ethical’/‘non-ethical’	Treat ethical problems as multidimensional and contextually framed


Patient	Angiographic findings*	gradient reduction**	Number of additional Revisions	Follow up

1	HV, PV, SMV occluded	17 → 8	2	2 years

2	HV occluded	30 → 7	1	4 years

3	HV occluded	23 → 10	3	2 years

4	HV occluded	29 → 12	2	12 years

5	HV occluded	46 → 6	1	5 years

6	HV, PV, IVC occluded	35 → 6	8	7 years

7	HV occluded	32 → 6	4	11 years

8	HV occluded	25 → 10	1	3 years

9	HV occluded	20 → 8	2	6 years

10	HV occluded	32 → 3	0	3 years

11	HV occluded	31 → 9	3	3 years

12	HV occluded	10 → 4	6	10 years

13	HV occluded	38 → 6	0	1/2 year

Patient	Angiographic findings*	gradient reduction**	Number of additional Revisions	Follow up

4	HV occluded	29 → 12	2	12 years

5	HV occluded	46 → 6	1	5 years

6	HV, PV, IVC occluded	35 → 6	8	7 years

7	HV occluded	32 → 6	4	11 years

8	HV occluded	25 → 10	1	3 years

9	HV occluded	20 → 8	2	6 years

10	HV occluded	32 → 3	0	3 years

11	HV occluded	31 → 9	3	3 years

12	HV occluded	10 → 4	6	10 years

13	HV occluded	38 → 6	0	1/2 year


	Current	Desired	Gap	Academic Gap	Community Gap

Estimating incremental risk incurred by conditional risk factors	3.84	4.59	0.75	0.83	0.67

Estimating cardiovascular risk in primary prevention	4.14	4.75	0.61	0.73	0.48

Estimating incremental risk incurred by predisposing risk factors	4.07	4.67	0.60	0.68	0.52

Identifying <underline>conditional</underline> cardiovascular risk factors	4.07	4.65	0.59	0.67	0.51

Estimating cardiovascular risk in secondary prevention	4.29	4.75	0.46	0.56	0.36

Identifying predisposing cardiovascular risk factors	4.41	4.78	0.37	0.45	0.29

Identifying <underline>major independent</underline> cardiovascular risk factors	4.49	4.79	0.30	0.37	0.23

	Current	Desired	Gap	Academic Gap	Community Gap

Estimating incremental risk incurred by conditional risk factors	3.84	4.59	0.75	0.83	0.67

Estimating cardiovascular risk in primary prevention	4.14	4.75	0.61	0.73	0.48

Estimating incremental risk incurred by predisposing risk factors	4.07	4.67	0.60	0.68	0.52

Identifying conditional cardiovascular risk factors	4.07	4.65	0.59	0.67	0.51

Estimating cardiovascular risk in secondary prevention	4.29	4.75	0.46	0.56	0.36

Identifying predisposing cardiovascular risk factors	4.41	4.78	0.37	0.45	0.29

Identifying major independent cardiovascular risk factors	4.49	4.79	0.30	0.37	0.23


Substances	Retention time	OLALPZER	OLALPVIT

(min)	Area (%)	Area (%)

α-Thujene	12.6	3.7	-

α-Pinene	12.9	1.7	10.1

Camphene	13.6	0.2	-

Sabinene	14.7	13.8	1.2

β-Pinene	14.8	3.0	35.3

β-Myrcene	15.4	1.1	-

Phellandrene	16.1	0.3	-

α-Terpinene	16.6	4.0	-

ρ-Cymene	16.9	4.8	-

Limonene	17.1	1.8	1.5

1,8-Cineol	17.2	15.3	-

α-Terpinolene	-	2.0	-

cis-Sabinene	20	2.2	-

Terpinen-4-ol	23.2	19.7	-

α-Cubebene	29.0	-	2.1

Copaene	30	-	2.4

β-Cubebene	30.4	-	2.4

β-Caryophyllene	31.5	3.2	1.0

β-Gurjunene	32.4	-	1.7

Aromadendrene	32.8	-	0.7

cis-Muurola-4(14),5-diene	33.1	-	0.6

Germacrene-D	33.4	-	0.6

epi-Bicyclosesquiphellandrene	33.8	-	1.0

epi-Cubebol	33.9	-	5.0

Calamenene	34.7	-	2.0

Cadina-1(2),4-diene	35.0	 	0.8

Viridiflorol	37.2	 	1.75

1-epi-Cubenol	37.8	 	1.43

1,10-di-epi-Cubenol	38.2	 	1.24

Caryophyllene oxide	36.5	1.9	-

Others	-	21.2	27.2

Substances	Retention time	OLALPZER	OLALPVIT

(min)	Area (%)	Area (%)

β-Pinene	14.8	3.0	35.3

β-Myrcene	15.4	1.1	-

Phellandrene	16.1	0.3	-

α-Terpinene	16.6	4.0	-

ρ-Cymene	16.9	4.8	-

Limonene	17.1	1.8	1.5

1,8-Cineol	17.2	15.3	-

α-Terpinolene	-	2.0	-

cis-Sabinene	20	2.2	-

Terpinen-4-ol	23.2	19.7	-

α-Cubebene	29.0	-	2.1

Copaene	30	-	2.4

β-Cubebene	30.4	-	2.4

β-Caryophyllene	31.5	3.2	1.0

β-Gurjunene	32.4	-	1.7

Aromadendrene	32.8	-	0.7

cis-Muurola-4(14),5-diene	33.1	-	0.6

Germacrene-D	33.4	-	0.6

epi-Bicyclosesquiphellandrene	33.8	-	1.0

epi-Cubebol	33.9	-	5.0

Calamenene	34.7	-	2.0

Cadina-1(2),4-diene	35.0		0.8

Viridiflorol	37.2		1.75

1-epi-Cubenol	37.8		1.43

1,10-di-epi-Cubenol	38.2		1.24

Caryophyllene oxide	36.5	1.9	-

Others	-	21.2	27.2


Patient	Age	First presentation	Patient interval	Residential areaa	Full-time job	Cohabitant children

Pre-disaster

 1	(50–65]	Apr.-Jun. 2007	120 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	Yes	No

 2	(65-	Apr.-Jun. 2008	48 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	No	No

 3	(50–65]	Sep.-Nov. 2008	18 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	No	No

 4	(65-	Dec. 2008-Feb. 2009	120 months	Non-evacuation zone	No	Yes

 5	−50]	Sep.-Nov. 2009	36 months	Mandatory evacuation zone	Yes	Yes

Post-disaster

 1	(50–65]	Dec. 2011-Feb. 2012	24 months	Non-evacuation zone	No	Yes

 2	(65-	Jun.-Aug. 2012	18 months	Non-evacuation zone	No	No

 3	(50–65]	Sep.-Nov. 2012	17 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	Yes	No

 4	(65-	Sep.-Nov. 2012	12 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	No	No

 5	−50]	Dec. 2012-Feb. 2013	12 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	No	No

 6	(65-	Dec. 2012-Feb. 2013	25 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	Yes	No

 7	(65-	Mar.-May 2013	24 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	No	No

 8	(65-	Mar.-May 2014	12 months	Non-evacuation zone	No	No

 9	−50]	Jun.-Aug. 2014	13 months	Non-evacuation zone	Yes	Yes

 10	(65-	Sep.-Nov. 2014	24 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	No	No

 11	(65-	Sep.-Nov. 2014	84 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	No	Yes

 12	−50]	Sep.-Nov. 2014	24 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	No	No

 13	(65-	Dec. 2014-Feb. 2015	24 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	No	No

 14	(50–65]	Jun.-Aug. 2015	24 months	Mandatory evacuation zone	No	No

 15	(65-	Sep.-Nov. 2015	24 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	No	No

 16	(65-	Sep.-Nov. 2015	120 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	No	No

 17	(50–65]	Sep.-Nov. 2015	13 months	Mandatory evacuation zone	No	Yes

 18	(50–65]	Dec. 2015-Feb. 2016	12 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	Yes	No

Patient	Age	First presentation	Patient interval	Residential areaa	Full-time job	Cohabitant children

18	(50–65]	Dec. 2015-Feb. 2016	12 months	Voluntary evacuation zone	Yes	No


	Treatment group	Control group	p-value

Stage Ib	15 (1)	16 (2)	-

Stage II	1	0	-

Total gastrectomy	4	3	-

Distal gastrectomy	12 (1)	13 (2)	-

Sex (M:F)	13 (2):3	13 (1):3	-


Top	Regulator	Out- degree	Supported bya

6	JUN	59	-

7	E2F4	50	PMID: 19473719

8	HIF1A	48	PMID: 22115707

9	NFKB1	48	-

10	STAT1	44	PMID: 17348819


Symptom	n 	%

Bloated stomach 	56	61.5

Anemia	48	52.7

Weight loss	44	48.3

Diarrhea	36	39.6

Vomiting	18	19.8

Other symptoms/signs	31	34.1

Symptom	n	%

Vomiting	18	19.8

Other symptoms/signs	31	34.1


Studies	Number of studies	Heterogeneity test	Analysis model	OR (95% CI)	Hypothesis test	Begg's test	Egger's test

Q	P	Z	P	Z	P	t	P

Overall

3-year OS	11	40.12	0.000	Random-effects model	1.33 (0.97–1.84)	1.74	0.081	0.31	0.755	0.59	0.572


 	P value	OR	95% CI

Clavicle tunnel position (x-axis)	.454	1.19	0.77–2.00

Duration (within 5 days)	.002	1.82	1.32–2.87

Initial reduction (Good)	.003	59.71	6.71–1855.80

	 value		95% CI

Clavicle tunnel position (x-axis)	.454	1.19	0.77–2.00

Duration (within 5 days)	.002	1.82	1.32–2.87

Initial reduction (Good)	.003	59.71	6.71–1855.80


Gene1	Gene product2	Reference

<underline>A: Containing a TTA codon</underline>

SCO4262	Hypothetical protein	[55]

SCO6638	Hypothetical protein	[55]

<underline>B: Regulated by a TTA-containing gene</underline>

<underline>By adpA</underline>

SCO0762	Protease inhibitor	[55]

<underline>By SCO4263</underline>

SCO4246	Hypothetical protein	[55]

SCO4251	Putative secreted protein	This study

SCO4252	Hypothetical protein	This study

SCO4253	Conserved hypothetical protein	This study

<underline>By act II-ORF4</underline>

SCO5071	Hydroxylacyl-CoA dehydrogenase, ActVI-ORFA	[14]

SCO5073	Putative oxidoreductase, ActVI-ORF2	[14]

SCO5074	Putative dehydratase, ActVI-ORF3	[14]

SCO5075	Putative oxidoreductase, ActVI-ORF4	[14]

SCO5078	Hypothetical protein	[14]

SCO5079	Conserved hypothetical protein	[14]

SCO5086	Ketoacyl reductase, ActIII	[14]

SCO5088	Polyketide beta-ketoacyl synthase, ActI-ORF2	[14]

SCO5090	Actinorhodin polyketide cyclase/dehdratase, ActVII	[14]

<underline>By redZ</underline>

SCO5895	Putative methyltransferase, RedI	[20]

<underline>C: In a putative operon with a TTA-containing gene</underline>

SCO0392	Putative methyltransferase	[31]

SCO0395	Putative epimerase/dehydratase	[31]

SCO0400	Putative epimerase	[31]

SCO0401	Putative aminotransferase	[31]

SCO0991	Conserved hypothetical protein	[31]

SCO0994	Integral membrane protein	[31]

SCO0995	Probable methyltransferase	[31]

SCO6637	Hypothetical protein	[31]

Gene1	Gene product2	Reference

A: Containing a TTA codon

SCO4262	Hypothetical protein	[55]

SCO6638	Hypothetical protein	[55]

B: Regulated by a TTA-containing gene

By adpA

SCO0762	Protease inhibitor	[55]

By SCO4263

SCO4246	Hypothetical protein	[55]

SCO4251	Putative secreted protein	This study

SCO4252	Hypothetical protein	This study

SCO4253	Conserved hypothetical protein	This study

Gene1	Gene product2	Reference

By act II-ORF4

SCO5071	Hydroxylacyl-CoA dehydrogenase, ActVI-ORFA	[14]

SCO5073	Putative oxidoreductase, ActVI-ORF2	[14]

SCO5074	Putative dehydratase, ActVI-ORF3	[14]

SCO5075	Putative oxidoreductase, ActVI-ORF4	[14]

SCO5078	Hypothetical protein	[14]

SCO5079	Conserved hypothetical protein	[14]

SCO5086	Ketoacyl reductase, ActIII	[14]

SCO5088	Polyketide beta-ketoacyl synthase, ActI-ORF2	[14]

SCO5090	Actinorhodin polyketide cyclase/dehdratase, ActVII	[14]

By redZ

SCO5895	Putative methyltransferase, RedI	[20]

C: In a putative operon with a TTA-containing gene

SCO0392	Putative methyltransferase	[31]

SCO0395	Putative epimerase/dehydratase	[31]

SCO0400	Putative epimerase	[31]

SCO0401	Putative aminotransferase	[31]

SCO0991	Conserved hypothetical protein	[31]

SCO0994	Integral membrane protein	[31]

SCO0995	Probable methyltransferase	[31]

SCO6637	Hypothetical protein	[31]


Domain	Question	Key process probed	Significance

Background	Previous occupation?	Previous cognitive/auditory function, noise exposure	Correct interpretation of hearing tests

Previous level of musical training and interest, early language development and education?	Prior auditory expertise	Correct interpretation of hearing tests

Course	When was hearing impairment first noticed?	Duration of impairment (relative to cognitive decline)	Nature of underlying disease process

Has this deteriorated, fluctuated or improved since onset?	Tempo of impairment	Nature of underlying disease process

Symptoms

 Sound detection	Is there a lack of reaction to sounds?	Impaired sound detection	May signify deafness (any cause)

Is there a tendency to turn up the volume of radio or TV or to ask people to speak louder?	Impaired sound detection	May signify deafness (any cause)

Is there a complaint that increasing volume makes sounds suddenly seem too loud?	Impaired sound detection	May signify cochlear pathology (‘loudness recruitment’)

 Abnormal auditory perception: deficient	Is there particular difficulty following conversations in background noise or over a noisy telephone line?	Auditory scene analysis	May signify a cerebral disorder (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease) in absence of significant hearing loss

Is there difficulty locating sounds (e.g., an alarm or mobile, a person speaking in same the room)?	Auditory scene analysis	May signify a cerebral disorder in absence of significant hearing loss

Is there particular difficulty understanding speech versus other sounds?	Feature analysis	May signify word deafness

Is there more difficulty understanding less familiar accents?	Apperceptive processing	May signify a cerebral disorder in absence of significant hearing loss

Is there more difficulty understanding a person’s tone of voice (e.g., angry or upset)?	Apperceptive and emotional processing	May signify a frontotemporal dementia in appropriate context

Has there been any problem recognising familiar voices, music or other sounds?	Semantic processing	May signify auditory agnosia or semantic dementia, in appropriate context

 Abnormal auditory perception: excessive	Is there a persistent complaint of buzzing or ringing in the ears?	Tinnitus	May be peripheral or central in origin

Are other sounds ever heard when no sounds are present?	Formed hallucinations	May signify Lewy body disease, in appropriate context

 Abnormal auditory behaviour	Is there intolerance to moderately loud sounds or particular sounds?	Hyperacusis	May signify a frontotemporal dementia in appropriate context

Has there been any change in liking for or interest in music or other sounds?	Auditory hedonic processing	May signify a frontotemporal dementia in appropriate context

Domain	Question	Key process probed	Significance

Background	Previous occupation?	Previous cognitive/auditory function, noise exposure	Correct interpretation of hearing tests

Previous level of musical training and interest, early language development and education?	Prior auditory expertise	Correct interpretation of hearing tests

Course	When was hearing impairment first noticed?	Duration of impairment (relative to cognitive decline)	Nature of underlying disease process

Has this deteriorated, fluctuated or improved since onset?	Tempo of impairment	Nature of underlying disease process

Symptoms

Sound de	Is there a lack of reaction to sounds?	Impaired sound detection	May signify deafness (any cause)

Is there a tendency to turn up the volume of radio or T	Impaired sound detection	May signify deafness (any ca

Domain	Question	Key process probed	Significance

tection	V or to ask people to speak louder?		use)

Is there a complaint that increasing volume makes sounds suddenly seem too loud?	Impaired sound detection	May signify cochlear pathology (‘loudness recruitment’)

Abnormal auditory perception: deficient	Is there particular difficulty following conversations in background noise or over a noisy telephone line?	Auditory scene analysis	May signify a cerebral disorder (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease) in absence of significant hearing loss

Is there difficulty locating sounds (e.g., an alarm or mobile, a person speaking in same the room)?	Auditory scene analysis	May signify a cerebral disorder in absence of significant hearing loss

Is there particular difficulty understanding speech versus other sounds?	Feature analysis	May signify word deafness

Is there more difficulty understanding less familiar accents?	Apperceptive processing	May signify a cerebral disorder in absence of significant hearing loss

Is there more difficulty understanding a person’s tone of voice (e.g., angry or upset)?	Apperceptive and emotional processing	May signify a frontotemporal dementia in appropriate context

Has there been any problem recognising familiar voices, music or other sounds?	Semantic processing	May signify auditory agnosia or semantic dementia, in appropriate context

Abnormal auditory perception: excessive	Is there a persistent complaint of buzzing or ringing in the ears?	Tinnitus	May be peripheral or central in origin

Are other sounds ever heard when no sounds are present?	Formed hallucinations	May signify Lewy body disease, in appropriate context

Abnormal auditory behaviour	Is there intolerance to moderately loud sounds or particular sounds?	Hyperacusis	May signify a frontotemporal dementia in appropriate context

Has there been any change in liking for or interest in music or other sounds?	Auditory hedonic processing	May signify a frontotemporal dementia in appropriate context


Level of education	Specialization/means of accessing information	n	Heard about aflatoxins

Frequency (% of n)

 	Specialization

Low	Life/social sciences	0	0 (0)

None/other fields	110	12 (11)

High	Life/social sciences	132	55 (42)

None/other fields	16	4 (25)

Total	258	71 (28)

 	Means of accessing information

Low	Reading	3	1 (33)

Mass media (radio/TV)	69	6 (9)

Seminars/experts	11	1 (9)

Friends/neighbours	8	3 (37)

High	Reading	3	2 (67)

Mass media (radio/TV)	69	43 (91)

Seminars/experts	11	10 (91)

Friends/neighbours	8	5 (63)

Level of education	Specialization/means of accessing information

	Specialization

Low	Life/social sciences

None/other fields

High	Life/social sciences

None/other fields

Total

	Means of accessing information

Low	Reading

Mass media (radio/TV)

Seminars/experts

Friends/neighbours

High	Reading

Mass media (radio/TV)

Seminars/experts

Friends/neighbours


Biological process		Number of genes affected by FOS*

Mitochondria	Complex I	27

	Complex II	5

	Complex III	2

	Complex IV	13

	Complex V	21

	Metabolism and TCA cycle	53

	Mitochondrial ribosomes	33

	Protein transport	11

	Miscellaneous	12

Protein turnover	Protein degradation	31

	Translation	44

	Protein maturation	32

	Miscellaneous	6

Transcription	Chromatin related	22

	mRNA metabolism	7

	Transcription	26

	Miscellaneous	6

Cell turnover	Apoptosis	19

	Growth/Differentiation	16

Mucosal barrier		30

Cytoskeleton		26

Transport		20

Oxidative stress		16

Vesicle related		10

Peptide hormones		6

Other†		503

		997

Biological process		Number of genes affected by FOS*

Mitochondria	Complex I	27

	Complex II	5

	Complex III	2

	Complex IV	13

	Com	21

Biological process		Number of genes affected by FOS*

	plex V

	Metabolism and TCA cycle	53

	Mitochondrial ribosomes	33

	Protein transport	11

	Miscellaneous	12

Protein turnover	Protein degradation	31

	Translation	44

	Protein maturation	32

	Miscellaneous	6

Transcription	Chromatin related	22

	mRNA metabolism	7

	Transcription	26

	Miscellaneous	6

Cell turnover	Apoptosis	19

	Growth/Differentiation	16

Mucosal barrier		30

Cytoskeleton		26

Transport		20

Oxidative stress		16

Vesicle related		10

Peptide hormones		6

Other†		503

		997


Beat type	Number of beats in Test data set	Number of beats in Training data set	Possession rate (%)

Normal	54516	5000	70.2573

LBBB	6036	1000	7.7746

RBBB	5410	1000	6.9889

PVC	5293	1000	6.8166

APB	1896	1000	2.4407

PB	2702	1000	3.4853

Total	75853	10000	97.76

Beat type

Normal

LBBB

RBBB

PVC

APB

PB

Total


	Input Text Symbol

Current State	A	B	C	D	E	F	...	Z	Match

0	1	0	7	0	0	0	0,0,...,0	0	Ø


Patient characteristics	NNStotal

B

Gender (female/male)	−0.10

Age (years)	−0.04

BMI (kg/m2)	−0.025

Living with someone	−0.728

Working	−0.124

Smoking	0.194

Perceived general health	0.011

Total physical activity	−0.184

Heavy physical activity	−0.477

Hypertension	0.201

Diabetes	0.971

Fibromyalgia	0.696

Muscle-skeletal pain score (range 0-12)	−0.004

HSCL10 > 1.85	0.073

WHO-5 (poor wellbeing)	0.452

Fatigue	1.232

IBS	0.317

Functional bloating	−0.379

Functional diarrhea	NA

GSRS-diarrhea (score)	0.625

GSRS-bloating (score)	−0.112

Blood tests

Haemoglobin (g/dl)	−0.299

Serum iron (μmol/L	−0.015

Transferrin saturation	−0.875

Ferritin (μg/dL)	0.002

CRP (mg/L)	0.040

s-Glucose (mmol/L)	0.110

HbA1C (%)	0.294

c-peptide (nmol/L)	0.662

Cholesterol (mmol/L)	0.116

HDL (mmol/L)	−0.612

LDL (mmol/L)	0.164

Vitamin A (μmol/L)	0.291

Vitamin B1 (nmol/L)	0.008

Vitamin B6 (nmol/L)	0.004

Vitamin B12 (pmol/L)	−0.001

Vitamin D (nmol/L)	0.006

Folic acid (nmol/L)	−0.024


 	 	 Attentional bias index to fearful expression

 	 	 12 months 	 18 months 	 24 months 	 36 months

Fear scale (IBQ-R or ECBQ)	12 months	−.020	-	-	-

 	18 months	.240	−.231	-	-

 	24 months	−.100	−.335	−.262	-

 	36 months	.174	−.463	.105	.017

Average score of scales loading on Negative Affect	12 months	.527**	-	-	-

 	18 months	.403	−.083	-	-

 	24 months	.222	−.286	−.023	-

 	36 months	.309	−.276	−.125	.146


	Pearls	Cheese matrix

Total solids (%)	79.09	70.37

Fat (%)	28	32

FDM (%)	35.4	45.5

Free leucine (%)	1.0	–

	Pearls

Total solids (%)	79.09

Fat (%)	28

FDM (%)	35.4

Free leucine (%)	1.0


Stud #	Institution	Parents	Habitat

Stud #	Sex	XXL	MIN	QIO

358	WOLONG	Wild	-	0	0	1.0

425	CHENGDU	298	M	0	1.0	0

314	F	0.5	0	0.5

557	WOLONG	399	M	0	0	1.0

446	F	0	1.0	0


Name	Sequences (5'-3')	Description

OP-F	TCTGGAATGGCTGAAGAAGACG	Forward primer for the actin gene of T. vaginalis in the first stage

OP-R	CAGGGTACATCGTATTGGTC	Reverse primer for the actin gene of T. vaginalis in the first stage

IP-F	CAGACACTCGTTATCG	Forward primer for the actin gene of T. vaginalis in the second stage

IP-R	CGGTGAACGATGGATG	Reverse primer for the actin gene of T. vaginalis in the second stage

Sequences (5'-3')	Description

TCTGGAATGGCTGAAGAAGACG	Forward primer for the actin gene of T. vaginalis in the first stage

CAGGGTACATCGTATTGGTC	Reverse primer for the actin gene of T. vaginalis in the first stage

CAGACACTCGTTATCG	Forward primer for the actin gene of T. vaginalis in the second stage

CGGTGAACGATGGATG	Reverse primer for the actin gene of T. vaginalis in the second stage


Drugs	Direct Inhibition of HERG K+ Channel	Inhibition of HERG K+ Channel Trafficking

Phenothiazines	+	?

Pentamidine	-	+

Geldalamicin	-	+

Arsenic Trioxide	-	+

Fluoxetine, Norfluoxetine	+	+

Ketoconazole	+	+

Digitoxin, Ouabain, Digoxin	-	+

Sparfluoxacin, Ciprofloxacin, Ofloxacin	+	-

Amsacrin	+	-

Probucol	-	+

Cisapride	+

Drugs	Direct Inhibition of HERG K+ Channel	Inhibition of HERG K+ Channel Trafficking

Phenothiazines	+	?

Penta		+

midine	-

Geldalamicin	-	+

Arsenic Trioxide	-	+

Fluoxetine, Norfluoxetine	+	+

Ketoconazole	+	+

Digitoxin, Ouabain, Digoxin	-	+

Sparfluoxacin, Ciprofloxacin, Ofloxacin	+	-

Amsacrin	+	-

Probucol	-	+

Cisapride	+


Variant	p-valuea	Annotation

rs1800361	3.01E-04	nonsynonymous

rs145497019	1.20E-05	nonsynonymous

rs1800362	9.71E-06	nonsynonymous

rs1800368	9.71E-06	nonsynonymous

rs138629441	5.79E-06	nonsynonymous

rs143152201	3.19E-06	nonsynonymous

9:97869388	2.33E-06	nonsynonymous

FANCC	2.27E-06b

9:97887391	2.27E-06	nonsynonymous

rs1800367	2.27E-06	nonsynonymous

9:97876956	2.20E-06	nonsynonymous

rs140687953	1.87E-06	nonsynonymous

rs140781259	1.70E-06	nonsynonymous

9:97934335	1.66E-06	nonsynonymous

rs1800366	1.65E-06	nonsynonymous

rs121917783	1.59E-06	stop-gain

rs1800365	1.48E-06	nonsynonymous


 	Total	Blood	Urine	Abscess drainage	Other

Gram-positivea	90	44	27	25	18

Streptococcus pneumonia	29	14	20b	0	5

Alpha hemolytic streptococci	18	7	0	6	7

Group A/C/G streptococci	13	6	0	9	1

Group B streptococci	2	1	0	1	0

Enterococci	6	3	2	0	2

Staphylococcus aureus	20	11	4	9	3

Staphylococcus caprae	1	1	0	0	0

Aerococcus viridans	1	1	1	0	0

Gram-negativea	55	32	21	8	9

Escherichia coli	27	19	13	3	3

Klebsiella	10	6	5	0	1

Enterobacter	1	1	0	0	0

Proteus	2	0	0	1	1

Other Enterobacteriaceae	5	2	3	1	0

Pseudomonas aeruginosa	2	1	0	1	1

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia	1	0	0	1	0

Neisseriae meningitides	2	2	0	0	0

Haemophilus influenzae	2	1	0	0	1

Haemophilus parainfluenzae	2	0	0	0	2

Unspecified gram negative rods	1	0	0	1	0

Anaerobic bacteria	17	6	0	3	9

Clostridium species	5	2	0	0	3c

Bacteroides species	5	3	0	1	2

Prevotella	4	0	0	2	2

Slackia exigua	1	1	0	0	0

Fusobacterium	1	0	0	0	1

Unspecified gram positive rods	1	0	0	0	1

Other	9	0	0	3	6

Candida species	7	0	0	3	4

Aspergillus species	1	0	0	0	1

Influenzavirus A	1	0	0	0	1

Patients with ≥1 positive test	129	74	40	23	29

	Total	Blood	Urine	Abscess drainage

Gram-positivea	90	44	27	25

Streptococcus pneumonia	29	14	20b	0

Alpha hemolytic streptococci	18	7	0	6

Group A/C/G streptococci	13	6	0	9

Group B streptococci	2	1	0	1

Enterococci	6	3	2	0

Staphylococcus aureus	20	11	4	9

Staphylococcus caprae	1	1	0	0

Aerococcus viridans	1	1	1	0

Gram-negativea	55	32	21	8

Escherichia coli	27	19	13	3

Klebsiella	10	6	5	0

Enterobacter	1	1	0	0

Proteus	2	0	0	1

Other Enterobacteriaceae	5	2	3	1

Pseudomonas aeruginosa	2	1	0	1

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia	1	0	0	1

Neisseriae meningitides	2	2	0	0

Haemophilus influenzae	2	1	0	0

Haemophilus parainfluenzae	2	0	0	0

Unspecified gram negative rods	1	0	0	1

Anaerobic bacteria	17	6	0	3

Clostridium species	5	2	0	0

Bacteroides species	5	3	0	1

Prevotella	4	0	0	2

Slackia exigua	1	1	0	0

Fusobacterium	1	0	0	0

Unspecified gram positive rods	1	0	0	0

Other	9	0	0	3

Candida species	7	0	0	3

Aspergillus species	1	0	0	0

Influenzavirus A	1	0	0	0

Patients with ≥1 positive test	129	74	40	23


Grade of fibrosis	Histological changes

0	Normal lung

1	Minimal fibrous thickening of alveolar/bronchial walls

2	Intermediary stage between 1 and 3

3	Moderate thickening of walls without obvious damage to the lung architecture

4	Intermediary stage between 3 and 5

5	Increased fibrosis with definite damage to lung structure and formation of fibrous bands or small fibrous masses

6	Intermediary stage between 5 and 7

7	Severe distortion of structure and large fibrous areas; honeycombing lung is placed in this category

8	Total fibrous obliteration of the field

Grade of fibrosis

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Histological changes

Normal lung

Minimal fibrous thickening of alveolar/bronchial walls

Intermediary stage between 1 and 3

Moderate thickening of walls without obvious damage to the lung architecture

Intermediary stage between 3 and 5

Increased fibrosis with definite damage to lung structure and formation of fibrous bands or small fibrous masses

Intermediary stage between 5 and 7

Severe distortion of structure and large fibrous areas; honeycombing lung is placed in this category

Total fibrous obliteration of the field


Cell lines	Tissue	Bozepinib

IC50 (μM)	TI

MCF-7a	Breast cancer	0,355 ± 0,011	5,14

MDA-MB 231a	Breast cancer	0,166 ± 0,063	11

MDA-MB 468	Breast cancer	0,850 ± 0,003	2,14

SKBR-3	Breast cancer	0,330 ± 0,003	5,53

MCF-10Aa	Normal breast	1,825 ± 0,003	NDb

Caco-2	Colon cancer	0,631 ± 0,008	3,18

T-84	Colon cancer	1,019 ± 0,281	1,97

HT-29	Colon cancer	1,352 ± 0,281	1,48

SW-480	Colon cancer	0,235 ± 0,011	8,56

HCT-116	Colon cancer	0,570 ± 0,020	3,52

CCD-18Co	Normal colon	2,012 ± 0,012	NDb

Cell lines

MCF-7a

MDA-MB 231a

MDA-MB 468

SKBR-3

MCF-10Aa

Caco-2

T-84

HT-29

SW-480

HCT-116

CCD-18Co

Tissue	Bozepinib

IC50 (μM)	TI

Breast cancer	0,355 ± 0,011	5,14

Breast cancer	0,166 ± 0,063	11

Breast cancer	0,850 ± 0,003	2,14

Breast cancer	0,330 ± 0,003	5,53

Normal breast	1,825 ± 0,003	NDb

Colon cancer	0,631 ± 0,008	3,18

Colon cancer	1,019 ± 0,281	1,97

Colon cancer	1,352 ± 0,281	1,48

Colon cancer	0,235 ± 0,011	8,56

Colon cancer	0,570 ± 0,020	3,52

Normal colon	2,012 ± 0,012	NDb


Absolute change in	One-way travel time by automobile to SPH, min


	Respondents agreeing to each statement

	Women%	Men%	p-value*

There is often violence at parties	25	14	< 0.001

Property is often destroyed at parties	43	39	0.08

There are often accidents with physical injury at parties	54	46	0.008

I often baby-sit drunk friends	80	83	0.09

I feel I can talk to a friend about his/her alcohol habits	89	90	0.26

My sleep is often disturbed due to others partying	29	21	0.001

My study habits are often disturbed due to others partying	17	15	0.15

There is often violence at parties

Property is often destroyed at parties

There are often accidents with physical injury at parties

I often baby-sit drunk friends

I feel I can talk to a friend about his/her alcohol habits

My sleep is often disturbed due to others partying

My study habits are often disturbed due to others partying


Complications and outcomes	Conventional (n = 40)	Restrictive (n = 41)

Total complications	43	45

Cardiovascular complications

 Atrial fibrillation	2 (4.6)	1 (2.2)

 Hypertensive crisis	4 (9.3)	0 (0)

 Pulmonary thromboembolism	0 (0)	1 (2.2)

 Total	6 (13.9)	2 (4.4)

Tissue-healing complications

 Evisceration	2 (4.6)	0 (0)

 Anastomotic leak	2 (4.6)	1 (2.4)

 Total	4 (9.3)	1 (2.4)

Infectious complications

 Nosocomial pneumonia	4 (9.3)	6 (13.3)

 Occult septic shock	1 (2.3)	0 (0)

 Peritonitis	2 (4.6)	0 (0)

 Blood stream infection	0 (0)	1 (2.2)

 Wound abscess	2 (4.6)	0 (0)

 Total	9	7

Other complications

 Extubation failure	1 (2.3)	0 (0)

 Renal dysfunction	1 (2.3)	0 (0)

 Gastrointestinal dysfunction	3 (6.9)	1 (2.2)

 Total	5	1

Total number of major complications	24	11

Number of patients with complications	18 (41.8)	9 (20.0)*

Number of complications per patient	0.55	0.24

Outcomes

 LOS in the ICU	2.0 [1.0 to 4.0]	2.0 [2.0 to 5.0]

 LOS in the hospital	6.0 [4.0 to 9.0]	6.0 [4 to 10]

 30-day mortality rate	2 (4.6)	0 (0)

 60-day mortality rate	3 (6.9)	1 (2.2)

Complications and outcomes	Conventional (n = 40)	Restrictive (n = 41)

Renal dysfunction	1 (2.3)	0 (0)

Gastrointestinal dysfunction	3 (6.9)	1 (2.2)

Total	5	1

Total number of major complications	24	11

Number of patients with complications	18 (41.8)	9 (20.0)*

Number of complications per patient	0.55	0.24

Outcomes

LOS in the ICU	2.0 [1.0 to 4.0]	2.0 [2.0 to 5.0]

LOS in the hospital	6.0 [4.0 to 9.0]	6.0 [4 to 10]

30-day mortality rate	2 (4.6)	0 (0)

60-day mortality rate	3 (6.9)	1 (2.2)


Type of cost	Identification	Measurement	Valuation

	Categories	Costing method	Sources of data	Valuation method	Sources of data

Recurrent

Personnel	Administration and management, clinical staff (doctors, nurses, lay workers*), and support staff (cleaning)	Percentage of time spent on different activities	Observation** and semi-structured interviews with providers	Total remuneration package costs	Provider expenditure reports

Supplies	Sputum and culture tests, x-rays and drugs	Quantity consumed	Patient records	Market prices	Provincial and private laboratories and pharmacy price lists

Vehicle operating and maintenance	Vehicle running costs	Number of kilometres travelled	Vehicle logbook, interview with clinic manager	Actual expenditure on fuel, oil and maintenance	Automobile Association rates

Building operating and maintenance	Overheads (water, electricity, telephone, fax, stationeries etc)	Proportion of total visits for which TB patients accounted	Actual costs from facility records, interview with clinic manager	Actual expenditure	Provider expenditure reports

Capital†

Buildings	Offices, clinics and hospitals	Proportion of total visits for which TB patients accounted	Interview with clinic manager	Replacement prices	CSIR Building and Construction Technology

Equipment	Furniture, medical and non-medical equipment	Proportion of total visits for which TB patients accounted)	Interview with clinic manager	Replacement prices	Local manufacturers

Vehicles	Vehicles used for TB patients	Vehicle utilisation (km travelled)	Vehicle log book, interview with clinic manager	Replacement prices	Local car dealers

Training	Community "treatment supporters" training	Number of treatment supporters trained	Actual costs from NGO records	Actual expenditure	Provider expenditure reports

Type of cost	Identification	Measurement	Valuation

	Categories	Costing method	Sources of data	Valuation method	Sources of data

Personnel	Administration and management, clinical staff (doctors, nurses, lay workers*), and support staff (cleaning)	Percentage of time spent on different activities	Observation** and semi-structured interviews with providers	Total remuneration package costs	Provider expenditure reports

Supplies	Sputum and culture tests, x-rays and drugs	Quantity consumed	Patient records	Market prices	Provincial and private laboratories and pharmacy price lists

Vehicle operating and maintenance	Vehicle running costs	Number of kilometres travelled	Vehicle logbook, interview with clinic manager	Actual expenditure on fuel, oil and maintenance	Automobile Association rates

Building operating and maintenance	Overheads (water, electricity, telephone, fax, stationeries etc)	Proportion of total visits for which TB patients accounted	Actual costs from facility records, interview with clinic manager	Actual expenditure	Provider expenditure reports

Capital†

Buildings	Offices, clinics and hospitals	Proportion of total visits for which TB patients accounted	Interview with clinic manager	Replacement prices	CSIR Building and Construction Technology

Equipment	Furniture, medical and non-medical equipment	Proportion of total visits for which TB patients accounted)	Interview with clinic manager	Replacement prices	Local manufacturers

Vehicles	Vehicles used for TB patients	Vehicle utilisation (km travelled)	Vehicle log book, interview with clinic manager	Replacement prices	Local car dealers

Training	Community "treatment supporters" training	Number of treatment supporters trained	Actual costs from NGO records	Actual expenditure	Provider expenditure reports


	No hypotension	iNIBP	dNIBP	p value

The number of cases in which hypotension was detected faster (n (%))	24	47 (61.8)	29 (38.2)	0.03

	ion	IBP	NIBP

The number of cases in which hypotension was detected faster (n (%))	24	47 (61.8)	29 (38.2)	0.03


	Activity (U/ml)1

Enzymes	Soluble fraction	Insoluble fraction	Percent of activity found in insoluble fraction2	Enzyme amount (mg/ml)3	Specific activity (U/mg enzyme)3	Specific activity relative to the native enzyme3

AMA

 AMA-native	734.4 ± 37.5	9.63 ± 2.29	1.3%	0.47	1563	100%

 AMA-ELK16	66.7 ± 5.1	468.7 ± 12.9	87.5%	0.25	1875	120%

XynB

 XynB-native	398.8 ± 9.7	136.2 ± 17.0	25.4%	0.31	1290	100%

 XynB-ELK16	13.6 ± 0.6	230.0 ± 9.8	94.4%	0.23	991	77%

	Activity (U/ml)1

Enzymes	Soluble fraction	Insoluble fraction	Percent of activity found in insoluble fraction2	Enzyme amount (mg/ml)3	Specific activity (U/mg enzyme)3	Specific activity relative to the native enzyme3

XynB-ELK16	13.6 ± 0.6	230.0 ± 9.8	94.4%	0.23	991	77%


 	Multivariable logistic regression analysis (n = 362)

Sociodemographic factors	aOR (95%-CI)a

Age (continuous)	1.03 (1.00-1.05)

Health-related factors

Current smoker

 Yes	2.31 (1.27-4.23)

 Not anymore	1.13 (0.66-1.95)

 Never smoked	(Reference)

Ever had a diagnosed depression/depressive mood

 Yes	1.85 (1.12-3.06)

 No	(Reference)

Work-related exposures

Carrying and lifting heavy loads (> 20 kg)

 Frequently	2.69 (1.53-4.75)

 Sometimes	1.26 (0.68-2.34)

 Rarely/Never	(Reference)

Exposure to environmental impacts

 Frequently	2.18 (1.26-3.76)

 Sometimes	1.76 (0.98-3.13)

 Rarely/Never	(Reference)

Sociodemographic factors

Age (continuous)

Health-related factors

Current smoker

Yes

Not anymore

Never smoked

Ever had a diagnosed depression/depressive mood

Yes

No

Work-related exposures

Carrying and lifting heavy loads (> 20 kg)

Frequently

Sometimes

Rarely/Never

Exposure to environmental impacts

Frequently

Sometimes

Rarely/Never