Feature	Univariate	Multivariate

Hazard ratio (95% CI)	P	Hazard ratio (95% CI)	P

Age (y) ≥ 45 vs < 45	1.213 (0.782–1.883)	0.388

Gender F VSM	0.781 (0.109–5.613)	0.806

Smoking status Present vs Absent	0.967 (0.498–1.876)	0.921

Drinking status Present vs Absent	0.760 (0.478–1.208)	0.245

Pathological differentiation		0.023


Item	1. Understood	2. Sufficient information	3. Active management	4. Social support	5. Appraisal	6. Active engagement	7. Navigate	8. Good information	9. Understand information

P1Q2	0.83

P1Q8	0.93

P1Q17	0.53	0.17							−0.10

P1Q22	0.86

P1Q1		0.39

P1Q10		0.65

P1Q14		0.92

P1Q23		0.88

P1Q6			0.72

P1Q9			0.78

P1Q13			0.92

P1Q18			0.81

P1Q21			0.96

P1Q3	0.18			0.55


Characteristic	n = 15

GENDER

Male	14

Female	1

AGE (YEARS)

Mean	60 ± 6.8

Range	52–74

BASELINE MEDICINE USE

Mean duration (years)	2.2 ± 1.4

Mean l-DOPA equivalents (mg/day)	451 ± 304

BASELINE UPDRS SCORE

Mean total	39 ± 14

Mean UPDRS-III	15 ± 8.5


Fear	Attraction

Call	No call	Total

Suspension bridge	9	9	18

Solid bridge	2	14	16

Total	11	23	34

Fear	Attraction

Call	No call

Suspension bridge	9	9

Solid bridge	2	14

Total	11	23


Bacteria spp.	Specimen	Total

Aspirate	Blood	Pus swab	Sputum	Urine

K. pneumoniae 	1	23	28	0	24	76

E. coli 	1	8	31	1	15	56

P. aeruginosa 	1	16	22	0	2	41

C. freundii 	0	1	8	0	6	15

 A. baumannii 	0	2	8	0	0	10

P. vulgaris 	0	0	7	0	0	7

E. cloacae 	0	3	0	0	2	5

M. morganii 	0	0	2	0	1	3

P. mirabilis 	0	0	1	0	1	2

S. marcescens 	0	2	4	0	3	9

Salmonella typhi	0	0	0	0	1	1

Salmonella spp.	0	0	1	0	1	2

Total	3	55	112	1	56	227

Bacteria spp.	Specimen	Total

Aspirate	Blood	Pus swab	Sputum	Urine

P. aeruginosa	1	16	22	0	2	41

C. freundii	0	1	8	0	6	15

A. baumannii	0	2	8	0	0	10

P. vulgaris	0	0	7	0	0	7

E. cloacae	0	3	0	0	2	5

M. morganii	0	0	2	0	1	3

P. mirabilis	0	0	1	0	1	2

S. marcescens	0	2	4	0	3	9

Salmonella typhi	0	0	0	0	1	1

Salmonella spp.	0	0	1	0	1	2

Total	3	55	112	1	56	227


	8 Gy × 1N patients (%)	4 Gy × 5N patients (%)

(N = 20)	)	)

Pre-RT ambulatory status

Not ambulatory (N = 110)	55 (71)	55 (71)

Ambulatory (N = 46)	23 (29)	23 (29)

Time developing motor deficits

1–7 days (N = 110)	55 (71)	55 (71)

8–14 days (N = 30)	15 (19)	15 (19)

> 14 days (N = 16)	8 (10)	8 (10)


Characteristics	Placebo (n = 59)	NAC (n = 55)

Age (years)	78.2 ±11.8	78.1 ± 12.0

Sex (M/F)	29/30	28/27

BMI (kg/m2)	24.4 ± 4.6	25.0 ± 4.8

Diabetes	11 (19%)	15 (27%)

Blood pressure (mmHg)

Diastolic	69.1 ± 11.7	67.0 ± 17.2

Systolic	129.5 ± 20.8	132.9 ± 22.5

Contrast medium (mL)	117.7 ± 3.2	117.4 ± 1.8

Creatinine (μmol/L)	133.5 ± 34.8	132.4 ± 34.8

Cystatin C (mg/L)	1.9 ± 0.5	1.9 ± 0.6

eGFR (MDRD) (ml/min/1.73)	41.7 ± 1.2	42.7 ± 1.2

Antibiotics	16 (27%)	16 (29%)

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-1 inhibitor)	28 (48%)	25 (45%)

Non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDS)	1 (2%)	5 (9%)

Diuretics	27 (46%)	25 (45%)

Characteristics

Age (years)

Sex (M/F)

BMI (kg/m2)

Diabetes

Blood pressure (mmHg)

Diastolic

Systolic

Contrast medium (mL)

Creatinine (μmol/L)

Cystatin C (mg/L)

eGFR (MDRD) (ml/min/1.73)

Antibiotics

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-1 inhibitor)

Non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDS)

Diuretics


Sample type	Herd A	Herd B

Peat	na	20

Water	1	1

Sawdust	20	20

Faeces from sows	15	17

Faeces at 6 weeks of age	95	146

Faeces at 8 weeks of age	95	164

Mandibular lymph nodes	95	123

Jejunal lymph nodes	nd	127

Sample type

Peat

Water

Sawdust

Faeces from sows

Faeces at 6 weeks of age

Faeces at 8 weeks of age

Mandibular lymph nodes

Jejunal lymph nodes


 	n	%

Prevention of postpartum hemorrhage

Target population: women giving birth in health facilities	132	100.00%

Oxytocin	114	86.36%

Any uterotonic (including oxytocin)	115	87.12%

Treatment of severe postpartum hemorrhage

Target population: women with severe PPH	84	100.00%

Oxytocin	57	67.86%

Ergometrine	52	61.90%

Misoprostol	35	41.67%

Other uterotonics	3.	3.57%

Any of the above uterotonics	57	67.86%

Tranexamic acid	6	7.14%

Removal of retained products	16	19.05%

Balloon or condom tamponade	1.	1.19%

Artery ligation	4	4.76%

Hysterectomy	50	59.52%

Abdominal packing	4	4.76%

Proportion of cases with SMO	80	95.24%

Mortality	6.	7.14%

Anticonvulsants for Eclampsia

Target population: women with eclampsia	43	100.00%

Magnesium sulfate	29	67.44%

Other anticonvulsant	22	51.16%

Any anticonvulsant	40	93.02%

Proportion of cases with SMO	26	60.47%

Mortality	4	9.30%

Prevention of caesarean section related infection

Target population: women undergoing caesarean section	107	100.00%

Prophylactic antibiotic during caesarean section	65	60.75%

Treatment for sepsis

Target population: women with sepsis	10	100.00%

Parenteral therapeutic antibiotics	10	100.00%

Proportion of cases with SMO	6	60.00%

Mortality	2	20.00%

Ruptured uterus

Target population: women with ruptured uterus	29	100.00%

Laparotomy	28	96.55%

Laparotomy after 3 hours of hospital stay	5	17.24%

Proportion of cases with SMO	24	82.76%

Mortality	3	10.34%

Preterm birth

Target population: women having a preterm delivery after 3 hours of hospital stay	18	100.00%

Corticosteroids for fetal lung maturation	10	55.56%


Year	Centro Hospitalar Tondela-Viseu	National data (NationalTransplantation Coordination)(9)

Effective donorsn (%)	Mean age (years)	Harvested organsn (%)	Number of organs per donor	Effective donorsn	Mean age (years)	Harvested organsn	Number of organs per donor

2015	19 (6.0)*	58.6	59 (6.6)†	3.1	318	54.2	894	2.8

2014	20 (6.9)*	58.8	59 (7.1)†	3.0	289	51.4	0.83	2.9

Year	Centro Hospitalar Tondela-Viseu	National data (NationalTransplantation Coordination)(9)

Effective donorsn (%)	Mean age (years)	Harvested organsn (%)	Number of organs per donor	Effective donorsn	Mean age (years)	Harvested organsn	Number of organs per donor

2013	12 (4.1)*	61.2	31 (3.6)†	2.6	295	53.7	859	2.9

2012	12 (4.8)*	66.2	30 (4.0)†	2.5	252	53.3	749	3.0

2011	16 (5.3)*	56.6	46 (5.0)†	2.9	301	48.7	928	3.1

2010	5 (1.5)*	57.4	11 (1.2)†	2.2	323	51.3	0.83	2.9

Total	84 (4.7)*	59.7	236 (4.5)†	2.8	1,778	52.1	5,187	2.9


Characteristic	Control mean (SD) or n (%)	Intervention mean (SD) or n (%)	Total mean (SD) or n (%)

Female	128 (76 %)	123 (72 %)	251 (74 %)

Male	41 (24 %)	48 (38 %)	89 (26 %)

Age, years	81 (8)	82 (8)	81 (8)

Weight loss ≥ 5 % body weight	23 (14 %)	16 (9 %)	39 (12 %)

Co-morbidities, number	6.9 (2.7)	7.2 (2.9)	7.1 (2.8)

History of falls	52 (31 %)	48 (28 %)	100 (29 %)

Falls as the presenting problem to hospital	67 (40 %)	76 (44 %)	143 (42 %)

Length of original hospital stay*	9 (12)	11 (15)	10 (13)

Living in low-care residential facility	12 (7 %)	8 (5 %)	20 (6 %)

** MMSE score, mean (SD)/30	28.0 (1.8)	27.9 (2.0)	28.0 (1.9)


Body Point	Body Side	Localization

Foot	bilaterally	Basis Metatarsales V

Ankle	bilaterally	Malleolus lateralis

Knee	bilaterally	Epicondylus lateralis femoris

Hip	bilaterally	Trochanter major

Elbow	bilaterally	Epicondylus lateralis humeri

Shoulder	bilaterally	Acromio-clavicular join

Wrist	bilaterally	Os capitatum

Body Point

Foot

Ankle

Knee

Hip

Elbow

Shoulder

Wrist

Body Side	Localization

bilaterally	Basis Metatarsales V

bilaterally	Malleolus lateralis

bilaterally	Epicondylus lateralis femoris

bilaterally	Trochanter major

bilaterally	Epicondylus lateralis humeri

bilaterally	Acromio-clavicular join

bilaterally	Os capitatum


pilE	No. isolates	No. countries	Years	No. ccs	No. alleles

Class I	219	5	1963-2011	21 + n/a	219

Class II	77	29	1937-2011	6	15

pilE	No. isolates	No. countries	Years	No. ccs	No. alleles

Class II	77	29	1937-2011	6	15


Characteristic	Baseline value

Age (years)	48.63 (± 13.5)

Ethnicity

 White	125 (46.99%)

 Hispanic	77 (28.95%)

 African American	54 (20.3%)

 Other	10 (3.76%)

Female sex	221 (83.08%)

Current smoker	49 (18.42%)

Ever smoker	134 (50.38%)

Disease duration (years)a	2.53 (± 1.63)

Limited skin involvement	110 (41.35%)

Autoantibodies

 Antinuclear antibodies	254 (95.49%)

 Anti-centromere antibodies	32 (12.03%)

 Anti-topoisomerase antibodies	49 (18.42%)

 Anti-RNA polymerase III	61 (22.93%)

 Anti-U1-ribonucleoprotein	30 (11.28%)

 Anti-Ro	10 (3.8%)

 Anti-fibrillarin	28 (10.69%)

Percentage predicted forced vital capacity

 > 80%	132 (58.15%)

 50 to 80%	81 (35.68%)

 < 50%	14 (6.17%)

Characteristic	Baseline value

Other	10 (3.76%)

Female sex	221 (83.08%)

Current smoker	49 (18.42%)

Ever smoker	134 (50.38%)

Disease duration (years)a	2.53 (± 1.63)

Limited skin involvement	110 (41.35%)

Autoantibodies

Antinuclear antibodies	254 (95.49%)

Anti-centromere antibodies	32 (12.03%)

Anti-topoisomerase antibodies	49 (18.42%)

Anti-RNA polymerase III	61 (22.93%)

Anti-U1-ribonucleoprotein	30 (11.28%)

Anti-Ro	10 (3.8%)

Anti-fibrillarin	28 (10.69%)

Percentage predicted forced vital capacity

> 80%	132 (58.15%)

50 to 80%	81 (35.68%)

< 50%	14 (6.17%)


Characteristic	n = 432	(%)

Age group (years)

6–9	93	21.5

10–14	339	78.5

Sex

Female	224	51.9

Male	208	48.1

Location of school

Rural	203	47.0

Urban slums	229	53.0

Ownership of school

Public	217	50.2

Private	215	49.8

Characteristic	n = 432

Age group (years)

6–9	93

10–14	339

Sex

Female	224

Male	208

Location of school

Rural	203

Urban slums	229

Ownership of school

Public	217

Private	215


Gest. age, weeks 39–40–41

Gest. age, week 38

Gest. age, week 37

Gest. age, week 36

Gest. age, week 35

Gest. age, week 34

Spontaneous delivery

CS without labor

CS with labor

Maternal medical disorders no

Maternal medical disorders yes

Twins birth no

Twins birth yes

Birth weight, g

Female

Male

Malformation no

Malformation yes

Small for gestational age no

Small for gestational age yes


	Alternative therapyModerate protein C deficiency24 μg/kg/hr	Standard therapyModerate protein C deficiency24 μg/kg/hr

Duration of study drug infusion	Number of patients	Number of deaths	Percent deaths	Number of patients	Number of deaths	Percent deaths

Total	172	43	25.0	173	20	11.6

≥97 hours*†	71	17a	23.9	70	8b	11.4

< 97 hours†	71	20c	28.2	65	9d	13.8

Patients with shorter infusions of DAA ‡	30	6e	20.0	38	3f	7.9


Type	Description	Example

Change in environment	The Plan structure, that is the totality of means for satisfying basic needs, does not fit to changes in the environment or to a new environment	An individual with first-episode psychosis is not able to satisfy his need for autonomy within the restricted setting of a secure ward with his usual Plan “Decide on appointments for yourself,” due to a predefined weekly schedule

Loss of individual abilities	The means for a purpose (e.g., skills) are no longer available	Neuropsychological deficits accompanying schizophrenia impede studying and block the Plan “graduate”

Rigid Plan structure	An important Plan has only a single (or too few) means for its realization	The Plan “Heighten self-esteem” is exclusively realized with the means “Stick to conviction of being loved by Jodie Foster” (erotomanic delusion)

Conflicting Plans	The means of a Plan endangers another important Plan	The Plan “Conceal hearing voices” endangers the Plan “Seek help when distressed”

Dominance of avoidance Plans	A high number of avoidance Plans reduce the degrees of freedom for realizing approach plans	The Plans “Avoid stress” and “Avoid a new psychotic episode” hinder the approach Plan “Try to make new friends”

Type	Description	Example

Loss of individual abilities	The means for a purpose (e.g., skills) are no longer available	Neuropsychological deficits accompanying schizophrenia impede studying and block the Plan “graduate”

Rigid Plan structure	An important Plan has only a single (or too few) means for its realization	The Plan “Heighten self-esteem” is exclusively realized with the means “Stick to conviction of being loved by Jodie Foster” (erotomanic delusion)

Conflicting Plans	The means of a Plan endangers another important Plan	The Plan “Conceal hearing voices” endangers the Plan “Seek help when distressed”

Dominance of avoidance Plans	A high number of avoidance Plans reduce the degrees of freedom for realizing approach plans	The Plans “Avoid stress” and “Avoid a new psychotic episode” hinder the approach Plan “Try to make new friends”


	Function	Direct interaction

R2TP complex target	Target complex	R2TP complex	R2TP component	Target complex component

Confirmed

RNA polymerase II	Transcription	Assembly	?	?

snoRNPs	Biogenesis of ribosomes, spliceosomes, and telomerase

boxC/D snoRNPs	2′-O-methylation of preRNA	Assembly	PIH1D1?	NOP58?

H/ACA snoRNPs	Pseudouridylation of prerRNA	Assembly	PIH1D1?	NAP57?

SMG1	Nonsense mediated mRNA decay	Assembly	PIH1D1	TEL2

mTORC1	Central regulator of cell metabolism	Assembly	PIH1D1	TEL2

ATM/ATR/DNA-PK	Kinases involved in DNA damage signaling	Possibly assembly	PIH1D1	TEL2

Potential

ECD/p53	Transcription factor involved in DNA damage response	possibly assembly	PIH1D1	ECD

UBR5	E3 ubiquitin ligase involved in DNA damage signaling	?	PIH1D1	UBR5

INO80	Chromatin remodeling complex, involved in repair of DNA double strand breaks	Possibly loading RUVBL1/2	?	?, RUVBL1/2

TIP 60	Chromatin remodeling complex, acetyl-transferase activity important for DNA damage response	Possibly loading RUVBL1/2	?	?, RUVBL1/2

SWI/SCRAP	Chromatin remodeling complex, DNA damage signaling	Possibly loading RUVBL1/2	?	?, RUVBL1/2

Fanconi anemia core complex	Recognition and repair of DNA crosslinks	Possibly loading RUVBL1/2	?	?, RUVBL1/2

	Function	Direct interaction

R2TP complex target	Target complex	R2TP complex	R2TP component	Target complex component

INO80	Chromatin remodeling complex, involved in repair of DNA double strand breaks	Possibly loading RUVBL1/2	?	?, RUVBL1/2

TIP 60	Chromatin remodeling complex, acetyl-transferase activity important for DNA damage response	Possibly loading RUVBL1/2	?	?, RUVBL1/2

SWI/SCRAP	Chromatin remodeling complex, DNA damage signaling	Possibly loading RUVBL1/2	?	?, RUVBL1/2

Fanconi anemia core complex	Recognition and repair of DNA crosslinks	Possibly loading RUVBL1/2	?	?, RUVBL1/2


		Albino	Pigmented

		m-dRGCs	m-oRGCs	m-dRGCs	m-oRGCs

A: Total	Melanopsin (n = 6/strain)	54 ± 12	2329 ± 198	212 ± 21	2216 ± 154

	mRGC population (displaced + orthotopic)	2383 ± 178	2428 ± 172

B: Ipsilateral	FG+ and melanopsin+ (n = 3–5/strain)	0.2 ± 0.4	64 ± 14	12 ± 4	89 ± 8

	Total ipsilateral m-RGCs (displaced + orthotopic)	65 ± 14	101 ± 8


Group	Number of mice	Wt/Wt(% of total)	Wt/KO(% of total)	KO/KO(% of total)

Fetus†

 Conventional	28	7 (25)	12 (43)	9 (32)

 Cre-loxP	14	2(14)	8 (57)	4 (29)

Adult§

 Conventional	127	40 (32)	66 (52)	21 (16)**

 Cre-loxP	251	126 (50)§§	97 (39)‡‡	28 (11)§§

Dead§

 Conventional	14	0**	4 (29)‡‡	10 (71)§§


	Intervention received

A	B	C

n	n	n

Formal responsibility for doing or managing research in CCG?	Yes, doing and managing	5	2	2

Yes, managing	3	3	7

Yes, doing	1	2	0

Neither	28	35	17

Highest educational achievement?	School level	2	0	0

Undergraduate	17	27	12

Master’s degree	14	13	8

Higher degree	3	2	6

Clinical qualifications?	No	16	8	6

Yes	21	34	20

Worked as a researcher in an academic context	No	34	42	24

Yes	5	11	13

Commissioned research	No	29	47	32

Yes	10	6	5

Been a co-applicant or advisor on a research project	No	30	44	30

Yes	9	9	7

Been employed as a researcher	No	35	49	32

Yes	4	4	5


Features

Age

	17-25

	26-34

	35+

Level of education

	Primary and below

	Secondary

	High school/ university

Husband education level

	Primary and below

	Secondary

	High school/ university

Duration of marriage

	0-5 year

	6-10 year

	11 years and over

Number of births

	0

	1

	2

	3+

Status of contraceptive use before

	Used

	Not-used

Receiving contraception counseling

	Yes

	No


	All	Male	Female

	Coefficient (β)	t-statistic	P	Coefficient (β)	t-statistic	P	Coefficient (β)	t-statistic	P


Data Source	Total N	Mean # days	Median # days	Max # days	P-value for χ2

Provider	1878	10.5	5	375	Reference

Faxed-LR	1142	3.6	2	367	<0.0001

HIE-ELR	7393	2.0	1	320	<0.0001

Any Laboratorya	8535	2.2	1	367	<0.0001

Data Source	Total N	Mean # days	Median # days	Max # days	P-value for χ2

Faxed-LR	1142	3.6	2	367	<0.0001

HIE-ELR	7393	2.0	1	320	<0.0001

Any Laboratorya	8535	2.2	1	367	<0.0001


	RF	MSNODmax	NAR

Training	171	171	171

Evaluation	16 + 2 parents	15 + 2 parents	9 + 2 parents


	MZ	DZ

Age (years)	22.9 ± 2.8	23.7 ± 3.7

Weight(kg)	56.3 ± 6.5	59.2 ± 10.3

Height (cm)	165.5 ± 4.8	167.1 ± 6.1

Instrument playing (h/week)	1.0 ± 0.5	1.5 ± 0.2

Keyboard writing (h/week)	3.9 ± 1.0	4.1 ± 2.3

Oldfield handedness score	0.9 ± 0.0	0.8 ± 0.0

Physical activity score	8.5 ± 2.1	8.3 ± 2.9


	One-year survival

	Alive (n = 135)	Dead (n = 59)

	mean ± SD	mean ± SD

Child score	7.54 ± 1.79	10.17 ± 2.28

MELD score	10.42 ± 5.44	16.42 ± 8.40

Clichy PI	4.64 ± 0.94	5.89 ± 1.09

New clichy PI	3.24 ± 1.18	4.82 ± 1.37

Rotterdam index	1.78 ± 0.88	3.41 ± 2.15

BCS-TIPS score1	3.61 ± 0.83	4.33 ± 0.97


	Chronic lead-exposed group n = 52	Control group n = 22

Mean	SD	Mean	SD	p

Age (years)	39	8	41	8	0.224

Years of work	13	10	17	9	0.128


Gene	Nb. Seq.	Nb. SiLiXfamilies	Nb. Seq. 1st fam. (%)	Nb. Seq. 2nd fam. (%)	Nb. Seq. 3rd fam. (%)	Nb. Singletons (%)


	Possible IA	Probable and proven IA

n=12	n=11

Antifungal treatment-n a

Liposomal amphotericin B	6	3

Caspofungin	3	1

Voriconazole	11	10

Duration of treatment (days)-Mean (range)

Liposomal amphotericin B	7 (1;12)	8 (2;20)

Caspofungin	6 (3;9)	11 (3;25)

Voriconazole	100 (2;235)	130 (42;261)

Causes of Voriconazole discontinuation-n b

Complete response	10	5

Failure	0	1

Death	1	4

Clinical Response (days)-Mean (range)

Time to apyrexia	6 (1;14)	11 (1;19)

TDM evaluation-n	7	9

Aggravation	0	2

	Possible IA	Probable and proven IA

n=12	n=11

Duration of treatment (days)-Mean (range)

Liposomal amphotericin B	7 (1;12)	8 (2;20)

Caspofungin	6 (3;9)	11 (3;25)

Voriconazole	100 (2;235)	130 (42;261)

Causes of Voriconazole discontinuation-n b

Complete response	10	5

Failure	0	1

Death	1	4

Clinical Response (days)-Mean (range)

Time to apyrexia	6 (1;14)	11 (1;19)

TDM evaluation-n	7	9

Aggravation	0	2


 	Number of instances	Reasons

Number of ‘potential’ PI instances in the notes (within 500 notes)	89	70.9% due to misspellings; 20.9% due to PIs being un-entered in source

Type of Potential PIs

Patient Nickname	20	Un-entered PI

Patient First Name	18	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Old Address Post Code	14	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Patient Date of Birth	13	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Patient Contact Number	2	Un-entered PI

Patient Last Name	10	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Old Address Line 1	5	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Patient Middle Name	4	Un-entered PI

Old Address Line 2	2	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Old Address Line 3	1	Un-entered PI or misspellings

	Number of instances	Reasons

Type of Potential PIs

Patient Nickname	20	Un-entered PI

Patient First Name	18	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Old Address Post Code	14	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Patient Date of Birth	13	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Patient Contact Number	2	Un-entered PI

Patient Last Name	10	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Old Address Line 1	5	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Patient Middle Name	4	Un-entered PI

Old Address Line 2	2	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Old Address Line 3	1	Un-entered PI or misspellings


Features

Age (yrs)

Sex

Child-pugh

AFP*(μg/L)

Tumour size

Number of tumours

HBsAg

BCLC stage**


Operative data:

Operation time min (± SD)	203.96 (±58.51)

Cardiopulmonary bypass times min (± SD)	88.71 (±39.97)

Clamp times min (± SD)	45.95 (±22.63)

Of-pump procedures	1 (1)

Venous bypass grafts (exclusivly)	15 (12)

Total arterial revascularization	66 (52)

Arterial and venous revascularization	43 (34)

Number of performed bypass grafts n (± SD)	2.87 (±0.92)

Concomittant procedures

Mitral valve repair	3

Mitral valve replacement	3

Aortic valve replacement	1

DOR Plasty	3

Carotid TEA	1


	Predicted	Percentage Correct (%)

RRMS	HC

Observed	RRMS	22	3	88.0

HC	5	17	77.3

Overall percentage			83.0

	Predicted	Percentage Correct (%)

RRMS	HC

Observed	HC	5	17	77.3

Overall percentage			83.0


 	TOR120 (n = 43)	EXE (n = 45)

Grade1,2	Grade3,4	Grade1,2	Grade3,4

Nausea	4*	0	1	0

Fatigue	3*	0	1	0

Hot flush	3*	-	1	-

Night sweating	3*	-	0	-

Vaginal bleeding, discharge	2	-	0	-

Joint pain, disorder	1	-	2	-

Liver dysfunction	1	0	1	0

Exanthema	1	0	0	0

	TOR120 (n = 43)	EXE (n = 45)

Grade1,2	Grade3,4	Grade1,2	Grade3,4

Liver dysfunction	1	0	1	0

Exanthema	1	0	0	0


 	Normal hearing	Abnormal hearing

n	55	15

Mean age (years)	5.06 (range 3–9)	5.81 (range 3–13)

Duration of tablet assessment (secs)*	109±65	317±113

Number of objects*	23.8±9.45	67.1±19.1

Reliability (%)	90.4±22.4	92.0±10.8

	Normal hearing

n	55

Mean age (years)	5.06 (range 3–9)

Duration of tablet assessment (secs)*	109±65

Number of objects*	23.8±9.45

Reliability (%)	90.4±22.4


	Quartiles of neck circumference

Q1 (low)	Q2	Q3	Q4 (high)	The overall tendency

AHI < 5#

Subjects, n	805	655	491	283

Events, n (%)	10 (1.2)	17 (2.6)	17 (3.5)	14 (4.9)


Findings	Eyes/patients (%)

Anterior segment

normal	90/45(96)

corneal opacity	1/1(2)

bleb	1/1(2)

Posterior segment

normal	81/38(76)

tubercles	5/5(10)

scars	3/3(6)

chorioretinitis	1/1(2)

CMV retinitis	1/1(2)

HIV retinopathy	2/1(2)

Secondary open-angle glaucoma	1/1(2)


	False Positive Rate

Target	Mann-Whitney U	Spearman Correlation	Binomial test

		GC Corrected		GC Corrected		GC Corrected

WNV	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%

HCoV-SARS	7%	0%	100%	0%	0%	0%

EV18	63%	15%	100%	12%	14%	0%

LASV	11%	0%	100%	0%	0%	0%

ZEBOV	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%

VSV	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%

HAdV-4	100%	30%	100%	5%	18%	0%

FLUA H1N1	20%	1%	100%	0%	0%	0%

HSV-1	8%	0%	0%	1%	2%	0%

Negative Control (200 ng HuDNA)	100%	0%	1%	0%	1%	0% †

Negative Control (200 ng HuDNA)	100%	0%	100%	1%	1%	0%

Negative Control (200 ng HuDNA)	100%	0%	100%	1%	1%	0%

Negative Control (200 ng HuDNA)	100%	0%	100%	0%	1%	0%

Negative Control (10 ng HuDNA)	100%	0%	88%	0%	2%	0%

Negative Control	100%	0%	100%	0%	0%	0% †

Negative Control	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%

Negative Control	4%	0%	2%	0%	0%	0%

Average	48%	3%	58%	1%	2%	0%

	False Positive Rate

Target	Mann-Whitney U

WNV	0%

HCoV-SARS	7%

EV18	63%

LASV	11%

ZEBOV	0%

VSV	0%

HAdV-4	100%

FLUA H1N1	20%

HSV-1	8%

Negative Control (200 ng HuDNA)	100%

Negative Control (200 ng HuDNA)	100%

Negative Control (200 ng HuDNA)	100%

Negative Control (200 ng HuDNA)	100%

Negative Control (10 ng HuDNA)	100%

Negative Control	100%

Negative Control	0%

Negative Control	4%

Average	48%


1	2	3	4	5

Euglena	Daisy	Blackberry	Parasite(s)	Sea cucumber	Fish(es)	Frog

Bacterium	Plant(s)	Lotus	Earthworm	Tick	Shark

Amoeba	Tree(s)	Jasmine	Spider	Snail	Stingray

Mushroom	Rose	Mistletoe	Beetle(s)	Hydra

Algae	Flower(s)	Purslane	Butterfly	Invertebrate

Paramecium	Cactus	Daffodil	Bee	Jellyfish

Monera	Grass	Kiwi	Grasshopper	Calamari

Protists	Fern	Snowdrop	Scorpion	Mussel

Plasmodium	Tulip	Willow	Fly	Mantis

Plankton	Chrysanthemum	Geranium	Ant	Sponge

Planaria	Sunflower	Begonia	Caterpillar	Cockroach

 	Hyacinth	Violet	Cancer	Ladybug

 	 	 	Millipede	Octopus

6	7	8	9	10

Snake	Bird(s)	Lion	Squirrel	Dog	Human, human names

Crocodile	Eagle	Bear	Panda	Cat

Lizard	Bat	Tiger	Monk seal	Mouse

Turtle	Penguin	Monkey	Leopard	Rabbit

Reptile	Parrot	Giraffe	Weasel	Cow

Chameleon	Falcon	Elephant	Panther	Horse

Iguana	Pigeon	Whale	Vertebrate	Donkey

Dragon	Duck	Wolf	Tapir	Sheep

 	Cock, Rooster	Fox	Gazelle	Ox

 	Chicken, Chick	Gorilla	Cougar	Camel

 	Owl	Dolphin	Skunk	Goat

 	Partridge	Kangaroo	Cheetah	Mammal(s)

 	Sparrow	Koala	Rhinoceros	Calf

 	Hawk	Hippopotamus	Otter	Lamb

 	Canary	Zebra	Anteater	Buffalo

 	Ostrich	Hedgehog	Hyena	Lama

 	Vulture	Animal(s)	Pork	Mule

 	 	 	Lynx	Bull

1	2	3	4	5

Euglena	Daisy	Blackberry	Parasite(s)	Sea cucumber	Fish(es)	Frog

Bacterium	Plant(s)	Lotus	Earthworm	Tick	Shark

Amoeba	Tree(s)	Jasmine	Spider	Snail	Stingray

Mushroom	Rose	Mistletoe	Beetle(s)	Hydra

Algae	Flower(s)	Purslane	Butterfly	Invertebrate

Paramecium	Cactus	Daffodil	Bee	Jellyfish

Monera	Grass	Kiwi	Grasshopper	Calamari

Protists	Fern	Snowdrop	Scorpion	Mussel

Plasmodium	Tulip	Willow	Fly	Mantis

Plankton	Chrysanthemum	Geranium	Ant	Sponge

Planaria	Sunflower	Begonia	Caterpillar	Cockroach

	Hyacinth	Violet	Cancer	Ladybug

			Millipede	Octopus

6	7	8	9	10

Snake	Bird(s)	Lion	Squirrel	Dog	Human, human names

Crocodile	Eagle	Bear	Panda	Cat

Lizard	Bat	Tiger	Monk seal	Mouse

Turtle	Penguin	Monkey	Leopard	Rabbit

Rep	Parro	Giraffe	Weasel

1	2	3	4	5

tile	t			Cow

Chameleon	Falcon	Elephant	Panther	Horse

Iguana	Pigeon	Whale	Vertebrate	Donkey

Dragon	Duck	Wolf	Tapir	Sheep

	Cock, Rooster	Fox	Gazelle	Ox

	Chicken, Chick	Gorilla	Cougar	Camel

	Owl	Dolphin	Skunk	Goat

	Partridge	Kangaroo	Cheetah	Mammal(s)

	Sparrow	Koala	Rhinoceros	Calf

	Hawk	Hippopotamus	Otter	Lamb

	Canary	Zebra	Anteater	Buffalo

	Ostrich	Hedgehog	Hyena	Lama

	Vulture	Animal(s)	Pork	Mule

			Lynx	Bull


	BOLTa, sonidegib 200 mg	ERIVANCEa, vismodegib 150 mg (n = 63)

Prematched (n = 66)	Postmatched (n = 66)

Matched baseline characteristics

Prior BCC radiotherapy, nb (%)	5 (7.6%)	(20.6%)	13 (20.6%)

Prior BCC surgery, nb (%)	48 (72.7%)	(89.0%)	56 (88.9%)

Unmatched baseline characteristics

Age in years

Mean	64.6	64.6	61.4

Median	67.0	67.0	62.0

Standard deviation	15.9	15.5	16.9

Age range in years, nb (%)

18–40	6 (9.1%)	(8.6%)	7 (11.1%)

41–64	22 (33.3%)	(31.6%)	26 (41.3%)

≥65	38 (57.6%)	(59.8%)	30 (47.6%)


	Early menopause(< 46 years) (n = 25)a	Normal/late menopause(≥ 46 years) (n = 102)a

Mean age at diagnosis; years (SD)	65.2 (6.94)	62.8 (8.48)

Mean follow-up time; years (SD)	10.5 (3.0)	10.1 (3.6)

> 3 DMARDs used (%)	5/25 (20.0)	23/101 (22.8)

DMARDs in combination (%)	8/25 (32.0)	45/101 (44.6)

Biological treatment ever (%)	3/25 (12.0)	33/101 (32.7)

Documented radiographic erosions (ever) (%)	14/23 (60.9)	52/96 (54.2)


	Total visits	No. referred (%)	No. of nonsevere referrals (%)*	No. of severe referrals (%)*

Trial arm

 Control (presumptive arm)	2,404	314 (13.1)	180 (67.7)	86 (32.3)

 Intervention (mRDT arm)	1,097	782 (71.3)	444 (58.3)	317 (41.7)

Within intervention arm

 mRDT negative	1,064	770 (72.4)	439 (58.4)	313 (41.6)

 mRDT positive	34	13 (38.2)	5 (50.0)	5 (50.0)

ACT prescription†

 ACT not prescribed	1,053	782 (74.3)	454 (59.8)	305 (40.2)

 ACT prescribed	2,328	209 (9.0)	138 (79.8)	35 (20.2)

 Rectal artesunate prescribed	59	58 (98.3)	12 (23.5)	39 (76.5)


Factors	Expert	Non-expert

LCI	BLI-BRT	LCI	BLI-BRT


 	Total	Percentage

Gender

 Male	50	41.5

 Female	70	58.5

Age groups

 21–29	2	1.6

 30–39	8	6

 40–49	22	18.3

 50–59	21	18

 60–69	23	19.1

 70–79	27	22.5

 80–89	17	14.1

Educational attainment

 Illiterate	63	52.5

 Primary	31	25.8

 Middle	16	13.3

 Secondary	7	5.8

 University	3	2.5

Occupation

 Females

Housewives	63	90

Primary teacher	7	10

 Males

Shopkeepers	12	24

Farmers	22	44

Labour	8	16

Primary teachers	8	16

	Total	Percentage

Farmers	22	44

Labour	8	16

Primary teachers	8	16


Region of	Number

residence	of cases

Abruzzo	9

Basilicata	16

Calabria	24

Campania	22

Estera	2

Emilia Romagna	246

FVG	5

Lazio	195

Liguria	15

Lombardia	95

Marche	33

Molise	3

Piemonte	390

Puglia	148

Sardegna	3

Sicilia	5

Toscana	405

TAA	23

Umbria	18

ValledAosta	3

Veneto	139

Italy	-


Medicinal plant species	Ailments treated in current study	Previous reports of ethnomedical uses	Country of previous use

Vernonia amygdalina	Malaria	Malaria	Uganda [63, 101], Ghana [98], Cameroon [102], Democratic Republic of Congo(DRC) [103], Rwanda [104]

Wounds	Nigeria [105]

Skin rashes, diarrhoea, herpes zoster, cryptococcal meningitis	Tanzania [106]

Infertility, amenorrhea	South Africa [107]

Tonsolitis	Ethiopia [108]

Ageratum conyzoides	Uterine pains, helminth infections	Splenomegaly, colic pains, wounds	Uganda [1]

Vernonia lasiopus	Malaria, stomachaches	Skin allergy, constipation	Uganda [1]

Cleome gynandra	Prolonged labour	Convulsions, diphtheria, toothaches, peptic ulcers, vomiting	Uganda [1, 19]

Aloe vera	Malaria	Wounds	Kenya [96]

Prunus africana	Enlarged prostate	Prostate and breast cancers, Hypertension	Kenya [96, 109]

Capscum frutescens	Prostate cancer	Throat, breast and squamous cell carcinoma	Kenya [109]

Amaranthus spinosus	Scalp fungal infections	Haemorrhoids	Nigeria [57]

Mangifera indica	Cough, infertility, convulsions	Haemorrhoids	Nigeria [57]

Medicinal plant species	Ailments treated in current study	Previous reports of ethnomedical uses	Country of previous use

Vernonia amy	Mala	Malaria	Uganda [63, 101], Ghana [98], Cameroon [102], Democratic Republic of Congo(DRC) [103], Rwanda [104]

Wounds	Nigeria [105]

Skin rashes, diarrhoea, herpes zoster, cryptococcal men	Ta

Medicinal plant species	Ailments treated in current study	Previous reports of ethnomedical uses	Country of previous use

gdalina	ria	ingitis	nzania [106]

Infertility, amenorrhea	South Africa [107]

Tonsolitis	Ethiopia [108]

Ageratum conyzoides	Uterine pains, helminth infections	Splenomegaly, colic pains, wounds	Uganda [1]

Vernonia lasiopus	Malaria, stomachaches	Skin allergy, constipation	Uganda [1]

Cleome gynandra	Prolonged labour	Convulsions, diphtheria, toothaches, peptic ulcers, vomiting	Uganda [1, 19]

Aloe vera	Malaria	Wounds	Kenya [96]

Prunus africana	Enlarged prostate	Prostate and breast cancers, Hypertension	Kenya [96, 109]

Capscum frutescens	Prostate cancer	Throat, breast and squamous cell carcinoma	Kenya [109]

Amaranthus spinosus	Scalp fungal infections	Haemorrhoids	Nigeria [57]

Mangifera indica	Cough, infertility, convulsions	Haemorrhoids	Nigeria [57]


	Sensory disturbance group(N = 26)	Non-sensory disturbance group(N = 94)	p value

Gender	Male	12	49	0.38

Female	14	45

Age (years)	24.7 ± 10.1	24.3 ± 11.9	0.87

BMI	24.6 ± 3.1	23.3 ± 3.7	0.40

Tendon grafta	3 patients (11.5%)	10 patients (10.6%)	0.57


Annotation Category	Male	Female

Behaviour	16	11

Cell Cycle	21	27

Defence Response	29	34

Development	56	87

Metabolism	273	192

Mitochondrial	39	3

Proteolysis	34	25

Response to Toxin	7	8

Signal Transduction	59	66

Structural	32	31

Synaptic Transmission	11	13

Transcription	17	34

Translation	19	14

Transport	110	81

Unknown	203	178

Total No. of Genes	563	481

Annotation Category	Male	Female

Metabolism	273	192

Mitochondrial	39	3

Proteolysis	34	25

Response to Toxin	7	8

Signal Transduction	59	66

Structural	32	31

Synaptic Transmission	11	13

Transcription	17	34

Translation	19	14

Transport	110	81

Unknown	203	178

Total No. of Genes	563	481


Primary Breast Tissue	Cases	Promoter Methylation (%)	Statistical Test

RASSF1A	RASSF10

Normal	n = 25	2/25 (8%)	p < 0.005	1/25 (4%)	p < 0.005	Fishers Exact two tailed

Tumours	n = 27	15/27 (56%)	17/27 (63%)


Variable	Patients

(N = 828)

Gender (M/F)*	687 / 141

Age (y)	67 (9)

Pack-years	56 (28)

Active smoking*	29%

BMI (kg/m2)	28.1 (5.5)

FEV1L	1.65 (0.65)

FEV1%	56 (28)

PaO2 (mmHg)	67.4 (9.6)

FVC L	3.130 (0.94)

FVC%	88 (19)

FEV1/FVC	53 (11)

6MWD (m)	438 (104)

Dyspnea (mMRC)†	1 (0-4)

BODE index†	4 (0-6)

IC/TLC	0.35 (0.10)

KCO	74 (24)

Charlson index†	1 (0-5)

Exacerbations ≥2 per patient-years‡	0.15 (0.01)

Hospitalization ≥1 per patient-years‡	0.12 (0.01)

Inhaled anticholinergic*	75%

Inhaled β2-agonist*	74%

Inhaled corticosteroid*	65%

CAT†	11 (2-27)

CCQ†	1,3 (0-3.7)

Variable

Gender (M/F)*

Age (y)

Pack-years

Active smoking*

BMI (kg/m2)

FEV1L

FEV1%

PaO2 (mmHg)

FVC L

FVC%

FEV1/FVC

6MWD (m)

Dyspnea (mMRC)†

BODE index†

IC/TLC

KCO

Charlson index†

Exacerbations ≥2 per patient-years‡

Hospitalization ≥1 per patient-years‡

Inhaled anticholinergic*

Inhaled β2-agonist*

Inhaled corticosteroid*

CAT†

CCQ†


Map Type	Count

ESTs mapping to the human transcriptome (p ≤ 9 × 10-7)	140,906

ESTs mapping to the human genome and overlapping with a processed transcript	1261

ESTs which map to a transcribed region	8,221

ESTs which map to the human Genome alone	9,482

ESTs not correlating with the human genome (p ≤ 9 × 10-5)	20,981

Total	181,279

Map Type

ESTs mapping to the human transcriptome (p ≤ 9 × 10-7)

ESTs mapping to the human genome and overlapping with a processed transcript

ESTs which map to a transcribed region

ESTs which map to the human Genome alone

ESTs not correlating with the human genome (p ≤ 9 × 10-5)

Total


Proteins	Functions

Ionized calcium-binding adaptor molecule (Iba)1	Cytoplasmic protein constitutively expressed by microglia, upregulated in inflammation. Iba1 is involved in cytoskeletal reorganization, membrane ruffling of the microglial processes and actin cross-linking needed for cell migration [23], thus reflecting microglial motility and migration properties.

CD68	CD68 labels lysosomal and endosomal transmembrane glycoprotein of microglia, indicating phagocytic activity [33].

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DR	HLA-DR is a Major Histocompatibility Class (MHC) II cell surface receptor which presents antigens to cells of the immune system eliciting an immune response, involved in the non-self recognition and upregulated in inflammation [34].

Macrophage scavenger receptor (MSR)-A	MSR-A is a lipoprotein receptor involved in direct ligand recognition and scavenging activity. Its mouse homolog, scavenger receptor A (SR-A), is associated with plaques and release of reactive oxygen species and neurotoxic substances by microglia upon stimulation with fibrillar Aβ [35]. We previously showed a clustering pattern of MSR-A-positive microglia round plaques in Alzheimer's disease [16] suggesting expression of MSR-A may cause immobilization of the microglia when they encounter plaques [16, 26].

CD64 (Fcγ receptor I)	CD64 is a cell surface receptor with high affinity for the Fc portion of immunoglobulin (IgG), triggering a monocyte/macrophage response [30]. Expression of CD64 reflects the presence of immunoglobulins in the brain and thus the involvement of systemic immunity [36]. Overall FcγRs are important for antibody-dependent cytotoxicity, antigen presentation via MHC, clearance of antibodies and phagocytosis [37].

Proteins

Ionized calcium-binding adaptor molecule (Iba)1

CD68

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DR

Macrophage scavenger receptor (MSR)-A

CD64 (Fcγ receptor I)

Functions

Cytoplasmic protein constitutively expressed by microglia, upregulated in inflammation. Iba1 is involved in cytoskeletal reorganization, membrane ruffling of the microglial processes and actin cross-linking needed for cell migration [23], thus reflecting microglial motility and migration properties.

CD68 labels lysosomal and endosomal transmembrane glycoprotein of microglia, indicating phagocytic activity [33].

HLA-DR is a Major Histocompatibility Class (MHC) II cell surface receptor which presents antigens to cells of the immune system eliciting an immune response, involved in the non-self recognition and upregulated in inflammation [34].

MSR-A is a lipoprotein receptor involved in direct ligand recognition and scavenging activity. Its mouse homolog, scavenger receptor A (SR-A), is associated with plaques and release of reactive oxygen species and neurotoxic substances by microglia upon stimulation with fibrillar Aβ [35]. We previously showed a clustering pattern of MSR-A-positive microglia round plaques in Alzheimer's disease [16] suggesting expression of MSR-A may cause immobilization of the microglia when they encounter plaques [16, 26].

CD64 is a cell surface receptor with high affinity for the Fc portion of immunoglobulin (IgG), triggering a monocyte/macrophage response [30]. Expression of CD64 reflects the presence of immunoglobulins in the brain and thus the involvement of systemic immunity [36]. Overall FcγRs are important for antibody-dependent cytotoxicity, antigen presentation via MHC, clearance of antibodies and phagocytosis [37].


	Setting 1	Setting 2	Setting 3

	Fitness	Sensitivity	Fitness	Sensitivity	Fitness	Sensitivity


Type	Symbol	Theme	Relevant figure	Supporting cluster(s)

Chemical-gene	A+	Agonism, activation	3a	6+

	A−	Antagonism, blocking		6–

	B	Binding, ligand (esp. receptors)		14–16

	E+	Increases expression/production		8+, 9+

	E−	Decreases expression/production		8–, 9–, 10

	E	Affects expression/production (neutral)		8, 9, 11a

	N	Inhibits		3

Gene-chemical	O	Transport, channels	3a	19, 21

	K	Metabolism, pharmacokinetics		11c

	Z	Enzyme activity		20

Chemical-disease	T	Treatment/therapy (incl. investigatory)	3b	8g, 8h, 9

	C	Inhibits cell growth (esp. cancers)		2, 3

	Sa	Side effect/adverse event		6, 15, 16

	Pr	Prevents, suppresses		1, 9, 21, 24, 28

	Pa	Alleviates, reduces		26, 30

	J	Role in pathogenesis		20

Disease-chemical	Mp	Biomarkers (progression)	3b	18, 19

gene-disease	U	Causal mutations	3c	14

	Ud	Mutations affect disease course		13

	D	Drug targets		10, 12

	J	Role in pathogenesis		2h, 4, 6, 8, 9

	Te	Possible therapeutic effect		2j, 3

	Y	Polymorphisms alter risk		22, 26, 27

	G	Promotes progression		29

Disease-gene	Md	Biomarkers (diagnostic)	3c	5, 7

	X	Overexpression in disease		15, 17, 30

	L	Improper regulation linked to disease		18, 19, 21

Gene–gene	B	Binding, ligand (esp. receptors)	3d	10

	W	Enhances response		13

	V+	Activates, stimulates		14, 16

	E+	Increases expression/production		21, 22

	E	Affects expression/production (neutral)		7, 17

	I	Signaling pathway		24

	H	Same protein or complex		25

	Rg	Regulation		28, 30

	Q	Production by cell population		1, 2, 6


Variables	p values - Left	p values - Right

LPFX LAF	0.995	0.999

LPFX OAF	0.969	0.246

LPFX OPF	0.089	0.104

LAFX OAF	0.996	0.248

LAFX OPF	0.050	0.106

OAFX OPF	0.027*	0.976

Variables	p values - Left	p values - Right

LPFX LAF	0.995	0.999

LPFX OAF	0.969	0.246

LPFX OPF	0.089	0.104

LAFX OAF	0.996	0.248

LA	0.050	0.10

Variables	p values - Left	p values - Right

FX OPF		6

OAFX OPF	0.027*	0.976


Variable	Odds Ratio	95% CI	P value

Cataract surgery

 Before first eye surgery	1.0

 After first eye surgery	0.3	0.1–0.7	0.004

 After second eye surgery	0.1	0.1–0.4	< 0.001

Gender

 Female	1.0

 Male	0.4	0.1–1.3	0.122

Age group (years)

 55–64	1.0

 65–74	0.1	0.1–1.2	0.072

 75+	0.7	0.6–8.0	0.737

Marital status

 Single	1.0

 Married/de facto	0.3	0.1–1.2	0.096

Retirement status

 Not retired	1.0

 Retired	5.6	1.1–27.7	0.036

Number of comorbidities	1.1	0.9–1.4	0.257

MMSE score	1.0	0.9–1.2	0.803


Variable	Measurement Items	Reference

BI	1. If the hospital decides to develop MEMR in the future, I shall frequently use it.	Hu et al. 1999 [9]

2. If the hospital decides to develop MEMR in the future, I will use it to assist my healthcare work.

3. I think I will recommend other physicians (from this hospital or not) to use MEMR.

4. If the hospital decides to develop MEMR in the future, it will become one of my favorite assistance tools for my work.

PU	1. Using MEMR will speed up my work (e.g. going on rounds and consulting medical records).	Davis et al. 1989 [5]; Davis 1989 [52]

2. Using MEMR will improve my work quality (such as enhancing the immediacy of prescribing physician orders).

3. Using MEMR will make it easier to conduct my work.

4. Using MEMR will improve my working performance.

5. Using MEMR will help me to control my work better.

PEOU	1. It is easy to understand the operations of MEMR.]	Davis et al. 1989 [5]; Davis 1989 [52]

2. It is easy to use MEMR to finish my work.

3. On the whole, MEME is easy to use.

PT	1. Using MEMR may decrease my control over clinical decisions.	Walter & Lopez 2008 [15]

2. Using MEMR may decrease my professional discretion over patient care decisions.

3. Using MEMR can decrease my control over each step of the patient care process.

4. Using MEMR may increase the monitoring of my diagnostic and therapeutic decisions by non-providers.

5. Using MEMR may decrease my control over the allocation of scarce resources.

6. I would find MEMR advantageous for the medical profession as a whole.

PM	1. I can access the MEMR at any time for the necessary information or service for my patient care	Lee 2005 [53]

2. I can access the MEMR anywhere for the necessaryzinformation or service for my patient care

3. I can use the MEMR “anywhere,” and “anytime” at the point of patient care.

Variable	Measurement Items

BI	1. If the hospital decides to develop MEMR in the future, I shall frequently use it.

2. If the hospital decides to develop MEMR in the future, I will use it to assist my healthcare work.

3. I think I will recommend other physicians (from this hospital or not) to use MEMR.

4. If the hospital decides to develop MEMR in the future, it will become one of my favorite assistance tools for my work.

PU	1. Using MEMR will speed up my work (e.g. going on rounds and consulting medical records).

2. Using MEMR will improve my work quality (such as enhancing the immediacy of prescribing physician orders).

3. Using MEMR will make it easier to conduct my work.

4. Using MEMR will improve my working performance.

5. Using MEMR will help me to control my work better.

PEOU	1. It is easy to understand the operations of MEMR.]

2. It is easy to use MEMR to finish my work.

3. On the whole, MEME is easy to use.

PT	1. Using MEMR may decrease my control over clinical decisions.

2. Using MEMR may decrease my professional discretion over patient care decisions.

3. Using MEMR can decrease my control over each step of the patient care process.

4. Using MEMR may increase the monitoring of my diagnostic and therapeutic decisions by non-providers.

5. Using MEMR may decrease my control over the allocation of scarce resources.

6. I would find MEMR advantageous for the medical profession as a whole.

PM	1. I can access the MEMR at any time for the necessary information or service for my patient care

2. I can access the MEMR anywhere for the necessaryzinformation or service for my patient care

3. I can use the MEMR “anywhere,” and “anytime” at the point of patient care.


Parameters	Traditional Technology [35]	Author’s Technology [36]

Wear intensity I∙10−7, mm3/N∙m	8.2	4.9

Breaking strength σb, MPa	18.0	24.0

Ratio of CF and PTFE powder (volume) in filler preparation 	-	1:1


Transcription		Meaning unit	ICF category

Moderator:	If you think about your body, what functional problems do you have?

Patient A:	I used to go to sports very often. Now I can't anymore. I even had to quit swimming	Restriction of sports Quit swimming	d9201 sports d4554 swimming

Patient B:	Exactly! I also had to quit swimming.

Patient C:	I can no longer cycle. (...)	Quit cycling	d4750 driving human-powered transportation

Moderator:	If you think about your body, where are your biggest problems?

Patient C:	Toes, ankle joints, knee joints, fingers	ToesAnkle joints	s7502 structure of ankle & foots75021 ankle joint & joints of foot and toes

		Knee joints	s75011 knee joint

		Fingers	s7302 structure of hand

Patient A:	What bothers me are my wrists. (...)	Wrists	s73021 joints of hand and fingers

Transcription		Meaning unit

Moderator:	If you think about your body, what functional problems do you have?

Patient A:	I used to go to sports very often. Now I can't anymore. I even had to quit swimming	Restriction of sports Quit swimming

Patient B:	Exactly! I also had to quit swimming.

Patient C:	I can no longer cycle. (...)	Quit cycling

Moderator:	If you think about your body, where are your biggest problems?

Patient C:	Toes, ankle joints, knee joints, fingers	ToesAnkle joints

		Knee joints

		Fingers

Patient A:	What bothers me are my wrists. (...)	Wrists

ICF category

d9201 sports d4554 swimming

d4750 driving human-powered transportation

s7502 structure of ankle & foots75021 ankle joint & joints of foot and toes

s75011 knee joint

s7302 structure of hand

s73021 joints of hand and fingers


Lake Number	Lake Volume (m3)

10	8,000,000


	HI titers	NT titers

Strain	Median titer	Proportion titers ≥40 (%)	Median titer	Proportion titer ≥20 (%)

A/Hong Kong/1/1968	40	55.00	20	59.60

A/Victoria/3/1975	40	31.10	10	36.40


VariablesAt the follow-up visit	Higher IR group(n = 71)	Lower IR group (n = 213)	p value

hsCRP	8.54 ± 13.78	3.87 ± 7.45	0.005


	Control	Mild periodontitis	Moderate periodontitis	Severe periodontitis	Implant

	(I)	(II)	(III)	(IV)	(V)

MMP-8 (ng/mL)

 Range	0.21–20.70	0.20–31.50	0.34–54.90	0.20–48.51	0.30–347.00

 Mean ± SD	5.61 ± 6.55	7.40 ± 9.07	12.43 ± 16.01	13.17 ± 16.43	40.46 ± 80.29

I versus II, P = 0.0020I versus III, P = 0.0003I versus IV, P = 0.020I versus V, P = 0.0099	II versus III, P = 0.0313II versus IV, P = 0.13II versus V, P = 0.0321	III versus IV, P = 0.357III versus V, P = 0.0489IV versus V, P = 0.0255


Age (years)

Sex (male/female)

Waiting time (days)

Intraoperative blood loss (g)

Duration of follow-up (m)

Garden classification

Garden alignment index

AP view

Lateral view

Preoperative ADL

Gait alone

With aid

With helper/walker

Wheel chair

Postoperative ADL

Gait alone

With aid

With helper/walker

Wheel chair


Characteristics	PCV-7 group (n = 811)	Control group (n = 744)	P

Males (%)	476 (58.7)	413 (55.5)	0.22

Age at vaccination, median days (range)

First dose	82 (75–104)	82 (76–103)	0.96

Second dose	140 (128–155)	143 (130–158)	0.93


	Completed (n = 107)	On treatment (n = 55)	Discontinued (n = 45)

2006	7 (7%)		2 (5%)


Mineral intake per day	RDA [11]	Fast finishers	Slow finishers

Calcium (mg.day−1)	1,000 mg (M, F)	848.7 ± 137.6	872.4 ± 260.5

Phosphorus (mg.day−1)	700 mg (M, F)	1,859.3 ± 781.4*	717.9 ± 200.2


INVERSION	SIZE (Mb)	GENOMIC DISORDER/REARRANGEMENT	REFERENCE

inv(3)(q29)	1.9	3q29 microdeletion syndrome	[29]

inv(5)(q35)	1.3	Sotos syndrome	[30]

inv(7)(q11.23)	1.8	Williams-Beuren syndrome	[31]

inv(8)(p23)	4.7	8p23 microdeletion syndrome	[32]

inv(15)(q11q13)	4	Angelman syndrome	[12]

inv(15)(q13.3)	2	15q13.3 deletion syndrome	[33]

inv(17)(q12)	1.5	RCAD syndrome	[29]

inv(17)(q21.31)	0.9	17q21.21 deletion syndrome	[34]


Type of Nasal-Spray Container (group)	Positive Cultures (No.)	Negative Cultures (No.)	Total

1 (Cap-off)	3	63	66

2 (Cap-on)	1	65	66

3 (Control)	0	66	66

Total	4	194	198


	Smoking cohort	All clients/comparisons

Characteristics	Comparisons (n = 7701)	Clients (n = 2595)	p-value	Controls (n = 33,384)	Clients (n = 8986)	p-value

%	%		%	%

Age, less than 18 year			<0.0	18	22.1


	Test A versus B	Test B versus C

	Medially loaded	Laterally loaded	Medially loaded	Laterally loaded

Proximal migration	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.04

Varus rotation	0.2	0.3	0.04	0.04

Flexion tilt	0.9	0.1	0.04	0.04

	Test A versus B	Test B versus C

	Medially loaded	Laterally loaded	Medially loaded	Laterally loaded

Flexion tilt	0.9	0.1	0.04	0.04


Macronutrient	Source	Content at 20 kcal/fl oz (g/L)	Content at 30 kcal/fl oz (g/L)

Protein equivalent	100% free L-amino acids	20.3	30.1

Carbohydrate	100% corn syrup solids	72.3	107.0

Fat	38% high-oleic safflower oil, 33% medium chain triglycerides, 29% soy oil	32.2	47.6

Macronutrient	Source	Content at 20 kcal/fl oz (g/L)

Protein equivalent	100% free L-amino acids	20.3

Carbohydrate	100% corn syrup solids	72.3

Fat	38% high-oleic safflower oil, 33% medium chain triglycerides, 29% soy oil	32.2

Content at 30 kcal/fl oz (g/L)

30.1

107.0

47.6


Concordance	Coder 1(YS)	Coder 2 (AV)

0 (non found)	16 (1.7%)		4 (0.4%)

1 (partly concordant)	127 (13%)		114 (11.7%)

 1a. target (SNOMED CT) more specific than source (KSH97-P)		77 (60%)		75 (65%)

 1b. target less specific than source		25 (20%)		20 (18%)

 1c. imprecise but neither more nor less specific'		25 (20%)		19 (17%)

2 (completely concordant)	829 (85.3%)		854 (87.9%)

Total	972 (100%)	127 (100%)	972 (100%)	114 (100%)


The maximum level of non-compliance, with the seasonality adjustment	The maximum level of non-compliance, without the seasonality adjustment	Total (with seasonal adjustments)

Always compliant	At least one first warning	At least one second warning	At least one third warning	Liable for suspension

Calculation method 1

 Always compliant	13426	524	60	0	0	14010

 At least one first warning	0	607	101	13	0	721

 At least one second warning	0	0	496	95	11	602

 At least one third warning	0	0	0	444	103	547

 Liable for suspension	0	0	0	0	860	860

 Total (without seasonal adjustments)	13426	1131	657	552	974	16740

Calculation method 2

 Always compliant	13616	393	48	0	0	14057

 At least one first warning	0	542	87	14	0	643

 At least one second warning	0	0	513	84	9	606

 At least one third warning	0	0	0	479	101	580

 Liable for suspension	0	0	0	0	854	854

 Total (without seasonal adjustments)	13616	935	648	577	964	16740

The maximum level of non-compliance, with the seasonality adjustment	The maximum level of non-compliance, without the seasonality adjustment	Total (with seasonal adjustments)

Always compliant	At least one first warning	At least one second warning	At least one third warning	Liable for suspension

At least one first warning	0	542	87	14	0	643

At least one second warning	0	0	513	84	9	606

At least one third warning	0	0	0	479	101	580

Liable for suspension	0	0	0	0	854	854

Total (without seasonal adjustments)	13616	935	648	577	964	16740


Groups	ALT (U/L)	AST (U/L)	LDH (U/L)	T-BIL (mg/L)


Subsystem	Instrument	Signal	Task	Measurements

Respiratory	Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS), KAYPentax 	Aerodynamic	/pa/, /pi/	Maximum subglottal pressure

Bamboo passage	Speech duration, pausing pattern (e.g., number of pauses, pause duration, pausing frequency)

Phonatory	Compact flash recorder, professional quality microphone, Countryman E6, Phonatory Aerodynamic System, KAYPentax 	Acoustic, aerodynamic	“Normal” and “high pitch” phonation of /a/	Phonation duration, maximum F0, jitter, shimmer, NHR, SPL, laryngeal airway resistance

Articulatory	Eagle Digital System, Motion Analysis Corp. 	Kinematic	“Buy Bobby a puppy”“Say /aCa/ again” 	Maximum/minimum velocities of lips and jaw

Microphone	Acoustic	Repeat /ba/ as clear and as fast as possible on one breath	Number, duration, and rate of syllable repetitions

Resonatory	Nasometer, Model 6400, KAYPentax 	Acoustic	“Mama made a lemon jam” “Buy Bobby a puppy” 	Nasalance

Phonatory Aerodynamic System, KAYPentax 	Aerodynamic	/pa/, /pi/, /ma/, /mi/, “hamper”	Intraoral air pressure and nasal airflow in syllables, time lag between /m/ and /p/ in “hamper”


	Ocular manifestation first group (n = 18)

Mean age	57.4 ± 15.3

Female/male ratio	17/1 (94.4%)

BHLa in radiography	15 (83.3%)

Increased ACEb	13 (72.2%)

ACEb level	82.4 ± 46.5

Ocular complications	4 (22.2%)

Visual acuity at last visit	0.83 ± 0.19

Ocular involvement

Mutton-fat KPc	16 (88.9%)

Angle change	2 (11.1%)

Vitreous opacity	5 (27.8%)

Nodular phlebitis	13 (72.2%)

Multiple choroidal lesions	7 (38.9%)

Optic disc lesion	3 (16.7%)

Bilaterality	16 (88.9%)

Systemic treatment	16 (88.9%)

Immunosuppression	10 (55.6%)


	ALL	Egypt	Germany

	n	Positive LR	Negative LR	n	Positive LR	Negative LR	n	Positive LR	Negative LR

all proximal	38	4.30 (3.4–5.5)	0.63 (0.56–0.72)	31	5.34 (4.2–6.8)	0.65 (0.57–0.74)	34	4.89 (3.9–6.2)	0.65 (0.57–0.73)


Outcomes	Transferred (n = 82)	Non-transferred (n = 288)	Pvalue

Mortality, n (%)	35 (42.7)	150 (52.1)	0.13

Kidney status among survivors, n (%)

Full recovery	6 (12.8)	46 (33.3)	0.02

Partial recovery	20 (42.6)	42 (30.4)

Renal replacement therapy-dependent	21 (44.7)	50 (36.2)

Outcomes	Transferred (n = 82)	Non-transferred (n = 288)	Pvalue

Kidney status among survivors, n (%)

Full recovery	6 (12.8)	46 (33.3)	0.02

Partial recovery	20 (42.6)	42 (30.4)

Renal replacement therapy-dependent	21 (44.7)	50 (36.2)


	Univariate	Multivariate

Variable	HR	95% CI	P	HR	95% CI	P

Gender F/M	1.35	0.80-2.25	0.26	–	–	–

Age < 60/≥60 yr	1.59	0.95-2.67	0.08	–	–	–

Tumor site	–	–	0.17	–	–	–

body/fundus	0.47	0.20-1.09	0.078	–	–	–

antrum/fundus, body	0.57	0.29 -1.13	0.11	–	–	–


Drowning	No of cases	Testing rates

Alcohol(%)	Medicinal drugs(%)

Unintentional (V90, V92, W65-W74)	1746	100%	91.5%

Boating-related (V90, V92)	303	100%	91.1%

Non-boating (W65-W74)	1443	100%	91.6%

Drowning

Unintentional (V90, V92, W65-W74)

Boating-related (V90, V92)

Non-boating (W65-W74)


Variable	Mean (SD)

Total energy (kJ)	7709.0 (2320.4)

Total soy product (g)	45.0 (33.8)

Tofu (g)	20.8 (22.0)

Tofu products (g)	3.0 (5.8)

Fermented soybeans (g)	10.2 (13.3)

Boiled soybeans (g)	4.1 (9.4)

Miso (g)	1.7 (5.3)

Miso soup (g)	5.2 (4.6)

Soy protein (g)	4.6 (3.5)

Isoflavone (mg)	26.8 (21.7)

Daidzein (mg)	10.1 (8.2)

Genistein (mg)	16.7 (13.5)

Variable	Mean (SD)

Miso (g)	1.7 (5.3)

Miso soup (g)	5.2 (4.6)

Soy protein (g)	4.6 (3.5)

Isoflavone (mg)	26.8 (21.7)

Daidzein (mg)	10.1 (8.2)

Genistein (mg)	16.7 (13.5)


Perceived stress (PS) owing to the following items in Indistinct organisation and conflicts	High stress perception	No/Low stress perception

	% (95% CI)	n	% (95% CI)	n

PS owing to increased work-load	38 (33 – 43)	160	62 (57 – 67)	264

PS owing to unclear goals at workplace	14 (11 – 18)	60	86 (82 – 89)	364

PS owing to unclear work assignments	7 (4 – 9)	28	93 (91 – 95)	396

PS owing to unclear leadership	3 (1 – 5)	12	97 (95 – 99)	412

PS owing to conflicts at work	23 (19 – 27)	98	77 (73 – 81)	326

PS owing to involved in conflicts at work	12 (9 – 15)	49	88 (85 – 91)	375

PS owing to supervisor not solved the conflicts	17 (13 – 21)	71	83 (79 – 87)	353

Perceived stress (PS) owing to the following items in Individual demands and commitment

PS owing to high demands on oneself at work	29 (25 – 34)	125	71 (66 – 75)	299

PS owing to engaged in one's work	17 (14 – 21)	72	83 (79 – 86)	352

PS owing to think about work after working-day	25 (21 – 29)	106	75 (71 – 79)	318

PS owing to hard to set limits	44 (39 – 49)	187	56 (51 – 61)	237

PS owing to high responsibility for one's work	29 (25 – 34)	123	71 (66 – 75)	301

PS owing to work over-time/stress	24 (20 – 28)	102	76 (72 – 80)	322

PS owing to sleep disturbance on account of work	26 (22 – 31)	112	74 (69 – 78)	312


	MHPA	PKU

Number patients	41	100

Gender – Male	20	47

Gender – Female	21	53

Average Age	9y 7 m	17y 10 m

Under 18 years	35	57

zBMI – obese + overweight	3	34

zBMI – normal	33	61

zBMI – underweight	5	5

WC - obese + overweight	7	45

WC - normal	30	50

WC - underweight	4	5

AC - obese + overweight	5	21

AC - normal	21	27

AC - underweight	4	15

Early Diagnostic	40	85

BH4 treatment	0	17

Adequated Diet adherence	40	80

Phe Tol (mg/day)	1889.6 ± 831.9	481.1 ± 376.3

Phe median (μmol/L)	238.6 ± 93.2	397.3 ± 281.9

Total Cholesterol (mg/dL)	164.2 ± 21.9	149.9 ± 31.5

HDL (mg/dL)	55.8 ± 12.6	49.8 ± 11.9

LDL (mg/dL)	92.1 ± 17.2	82.1 ± 24.7

ApoA (mg/dL)	160.7 ± 26.4	144.1 ± 25.9

ApoB (mg/dL)	75.5 ± 17.6	65.9 ± 19.1

LDL/ApoB	1.26 ± 0.16	1.22 ± 0.19

Triglycerids (mg/dL)	79.2 ± 36.2	91.7 ± 45.7

Homocystein (μmol/L)	5.9 ± 2.4	5.9 ± 3.3

Systolic BP (mmHg)	105.5 ± 12	114.9 ± 14.4

Diastolic BP (mmHg)	65.7 ± 10.5	69.3 ± 13.7

B12 (pg/mL)	584.9 ± 205.6	664.5 ± 333.6

Zinc (μg/dL)	82.4 ± 33.1	81.2 ± 21.5

Copper (μg/dL)	86 ± 22.5	78.4 ± 21.3

Zinc/Copper	1.01 ± 0.46	1.11 ± 0.45


Trait	Average heterozygosity

Age	0.02

Smoke	−0.01

Q1	0.16

Q2	0.05

Q4	−0.06

Q1A	0.17

Q1B	0.02

Q4A	−0.10

Affected	0.14


Variables

Acute onset pain (<8 h)

Cyst diameter > 5cm

Peritoneal signs

Nausea and vomiting

Negative flow in Doppler

Leukocytosis (WBC ≥ 12 × 103) (cells/mm3) 10 (71.4%)

Elevated CRP (≥8 mg/L)

* Elevated D-dimer


	Drug class	Ovarian cancer indication	Black box warnings	Warnings and precautions

Bevacizumab [33]	VEGF inhibitor; anti-angiogenesis	Platinum-resistant recurrent disease• In combination with paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan with no more than 2 prior lines of chemotherapyPlatinum-sensitive recurrent disease• In combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, or carboplatin and gemcitabine; followed by single-agent bevacizumab	• Gastrointestinal perforations• Surgery and wound healing complications• Hemorrhage	• Perforation or fistula• Arterial and venous thromboembolic events• Hypertension• Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome• Proteinuria• Infusion reactions• Embryo-fetal toxicity• Ovarian failure

Niraparib [36]	PARP inhibitor	Maintenance treatment of recurrent disease in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy	None	• Myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia• Bone marrow suppression• Cardiovascular effects (blood pressure and heart rate)• Embryo-fetal toxicity

Olaparib [35]	PARP inhibitor	Maintenance treatment of recurrent disease in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapyTreatment of deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated disease with ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy; requires FDA-approved companion diagnostic test	None	• Myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia• Pneumonitis• Embryo-fetal toxicity

Rucaparib [34]	PARP inhibitor	Monotherapy in patients with deleterious BRCA mutations treated with two or more prior chemotherapies; requires companion diagnostic test	None	• Myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia• Embryo-fetal toxicity


	Inhibited Temperament	Uninhibited Temperament	p value

	Mean	SD	Mean	SD

Temperament

 Retrospective	3.0	.32	1.5	.22	.0001

 Current	3.1	.55	1.7	.14	.0001

Demographics

 Age	22.20	3.62	21.30	2.45	NS

 Gender (% Male)	40%		40%		NS

 Handedness (% Right)	80%		100%		NS

 Ethnicity					.07

% Caucasian	50%		70%

% African-American	10%		30%

% Asian	40%		0%

	Inhibited Temperament	Uninhibited Temperament	p value

	Mean	SD	Mean	SD

Temperament

Retrospective	3.0	.32	1.5	.22	.0001

Current	3.1	.55	1.7	.14	.0001

Demographics

Age	22.20	3.62	21.30	2.45	NS

Gender (% Male)	40%		40%		NS

Handedness (% Right)	80%		100%		NS

E					.0

	Inhibited Temperament	Uninhibited Temperament	p value

thnicity			7

% Caucasian	50%	70%

% African-American	10%	30%

% Asian	40%	0%


SF-36 domains	ASA	Scheduled surgery	Magnitude

	I/II	III/IV	pa	Yes	No	P	Major	Mediun/minor	pa

Physical function	65	45	<0.001	55	55	0.842	55	50	0.626

Role physical	50	25	<0.001	44	38	0.534	44	38	0.350

Bodily pain	62	52	0.118	52	52	0.180	52	52	0.286

General health	50	40	0.001	45	55	0.533	45	45	0.330


Authors	Specimen bone	Yield strength (Re)[MPa]	Ult. tensile strength (σult)[MPa]	Elongation at break (εult)[%]

(Yamada 1970)	Femur		109	1.35

(Reilly and Burstein 1975)	Femur	114	135	3.1

(Vinz 1975)	Femur for adults (avg. 30 years)		106	0.26

(Evans 1976)	Tibia (avg. 41.5 years)		106	1.76

(Evans 1976)	Tibia (avg. 72 years)		84	1.56

(McCalden et al. 1993)(Ott 2007, Ott et al. 2010)	Femur (avg. between [20–102] years)	71	98	2.4

(MatWeb, 2016)	Femur		135	3.1


Subgroups	No. of studies	HR (95% CI)	I2 (P value)

Population

Children	6	5.62 (3.75–8.42)	3.2% (0.40)

Mixed adult and children	2	3.60 (1.72–7.51)	65.2% (0.09)

Design


Factor	Responsive

Gender, males	21 (40.4%)

Age, years	46.75 ± 12.95

Duration of eye symptoms, months	8.75 [4–12]a

Smoking history	28 (53.8%)

Family history of TAO	9 (17.3%)

History of impaired thyroid function	44 (84.6%)

Pretreatment CAS	4 [3–4]

Restoration of euthyroidism	19 (36.5%)


Parameters	Seminal leukocytes (X 106 WBC/mL)

	No leukocytes	0.1 – 1 WBC	> 1 WBC


	Percentile GroupsGlobal Improved (%)

Variable	Lowest tertile	Middle tertile	Highest tertile	Fisher's Exact Test

Patellar Length Ratio (PLR)	3(25)	5(38.5)	4(30.8)	p = 0.907

Bisect Offset (BO)	8(66.7)	1(7.7)	3(23.1)	p = 0.007

Patellar Tilt Angle (PTA)	5(41.7)	5(38.5)	2(15.4)	p = 0.323

Trochlear Inclination (TI) (Lateral)	4(33.3)	3(23.1)	5(38.5)	p = 0.757

Trochlear Inclination (TI) (Medial)	2(16.7)	6(46.2)	4(30.8)	p = 0.383

Trochlear Angle (TA)	3(25)	5(38.5)	4(30.8)	p = 0.907

Sulcus Angle (SA)	4(33.3)	4(30.8)	4(30.8)	p = 1

Lateral Patellofemoral Angle (LPFA)	2(16.7)	6(46.2)	4(30.8)	p = 0.383

Congruence Angle (CA)	5(41.7)	5(38.5)	2(15.4)	p = 0.323

Patellar Lateral Subluxation Distance (PSD)	7(63.6)	4(33.3)	1(8.3)	p = 0.023

Lateral Patellar Displacement (LPD)	3(27.3)	5(41.7)	4(33.3)	p = 0.903

	Percentile GroupsGlobal Improved (%)

Variable	Lowest tertile	Middle tertile	Highest tertile

Patellar Length Ratio (PLR)	3(25)	5(38.5)	4(30.8)

Bisect Offset (BO)	8(66.7)	1(7.7)	3(23.1)

Patellar Tilt Angle (PTA)	5(41.7)	5(38.5)	2(15.4)

Trochlear Inclination (TI) (Lateral)	4(33.3)	3(23.1)	5(38.5)

Trochlear Inclination (TI) (Medial)	2(16.7)	6(46.2)	4(30.8)

Trochlear Angle (TA)	3(25)	5(38.5)	4(30.8)

Sulcus Angle (SA)	4(33.3)	4(30.8)	4(30.8)

Lateral Patellofemoral Angle (LPFA)	2(16.7)	6(46.2)	4(30.8)

Congruence Angle (CA)	5(41.7)	5(38.5)	2(15.4)

Patellar Lateral Subluxation Distance (PSD)	7(63.6)	4(33.3)	1(8.3)

Lateral Patellar Displacement (LPD)	3(27.3)	5(41.7)	4(33.3)


Characteristic	Total (n:12)

Demographic characteristics

Age, median (range)	32 (21–56)

Men, number	9

Epidemiological characteristics and risk factors

Foreigners, numbera	1

MSM/men, ratio	9/9

High-risk sexual behaviourb, number	9

Contact with infected individuals, numberc	3

Travelled in the 2 months before symptom onset, number	0

Cases who used drugsd, number	5

Cases with severe hepatitise, number	2

Cases which were hospitalised, number	4

Sexually transmitted co-infections

HIV, number	5

HBV, number	1

HCV, number	0

Syphilis, number	2

Liver function tests

ALT, median (range)	3,609 (1,615–5,904)

Total bilirubin, median (range)	8.6 (4–21)

INR, median (range)	1.4 (1.2–2.0)


Speciation Mode	Synopsis	References

Point mutation	Speciation whereby each individual in the metacommunity has an equal probability of producing an offspring of a new species. Produces many rare species with lifetimes unrealistically short	Hubbell (2001)

Random fission	Speciation occurs through a population randomly dividing into two distinct species. Produces species with lifetimes unrealistically long	Hubbell and Lake (2003), Hubbell (2005), Etienne and Haegeman (2011)

Peripheral isolate	Divergence follows the isolation of populations. Newly arisen species have abundances drawn from a normal distribution	Hubbell and Lake (2003), Hubbell (2005)

Generalized speciation	A generalized neutral community model incorporating numerous modes	Haegeman and Etienne (2009)

Protracted speciation	Speciation is a gradual, drawn out process. Results in a new predicted metacommunity SAD (termed the “difference logseries”)	Rosindell et al. (2010)


	a) AUC for “highly suspected drugs“	b) AUC for “highly suspected drugs“ or “suspected drugs“

Univariable CLR	0.836	0.871

Multivariable CLR	0.741	0.775

Lasso	0.862	0.861

Elastic net	0.868	0.909

Bolasso	0.804	0.813

Sublasso	0.815	0.823

Random lasso	0.820	0.847

Firth correction	0.852	0.928

Case-controla	0.947	0.809

	a) AUC for “highly suspected drugs“	b) AUC for “highly suspected drugs“ or “suspected drugs“

Multivariable CLR	0.741	0.775

Lasso	0.862	0.861

Elastic net	0.868	0.909

Bolasso	0.804	0.813

Sublasso	0.815	0.823

Random lasso	0.820	0.847

Firth correction	0.852	0.928

Case-controla	0.947	0.809


Category	Previous Methods [12]	Proposed Method

Number of classes	24	64

Number of USD images	15,000	61,240

False recognition rate (%)	0.12	0.114

Reject rate (%)	0.58	0


Surf	Type	Radius (mm)	Thickness (mm)	Glass	Semidiameter (mm)	Conic

OBJ	Standard	15	10		10.143393	0


	Mean (SD) or N	Mean (SD) or N	P value

	Methylphenidate slow release (N = 28)	Placebo (N = 28)

Age (years)	35.6(10.8)	34.7(11.5)	ns

Gender, n	8	7	ns

• Female	20	21

• Male

Marital status, n			ns

• Single	18	19

• Married	6	5

• Divorced	4	4

Level of education, n			ns

• Illiterate	2	1

• Primary school	16	17

• High school diploma	8	9

• University degree	2	1

Smoking, n	25	26	ns

Use of methadone	12	11	ns

Employed, n	5	7	ns

Years of methamphetamine use	13.3(8.5)	12.8(9.1)	ns

Days of methamphetamine use (past month)	10.2(8.7)	10.4(8.8)	ns

Route of methamphetamine use, n			ns

• Smoking	23	22

• Nasal	3	2

• Injection	1	1

• Oral	1	3

Addiction severity index composite score			ns

• Medical	0.25(0.31)	0.28(0.26)

• Employment	0.22(017)	0.24(0.19)

• Alcohol	0.15(0.10)	0.14(0.13)

• Drug	0.28(0.1)	0.29(0.12)

• Legal	0.08(0.17)	0.07(0.16)

• Family/Social	0.22(0.23)	0.19(0.20)

• Psychiatric	0.24(0.25)	0.22(0.23

• Divorced	4	4	ns

Level of education, n			ns

• Illiterate	2	1

• Primary school	16	17

• High school diploma	8	9

• University degree	2	1

Smoking, n	25	26	ns

Use of methadone	12	11	ns

Employed, n	5	7	ns

Years of methamphetamine use	13.3(8.5)	12.8(9.1)	ns

Days of methamphetamine use (past month)	10.2(8.7)	10.4(8.8)	ns

Route of methamphetamine use, n			ns

• Smoking	23	22

• Nasal	3	2

• Injection	1	1

• Oral	1	3

Addiction severity index composite score			ns

• Medical	0.25(0.31)	0.28(0.26)

• Employment	0.22(017)	0.24(0.19)

• Alcohol	0.15(0.10)	0.14(0.13)

• Drug	0.28(0.1)	0.29(0.12)

• Legal	0.08(0.17)	0.07(0.16)

• Family/Social	0.22(0.23)	0.19(0.20)

• Psychiatric	0.24(0.25)	0.22(0.23


City	Number of Stations	2008	2009	2010	2011

Kochi	7	43	42	36	38

Kozhikode	2	34	32	42	46

Thrissur	1	–	–	31	33

Mallapuram	1	–	–	39	30

Trivandrum	4	67	61	56	58

Kollam	2	–	–	47	53


MRI	Surgical pathology	Sensitivitya, % (n)	Specificityb, % (n)	POS predictionc value, % (n)	NEG predictiond value, % (n)	Accuracye, % (n)	κ	P-value

POS	NEG


Authors	Date	Conditionaand sample size	Exploration-insight gain	Experiential gain	Action gain

Current study		Ullman dream group. (n = 11)	8.17 (0.54)	7.28 (1.94)	5.78 (1.04)

Heaton et al.	1998	Therapist-facilitated, following Hill (1996). (n = 25)	8.03 (0.73)	7.06 (1.50)	6.98 (1.07)**

		Self-guided, following Hill (1996) as adapted by Hill et al. (1996). (n = 25)	6.61 (1.35)**	6.76 (1.74)	5.99 (1.11)

Hill et al.	1998	Participants elaborate on image details in dream, following only the Exploration Stage of the Hill (1996) model. (n = 17)	4.61 (1.71)**	Not reported	Not reported

		Participants provide associations to images, following only the Exploration Stage of the Hill (1996) model. (n = 17)	6.48 (1.35)**	Not reported	Not reported

		Participants elaborate on image details and provide associations. Following only the Exploration Stage of the Hill (1996) model. (n = 17)	5.84 (1.76)**	Not reported	Not reported

Zack and Hill	1998	Used Hill (1996) model. (n = 38)	7.67 (1.10)	7.09 (1.42)	6.34 (1.74)

Rochlen et al.	1999	Pre-study discussion of benefits of dream contemplation. Participants encouraged to use strategies to boost dream recall prior to study following Hill (1996). (n = 14)	7.48 (1.48)	7.00 (1.70)	6.03 (1.41)

		Involved an introduction to Hill model and participation in two sessions of the group procedure prior to study following Hill (1996). (n = 14)	8.04 (0.96)	6.79 (1.97)	7.01 (1.34)*

		Pre-study discussion of theoretical perspectives regarding counseling prior to study following Hill (1996). (n = 14)	7.92 (0.82)	7.32 (1.48)	6.79 (1.22)*

Hill et al.	2000	Dream condition, following Hill (1996). (n = 7)	8.08 (0.52)	7.43 (0.97)	7.54 (0.49)**

		Control condition: Recent loss focussed on, not a dream (n = 7)b	6.63 (0.76)**	6.59 (0.99)	6.12 (0.82)

Wonnell and Hill	2000	Hill (1996) followed, action stage omitted (n = 23)	7.88 (1.06)	Not reported	6.10 (1.24)

		Hill (1996) followed, including Action stage (n = 20)	7.99 (1.00)	Not reported	6.98 (1.45)*

Hill et al.	2001	Followed Hill (1996). (n = 105)	7.77 (1.20)	Not reported	Not reported

Hill et al.	2003	Participants type dream and computer-generated voice asks questions, following Hill (1996). (n = 39)	6.72 (1.27)**	Not reported	6.12 (1.73)

		Therapist empathy: Followed Hill (1996) but therapists did not offer interpretations or provide action suggestions. (n = 26)	7.75 (0.85)	Not reported	6.60 (1.16)

		Therapist empathy + input: Followed Hill (1996), at least one therapist interpretation and one action idea offered to participants. (n = 29)	7.93 (0.93)	Not reported	6.81 (1.05)**

All Hill studies		Weighted mean (SD) of all Hill dream conditionsc	7.40 (1.15)	7.03 (1.56)	6.51 (1.34)

Authors	Date	Conditionaand sample size	Exploration-insight gain	Experiential gain	Action gain

		Hill (1996) followed, including Action stage (n = 20)	7.99 (1.00)	Not reported	6.98 (1.45)*

Hill et al.	2001	Followed Hill (1996). (n = 105)	7.77 (1.20)	Not reported	Not reported

Hill et al.	2003	Participants type dream and computer-generated voice asks questions, following Hill (1996). (n = 39)	6.72 (1.27)**	Not reported	6.12 (1.73)

		Therapist empathy: Followed Hill (1996) but therapists did not offer interpretations or provide action suggestions. (n = 26)	7.75 (0.85)	Not reported	6.60 (1.16)

		Therapist empathy + input: Followed Hill (1996), at least one therapist interpretation and one action idea offered to participants. (n = 29)	7.93 (0.93)	Not reported	6.81 (1.05)**

All Hill studies		Weighted mean (SD) of all Hill dream conditionsc	7.40 (1.15)	7.03 (1.56)	6.51 (1.34)


Study intervention	N	Darunavir Ctrough,ss, ng/mL	Elvitegravir Ctrough,ss, ng/mL	Refs.

Median/mean	Range	Median/mean	Range

DRV/rtv, pre-switch	5	981 (median)932 (mean)	667–1150	––	–

E/C/F/TDF + DRV	9	482 (median)490 (mean)	96–848	184 (median)200 (mean)	<80–435

DRV/rtv 800/100 mg	335a	2041 (median)	368–7242	–	–	[22]

119	1820 (mean)	IQR 1470–2460	–	–	[23]

DRV/cobi 800/150 mg	298a	2150 (mean)	SD 1320	–	–	[25]

59	1311 (mean)	SD 969	–	–	[25]

32	1319 (mean)	288–3641	–	–	[24]

E/C/F/TDF (no DRV)	419a	–	–	451 (mean)	58–2341	[26]

32	–	–	250 (mean)	30–762	[24]

E/C/F/TDF + DRV	24	1294 (mean)	163–3641	234 (mean)	92–432	[24]

8	273 (median)b	164–501 (IQR)b	–	–	[12]

E/C/F/TAF + DRV	15	1250 (mean)	NA	464 (mean)	NA	[36]

Study intervention	N	Darunavir Ctrough,ss, ng/mL	Elvitegravir Ctrough,ss, ng/mL	Refs.

Median/mean	Range	Median/mean	Range

DRV/rtv, pre-switch	5	981 (median)932 (mean)	667–1150	––	–

E/C/F/TDF + DRV	9	482 (median)490 (mean)	96–848	184 (median)200 (mean)	<80–435

DRV/rtv 800/	33	2041 (med				[

Study intervention	N	Darunavir Ctrough,ss, ng/mL	Elvitegravir Ctrough,ss, ng/mL	Refs.

Median/mean	Range	Median/mean	Range

100 mg	5a	ian)	368–7242	–	–	22]

119	1820 (mean)	IQR 1470–2460	–	–	[23]

DRV/cobi 800/150 mg	298a	2150 (mean)	SD 1320	–	–	[25]

59	1311 (mean)	SD 969	–	–	[25]

32	1319 (mean)	288–3641	–	–	[24]

E/C/F/TDF (no DRV)	419a	–	–	451 (mean)	58–2341	[26]

32	–	–	250 (mean)	30–762	[24]

E/C/F/TDF + DRV	24	1294 (mean)	163–3641	234 (mean)	92–432	[24]

8	273 (median)b	164–501 (IQR)b	–	–	[12]

E/C/F/TAF + DRV	15	1250 (mean)	NA	464 (mean)	NA	[36]


Uveoscleral outflow (μL min−1)

Bimatoprost	1.37* ± 0.27

Vehicle	0.96 ± 0.20


Immunohistochemistry stains	Esophageal tumor	Liver biopsy (neoplastic cells)	Bladder biopsy (neoplastic cells)	Primary bladder cancer

CK7	+	+	+	+

CK20	+	+	+	+

CDX-2	+	+	+	−

GATA-3	−	−	−	+

Uroplakin	−	−	−	+

Immunohistochemistry stains	Esophageal tumor	Liver biopsy (neoplastic cells)	Bladder biopsy (neoplastic cells)	Primary bladder cancer

Uroplakin	−	−	−	+


Sequence	Dialysate Potassium

	1st tertile	2nd tertile	3th tertile

1	K-1	K	K+1

2	K-1	K+1	K

3	K	K-1	K+1

4	K	K+1	K-1

5	K+1	K	K-1

6	K+1	K-1	K

Sequence	Dialysate Potassium

	1st tertile	2nd tertile

1	K-1	K

2	K-1	K+1

3	K	K-1

4	K	K+1

5	K+1	K

6	K+1	K-1

Dialysate Potassium

3th tertile

K+1

K

K+1

K-1

K-1

K


Comparison groups	averages	df	t	P

TE-genes vs non TE-genes	0.82 vs 0.76	14800	7.4	1.2e-13

TE-exons vs non TE-genes	0.96 vs 0.76	14386	9.4	6.8e-21

Alu-exons vs other TE-exons	1.01 vs 0.95	345	1.9	6.2e-2

Alu-exons vs non TE-genes	1.01 vs 0.76	14106	8.2	3.9e-16

Comparison groups	averages	df	t	P

TE-genes vs non TE-genes	0.82 vs 0.76	14800	7.4	1.2e-13

TE-exons vs non TE-genes	0.96 vs 0.76	14386	9.4	6.8e-21

Al	1.01 v	34	1.9	6.

u-exons vs other TE-exons	s 0.95	5		2e-2

Alu-exons vs non TE-genes	1.01 vs 0.76	14106	8.2	3.9e-16


LncRNA	Expression	Mechanism	Target	Reference

AK058003	Upregulation	Hypoxia;Methylation in the CpG islands	SNCG	[59]

AK123072	Upregulation	Hypoxia;Methylation in the CpG islands	EGFR	[60]

HOTTIP	Upregulation	Methylation in the CpG islands;H3K4 methylation	HoxA13	[61, 62]

HOXA11-AS	Upregulation	DNA methylation;Histone modification; miR-1297	E2F1; P21; E-cadherin; EZH2	[63, 64]

HOTAIR	Upregulation	H3K27 trimethylation; miR-34a	C-Met; Snail	[68–70]

MALAT1	Upregulation	H3 histone acetylation	EGFL7	[36, 71]

GClnc1	Upregulation	Histone modification	SOD2	[72]

LINC00673	Upregulation	SP1; Histone modification	KLF2; LATS2	[73]

AGAP2-AS1	Upregulation	SP1; Histone modification	P21; E-cadherin	[74]

ZFAS1	Upregulation	Histone modification	NDK2; KLF2	[75]

PVT1	Upregulation	Histone modification	p15; p16	[70]

LINC00668	Upregulation	E2F1; Histone methylation	p15; p16; p21; p27; p57	[76, 77]

TUG1	Upregulation	Histone methylation	P57	[78]

LINC00152	Upregulation	Histone methylation	p15; p21	[79]

FEZF1-AS1	Upregulation	H3K4 methylation	p21	[80]

ANRIL	Upregulation	Histone modification;miR-99a/miR-449a	p15INK4B; p16INK4A; mTOR; CDK6	[83–85]

SPRY4-IT1	Downregulation	DNA methylation	SPRY4-IT1	[87]

LOC100130476	Downregulation	Methylation in the CpG islands	LOC100130476	[88]

GAS5	Downregulation	Promoter methylation	GAS5	[89, 90]

FENDRR	Downregulation	Histone deacetylation	FENDRR	[90, 91, 92]

MEG3	Downregulation	Promoter methylation; miR-148a	MEG3; RUNX3	[93, 94,95–97]


ROI	hemisphere	x	y	z	t-statistic

HF	left	−30	−36	−6	3.64

right	33	−36	−9	3.73

PHC	left	−21	−42	9	4.87

right	30	−39	6	6.81

Rsp	left	−9	−48	12	3.97

right	9	−51	12	3.89

PCC	left	−12	−54	24	5.12

right	12	−51	24	5.16

AMPFC	left	−9	51	−6	3.24

right	9	48	−3	3.72

pIPL	left	−39	−75	33	3.58


Variable	Spearman’s rho	p

Age	-0.08	<0.05

Hours of self-regulated learning

 	Term time	-0.10	<0.05

Revision period	-0.10	<0.01

Research activity	-0.17	<0.01

Teaching activity	-0.13	<0.01

Employment	0.10	<0.05

Care for family	0.10	<0.05

Variable	Spearman’s rho

Age	-0.08

Hours of self-regulated learning

	Term time	-0.10

Revision period	-0.10

Research activity	-0.17

Teaching activity	-0.13

Employment	0.10

Care for family	0.10


	Genotype frequency (%)

Year	2012

Clear	70.6

Carrier	23.5

Homozygous	5.9

Total no. of dogs	34


Disease for which steroids were prescribed	Number of patients	Steroids used	Use of Cyclosporin	Oral or topical therapy	Time period for which the steroid therapy lasted	Prescribed dosage of steroid	Time since PSC developed

Renal transplantation	21	WY/CY	5 mg/day	Oral	>2–4 years	5–10 mg/day	Not recorded

Asthma	08	WY/DE/DP	-	Oral	>2–4 years	10 mg/day	Not recorded

Lung disease	02	WY/DE	-	Oral	>2 years	7–10 mg/day	Not recorded

Arthritis	03	OP/DP	-	Oral	>2–3 years	10 mg/day	Not recorded

Allergy	16	WY/DE/DP/OP	-	Oral/topical	>2–3 years	10 mg/day	Not recorded

Disease for which steroids were prescribed	Number of patients	Steroids used	Use of Cyclosporin	Oral or topical therapy	Time period for which the steroid therapy lasted	Prescribed dosage of steroid	Time since PSC developed

Lung disease	02	WY/DE	-	Oral	>2 years	7–10 mg/day	Not recorded

Arthritis	03	OP/DP	-	Oral	>2–3 years	10 mg/day	Not recorded

Allergy	16	WY/DE/DP/OP	-	Oral/topical	>2–3 years	10 mg/day	Not recorded


Cellular component

GOid	Function	Type	Level

GO:0030176	integral to endoplasmic reticulum membrane	component	7

GO:0001518	voltage-gated sodium channel complex	component	6

GO:0005891	voltage-gated calcium channel complex	component	6

GO:0008023	transcription elongation factor complex	component	6

GO:0005667	transcription factor complex	component	6

Molecular Function

GO:0008332	low voltage-gated calcium channel activity	function	9

GO:0005248	voltage-gated sodium channel activity	function	8

GO:0005245	voltage-gated calcium channel activity	function	8

GO:0005262	calcium channel activity	function	7

GO:0005272	sodium channel activity	function	7

Biological Process

GO:0006814	sodium ion transport	process	9

GO:0006816	calcium ion transport	process	9

GO:0030029	actin filament-based process	process	9

Cellular component

GO:0005891	voltage-gated calcium channel complex	component	6

GO:0008023	transcription elongation factor complex	component	6

GO:0005667	transcription factor complex	component	6

Molecular Function

GO:0008332	low voltage-gated calcium channel activity	function	9

GO:0005248	voltage-gated sodium channel activity	function	8

GO:0005245	voltage-gated calcium channel activity	function	8

GO:0005262	calcium channel activity	function	7

GO:0005272	sodium channel activity	function	7

Biological Process

GO:0006814	sodium ion transport	process	9

GO:0006816	calcium ion transport	process	9

GO:0030029	actin filament-based process	process	9


	n	%

Males	19	95

Female	1	5

Stable angina	9	45

Non-STEMI or unstable angina	5	25

STEMI	6	30

Median age	50

Mean age	51

White	12	60

Indian/coloured	7	35

Black	1	5

Family history of CAD	7	35

Diabetes mellitus	4	20

Hypertension	8	40

Dyslipidiamia	7	35

Co-existent obstructive CAD	11	55

Males

Female

Stable angina

Non-STEMI or unstable angina

STEMI

Median age

Mean age

White

Indian/coloured

Black

Family history of CAD

Diabetes mellitus

Hypertension

Dyslipidiamia

Co-existent obstructive CAD


ICD-10 Code	Cause	Number	Percentage of deaths

	Natural causes - total	155	80.3

O00-O99	Obstetric death	61	31.6

C00-C97	Cancer	40	20.7

R96-R99	Unknown/ill-defined	18	9.3

I00-I09,I11,I13,I20-I51	Heart disease	5	2.6

I60-I69	Cerebrovascular disease	4	2.1

J00-J99	Respiratory	4	2.1

B20-B24	HIV	2	1.0

Remaining natural causes	Other natural	21	10.9

	External causes - total	38	19.7

V01-V99, Y85	Accidental transport deaths	14	7.3

X85-Y09, Y87.1	Assault	9	4.7

X60-X84, Y87.0	Suicide	7	3.6

Y37	War and terror	3	1.6

W00-W19	Accidental falls	2	1.0

Y10-Y34	Undetermined intent	2	1.0

W20-X59, Y86	Other accidents	1	0.5


Terma	GO Gene Count	GO Slim	GO Slim Gene Count

cellular ion homeostasis	9	cellular process	9

regulation of biological quality	27	regulation of biological quality	27

defense response	22

response to stimulus	48

response to chemical stimulus	22

immune system process	19

response to stress	34

immune response	14

regulation of response to stimulus	12

response to external stimulus	26

response to bacterium	7

response to wounding	20	response to stimulus	49

regulation of immune response	9

regulation of defense response	7

inflammatory response	16

blood coagulation	6

innate immune response	10

positive regulation of defense	5

response	9

humoral immune response	6

complement activation, classical pathway

transition metal ion transport	5	transport	5


	Elderly MD subjects (n = 30)	Younger MD subjects (n = 32)	P value

Years since first vertigo	2.7 ± 2.3	3.4 ± 1.8	0.08

Hearing loss affected ear	64.7 ± 8.1 db	48.2 ± 10.9 db	0.001

Hearing loss unaffected ear	18.2 ± 4.5 db	16.3 ± 3.3 db	0.04

N° of crises in the last 6 months	6.5 ± 3.7	10.4 ± 5.5	0.002

	Elderly MD subjects (n = 30)	Younger MD subjects (n = 32)	P value

Years since first vertigo	2.7 ± 2.3	3.4 ± 1.8	0.08

Hearing loss affected ear	64.7 ± 8.1 db	48.2 ± 10.9 db	0.001

Hearing loss unaf		16.3 ± 3.3	0.04

fected ear	18.2 ± 4.5 db	 db

N° of crises in the last 6 months	6.5 ± 3.7	10.4 ± 5.5	0.002


 	Clinical group	Genotype	Pre-S2 S tart codon	Deletions

 	 	 	 	Region	Nucleotides	Amino acids	Region and functions affected

ID	 	 	 	 	Size	Position	Size	position

SDAC024	CR	D	ATG	Pre-S2	21	35-55a	7	16-22a

SDAC048	CR	D	ATG	Pre-S1	72	2998-3069	24	51-74	S promoter, Transactivator domain

SDAC083	CR	D	ATG	Pre-S2	21	35-55	7	16-22

SDAC097	CR	D	GTGb	Pre-S 2	9	45- 53	3	19-21

SDAC098	CH	D	ATG	Pre-S1	18	3129-3146	6	94-99	Hsc70 binding site, CCAAT binding factor (CBF) binding site, Cytosolic anchorage determinant (CAD)

SDAC112	ASC	D	ATG	Pre-S2	6	49-54	2	20-21

SDAC118	CR	D	ATG	Pre-S2	54	4-57	18	5 to 22	pHSA binding site, Viral secretion

SDAC107	CR	D	ATA	-	-	-	-	-	-

SDAC090	CR	D	ATA	-	-	-	-	-	-

SDAC058	CR	E	ATG	Pre-S2	9	58-66c	3	20-22c	Transactivator domain

SDAC059	HCC	E	GTG	Pre-S2	12	52-63	4	18-21	Transactivator domain

SDAC088	HCC	E	ATG	Pre-S2	12	52-63	4	18-21	Transactivator domain

SDAC095	HCC	E	ATG	Pre-S2	15	52-66	5	18-22	Transactivator domain

SDAC067	ASC	E	GTG	-	-	-	-	-	-

SDAC113	ASC	A	ACA	-	-	-	-	-	-

	Clinical group	Genotype	Pre-S2 S tart codon	Deletions

				Region	Nucleotides	Amino acids	Region and functions affected

ID					Size	Position	Size	position

SDAC112	ASC	D	ATG	Pre-S2	6	49-54	2	20-21

SDAC118	CR	D	ATG	Pre-S2	54	4-57	18	5 to 22	pHSA binding site, Viral secretion

SDAC107	CR	D	ATA	-	-	-	-	-	-

SDAC090	CR	D	ATA	-	-	-	-	-	-

SDAC058	CR	E	ATG	Pre-S2	9	58-66c	3	20-22c	Transactivator domain

SDAC059	HCC	E	GTG	Pre-S2	12	52-63	4	18-21	Transactivator domain

SDAC088	HCC	E	ATG	Pre-S2	12	52-63	4	18-21	Transactivator domain

SDAC095	HCC	E	ATG	Pre-S2	15	52-66	5	18-22	Transactivator domain

SDAC067	ASC	E	GTG	-	-	-	-	-	-

SDAC113	ASC	A	ACA	-	-	-	-	-	-


Category	Blue LED	UV LED	White light

Bark, Bract,	Lint has higher	-	Lint has higher red, green,

Brown leaf,	red and green	-	and blue reflectance

Green leaf,	fl. emission	-

Stem		-

Hull	Lint has higher	-	Lint has higher red, green,

	green fl.	-	and blue reflectance

	emission	-

Paper	-	Lint has lower red, green	Lint has lower red, green

	-	and blue fl. emission	and blue reflectance

Plastic bag	-	Lint has higher green and	Lint has higher red and

	-	blue fl. emission	green reflectance

Plastic bale	-	Lint has higher green and	Lint has higher blue

Packaging	-	blue fl. emission	reflectance

Seed coat (Inner),	-	Lint has higher green and	Lint has higher red, green,

Seed coat (Outer),	-	blue fl. emission	and blue reflectance

Seed, Twine	-


Target species	MIC (μg mL−1)

1	2	Polymyxin B	Colistin

Escherichia coli ATCC 25922	2	2	1	2

Colistin-resistant E. colia	2	2	16	16

E. coli ATCC 25922 + 10% serum	2–4	2–4	1–2	2–4

E. coli ATCC 25922 + Mg2+ (21 mM)	>64	>64	>64	>64

E. coli ATCC 25922 + LPS (1.0 mg mL−1)	>64	>64	>64	>64

E. coli TOP10	2	2	2	2

Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1	1	2	1	1

Acinetobacter baumannii	16	4	4

Klebsiella pneumoniae NRRL-B-408	2	4	16

K. pneumoniae NRRL-B-3521	4	4	2

Enterobacter cloacae NRRL-B-413	2	2	8

E. cloacae NRRL-B-425	2	2	64

Bacillus subtilis 168	32	32	4

Candida albicans	>64	>64	>64

Saccharomyces cerevisiae	>64	>64	>64

Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)	>64	>64	32


Studies (Author)	Year	Chemotherapy regimena	Number (T/C)	Type of Assessable Outcomes	Jadad Scoresb

		treatment	control

Hao XL[20]	2008	NP+SFI	NP	60/68	WBC/HB/PLT/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	3

Wang K[21]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	18/18	tumor response, WBC/PLT toxicity, KPS	3

Kang GY[22]	2006	NP+SFI	NP	36/36	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	2

Gong ZM[23]	2008	NP+SFI	NP	33/32	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	2

Wang XY[24]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	35/34	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity,	4

Wang YZ[25]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	28/27	tumor response, KPS, WBC/PLT/HB toxicity	3

Li TW[26]	2009	NP+SFI	NP	36/33	tumor response, the KPS	4

Li Y[27]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	44/43	tumor response, WBC/PLT/nausea and vomiting toxicity,	4

Lv J[28]	2008	NP+SFI	NP	40/40	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	4

Zhao ZY[29]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	35/34	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB nausea and vomiting toxicity,	4

Geng L[30]	2004	NP+SFI	NP	25/15	tumor response, KPS	2

Yu QZ[31]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	30/32	tumor response, KPS	4

Liu CL[32]	2004	NP+SFI	NP	60/60	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB toxicity	2

Liu PH[33]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	30/30	tumor response, KPS	1

Pan YK[34]	2008	NP+SFI	NP	45/45	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB toxicity	2

Zheng JH[35]	2009	NP+SFI	NP	42/42	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity	4

Miao SR[36]	2010	NP+SFI	NP	38/41	tumor response, the KPS, WBC/PLT/nausea and vomiting toxicity	3

Li YQ[37]	2010	NP+SFI	NP	43/42	KPS	5

Geng D[38]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	42/26	tumor response, WBC/the nausea and vomiting toxicity	2

Zou Y[39]	2005	TP+SFI	TP	24/24	tumor response, KPS	3

Luo SZ[40]	2006	TP+SFI	TP	25/25	tumor response, KPS, WBC/PLT/nausea and vomiting toxicity	2

Luo SW[41]	2007	TP+SFI	TP	30/30	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	2

Zhang FL[42]	2008	TP+SFI	TP	30/30	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	3

Zhao YX[43]	2009	TP+SFI	TP	40/40	tumor response, KPS	2

Yu F[44]	2007	DC+SFI	DC	30/30	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB toxicity	4

He WJ[45]	2008	GP+SFI	GP	35/35	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	3

Liang K[46]	2010	GP+SFI	GP	39/37	tumor response, KPS,	2

Chen J[47]	2007	TP/NP+SFI	TP/NP	41/39	tumor response, KPS	2

Wu L[48]	2004	TP/NP+SFI	TP/NP	30/30	tumor response, WBC toxicity	5

Studies (Author)

Hao XL[20]

Wang K[21]

Kang GY[22]

Gong ZM[23]

Wang XY[24]

Wang YZ[25]

Li TW[26]

Li Y[27]

Lv J[28]

Zhao ZY[29]

Geng L[30]

Yu QZ[31]

Liu CL[32]

Liu PH[33]

Pan YK[34]

Zheng JH[35]

Miao SR[36]

Li YQ[37]

Geng D[38]

Zou Y[39]

Luo SZ[40]

Luo SW[41]

Zhang FL[42]

Zhao YX[43]

Yu F[44]

He WJ[45]

Liang K[46]

Chen J[47]

Wu L[48]

Year	Chemotherapy regimena	Number (T/C)	Type of Assessable Outcomes	Jadad Scoresb

	treatment	control

2008	NP+SFI	NP	60/68	WBC/HB/PLT/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	3

2007	NP+SFI	NP	18/18	tumor response, WBC/PLT toxicity, KPS	3

2006	NP+SFI	NP	36/36	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	2

2008	NP+SFI	NP	33/32	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	2

2007	NP+SFI	NP	35/34	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity,	4

2007	NP+SFI	NP	28/27	tumor response, KPS, WBC/PLT/HB toxicity	3

2009	NP+SFI	NP	36/33	tumor response, the KPS	4

2007	NP+SFI	NP	44/43	tumor response, WBC/PLT/nausea and vomiting toxicity,	4

2008	NP+SFI	NP	40/40	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	4

2007	NP+SFI	NP	35/34	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB nausea and vomiting toxicity,	4

2004	NP+SFI	NP	25/15	tumor response, KPS	2

2007	NP+SFI	NP	30/32	tumor response, KPS	4

2004	NP+SFI	NP	60/60	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB toxicity	2

2007	NP+SFI	NP	30/30	tumor response, KPS	1

2008	NP+SFI	NP	45/45	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB toxicity	2

2009	NP+SFI	NP	42/42	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity	4

2010	NP+SFI	NP	38/41	tumor response, the KPS, WBC/PLT/nausea and vomiting toxicity	3

2010	NP+SFI	NP	43/42	KPS	5

2007	NP+SFI	NP	42/26	tumor response, WBC/the nausea and vomiting toxicity	2

2005	TP+SFI	TP	24/24	tumor response, KPS	3

2006	TP+SFI	TP	25/25	tumor response, KPS, WBC/PLT/nausea and vomiting toxicity	2

2007	TP+SFI	TP	30/30	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	2

2008	TP+SFI	TP	30/30	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	3

2009	TP+SFI	TP	40/40	tumor response, KPS	2

2007	DC+SFI	DC	30/30	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB toxicity	4

2008	GP+SFI	GP	35/35	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	3

2010	GP+SFI	GP	39/37	tumor response, KPS,	2

2007	TP/NP+SFI	TP/NP	41/39	tumor response, KPS	2

2004	TP/NP+SFI	TP/NP	30/30	tumor response, WBC toxicity	5


S. No 	Reference 	Gender 	Lip Pits 	Cleft lip (CL) 	Cleft palate (CP) 	CL & CP 	Hypodontia 	Ankyloglossia

1	Arangannal et al., (2002) [3] 	M 	✓	✓	 	 	✓

2	Surasak et al., (2003) [6]	F 	✓	✓	✓	✓

3	Moore and McCord (2004) [23]	M 	✓	✓	✓	✓

4	Souissi et al., (2004) [7]	M 	✓	✓

5	Rizos and Spyropoulos (2004) [5]	F 	✓	✓

6	Stanier and Moore (2004) [24]	F 	✓	✓

7	King et al., (2004) [25]	M	✓	✓

8	Karande and Patil (2005) [16]	M 	✓	✓	 	 	✓

9	Tokat et al., (2005) [14] 	M 	✓	✓

10	Newman et al., (2005) [11] 	F 	✓	✓	 	 	✓

11	Ziai et al., (2005) [26]	M	✓

12	Kirzioglu and Ertürk (2006) [27]	M	✓	✓

13	King et al., (2004) [25]	F 	✓	 	✓	 	✓

14	Klinische Padiatrie (2008) [28]	F 	✓	✓	✓	✓

15	Etöz O. A. and Etöz A. (2009) [29]	M	✓

16	Nakano et al., (2010) [9]	M 	✓ (UL) 	✓

17	Lam et al., (2010) [30] 	M 	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

18	Baghestani et al., (2010) [31]	M	✓

19	Moghe et al., (2010) [8]	F 	✓	✓	✓	✓

20	Jobling et al., (2011) [15]	M 	✓	✓	✓	✓

21	Manoharan et al., (2013) [10]	M 	✓	✓

22	Shweta et al., (2012) [2]	M 	✓	✓

S. No	Reference	Gender	Lip Pits	Cleft lip (CL)	Cleft palate (CP)	CL & CP	Hypodontia

11	Ziai et al., (2005) [26]	M	✓

12	Kirzioglu and Ertürk (2006) [27]	M	✓	✓

13	King et al., (2004) [25]	F	✓		✓		✓

14	Klinische Padiatrie (2008) [28]	F	✓	✓	✓	✓

15	Etöz O. A. and Etöz A. (2009) [29]	M	✓

16	Nakano et al., (2010) [9]	M	✓ (UL)	✓

17	Lam et al., (2010) [30]	M	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

18	Baghestani et al., (2010) [31]	M	✓

19	Moghe et al., (2010) [8]	F	✓	✓	✓	✓

20	Jobling et al., (2011) [15]	M	✓	✓	✓	✓

21	Manoharan et al., (2013) [10]	M	✓	✓

22	Shweta et al., (2012) [2]	M	✓	✓


Variables	Group 1	Group 2

Cases	40	52

Age (year)	54.32 ± 10.14	58.31 ± 9.24

Sex (M/F)	24/16	31/21

Educational years	9.55 ± 3.37	10.37 ± 3.33

Etiology

B viral hepatitis cirrhosis	—	21

C viral hepatitis cirrhosis	—	1

Primary biliary cirrhosis	—	3

Autoimmune hepatitis cirrhosis	—	5

Schistosomiasis cirrhosis	—	6

Cryptogenic cirrhosis	—	16

Child-Pugh grading

Grade A	—	18

Grade B	—	21

Grade C	—	13

Child-Pugh scores	—	8.27 ± 2.36

Ammonia (μmol/L)	—	37.12 ± 15.28

Cr (μmol/L)	—	86.01 ± 22.80

TBil (μmol/L)	—	45.78 ± 16.76

ALB (g/L)	—	29.62 ± 7.92

PT (sec)	—	3.14 ± 1.76

NCT-A (sec)	46.92 ± 11.80	51.31 ± 10.93

DST (scores)	52.35 ± 10.69	49.98 ± 9.98


Species	Origin	N	PCR + blood	Sensitivity of microscopy

M. nemestrina	West Java	4	4 (100 %)	NA

M. fascicularis	Lampung	30	6 (20 %)	3 (50 %)

M. fascicularis	Palembang	30	24 (80 %)	14 (58.3 %)


	Pelvic obliquity (r)	Lumbar Cobb angle (r)	Thoracic curve Cobb angle (r)

Functional LLD	0.69*	0.44*	0.09

Structural LLD	0.51*	0.17	− 0.05


Gene family	Gene	Description	References

MHC class I	ENSGALT00000028239, ENSGALT00000004115	Deletion of MHC class I antigen-presenting proteins in chicken was associated with Marek’s disease resistance	Luo et al. (2012)

MHC class II	CIITA	CIITA, a trans-activator of MHC II, was duplicated in cattle with nematode resistance	Liu et al. (2011)

Antimicrobial peptides	LAP, TAP, BSP30A	Cattle-specific, β-defensin family, antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) with high copy number	Bickhart et al. (2012)

	PGN3, CATHL4	Cathelicidin family AMPs from pig and cattle, respectively, with high degrees of copy number variation	Paudel et al. (2013), Bickhart et al. (2012)

Endogenous retroviruses	enJSRV	A variant of the endogenous Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus that is highly duplicated, protects individuals from the exogenous virus, which causes pulmonary adenocarcinoma	Viginier et al. (2012)

T cell receptors	WC1	CNVs of the cattle-specific WC1 gene have been identified	Liu et al. (2010), Chen et al. (2012)


GeNormPLUS	NormFinder	BestKeeper	Comparative delta-Ct	RefFinder

Gene	Stability Coeff.	Gene	Stability Coeff.	Gene	Stability Coeff.	Gene	Stability Coeff.	Gene	Stability Coeff.

Histone3	1.22	Histone3	0.812	Histone3	1.58	Histone3	1.678	Histone3	12

EF2	1.135	EF2	0.743	RAN	1.085	EF2	1.549	EF2	10.462

Actin	1.061	Tubulin	0.579	Tubulin	1.059	Actin	1.343	Actin	8.409

Cyclo	1.028	Cyclo	0.523	EF2	0.926	GAPDH	1.335	Cyclo	6.701

GAPDH	0.959	Actin	0.518	Clathrin	0.926	Clathrin	1.33	Clathrin	6.447

eTIF4E	0.857	Clathrin	0.504	eTIF4E	0.888	Cyclo	1.319	Tubulin	5.948

TIP41	0.798	TIP41	0.502	F-box	0.885	RAN	1.302	GAPDH	5.635

Tubulin	0.703	GAPDH	0.462	Actin	0.87	Tubulin	1.299	RAN	4.461

CDPK	0.599	RAN	0.453	Cyclo	0.718	TIP41	1.241	eTIF4E	3.742

RAN	0.503	Fbox	0.452	CDPK	0.699	F-box	1.234	TIP41	2.913

Clathrin	0.47	CDPK	0.272	GAPDH	0.681	eTIF4E	1.155	F-box	2.913

F-box	0.45	eTIF4E	0.257	TIP41	0.601	CDPK	1.091	CDPK	1.861


 	SOAPsnp	Atlas-SNP2	SAMtools	GATK-UGT

Quality score	Recalibrated	Raw	Recalibrated	Recalibrated

Machine cycle	Yes	Yes	No	Yes

Allele type	Yes	No	No	Yes

Duplication level	Penalty in quality score	No	No	No

Swap-base	No	Yes	No	No

MNP events	No	Yes	No	No

NQS	No	Yes	No	No

Coverage variation	No	Yes	No	No

Base dependency	Yes	No	Yes	No

Strand independency	No	NO	Yes	No

	SOAPsnp	Atlas-SNP2

Quality score	Recalibrated	Raw

Machine cycle	Yes	Yes

Allele type	Yes	No

Duplication level	Penalty in quality score	No

Swap-base	No	Yes

MNP events	No	Yes

NQS	No	Yes

Coverage variation	No	Yes

Base dependency	Yes	No

Strand independency	No	NO

SAMtools	GATK-UGT

Recalibrated	Recalibrated

No	Yes

No	Yes

No	No

No	No

No	No

No	No

No	No

Yes	No

Yes	No


Stroke	EQ-5D VAS	1	11.8	10.8	N/A	N/A	N/A	19.6


Characteristic	n = 52

Age, year (mean ± SD)	60 (±14)

Gender, number of patients (%)

 Male	32 (61)

 Female	20 [39]

Cause of benign rupture or leak, number of patients (%)

 Anastomotic	32 (62)

 Iatrogenic	13 [25]

 Boerhaave's syndrome	4 [8]

 Other	3 [5]

Location of benign rupture or leak, number of patients (%)

 Distal esophagus	13 [25]

 Mid-esophagus	24 (45)

 Proximal esophagus	11 [21]

 Unknown	4 [9]

Length of rupture or leak, cm (median (range))	2 (0.2-7)

Time interval between rupture and stent placement, number of patients (%)

 Within 24 hours	5 [10]

 After 24 hours	47 (90)

Prior treatment for benign rupture or leak, number of patients (%)

 Stent placement in another hospital	3 [5]

 Surgery	3 [5]

 Clip placement	1 [2]

 None	45 (88)

Antibiotic treatment, number of patients (%)

 Yes	41.(79)

 No	11 [21]

Concurrent fluid drainage, number of patients (%)

 Yes	24 (46)

 No	28 (54)

Total days of treatment with a stent, median (range)	39 (1-742)


Tumor Grade	%

I	2.1

I B	8.5

II	27.6

II B	2.1

III A	19.2

III B	6.5

IV	34


P-valuec

< 0.001

0.01

Reference

< 0.001

0.76

Reference

0.10

0.76

Reference

0.06

Reference

< 0.001

Reference

0.01

0.78

Reference

0.24


	Relative risk per SD increase in domestic usage

Unadjusted (95% CI)	Adjusted* (95% CI)

Respiratory

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease	1.253	1.245 to 1.260	1.142

Asthma	1.199	1.176 to 1.223	1.093

Pneumonia	1.262	1.254 to 1.269	1.227

Tuberculosis	1.734	1.676 to 1.793	1.298

Cardiovascular

Ischaemic heart disease	1.141	1.138 to 1.143	1.102

Rheumatic heart disease	1.209	1.184 to 1.234	1.240

Stroke	1.137	1.133 to 1.141	1.114

Hypertension	1.204	1.196 to 1.212	1.112


Lively	Youthful	Exciting

More Sociable	More Spontaneous	More Active

More Natural/Down to earth	More Warm/Caring	More Self Confident

Enjoys the outdoors more	More Feminine	Pushy

More Modern	More Stylish	More Spirited/Fun

Higher income	More Sophisticated	Sensitive/caring

Friendly	Does things on the spur of the moment


Variable	n	Optical density

CIA-SCH58261	10	0.0507 ± 0.00965∗#


Group	Taxon	N	Body mass (kg) range F-Ma	Locomotor behaviours

NWM	Lagothrix lagotricha	7	7.0-9.3	arboreal quadruped, with climbing and orthograde clamberingb

 	Ateles sp.	4	7.3-8.9	torso-orthograde suspensory; semi-brachiatorc

 	Alouatta sp.	13	5.4-7.2	arboreal quadruped, with climbing and orthograde clambering

Hominoids	Pongo pygmaeus	25	35.8-78.5	torso-orthograde suspensoryd

 	Pongo abelii	9	35.6-77.9	torso-orthograde suspensory

 	Pan troglodytes verus	14	41.6-46.3	knuckle-walker (arboreal and terrestrial) and climbinge

 	Pan troglodytes troglodytes	25	45.8-59.7	knuckle-walker (arboreal and terrestrial) and climbing

 	Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii	6	33.7-42.7	knuckle-walker and climbing (proportion of arboreality varies from 33-68%)

 	Pan paniscus	19	33.2-45.0	knuckle-walker (arboreal and terrestrial) and climbing, considered more arboreal than P. troglodytesf

 	Homo sapiens	146	54.4-62.2	terrestrial biped

 	Gorilla gorilla gorilla	40	71.5-170.4	terrestrial knuckle-walker (assumed to be less terrestrial than G.b.beringei)g

 	Gorilla beringei graueri	7	71.0-175.2	terrestrial knuckle-walker (assumed to be less terrestrial than G.b.beringei)

 	Gorilla beringei beringei	9	97.5-162.5	terrestrial knuckle-walker (most terrestrial of all Gorilla, 93-98% terrestrial)

 	Symphalangus syndactylus	5	10.7-11.9	brachiatorh

 	Hylobates lar	27	5.4-5.9	brachiator

OWM	Presbytis sp.	2	5.6-6.8	arboreal quadruped, capable of leaping and forelimb suspensioni

 	Macaca mulatta	16	8.8-11.0	semi-terrestrial quadrupedj

 	Macaca fascicularis	7	3.6-5.4	arboreal quadrupedk

 	Papio Anubis	6	13.3-25.1	terrestrial quadrupedl

 	Theropithecus gelada	5	11.7-19.0	terrestrial quadruped

 	Chlorocebus aethiops	4	3.0-5.5	semi-terrestrial quadruped

 	Erythrocebus patas	3	6.5-12.4	terrestrial quadruped

 	Cercopithecus mitis	12	3.9-5.9	arboreal quadruped

Taxon	N	Body mass (kg) range F-Ma	Locomotor behaviours

Papio Anubis	6	13.3-25.1	terrestrial quadrupedl

Theropithecus gelada	5	11.7-19.0	terrestrial quadruped

Chlorocebus aethiops	4	3.0-5.5	semi-terrestrial quadruped

Erythrocebus patas	3	6.5-12.4	terrestrial quadruped

Cercopithecus mitis	12	3.9-5.9	arboreal quadruped


Primer Name	Primer Sequence (5’to 3’)

VHSCDNA	GTATCATAAAAGATGATGAGTTATGTTACAAGGG

VHSPCRF	GTTGAACACAGAGTCATATCTCATAATCG

VHSPCRR	GGTGGAGACACGGTCCTCATCATTGGACGTGAGG

PJETFOR	CGACTCACTATAGGGAGAGCGGC

PJETREV	AAGAACATCGATTTTCCATGGCAG

VHSNF	GATGACGACTACCCCGAGGACTCTGAC

SACPSIF	CTCCACCGCGGTAATACGACTCACTATAGG

SACPSIR	GCTTTGATCAAAGAGAAATTCTTATAATCGTGCCG

PSIMFEF	CGGCACGATTATAAGAATTTCTCTTTG

PSIMFER	GGCCTGCCACAATTGCCTTGACCACC

SPEMUTN	CGTTGAACAAAAGAACTCAGTACTAGTATGGAAGGAGGAATTCGTGCAGCG

SNABIMUTN	CGACTACCCCGAGGACTCTGACTAATACGTACTCCCGTCTCATAACCAACATAG

SPEMUTP	GACAAACACTGAGATACTAGTATGGCTGATATTGAGATGAGCGAGTCC

SNABIMUTP	CGATCAAGGCGGAGCTGGACAAGCTAGAGTAGTACGTACACAACGCATCACAC

Primer Name	Primer Sequence (5’to 3’)

VHSPCRF	GTTGAACACAGAGTCATATCTCATAATCG

VHSPCRR	GGTGGAGACACGGTCCTCATCATTGGACGTGAGG

PJETFOR	CGACTCACTATAGGGAGAGCGGC

PJETREV	AAGAACATCGATTTTCCATGGCAG

VHSNF	GATGACGACTACCCCGAGGACTCTGAC

SACPSIF	CTCCACCGCGGTAATACGACTCACTATAGG

SACPSIR	GCTTTGATCAAAGAGAAATTCTTATAATCGTGCCG

PSIMFEF	CGGCACGATTATAAGAATTTCTCTTTG

PSIMFER	GGCCTGCCACAATTGCCTTGACCACC

SPEMUTN	CGTTGAACAAAAGAACTCAGTACTAGTATGGAAGGAGGAATTCGTGCAGCG

SNABIMUTN	CGACTACCCCGAGGACTCTGACTAATACGTACTCCCGTCTCATAACCAACATAG

SPEMUTP	GACAAACACTGAGATACTAGTATGGCTGATATTGAGATGAGCGAGTCC

SNABIMUTP	CGATCAAGGCGGAGCTGGACAAGCTAGAGTAGTACGTACACAACGCATCACAC


	PDSS	HAM-A	Frequency

	r	p value	r	p value	r	p value

Mesor	0.71	0.79	0.62	0.01	0.55	0.03

Amplitude(circadian)	0.22	0.41	0.35	0.19	0.16	0.55

Amplitude(12 hour harmonic)	0.00	1.00	0.42	0.10	0.46	0.08


Pair	Egg hatch rate	Number of progeny	Sex ratio (proportion male)	Status

PF 12.5.i	0.67	23	0.609	N

PF12.5.ii	0.88	34	0.412	N

PF12.6.i	0.92	56	0.446	N

PF12.6.ii	0.77	18	0.556	N

Pair	Egg hatch rate	Number of progeny	Sex ratio (proportion male)	Status

PF12.6.ii	0.77	18	0.556	N


Sample code	Type	Yield (mg)	Melting point (°C)	Physical state

IA/01/1	C-9154 analogue	90%	195-196	White powdery solid

IA/24/1/B	Methyl ester	160, (0.78 mmol)	74	Bright yellow crystalline solid

IA/21/1/B	Ethyl ester	100, (0.46 mmol)	63	Light brown crystalline solid

IA/22/1/B	n-propyl ester	170, (0.73 mmol)	55	Dark brown crystalline solid

IA/23/1/B	Isopropyl ester	105, (0.45 mmol)	70	Dark brown crystalline solid

IA/19/1/B	n-butyl ester	200, (0.81 mmol)	42	Yellow waxy solid

IA/20/1/B	2-butyl ester	150, (0.61 mmol)	40	Golden brown oil

IA/25/1/B	t-butyl ester	2, (~0.01 mmol)	Not determined

Sample code	Type	Yield (mg)	Melting point (°C)	Physical state

IA/20/1/B	2-butyl ester	150, (0.61 mmol)	40	Golden brown oil

IA/25/1/B	t-butyl ester	2, (~0.01 mmol)	Not determined


Gene	Primer	Enzyme

GSTM1 	Forward: GAACTCCCTGAAAAGCTAAAGC

Reverse: GTTGGGCTCAAATATACGGTGG

GSTT1 	Forward: TTCCTTACTGGTCCTCACATCTC

Reverse: CAGCTGCATTTGGAAGTGCTC

GSTP1 (Ile105Val, rs1695)	Forward: GTAGTTTGCCCAAGGTCAAG	BsmAI

Reverse: AGCCACCTGAGGGGTAAG

NQO1 (C609T, rs1800566)	Forward: AAGCCCAGACCAACTTCT	HinfI

Reverse: ATTTGAATTCGGGCGTCTGCTG

EPHX1 (Tyr113His, rs1051740)	Forward: CTTGAGCTCTGTCCTTCCCATCCC	Tth111I

Reverse: AATCTTAGTCTTGAAGTGACGGT

EPHX1 (His139Arg, rs2234922)	Forward: ACATCCACTTCATCCACGT	Rsa1

Reverse: ATGCCTCTGAGAAGCCAT

HO-1 (5′-site GT repeats)	Forward: FAM-AGAGCCTGCAGCTTCTCAGA

Reverse: ACAAAGTCTGGCCATAGGAC

XRCC1 (Arg280His, rs25489)	Forward: GGCTGGGACCACCTGTGTT	RsaI

Reverse: TTGACCCCCAGTGGTGCTAA

XRCC1 (Arg399Gln, rs25487)	Forward: TCTCCCTTGGTCTCCAACCT	MspI

Reverse: AGTAGTCTGCTGGCTCTGG

XPD (C156A, rs238406)	Forward: TGGAGTGCTATGGCACGATCTCT	TflI

Reverse: CCATGGGCATCAAATTCCTGGGA

hOGG1 (Ser326Cys, rs1052133)	Forward: ACTGTCACTAGTCTCACCAG	Fnu4HI

Reverse: TGAATTCGGAAGGTGCTTGGGGAAT

ATM (INV48 +238C>G, rs609429)	Forward: CCTGGTTATAAAATGAGAAGG	KpnI

Reverse: GCAGCAACTACCATTCATTGAG