	SKM	CSM

	Concentration (nmol/g SKM protein)	Concentration (nmol/g CSM protein)

Laminin	2.20 ± 0.22	N/A

α-Dystroglycan	89.72 ± 15.04	692.67 ± 57.39

Dystrophin	2.20 ± 0.07	16.11 ± 0.69

Ratio	Lam : αDG : Dys = 1 : 41 : 1	αDG : Dys = 43 : 1


		Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	TOTAL

Number of animals		6	7	7	7	27

Number of tumours		12	14	14	14	54

Weight (g)	Mean	30	29	29	29	29

	Range	28–33	27–32	28–31	28–31	27–33

Tumour size (mm3)	Mean	100	95	97	96	97

	Range	26–181	25–165	40–271	39–182	25–271

Treatment given		vehicle	5Gy + vehicle	FGFR inhibitor	FGFR inhibitor + 5 Gy


	PGM-High	PGM-Low

MiSeq-High	2864925	44534

MiSeq-Low	394	115


Special stain/IHC	Squamous cell carcinoma	Adenocarcinoma

CK7	−/+	+

p63	+	−

CK5/6	+	−

TTF-1	−	+/−


Tumor samples	IRX1	NOL4	Age (years)	Gender	Race	Smoking	Alcohol	Tumor anatomic site	Overall stage

1	N	N	67	M	C	Yes	Yes	Nasal floor	2

2	Y	Y	57	M	C	Yes	Yes	Larynx	2

3	N	N	61	M	C	No	No	Neck	3

4	Y	Y	60	F	C	Yes	Yes	Larynx	4

5	Y	Y	55	M	A	Yes	Yes	Larynx	2

6	Y	Y	54	M	C	No	Yes	Oropharynx	4

7	Y	N	64	M	A	Yes	Yes	Hypopharynx	3

8	Y	Y	55	F	A	Yes	No	Oral cavity	1

9	N	Y	80	M	C	Yes	No	Oral cavity	NA

10	Y	Y	54	F	C	No	Oral	cavity	4

11	Y	Y	62	M	C	Yes	Yes	Oropharynx	4

12	Y	Y	72	M	C	Yes	Yes	Hypopharynx	3

13	Y	Y	42	M	C	Yes	No	Larynx	2

14	Y	Y	66	M	C	Yes	No	Oropharynx	4

15	Y	Y	74	M	C	Yes	Larynx	2

16	Y	Y	58	M	A	Yes	Yes	Oropharynx	4

17	Y	Y	56	F	C	Yes	Yes	Oral cavity	2

18	Y	Y	43	M	C	Yes	Yes	Oropharynx	4

19	Y	Y	68	M	C	Yes	Yes	Oropharynx	4

20	Y	Y	63	M	A	Yes		Oral cavity	NA

21	Y	Y	64	F	C	No	Yes	Oral cavity	3

22	N	Y	88	M	C	Yes	Yes	Oral cavity	NA

23	Y	Y	42	M	C	Yes	No	Oral cavity	3

24	Y	Y	51	M	C	Yes	Yes	Larynx	4

25	Y	Y	80	M	C	No	Yes	Neck	NA

26	Y	Y	58	M	C	Yes	Yes	Larynx	3

27	Y	Y	71	M	C	Yes	Yes	Neck	NA

28	Y	Y	48	M	C	Yes	Yes	Oropharynx	4

29	Y	Y	61	M	C	Yes	No	Maxillary sinus	1

30	Y	Y	77	M	C	No	No	Salivary gland	NA

31	Y	Y	67	M	C	Larynx	3

32	Y	Y	36	M	C	Yes	No	Oral cavity	4

33	Y	Y	74	F	C	No	Yes	Maxillary sinus	4


Independent variables	Adjusted

OR (95 % CI)	P-value

Sex

 Male	1.08 (0.68 – 1.72)	0.73

 Female (Ref.)

Age

 ≤35 years	2.71 (1.14 – 6.46)	0.024

 ≥36 years (Ref.)

Nationality

 Yemeni	0.69 (0.35 – 1.35)	0.28

 Foreign (Ref.)

University

 Yemeni	0.71 (0.33 – 1.52)	0.39

 Foreign (Ref.)

Referral

 Yes	0.78 (0.41 – 1.50)	0.47

 No (Ref.)


Participant	Age	Sex	Diagnosis	CARS

1	14	Male	ASD	42

2	14	Male	ASD	33

3	13	Male	ASD	43.5

4	16	Male	ASD	39

5	20	Male	ASD	36

6	13	Male	ASD	38


	Study patients	n	Children	Adults	HLA DQ2/DQ8	IgA-tTG/EMA	Atrophy grade at diagnosis (Marsh criteria)

Celiac patients	aCD-patient	2	1	1	+	+	II-III

	GFD-patient 	2	1	1	+	+	II-III

Non-Celiac patients	GP-patient	2	1	1	+/-	 - (*)	M.M


Type of data	Data source	Detail of data to be collected	Time point(s)

Non-participant observation of training sessions	Observation, training sessions	•Observation of the training and care home-based sessions will allow recording of content and delivery of training, length of sessions, number of attendees. Also, identification of possible issues for follow-up in semi-structured interviews in the case study care homes	Each session

Non-participant observation of care home-based sessions	Observation, care home-based sessions	A selected number of sessions throughout the programme (approximately 30% of the total)

Documentary analysis	Patient Safety Collaborative Programme Board	•All documents relating to the programme will be analysed to provide information about programme planning, content and delivery	Throughout the programme

Focus groups	Care home staff participating in the programme (2 groups of 6–8 staff at each time point)	•What has been learned by participation in the programme, how learning has been applied to individuals’ practice, barriers and facilitators to implementing change in the care home, perceptions of best/worst features of the programme, suggestions for improvement	6, 12 and 18 months

Semi-structured interviews	CCG managers and programme facilitators (n = 6)	•Experience of running the programme, perceived barriers to safety-related change in care homes, best/worst features of the programme, suggestions for improvement	Months 6, 12 and 24

Semi-structured interviews in four case study care homes	Staff and care home managers (participants and non-participants in the programme) (n = 6 to 8 in each of the four case study sites at each time point)	•What has been learned, how learning has been applied to individuals’ practice, barriers and facilitators to implementing change in the care home, changes made to safety-related processes at the care home level, extent and type of collaboration across care homes	12 and 24 months


Original version	Translated version

Is there a view of the outside from corridors? (include internal courtyard)	Are there external views from different parts of the circulation space? (including internal courtyard)

Are there external views from different parts of the circulation space?


	Growth Medium	2,4-D (mg/L)	NAA (mg/L)	Kinetin (mg/L)

Alfalfa (M. sativa ssp. Varia A2)	MS	1	-	0.2

Arabidopsis (A. thaliana ecotype Columbia)	MS	-	0.5	0.05

Grape (V. berlandieri × V. rupestris cv. 'Richter 110')	MS	-	1	0.2

Maize (Z. mays, cv. H1233)	N6 M (LP40)	0.5	-	-

Rice (O. sativa ssp. japonica cv. 'Unggi 9'	G1	1	-	-

Tobacco (N. tabacum cv. Petit Havana SR1)	MS	-	1	0.2


Chromosome - RNA

	Positive	Negative

Dataset	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value

GO Process	238	1.50	2.76E-12	393	1.66	9.55E-29

SGD Phenotype	59	2.73	8.45E-12	135	4.19	9.35E-44

Positive Genetic	20	23.82	7.29E-21	3	2.39	0.13

Synthetic Sick	2	1.30	0.67	49	21.35	1.44E-46

Chromosome - Signalling

		Positive			Negative

Dataset	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value

GO Process	56	1.39	5.98E-03	121	1.30	1.12E-03

SGD Phenotype	10	1.40	2.50E-01	67	4.07	2.13E-22

Positive Genetic	3	13.48	1.56E-03	2	3.90	0.09

Synthetic Sick	0	0.00	1.00	24	19.98	3.06E-23

RNA - Signalling

		Positive			Negative

Dataset	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value	Overlap	Enrichment	p-value

GO Process	65	2.03	5.97E-09	162	2.25	7.63E-26

SGD Phenotype	33	5.07	1.87E-14	88	6.02	7.13E-42

Positive Genetic	16	71.81	1.19E-24	2	4.00	0.09

Synthetic Sick	1	2.40	0.34	54	57.77	1.98E-74


Handle	Functionality	Comfort	Freedom of movement

Scissors handle A	4.4 ± 1.8	3.8 ± 1.7	4.1 ± 1.5

Scissors handle B	5.0 ± 1.4	4.6 ± 1.4	4.9 ± 1.3

In-line handle	4.0 ± 1.6	4.6 ± 1.5	4.7 ± 1.6

Pistol grip A	5.3 ± 1.4	5.3 ± 1.4	5.0 ± 1.3

Pistol grip B	4.5 ± 1.8	4.6 ± 1.7	4.4 + 1.6


Variation	Purpose of the variation and ideas for the debriefing discussions

Include observers.	• Include an outside view on the processes during the conduct into the debriefing. What does such an outside view contribute to the analysis of the conduct of Hand-it-on?• Prepare participants for the observer role during scenarios and debriefings. What is helpful feedback to colleagues after a simulation scenario?

Vary the objects.	• Use objects where there is something at stake for those who handle them. When handling a full glass of water there is a different “risk” for the person handling the water than when handing on a pen. Where are own risks during the care for patients? How do they impact the actions of those involved?• Use objects that are difficult to manipulate (e.g., a thin thread). They can be used to focus on technical skills and psychomotoric challenges in combination with keeping an overview of parallel tasks. How does the requirement to concentrate on handling this object impact the overview of the situation?

Vary the direction in which the objects should be passed and/or include more tasks.	• This variation can challenge improvement plans between two rounds of Hand-it-on. How are the intentions to implement changes (work as imagined) impacted by the practicalities of the work system (work as done)?• Discuss the impact of work procedures and personal preferences on their implementation. How do changes in procedures impact the patient care?

Separate one or more participants while giving the details of the instruction. Let the first few rounds run without them and include those participants only then.	• Discuss the integration of new colleagues into a department. How are they introduced to the tasks they are supposed to do? How are they welcomed on a social and emotional level? What influences their integration (think about time pressure, work-load, or structured introduction programs)? Are there differences in the introduction between the two departments in the variation for large groups (See Fig. 1b)?• Discuss the importance of knowing about the history of discussions in a department. How do people understand a situation if they know only parts of its development and did not have any prior practice of the task?• Discuss working with people who might not have been part of forming the current routines, norms, values and beliefs. How does the shared understanding of those impact the task and social level? How does it feel to accept the features of the work system if you were not a part in forming them?

Include “hidden” instructions for briefed role players. You could ask them to frequently “drop” objects or to not concentrate on the process, causing delays. Remember to reveal the hidden instructions during the debriefing to protect your role player. They would not like to come across as “obstructive” or “unable” in reality.	• Discuss how the group reacted to such a “low” performer. How can a work team or an organization deal with a worker who does not perform to standards? How would a team identify such a person in the first place? What would impact the reaction to such a worker? Is there a difference in how you treat people who you like vs. those you do not get along with? How does it feel to observe this person? How does it feel to be this person? What do patients think about the low performer?

Include “stressors” such as loud music, noise, or the threat of moving the organization to a different country.	• Discuss the impact of such disturbances and ask participants to draw connections to real life. How do different operation room settings with their lighting, temperature or noise conditions impact performance?• Explore the differences in the experience and in handling of such stressors between the individuals involved. Who is disturbed by such external factors, who can deal with them easily? What are the coping strategies?


	PG group	Control group	95% CI	p-value

Wound closure )	n = 32	n = 41

 Second day postoperatively	0	0		–

 Third day postoperatively	7	6	7% (–11% to 25%)	0.5

 Fourth day postoperatively	7	13	–9% (–30% to 10%)	0.4

Wound closure	n = 36	n = 46

 2 weeks postoperatively	4	16	–24% (–41% to 7%)	0.02

Drop in Hb, mean (SD)	n = 50	n = 52

 mmol/L	–1.58 (0.63)	–1.75 (0.58)	0.16 (–0.07 to 0.4)	0.2

Pain at rest, median (range)	n = 50	n = 52

 At inclusion	3 (1–5)	3 (1–5)		0.8

 6 weeks	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.08

 3 months	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.8

Pain during walking, median (range)	n = 50	n = 52

 At inclusion	4 (1–5)	4 (1–5)		0.4

 6 weeks	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.07

 3 months	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.9

Use of pain medication, median (range)	n = 50	n = 52

 At inclusion	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.5

 6 weeks	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.9

 3 months	2 (1–5)	2 (1–5)		0.1

WOMAC score, mean (range)	n = 50	n = 52

 At inclusion	45 (8–76)	44 (14–74)

 6 weeks	26 (3–76)	24 (0–65)	0 (–8 to 8)	0.7

 3 months	25 (0–76)	21 (0–66)	–3 (–6 to 1)	0.4

ROM, mean (SD)	n = 32	n = 36

 Second day postoperatively	53 (14)	50 (17)

 Third day postoperatively	68 (13)	65 (16)

 Fourth day postoperatively	72 (13)	73 (14)		0.7

ROM, mean (SD)	n = 34	n = 45

 2 weeks postoperatively	91 (13)	89 (13)

 6 weeks postoperatively	99 (11)	100 (13)

 3 months postoperatively	102 (12)	101 (12)		0.9


	CLSI Guidelines	EUCAST Guidelines

	Disk content (μg)	2006	2007	2008	2010	2011	2012	Disk content (μg)	2013	2014

		11/8	23/8	6/8	5/5	14/12	22/4	10/4		26/3	6/6	30/9	20/12	23/1	23/1a	11/9a

Drug

 Ofloxacin	5	S	S	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	0	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT

 Pipercillin/ Tazobactum	100/10	S	S	S	S	S	S	S	36	S	S	S	S	S	R	S

 Ceftazidime	30	S	S	S	S	S	S	S	10	S	S	S	S	S	S	S

 Tobramycin	10	S	S	S	S	S	S	S	10	S	S	S	S	S	S	S

 Ciprofloxacin	5	NT	S	NT	S	S	S	S	5	S	S	S	S	S	S	S

 Amikacin	30	NT	S	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	30	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT

 Aztreoman	30	NT	S	NT	NT	NT	NT	S	30	S	I	I	I	I	I	I

 Colistin (E-Test)	10	NT	S	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	10	NT	NT	S	S	S	S	S

 Imipenem	10	NT	S	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	10	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT	NT

 Meropenem	10	NT	S	S	S	S	S	S	10	S	S	S	S	S	S	S


Case	Constant Error (m/s)	Amplitude of White Noise

Case1	0	0

Case2	1	0

Case3	0	0.1

Case4	1	0.1


Medium(dielectric constant)	Dipole Moment (D)

Gas	2.98

Water (78.3)	5.13

DMSO (46.8)	4.50

Acetonitrile (35.7)	4.53

n-Octanol (9.9)	4.54

Chloroform (4.7)	3.96

Carbon tetrachloride (2.2)	3.46


Tumor type	Site of sample collection a	Metastatic disease 	Ki67 index, %

Ileal carcinoid	Retro-peritoneal LN (m)	Yes	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	Yes	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	Yes	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	Yes	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ovary (m)	Yes	40

Ileal carcinoid	Retro-peritoneal LN (m)	Yes	5

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	No	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Muscle (m)	Yes	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	Yes	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	No	<2

Ileal carcinoid	Ileum (p)	Yes	<2

N-F pancreatic NET	Pancreas (p)	No	<2

N-F pancreatic NET	Pancreas (p)	No	5

Functioning pancreatico-duodenal NETs

Gastrinoma	Retro-peritoneal LN (m)	Yes	5

Glucagonoma	Retro-peritoneal LN (m)	Yes	<2

Glucagonoma	pancreas (p)	Yes	5

Glucagonoma	Pancreas (p)	Yes	50

Glucagonoma/Somatostatinoma	Pancreas (p)	No	<2

Somatostatinoma	Pancreas (p)	Yes	<2

Somatostatinoma	Papilla Vatery (p)	No	<2

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)	No	<2

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)		<2

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (m)	Yes	<2

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)	No	10

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)		<2

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)	Yes	5

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)	No	<2

Pheochromocytoma	Adrenal medulla (p)	No	25

Paraganglioma	Retroperitoneum (p)	No	<2

NE colon carcinoma	Colon (p)	Yes	50

NE colon carcinoma	Colon (p)	Yes	85

NE colon carcinoma	Colon (p)	Yes	<2

NE colon carcinoma	Liver (m)	Yes	5

Gastric NET, type 3	Corpus (p)	No	5


Variable	Group	N	%

Aeitiology	HSVa	38	18.18

	ADEMb	23	11

	VZVc	12	5.74

	MTBd	10	4.78

	ANTe	8	3.83

	Other	34	16.27

	 Viral	22	10.53

	 Bacterial	12	5.74

	Unknown	84	40.19

Gender	Male	114	54.54

Age: Categorical	Age ≤ 10	55	26.32

	10 < Age ≤35	55	26.32

	35 < Age ≤55	42	20.1

	Age >55	50	23.92

Age: Continuous	33.29 ± 25.64 (0,87)*

Region	South West	17	8.13

	London	86	41.15

	North West	106	50.72

Duration of illness	58.88 ± 71.39 (3,535)*

Length of stay**	49.01 ± 67.01(2,521)*


Gene ID	Illumina sequencing	QRT-PCR	KO description

comp139796_c2	−53.83a	−138.82	chalcone synthase

comp78650_c0	−26.86	−80.31	flavonol synthase

comp129681_c0	−3.78	−9.73	hydroxymethyl glutaryl CoA synthase

comp106407_c0	−10.00	−25.62	3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase

comp140511_c0	−3.30	−5.73	Dammarenediol-II synthase

comp126977_c0	−6.04	−4.79	glycosyltransferase

comp141084_c0	−2.13	−6.34	glycosyltransferase

comp140248_c0	6.98b	19.41	glutathione S-transferase

comp117631_c0	8.19	25.85	glutathione S-transferase

comp128853_c0	2.05	63.56	myb proto-oncogene protein, plant

comp128641_c0	2.32	2.17	myb proto-oncogene protein, plant

comp66279_c0	3.55	2.63	myb proto-oncogene protein, plant

comp128496_c0	5.93	8.83	myb proto-oncogene protein, plant

comp77739_c0	8.52	8.26	myb proto-oncogene protein, plant

comp109390_c0	6.71	5.20	heat shock transcription factor, other eukaryote

comp141438_c1	5.22	9.27	heat shock 90 kDa protein

comp142366_c1	6.33	4.68	heat shock 70 kDa protein

comp141020_c0	7.02	21.39	heat shock 70 kDa protein

comp134360_c1	12.85	9.71	heat shock 70 kDa protein

comp134360_c0	13.58	20.37	heat shock 70 kDa protein


	arabinose	galactose	glucose	xylose	mannose	sucrose

sugar maple	not detected	not detected	1231	not detected	not detected	not detected

aspen	13.4	0.6	1.4	3.5	2.5	0.98

spalted aspen	not detected	3.3	10.1	15.8	12.6	12.1

tree of heaven	29.2	110	133.5	14.2	not detected	1.9


Site	Latitude	Longitude	Elevation(m)	Land Cover	Site Size

Dayekou	38.5337°N	100.2502°E	2835.2	Coniferous Forest	2 km × 2 km

Yingke	38.8571°N	100.4103°E	1519.1	Cropland (corn)	2 km × 2 km

Hulunber	49.3533°N	120.1246°E	650	Meadow steppe	3 km × 3 km

Jingyuetan	44.1172°N	125.3615°E	190	Cropland (corn)	3 km × 3 km


Diagnosis	All patients (n)	RF+(n)	Patients with early disease (<12 months) (n)	RF+(n)

Rheumatoid arthritis	160	129	52	39

Undifferentiated monoarhtritis	13	4/11a	8b	2/6a

Undifferentiated oligoarthritis	9	2	4b	1

Undifferentiated polyarthritis	7	2	5c	1

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis	9	4	0	0

Adult Still's disease	1	0	0	0

Undifferentiated spondylarthritis	4	0	2	0

Psoriatic arthritis	12	0	2	0

Ankylosing spondylitis	1	0	0	0

Ulcerative colitis	2	0/1d	1	0

Undifferentiated systemic inflammatory disease with arthritis	1	0	0	0

Systemic lupus erythematosus	3	0	1	0

Cutaneous PAN with arthritis	1	0	0	0

Osteoarthritis	4	4	1	1

Healthy individuals	10	ND	NA	NA

Sum	237	141	76	42


Bacterial Luciferase (Lux)	Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP)

V. fischeri	[16]	E. coli	[17]

Various toxins		Various toxins

Bacteriophage	[18]	E. coli	[19]

Pathogenic Bacteria		L-arabinose

Saccharomyces cerevisiae	[20]	Yeast	[21]

Androgenic compounds		DNA damage

E. coli	[22]	E. coli	[23]

Nalidixic Acid		Arsenic

E. coli	[24]	Bacillus sp.	[14]

Various stressors		Arsenic/Zinc

HEK293 mammalian cell line	[25]	Firefly Luciferase (Luc)

Whole animal imaging		E. coli	[26]

		Gene expression

E. coli	[27]

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons		E. coli	[28]

		Benzene

Alcaligenes eutrophus	[29]

Heavy metals		E. coli	[30]

		Various toxins

Pseudomonas putida	[31]

Microbial volatile organics		Aequorin

		E. coli	[32]

Pseudomonas fluorescens	[33]	Calcium

Naphthalene/salicylate

		B Cells	[34]

E. coli	[35]	Pathogenic Bacteria

DNA damaging agents


		Patient age		Total

		Younger than 60 years	Older than 60 years

	Low risk	12	41	53

Goasguen score	Intermediate risk	9	48	57

Total		21	89	110


Beneficiary-related features	Men (n = 198)	Women (n = 117)	Total (n = 315)

Number	(%)	Number	(%)	Number	(%)

Aspects of life

 	Working, attending school, or performing housework	159	(82.4%)	92	(81.4%)	251	(82.0%)

 	Home care	28	(14.5%)	18	(15.9%)	46	(14.6%)

 	Hospitalization or admission	6	(3.1%)	3	(2.7%)	9	(2.9%)

 	Not known	5	—	4	—	9	—

Visit status

 	Primarily inpatient	9	(4.7%)	1	(1.0%)	10	(3.4%)

 	Half inpatient/half outpatient	12	(6.3%)	8	(7.6%)	20	(6.8%)

 	Primarily outpatient	170	(89.0%)	96	(91.4%)	266	(89.9%)

 	Other or not known	7	—	12	—	19	—

Physical-disability certification and grade

 	Not certified	148	(75.1%)	92	(78.6%)	240	(76.4%)

 	Grade 1	42	(21.3%)	17	(14.5%)	59	(18.8%)

 	Grade 2–5	7	(3.6%)	8	(6.8%)	15	(4.8%)

 	Not known	1	—	0	—	1	—

Care-requirement certification status

 	Needing care or support	8	(4.1%)	7	(6.5%)	15	(5.0%)

 	No need for care or support	185	(95.9%)	100	(93.5%)	285	(95.0%)

 	Not known	5	—	10	—	15	—

Self-rated clinical course as compared with previous year

 	Worse	52	(28.3%)	29	(27.4%)	81	(27.9%)

 	Unchanged	109	(59.2%)	69	(65.1%)	178	(61.4%)

 	Improved or cured	23	(12.5%)	8	(7.5%)	31	(10.7%)

 	Other or not known	14	—	11	—	25	—


MiMix [21]	Minimum Information required for reporting a Molecular Interaction experiment

It relies on PSI-MI [22] controlled vocabularies for terms, and its purpose is providing a checklist of the information to be supplied when describing experimental molecular interaction data. It is a module developed within the framework of the MIAPE guidelines.

MIAPE [23]	Minimum Information About a Proteomics Experiment

It provides guidance modules for reporting the use of proteomics techniques such as gel electrophoresis and mass spectrometry, and has been developed and proposed to encourage collection and integration of these kinds of data.

MIAME [24]	Minimum Information About a Microarray Experiment

It is used to submit fully compliant datasets, to enable the interpretation of the experimental results unambiguously and, potentially, to reproduce the study.

MIRIAM Registry [25]	Minimum Information Required in the Annotation of Models

Created for defining the meta-information needed to ensure the re-usability of computational models of biological processes. It aims to maintain, unambiguously and perennially, the identifiers regarding the biomedical domain. The registry retrieves the identifiers in the form of URIs, and provides the http://www.Identifiers.org resolver online service, for their generation.


Clinical Outcome Measure	Natural course mean pp/y (95% CI) P-value	Treatment course mean pp/y (95% CI) P-value	Difference* mean pp/y (95% CI) P- value

MRC sumscore Total study population (N = 69, M = 558)	 	 	1.4 (0.8 to 2.1)	<0.001

MRC sumscorePatients with pre-ERT + ERT follow-up (N = 49, M = 523)	−1.2 (−2.1 to −0.4)	0.006	2.1 (1.2 to 3.0)	<0.001	3.3 (1.9 to 4.7)	<0.001

HHD sumscore Total study population (N = 64, M = 503)	 	 	4.0 (2.5 to 5.6)	<0.001

HHD sumscore Patients with pre-ERT + ERT follow-up (N = 42, M = 435)	−2.8 (−4.2 to −1.3)	<0.001	5.1 (3.0 to 7.3)	<0.001	7.9 (5.0 to 10.7)	<0.001

QMFT score Total study population (N = 69, M = 553)	 	 	0.7 (−0.2 to 1.7)	0.14

FVC in upright position Total study population (N = 62, M = 475)	 	 	0.1 (−1.0 to 1.1)	0.92

FVC in upright position Patients with pre-ERT + ERT follow-up (N = 46, M = 480)	−2.0 (−3.1 to −0.8)	0.001	−0.2 (−1.6 to 1.2)	0.76	1.8 (−0.2 to 3.7)	0.08

FVC in supine position Total study population (N = 54, M = 411)	 	 	−1.1 (−2.1 to −0.1)	0.03

FVC in supine position Patients with pre-ERT + ERT follow-up (N = 42, M = 436)	−1.8 (−2.9 to −0.7)	0.002	−1.0 (−2.3 to 0.3)	0.12	0.8 (−0.9 to 2.4)	0.38


 	Reduced transversal palatal diameter N (%)	Skeletal class II	Cross-byte	Atipic swallowing

 	 	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)

Atopic SDB subjects	39/60 (65%)	24/60 (40%)	21/60 (35%)	54/60 ( 90%)

Non atopic SDB subjects	44/50 (88%)	24/50 (48%)	15/50 (30%)	47/50 (94%)

p	P<0.05 (*)	n.s.	n.s.	n.s.


Days	Activities	Detail

Day 1	Orientation	Briefing on pharmacy operation and services

		Discussion about the objective of the session

		Daily work schedule, including learning clinical skills and responding to symptoms

Day 2	Observation	Pharmacy layout

		Arrangement of drugs in pharmacy (outlet and store)

		Types of medicines available

		Requirements for medication storage

Day 3	Store management	Storage of drugs according to their volume of use

		First-in/first-out method

Day 4 and day 5	Pharmaceutical care for the community	Management of chronic and long-term health problems though pharmacy

		Responding to symptoms in community pharmacy

		Dealing with special health issues

		Proper information about family planning methods

		Health screening

Day 6	Counselling skills	Basic counselling skills

		Counselling for stigmatized patients

		Use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches during counselling

Day 7	Practical skills	Use of medical devices

		Applying methods of physical examination

Day 8	Business plan	Drug selection criteria and drug procurement activities

		Inventory management

		Break-even point analysis

		Legal procedure for establishing a community pharmacy

Day 9	Waste management	Handling of damaged and expired drugs

		Disposal of wastage

Day 10	Medicine information source	Use of available information sources in pharmacy

		Development of informational material by the pharmacy such as leaflets, booklets, and other materials for educational purposes

Day 11	ADR reporting and pharmacovigilance	Determination of ADR by various assessment scales

		Reporting of ADR to regional pharmacovigilance center

Day 12	Future prospects	Potential for community pharmacy-managed services in the Nepalese context


Variable	Diabetes Patients (n=218)	Non-Diabetes (n=734)	P value

Operative time (min) (mean±SD)	434±81	422±76	0.014

Aortic cross clamp time (min) (mean±SD)	82±25	83±30	0.351

No. of coronary grafts (%)			0.143

One	3.7	4.1

Two	16.5	19.6

Three	79.8	75.5

≥Four 	0	0.8


Region	Ergot limit in cereal grains for humans (ppm)	Ergot limit in animal feed (ppm)	Other comments

Australia and New Zealand	0.05	N/A	0–0.1% (T)

Canada	0–0.05	0.10–0.33	Varies with grade of wheat

European Union	0.05	0.10	–

Switzerland	0.02	N/A	0.05 limit on cereals destined for milling

Japan	0.04	N/A	–

United Kingdom	Zero tolerance	0.001	–

United States	0.3 (W, R)	0.3 (W, R)	0.1% (B, O, T)


	First story (Aladdin’s Lamp)	Second story (The Three Little Pigs)	Third story (Adopting a Star)

	Moral	No moral	Moral	No moral	Moral	No moral

TB	37	13	24	26	32	18

PC-NoIA	16	34	31	19	21	29

PC-IA	20	30	8	42	11	39

	χ2 = 19.51	χ2 = 22.82	χ2 = 18.04

	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p < 0.001


Participant Patients	Age	Gender	Lesion location	Hemi-paretic side	Etio-logy	Time since lesion (days)	ARAT (max = 57)	Max. grip force (kg) affected\non-affected	% max. grip force (%)	Moberg Pick-Up Test (s) affected\non-affected	Mono-filaments (g) affected\non-affected

1	76	F	Right precentral gyrus and right lenticular nucleus	left	H	36	57	12\16	75	16\12	0.4\0.4

2	49	M	Left parieto-occipital cortex, intra-ventricular and corpus callosum	right	H	120	57	42\39	100	25\13	0.4\0.07

3	25	M	Right temporo-parietal cortex	left	H	330	32	15/44	34	60\13	0.07\0.07

4	68	F	Left fronto-parietal cortex	right	I	19	57	11/15	73	19\14	0.07\0.4

5	46	M	Right sylvian and subdural hematoma	left	I	165	51	12/26	46	50\30	0.4\0.4

6	68	M	Left sylvian	right	I	315	40	18/37	49	60\22	0.07\0.4

7	40	M	Left thalamus	right	H	75	40	6/43	14	51\21	0.07\0.4

8	64	M	Left pons	right	I	40	57	38/30	100	32\24	0.4\0.4

9	50	F	Left precentral cortex and left semi-oval center	right	I	210	56	19/24	79	13\12	0.4\0.4

10	65	M	Left pons	right	I	180	57	17/39	43	26\17	0.4\0.4

Patients	55.1 (±15.7)	3 F/7M				149 (±112)	50.4 (±9.4)	31.3 (±10.7)	61.3 (±28.5)	35.2 (±18.3)	0.33 (±0.14)

Mean (±SD)								\19.0 (±11.7)		\17.8 (±6.2)	\0.27 (±0.18)

Controls Mean (±SD)	52.9 (±17.4)	4 F/6 M						35.1 (±11.4)		14.3 (±1.9)	0.14 (±0.14)


Treatment (n = 5)	Dose (mg/kg)	Onset of sleep (min)	Duration of sleep (min)

Control	–	32.80 ± 7.03	128.20 ± 19.79

Hibiscus tiliaceus leaves	500	16.40 ± 1.03*	133.40 ± 13.87*

Hibiscus tiliaceus barks	500	13.80 ± 2.08*	101.40 ± 12.54*


Category	Survey question

Awareness items	Do you know what colorectal cancer is?

	Do you know what a colon polyp is?

	Do you know what a cancer screening test is?

	Do you know the different types of screening tests available for colorectal cancer?

	Do you know what the following tests are:

	Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT)/ Stool Blood Test?

	Colonoscopy?

	Sigmoidoscopy?

	Do you know where you can obtain screening tests for colorectal cancer?

Knowledge items	Do you think a diet low in fat and high in fiber helps decrease the risk for developing colorectal cancer?

	Do you think physical activity decreases the risk of developing colorectal cancer?

	Do you think the risks for developing colorectal cancer increases after the age of 50?

	Do you think most patients survive colorectal cancer if it is found early and removed?

	Do you think you ONLY need colorectal cancer screening if you are having any symptoms?

Behavioral intention to obtain colorectal cancer screening	Do you plan on talking to your doctor about cancer of the colon and rectum in the future?

	Do you plan on getting screened for cancer of the colon and rectum in the future?

Behavioral intentions to promote colorectal cancer education	How likely are you to talk about colorectal cancer with your:

	Parents

	Grandparents

	Relatives (aunts, uncles, cousins)

	Peers (friends, colleagues, etc.)

	Community members

	Individuals at risk (50+ years of age, family history, etc.)


Characteristics	Preoperative with plasmapheresis group (PPG) N (33)	Preoperative without plasmapheresis group (NPPG) N (53)	P value

Male, n (%)	8 (24.2)	17 (32.1)	0.475

Age (years), (mean ± SD)	44.2 ± 11.6	44.0 ± 15.3	0.933

Underlying disease (DM or HT or dyslipidemia)	17 (51.5)	30 (56.6)	0.663

Osserman classification	 	 	0.611

 I	2 (6.1)	5 (9.4)	0.703

 IIA	6 (18.2)	14 (26.4)	0.440

 IIB	21 (63.6)	31 (58.5)	0.658

 III	4 (12.1)	3 (5.7)	0.421

History of myasthenic crisis at any time 	16 (48.5)	12 (22.6)	0.018

History of myasthenic crisis within one month before surgery	7 (21.2)	1 (1.9)	0.005

History of plasmapheresis within one month before surgery	11 (33.3)	5 (9.4)	0.009

Ocular involvement	15 (45.5)	25 (47.2)	1.000

Neck muscle motor power (mean ± SD)	4.5 ± 0.7 	4.8 ± 0.4	0.025

Upper extremities motor power (mean ± SD)	4.4 ± 0.7	4.7 ± 0.5	0.009

lower extremities motor power (mean ± SD)	4.3 ± 0.8	4.7 ± 0.5	0.004

Respiratory involvement	6 (18.2)	1 (1.9)	0.012

Bulbar involvement	13 (39.4)	6 (11.3)	0.003

Mestinon use 	33 (100)	47 (88.7)	0.078

Dose of mestinon (mg/day) (mean ± SD)	238.2 ± 132.0	204.9 ± 88.1	0.179

Prednisolone use 	30 (91.0)	48 (91.0)	1.000

 Dose of prednisolone (mg/day) (mean ± SD)	36.0 ± 19.8	29.3 ± 14.9	0.094

Azathioprine use	16 (48.5)	21 (39.6)	0.503

Dose of Azathioprine (mg/day) (mean ± SD)	65.6 ± 22.1	73.8 ± 28.0	0.342

FVC (mean ± SD)	1503.3 ± 304.7	2552.9 ± 221.5	0.019

Probability of receiving treatment (propensity score)*	0.53 ± 0.32	0.26 ± 0.15	<0.001


Gene symbol	Gene name & function	Fold change	p-value

ompC	Outer membrane protein C porin - permeability	0.97	NS

ompF	Outer membrane protein F porin - permeability	0.14	< .001

micF	Anti-sense RNA - negative regulation of OmpF translation	2.27	< .001

marA	Multiple antibiotic resistance (mar) protein A - transcription activator of mar regulon	2.01	< .001

marB	mar protein B	2.22	< .001

marR	mar operon repressor	1.80	.003

soxS	Regulatory protein SoxS - superoxide response regulon	0.37	< .001

acrA	Acriflavine resistance protein A - antibiotic and bile resistance	1.89	< .001

acrB	Acriflavine resistance protein B - antibiotic and bile resistance	2.21	< .001

acrR	Acriflavine resistance protein R –transcription regulator	2.83	< .001

yceE	Multidrug resistance protein - antibiotic and bile resistance	2.04	.002

yojI	Drug (microcin) efflux pump	2.49	< .001


Multiplex PCR assay	Biochemical test	TOTAL

Nitrate positive	Nitrate negative

Nitrate positive	133	5	138

Nitrate negative	5	205	210

Total	138	210	348


Categories	Search terms

Participants	(child OR children OR adolescent* OR pediatric*OR paediatric*) AND

Disease	(sleeplessness OR ‘chronic insomnia’ ORinsomniac OR insomnia OR insomni* OR ‘sleep initiation andmaintenance disorders’) AND

Interventions	(CBT OR ‘cognitive behavioural therapy’ OR‘cognitive behavioral therapy’ OR ‘cognitive behaviortherapy’ OR ‘cognitive behavioural therapies’ OR ‘cognitivebehavioral therapies’ OR ‘cognitive behavior therapies’ OR‘cognitive analytic therapy’ OR ‘sleep hygiene’ OR ‘stimuluscontrol’ OR ‘relaxation’ OR ‘relaxation therapy’ OR‘relaxation techniques’ OR ‘behavior modification’ OR‘behavior therapy’ OR ‘cognitive therapy’ OR ‘imagery’ OR‘biofeedback’ OR ‘counseling’ OR ‘family therapy’ OR‘psychoanalytic therapy’ OR ‘psychotherapy’)


Primer name	Sequence	Used to generate data for figure:

IAP-F [8]	5′-ATAATCTGCGCATGAGCCAAGG-3′	1

IAP-R [8]	5′-AGGAAGAACACCACAGACCAGA-3′	1

Tagln F	5′-GCATAAGAGGGAGTTCACAGACA-3′	3, 4, S11

Tagln R	5′-GCCTTCCCTTTCTAACTGATGATC-3′	3, 4, S11

Myh11 F	5′-CAGTTGGACACTATGTCAGGGAAA-3′	3, 4, S11

Myh11 R	5′-ATGGAGACAAATGCTAATCAGCC-3′	3, 4, S11

1F [33]	5′-GCGCCAGTCATCCGATAGACT-3′	S2

K1R [33]	5′-AAGGCTTTATTGGGAACACG-3′	S2

MoA 5 bbone	5′-GCGCCAGTCCTCCGATTGAC-3′	S13

XMRV adapt MoA	5′ -TGAGAACGCTGGACTTTCCATC	S13

5bbone R	GATGTTAGGCCATTAAGGAG-3′

XMRV adapt MoA	5′-AACTCCTCCGGCCGGAACAGC	S13

env F	ATGAGACAGCGGACCCGGACT-3′

MoA adapt XMRV	5′-GAAACTGAATAAAATCTTTTAT	S13

env R	GGCTCGTACTCTATAGGCTT-3′

MoA adapt XMRV	5′-GAAGAAGTGGAATCACGTGA	S13

3bbone F	ATAGATAAAATAAAAGATTTTA-3′

MoA 3bbone R	5′-TGCAACTGCAAG	S13

AGGGTTTATTGG-3′

XMRV 5bbone F	5′-GCGCCAGTCCTCCGATTGAC-3′	S14

MoA adapt XMRV	5′-CTCCTTAATGGCCTAACATCG	S14

env F	ATGGAAAGTCCAGCGTTCTCA-3′

MoA adapt XMRV	5′-GAAACTGAATAAAATCTTTTA	S14

env R	TGGCTCGTACTCTATAGGCTT-3′

XMRV adapt MoA	5′-TAAAATCTTTTATTTTATCTA	S14

env R	TTCACGTGATTCCACTTCTTC-3′

XMRV 3bbone F	5′-AAGCCTATAGAGTACGAGCCA	S14

TAAAAGATTTTATTCAGTTTC-3′

XMRV 3bbone R	5′-TTGCAAACAGCAAAAGGCTTT-3′	S14

XPR1 F [35]	5′- TAATTCAGAAGAATCAGGAATT-3′	S16

XPR1 R [35]	5′-CGAGTGACCTCGTTCTTTG-3′	S16


Health Unit	Health Region Peer Groupa	Land area (km2)	Population density (persons/km2)(Census, 2011)	Populationage 65+ (% of total)(Census, 2011)	Visible minorities (% of population)(NHS, 2011)

North Bay Parry Sound District	Sparsely populated urban-rural mix	16,801	7.4	19%	1.7%

Simcoe Muskoka District	Moderately populated urban centres	8736	58	16%	4%

York Region	Highly populated urban centres	1762	586.0	12%	43%


 	KNH (%)	AKUH (%)

Attitude statements	SA	A	U	D	SD	SA	A	U	D	SD

A computer increases costs by increasing the nurses workload	5.2	11	4.5	35.5	43.9	16.3	Nil	2.3	23.3	55.8

Costs of health care are likely to increase because of computers	8.4	18.8	4.6	34.4	33.8	18.2	4.6	29.6	34.1	2.3

The time spent using a computer is out of proportion to the benefits	5.9	9.2	9.9	32.2	42.8	7.3	2.4	36.6	41.5	13.6

Computers represent a violation of patient privacy	6.7	17.3	8	31.3	36.7	17.1	14.6	22	34.2	12.2

Only one person at a time can use a computer terminal and, therefore, staff efficiency is inhibited.	16.2	27.9	10.4	26.6	18.2	27.3	9.1	15.9	20.5	12.2

Computerization of nursing data offers nurses a remarkable opportunity to improve patient care	49.7	35.5	2.6	5.2	6.5	40.9	29.6	22.7	6.8	27.3

Computers contain too much personal data to be used in an area as open as a nursing station	14.7	27.6	5.1	30.1	22.4	11.6	20.9	4.7	44.2	18.6

Computers can cause nurses to give less time to quality nursing care	8.3	11.5	6.4	35.3	38.5	14	14	4.7	14	53.5

If I had my way, nurses would never have to use computers	4	4.6	4	15.1	72.4	4.7	4.7	2.3	16.3	72.1

Computers should only be used in the financial department	4.6	0.7	2.6	17.7	73.9	4.9	2.4	2.4	9.8	80.5

Computers make nurses jobs easier	51.7	31.1	6	7.3	4	60.5	25.6	7	4.7	2.3

Paperwork for nurses can be reduced greatly by the use of computers	69.9	20.9	5.2	1.3	2.6	56.8	29.6	2.3	9.1	2.3

Orientation for new employees takes longer because of computers	7.1	8.4	11.7	38.3	34.4	4.7	11.6	9.3	37.2	37.2

Nursing data cannot be manipulated using computers	13.6	23.9	9.7	27.1	25.8	12.2	26.8	4.9	36.6	19.5

Computers save steps and allow the nursing staff to become more efficient	43.5	35.7	6.5	10.4	3.9	47.7	29.6	2.3	13.6	6.8

The more computers in an institution, the less number of jobs for employees	21.8	25	10.9	24.4	18	29.6	22.7	6.8	20.5	20.5

Increased computer use will allow nurses more time to give patient care	45.3	26	9.3	14	5.3	37.8	29.7	8.1	16.2	8.1

Because of computers, nurses will face more law suits	9.5	15.5	12.2	29.1	33.8	3	15.2	9.1	36.4	36.4

Computers can cause a decrease in communication between hospital departments	7.3	11.3	6.7	28.7	46	16.7	16.7	Nil	30.6	36.1

Confidentiality will be sacrificed by patient records being computerized	14	17.3	6	33.3	29.3	32.4	27	2.7	18.9	18.9


Epitope	Start position	Combined score

FIEYCNHCY	64	2.4978

FRYEFTAPF	56	2.0697

RYEFTAPFI	57	1.6395

ESLLHQASW	19	1.2675

SFVTDLEKY	44	1.1582


Cellulase	Percentage of mass/area remove	Film swelling

RT	Topt

Cel9A	5	11	No

Cel9A-CBM	12	32	Yes

Cel5A	1	4	No

Cel5A-CBM	16	35	Yes


OPINIONS ABOUT USE OF MORPHINE	GP AGREEMENT (%)	HP AGREEMENT (%)	% DIFFERENCE GP - HP	P-Value

It means that it is serious (GP n = 171; HP n = 399)	96 (56,1)	37 (9,3)	46,8	0,000*

There is a risk to develop dependency (GP n = 171; HP n = 405)	70 (41.0)	6 (1,5)	39,5	0,000*

There is a risk of delirium or euphoria (GP n = 171; HP n = 405)	68 (39.8)	18 (4,4)	35,4	0,000*

It does diminish the surviving period (GP n = 171; HP n = 407)	61 (35,7)	13 (3,2)	32,5	0,002*

There is a risk of somnolence or sedation (PG n = 170; PS n = 403)	74 (43,5)	123 (30,5)	13,0	0,000*

It can lead to increasing doses (GP n = 170; HP n = 403)	85 (50,0)	105 (26,1)	23,9	0,000*

It is a sign of limited life expectancy (GP n = 171 - HP n = 409)	47 (27,5)	4 (1,0)	26,5	0,000*

It increases legal risks in relation to other medication (GP n = 171; HP n = 407)	85 (49,7)	229 (56,3)	-6,6	0,149

There is a risk of discrimination (PG n = 169; PS n = 397)	33 (19,5)	10 (2,5)	17,0	0,000*


	Website (n = 24)	JawboneTM/UP app (n = 23)	F2F (group) (n = 19)	F2F (1-2-1) (n = 22)	Facebook group (n = 24)	Food & nutrient report (n = 24)	GymstickTM (n = 23)	TEMPlateTM dinner disc (n = 16)

Provided me with useful information about healthy eating	4.0 ± 0.6	3.2 ± 1.0	4.1 ± 0.6	4.5 ± 0.7	3.8 ± 0.8	4.4 ± 0.9	NA	3.9 ± 0.9

Provided me with useful information about exercise	4.2 ± 0.6	3.9 ± 0.9	4.2 ± 0.9	4.2 ± 0.8	3.7 ± 0.8	NA	NA	NA

Provided me with useful information about stress	3.7 ± 0.7	3.0 ± 0.9	3.6 ± 0.8	4.0 ± 0.9	3.5 ± 0.8	NA	NA	NA

Helped me to attain my goals	3.6 ± 0.8	3.8 ± 0.9	3.9 ± 1.0	4.0 ± 0.9	3.7 ± 0.9	4.1 ± 1.0	3.7 ± 1.0	3.3 ± 0.9

Motivated me	3.5 ± 0.9	4.1 ± 0.7	4.3 ± 0.7	4.0 ± 0.8	3.6 ± 0.8	4.0 ± 0.9	3.5 ± 1.0	3.3 ± 1.1

Made me feel accountable	3.3 ± 0.9	4.0 ± 1.0	3.8 ± 0.9	4.1 ± 0.8	3.5 ± 1.0	4.2 ± 0.9	3.6 ± 1.0	3.2 ± 0.9

Was easy to use/navigate	4.3 ± 0.6	4.0 ± 0.9	NA	NA	4.2 ± 0.8	NA	3.8 ± 1.0	3.5 ± 1.2

Content was easy to understand	4.3 ± 0.4	4.1 ± 0.7	4.4 ± 0.6	4.4 ± 0.6	4.2 ± 0.8	4.1 ± 0.9	NA	NA

Was visually appealing	4.0 ± 0.7	4.0 ± 0.9	NA	NA	3.8 ± 0.8	3.9 ± 0.9	NA	3.4 ± 0.9

Was supportive in answering any queries/questions	NA	NA	4.5 ± 0.7	4.5 ± 0.6	3.7 ± 0.8	NA	NA	NA

Satisfaction	4.0 ± 0.6	4.2 ± 1.1	4.1 ± 0.8	4.3 ± 0.8	Not asked	4.2 ± 0.8	4.0 ± 0.9	3.0 ± 0.9


Database		Search strategy

Embase	#1	‘headache*’:ti,ab OR ‘cephalgia*’:ti,ab OR ‘cephalalgia*’:ti,ab OR ‘cranialgia*’:ti,ab OR ‘head ache*’:ti,ab OR ‘cephalodynia*’:ti,ab OR ‘cephalea*’:ti,ab OR ‘cerebral pain’:ti,ab OR ‘head pain’:ti,ab OR ‘eye pain’:ti,ab

#2	‘neuroimaging’:ti,ab OR ‘brain imaging’:ti,ab OR ‘tomography’:ti,ab OR ‘mri’:ti,ab OR ‘magnetic resonance imaging’:ti,ab OR ‘mr imaging’:ti,ab OR ‘nmr imaging’:ti,ab

#3	#1AND #2

Restrict to humans	#4	#3 AND ‘human’/de

Filter by type of study	#5	#4 AND (‘clinical study’/de OR ‘clinical trial’/de OR ‘cohort analysis’/de OR ‘comparative study’/de OR ‘controlled clinical trial’/de OR ‘controlled study’/de OR ‘family study’/de OR ‘major clinical study’/de OR ‘medical record review’/de OR ‘observational study’/de OR ‘prospective study’/de OR ‘randomized controlled trial’/de OR ‘retrospective study’/de OR ‘systematic review’/de)


Antibiotic name	MSO(central government	MCD	CG1	CG2	CPA(Delhi state government)

Azithromycin cap/tab	No rate available	6.31	No rate available	9.45	No rate available

Ceftriaxone injection	14.99	18.28	16.46	15.50	8.50

Erythromycin Stearate	1.43	1.32	2.04	1.68	0.85

cap/tab

Gentamicin eye drops	No rate available	0.61	0.81	1.21	0.58

Gentamicin injection	No rate available	1.40	1.53	2.49	1.52

Roxithromycin cap/tab	1.04	1.29	No rate available	No rate available	0.74


miRNA Migr. / Inv. / Met.	Targets	Cells / Tissue	Expression	Function	Reference

miR-17 family (20a, 20b)	TGFßR2	A549/CDDP	down	TGFßR2 suppressor, reverses CDDP-resistance and suppresses metastases	[81]

miR-21	PTEN	Serum, NSCLC cells	up	Promotes migration, invasion and metastasis	[9]

mir-26b	PTEN	NSCLC tissue, NSCLC cells	down	Regulates NSCLC migration and CDDP-chemosensitivity	[78]

miR-27a	RKIP	A549/CDDP	up	Regulates EM-transition and CDDP-resistance	[82]

miR-98	PAK1	NSCLC tissue, A549/PAR	down	Inversely regulates PAK1, inhibits migration and invasion	[51]

miR-182	PDCD4	A549 cells	up	Induces resistance to CDDP by targeting PDCD4	[84]

miR-200c	n. d.	NSCLC cell lines (n=9)	down	Inversely correlates with aggressive, invasive and chemoresistant phenotype	[8]

miR-206	MET	NSCLC tissue, A549/CDDP, H1299/CDDP	down	Inhibits CDDP-resistance via MET dependent PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways	[80]

miR-217	KRAS	NSCLC tissue, A549/PAR	down	Inhibits proliferation, migration and invasion, promotes apoptosis and sensitivity to CDDP	[79]

DNA damage response

miR-17/miR-92 families	TGFßR2, CDKN1A, RAD21	A549/CDDP	down	Influence CDDP-resistance by synergistic and combined regulation of their target genes	[127]

miR-33b-3p	P21WAF1	A549/CDDP	up	Impairs the DNA damage response	[128]

miR-92

miR-138	ERCC1	A549/CDDP	up	Negatively regulates ERCC1 expression	[38]

miR-155	APAF-1	NSCLC tissue, A549/PAR	up	Inhibits sensitivity to CDDP via negative regulation of Apaf-1	[37]

miR-509-3-5p	PLK1	CDDP-treated A549/PAR	down	Tumor suppressor, causes aberrant mitosis and anti-proliferative effects by suppressing PLK1	[20]

miR-630	ATM, H2AX, p53	A549/PAR CDDP-treated	up	Blocks DNA-damage response	[13]

Drug uptake

miR-15b	PEBP4	A549/CDDP, NSCLC tissue	up	Suppresses PEBP4 expression and contribute to CDDP-resistance	[129]

miR-31-p	Dicer	A549 cells	n. d.	Enhances sensitivity to CDDP by repressing Dicer	[130]

miR-34a	PEBP4, MYCN	A549/PAR	up	Modulates CDDP-sensitivity in NSCLC cells by regulating PEBP4 expression	[131]

miR-106a	ABCA1	A549/CDDP	up	Induces CDDP-resistance by targeting ABCA1 and inhibiting apoptosis	[68]

miR-148b	DNMT1	A549/CDDP, SPC-A1/CDDP	down	Influence CDDP-sensitivity, cell viability and apoptosis	[57]

miR-181a	PTEN	A549/CDDP	up	Regulates epithelial-mesenchymal transition and metastatic properties of NSCLC cells	[46]

miR-185-5p	ABCC1	A549/CDDP	down	Promotes CDDP-induced apoptosis by suppressing ABCC1	[69]

miR-495	ATP7A	NSCLC tissue, A549/CDDP	down	Negatively regulates ATP7A and modulates CDDP-induced apoptosis	[70]

miR-503	FANCA	NSCLC tissue, A549/CDDP	down	Regulates CDDP-resistance by targeting FANCA	[102]


Gene ID	Log2 (RPKMOXR/RPKMWT)	Description

0 h	6 h	24 h

Catalase (CAT)

Os06t0727200-01	0.79	1.36 **	0.79	catalase isozyme B (EC 1.11.1.6)

Ascorbate peroxidase (APX)

Os04t0602100-01	−1.77 *	−2.21 *	−1.34 *	l-ascorbate peroxidase

Peroxiredoxin (PrxR)

Os06t0196300-01	−1.64 *	−0.49	0.77	similar to peroxiredoxin Q

Glutathione S-transferase (GST)

Os04t0435500-01	−0.72	−1.03 *	−0.15	glutathione S-transferase, c-terminal-like domain containing protein

Os10t0530500-01	−1.42 *	−1.78 *	−2.0 *	similar to glutathione-S-transferase

Peroxidase superfamily protein

Os07t0677200-01	−0.04	2.81 **	0.64	peroxidase

Os07t0677400-00	−1.47 *	−0.28	−0.02	peroxidase.

Os04t0688100-01	0.45	2.21 **	0.18	peroxidase (EC 1.11.1.7)

Os04t0688100-02	0.79	1.87 **	0.58	peroxidase (EC 1.11.1.7)

Os04t0688500-01	0.9	2.72 **	1.21 **	peroxidase (EC 1.11.1.7)

Os10t0109300-01	0.35	1.94 **	0.17	similar to peroxidase (EC 1.11.1.7)

Os01t0263300-01	0.44	1.42 **	−0.6	similar to peroxidase 72 precursor (EC 1.11.1.7)

Os01t0962700-01	0.47	1.11 **	−0.16	similar to peroxidase 12 precursor (EC 1.11.1.7)

Os01t0963000-01	1.01 **	4.55 **	1.38 **	similar to peroxidase BP 1 precursor

Os06t0547400-01	0.73	1.76 **	1.03 **	similar to peroxidase P7 (EC 1.11.1.7)

Os06t0695500-01	0.01	2.19 **	−0.44	similar to peroxidase 16 precursor (EC 1.11.1.7)

Os04t0688300-01	1.02 **	3.24 **	1.77 **	Haem peroxidase, plant/fungal/bacterial family protein.

Os01t0326300-01	−0.07	1.92**	0.24	Haem peroxidase, plant/fungal/bacterial family protein.

Os06t0521500-01	1.26 **	3.09 **	0.82	Haem peroxidase family protein.

Os06t0306300-01	0.42	1.94 **	0	Haem peroxidase domain containing protein.

Os02t0684400-01	0.24	1.33 **	0	similar to OXS3 (OXIDATIVE STRESS 3)

Dehydrogenase/reductase

Os04t0531900-01	0.62	1.05 **	−0.07	short-chain dehydrogenase/reductase SDR domain-containing protein

Os11t0484500-01	0.31	−0.76	−1.23 *	similar to 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase


50 years +	Female	Male	Total

	N	%	n	%	N	%

Circulatory system diseases	29	27.6	19	18.6	48	23.2

Tuberculosis	7	6.7	10	9.8	17	8.2

Malaria	8	7.6	8	7.8	16	7.7

Intestinal infectious diseases (diarrhea)	3	2.9	6	5.9	9	4.3

Malignant neoplasms	5	4.8	3	2.9	8	3.9

Traffic accidents	2	1.9	5	4.9	7	3.4

Acute respiratory infections (pneumonia)	4	3.8	3	2.9	7	3.4

HIV	4	3.8	1	1.0	5	2.4

Diabetes Mellitus	1	1.0	4	3.9	5	2.4

Digestive system	1	1.0	3	2.9	4	1.9

Intentional self-harm	2	1.9	1	1.0	3	1.4

Accidental drowning and sub.	0	0.0	2	2.0	2	1.0

Rabies	1	1.0	0	0.0	1	0.5

Mental and behavioural disorders	0	0.0	1	1.0	1	0.5

Infections of the skin and subcutaneous tissue	0	0.0	1	1.0	1	0.5

Injury of unspecified body region	1	1.0	0	0.0	1	0.5

Exposure to unspecified electric current	1	1.0	0	0.0	1	0.5

Sepsis	0	0.0	1	1.0	1	0.5

Asthma	0	0.0	1	1.0	1	0.5

Unknow (R95-R99)	1	1.0	6	5.9	7	3.4

Indeterminate	35	33.3	27	26.5	62	30.0

Total	105		102		207


OD values	Biofilm formation

≤ODc	Non

2 × ODc ≤ OD > ODc	Weak

4 × ODc ≤ OD > 2 × ODc	Moderate

>4 × ODc	High


Scale	Subscale	 M	 SD	Extreme negative responders (%)a

Marcus	Prognosis for recovery (recovery)	3.01	1.37	—

Alcoholism and character defect (character defect)	2.59	1.22	—

Social status of the alcoholic (social status)	2.91	1.02	—

Alcoholism as an illness (illness)	3.13	1.67	4.2

Seaman-Mannello	Personal/professional satisfaction (satisfaction)	3.17	1.27	12.5

Inclination to identify (“helpable”)	4.17	.982	—

Personal attitudes toward drinking (personal drinking)	4.56	1.15	—

SAAPPQ	Work satisfaction (satisfaction)	3.66	1.11	8.2

Role adequacy	4.04	1.33	4.1

Role legitimacy	4.87	1.14	2.0

Task specific self-esteem (self-esteem)	4.96	1.22	16.7

I want to work with drinkers (desire)	3.40	1.23	14.3

Pessimism is the most attitude to take toward drinkers (pessimism)	2.85	1.40	2.0


	Patients

	1	2	3	4

Management

Operation	No	Resection and IVC PTFE Patch	Resection and primary repair	Resection and IVC Vein Patch

Chemotherapy	Yes	No	No	No

Adjuvant therapy	None	Radiotherapy	None	Radiotherapy

Histological grade	High	High	High	High

Complications

Limb oedema	NA	No	No	No

Venous insufficiency	NA	No	No	No

Other	None	No	CVA	No

Follow-up

Recurrence	-	No	Yes (5 months)	No

Status	Dead	Dead	Dead	Alive

Survival	36 months	30 months	7 months	16 months


Baseline/outcome measure	Questionnaire	Survey administration times

Baseline	Time 1	Time 2

(after referral for abnormal screen)	(within 3 months ofnegativediagnosis)	(within 3 months ofpositivediagnosis)	(3 months after treatment initiation)

Health literacy	Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine[25]	X

Comorbid conditions that may alter risk of mortality	Charlson Comorbidity Index[24]	X

Anxiety and stress	Perceived Stress Scale[26]	X

Perceived functional support	Medical Outcomes Study-Social Support Survey[27]	X

Predisposition for fatalistic attitudes directed at health	Wallston Multi-Dimensional Locus of Control[28]	X	 	 	X

Distrust towards health care system	Health Care System Distrust[29]	X	X	 	X

Patient engagement in own health care	*Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy - General[30]	 	X

Patient engagement in own cancer care	*Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy - Cancer[30]	 	 	 	X

Subjective distress related to a specific event	*Impact of Events[31]	 	X	X	X

Satisfaction with cancer-related care	*Patient Satisfaction with Care[32]	 	X	X	X

Satisfaction with patient navigation services	Patient Satisfaction with Navigator[33]	 	X	X	X


	Clusters

	The comprehensive	The theoretician	The minimalist	The structural

South American sample areas	14,1	7	31	47.9

European sample areas	24	49.5	25	1,5

Total	21.4	38.4	26.6	13.7


 	Phase	Morphology	Secondary phase

1,098 K/8 h

 Undoped	Rutile	Nanorod	-

 0.5% Co	Rutile	Nanorod	-

 1% Co	Rutile	Nanorod	-

 3% Co	Rutile	Nanorod	-

 5% Co	Rutile + anatase	Nanoparticle	-

 10% Co	Rutile	Nanoparticle + nanorod	CoTiO3 (nanoflakes)

1% Co-doped

 1,098 K/8 h	Rutile	Nanorod	-

 1,173 K/8 h	Rutile	Nanorod	-

 2 h/1,098 K	Rutile	Nanorod	-

 8 h/1,098 K	Rutile	Nanorod	-

 16 h/1,098 K	Rutile	Nanorod	-

5% Co-doped

 1,098 K/8 h	Rutile + anatase	Nanoparticle	-

 1,173 K/8 h	Rutile	Nanoparticle	-

 2 h/1,098 K	Rutile + anatase	Nanoparticle	-

 8 h/1,098 K	Rutile + anatase	Nanoparticle	-

 16 h/1,098 K	Rutile	Nanoparticle	Co2P4O12


Question number	Question

1.	Please tell me all about your rotator cuff tear/shoulder? (follow up questions to find out when and and how the tear happened and obtain narrative history from participant).

2.	Please tell me about how your shoulder tear affected/affects you? (follow up questions to explore impact upon activities of daily living, work, leisure, relationships, emotional impact, and to explore symptoms).

3.	Are you right or left handed? (follow up to explore dominance, unilateral or bilateral shoulder problems, “how is your other shoulder?”).

4.	Please tell me anything else you’d like to tell me about your shoulder and how the tear had affected you?


Generic name	Trade name	Number of cases of monotherapy

Losartan	Nu-lotan®	214

Valsartan	Diovan®	266

Telmisartan	Micardis®	185

Candesartan	Blopress®	458

Olmesartan	Olmetec®	192


Parameter	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 5

100-OD (% sat.)	≤10	≤20	≤30	≤50	>50

BOD5 (O2 mg/L)	<2.5	≤4	≤8	≤15	>15

COD (O2 mg/L)	<5	≤10	≤15	≤25	>25

NH4 (N mg/L)	<0.03	≤0.10	≤0.50	≤1.50	>1.50

NO3 (N mg/L)	<0.3	≤1.5	≤5.0	≤10.0	>10.0

Total phosphorous (P mg/L)	<0.07	≤0.15	≤0.30	≤0.60	>0.60

Escherichia coli (UFC/100/mL)	<100	≤1.000	≤5.000	≤20.000	>20.000

Score to be attributed for each analysed parameter (75° percentile of the monitoring period)	80	40	20	10	5

Pollution level expressed by the LIM	480–560	240–475	120–235	60–115	<60


Re-revision diagnosis	UKA to UKA minor	UKA to UKA major	UKA to TKA	TKA to TKA

	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%

Loosening/lysis	17	46	27	52	63	46	34	42

Infection	2	5.4	5	9.6	19	14	25	31

Pain	6	16.2	6	11.5	18	13	8	9.9

Patello femoral pain	1	2.7	1	1.9	9	6.5	3	3.7

Progression of disease	2	5.4	7	14	3	2.2

Other	9	24.3	6	12	26	19	11	13

Total	37	100	52	100	138	100	81	100


Diagnosis in MRI	Specific abnormalities in MRI	N	Total number (%)

Abnormal MRI	 	 	13 (52%)

Hepatic dysmorphia	Included lobulation of liver surface	3	3 (12%)

Included first-segment hypertrophy	0

Portal hypertension	Included splenomegaly	5	5 (20%)

Included portal vein dilatation	2

Included splenic vein dilatation	1

Isolated biliary abnormalities	Intrahepatic	1	1 (4%)

Extrahepatic	0

Hepatic dysmorphia and portal hypertension	 	0	0 (0%)

Hepatic dysmorphia and biliary abnormalities	Included lobulation of liver surface and intrahepatic abnormalities	1	1 (4%)

Portal hypertension and biliary abnormalities	Included portal vein hypertrophy and intrahepatic abnormalities	1	1 (4%)

Hepatic dysmorphia, portal hypertension, and biliary abnormalities	Included splenomegaly, lobulation of liver surface, first-segment hypertrophy, and intrahepatic and extrahepatic abnormalities	2	2 (8%)

Normal MRI	 	 	12 (48%)

Total 	 	 	25 (100%)


Variable	OR [95%CI]	P value

Steroids before ICU stay	0.77 [0.17-3.49]	0.74

Steroids during ICU stay

No Steroid	5.64 [0.70-45.5]

Low Dose Steroid	1	0.02

High Dose Steroids	9.33 [1.97-44.3]

SAPS II per point	1.04 [1.01-1.08]	0.01

Underlying disease

Hematological disease	1

Other	4.06 [1.19-13.09]	0.03

Shock	20.31 [6.45-63.9]	<0.001


Variablea	HR (95% CI)	P

Bowel obstruction/perforation (positive vs negative)	4.118 (2.270-7.471)	<.001

Lymphovascular invasion (positive vs negative)	1.766 (1.156-2.697)	.009

Five-gene molecular signature (high-risk vs low-risk for 36-mo recurrence)	1.644 (1.035-2.610)	.035


% Coronary Vasoreactive Change with IHE vs. Coronary Wall Measure:	% area change	% velocity change	% flow change

Healthy: Mean Coronary Wall Thickness	R = -0.17	R = 0.02	R = -0.02

P = 0.46	P = 0.93	P = 0.92

Healthy: Eccentricity Index	R = 0.18	R = 0.08	R = 0.14

P = 0.46	P = 0.74	P = 0.56

CAD: Mean Coronary Wall Thickness	R = -0.54	R = -0.11	R = -0.34

P = 0.001	P = 0.51	P = 0.05

CAD: Eccentricity Index	R = -0.60	R = -0.06	R = -0.27

P = 0.0002	P = 0.75	P = 0.13


Grade	Normal group	Osteoarthritis group

	12 F	39 F	43 M	42 M	49 F	54 F	55 M	58 F	65 F	66 F	70 F

Transverse section	0	0	0	2	2	3	3	1	3	4	4

Longitudinal section	0	0	0	3	1	3	3	1	4	4	4

Averagea	0	0	0	2.5	1.5	3	3	1	3.5	4	4


Variable	Comparison used in rate ratio	Rate ratio (other death/HIV/TB death)	95% Confidence interval (p value)

Sex	Male/female	1.12	0.99–1.27 (0.077)

Country of origin	South Africa/Mozambique	0.85	0.75–0.98 (0.023)

Residence status	Temporary/permanent	1.05	0.91–1.21 (0.493)

Distance from Bhubezi(km)	Greater than 5 km/5 km or less	1.02	0.86–1.20 (0.842)

SEP quintiles	Quintiles 2–5/quintile 1	0.95	0.81–1.11 (0.503)

Mean level of household education	Greater than 7 years/7 years or less	0.93	0.82–1.06 (0.294)


ABRA system delayed closure system

Pros	Cons

ABRA abdominal wall closure can restore lost abdominal domain and achieve complete repair of the musculofascial support of the abdominal wall, achieving primary closure. The sutures can be tightened at sequential dressings, preventing fascial retraction	ABRA abdominal wall closure requires two to three interventions in operation room under general anesthesia

No skin grafts required when using ABRA	ABRA system need a normal skin of 5–6 cm around the abdominal wound (in order to place the elastomers)

Reduction in the numbers of days to any closure	The possibility to need to be used in conjunction with another dressing system

The changes of VAC system and time in nurse and surgery cares are more expensive than ABRA system	There is no active removal of the fluids. So if the peritonitis is still active a dressing system with 24–48 h re-interventions could be the best option


Study characteristics	Nepal trial*	Bangladesh trial	Pakistan trial

Type of study	Cluster RCT	Cluster RCT	2 × 2 factorial design cluster RCT

No. clusters (average size)	413 (700)	133 (4100)	187 (1000)

Sample size total	15,123	29,760	9,741

Average sample size per group	~ 5,050	~ 9,900	~ 4,850

Duration of trial	Nov 2002 to Mar 2005	Jun 2007 to Sep 2009	Jan 2008 to Jun 2009

Overall NMR	32/1000	36/1000	30/1000

% of home births	92 %	93 %	80 %

Inclusion criteria	All live births in the study area	All live births in the study area	All live births in the study area were included except those who were born in hospitals.

Exclusion criteria	Not met within 10 days after birth	Didn’t receive intervention within 7 days after birth	Not met within 3 days after birth. Babies with congenital anomalies

Comparison group	Dry cord care	Dry cord care	Dry cord care

Intervention groups	1.Multiple CHX2.Soap/H2O	1.Multiple CHX2.Single CHX	1.Multiple CHX2.Handwashing (HW)3.CHX + HW

CHX concentration	4.0 %	4.0 %	4.0 %

Participants recruiters	Local female worker	CHWs	CHWs

Intervention providers	Local project staff	Village health worker	TBA to caretaker

Outcome assessors	(Nonmedical) field workers	CHWs	CHWs

Basic interventions to all babies/mothers	CDK, FE/FA, TT, promotion of ANC/ENC	CDK. FE/FA, promotion of TT, ANC, birth preparedness, ENC	Basic component of ENC as promoted by Ministry of Health

Primary outcomes	Omphalitis, neonatal mortality	Omphalitis, neonatal mortality	Omphalitis, neonatal mortality

Follow up days	1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 21, 28	1,3,6,9,15,28	1,3,5,7,14,28


	WHO guidelinea	Swiss TPH guidelinea

	Trichuris trichiura	Ascaris lumbricoides	Trichuris trichiura	Ascaris lumbricoides

Total number of Kato-Katz thick smears (positive/negative)	1,445 (1,189/256)	1,445 (297/1,148)	1,445 (1,189/256)	1,445 (297/1,148)

1. No. of Kato-Katz thick smears with difference in FECs (%)	345 (23.9%)	148 (10.2%)	97 (6.7%)	108 (7.5%)

2. No. of Kato-Katz thick smears with differences in presence/absence of helminth eggs (%)	51 (3.5%)	32 (2.2%)	51 (3.5%)	32 (2.2%)

3. No. of Kato-Katz thick smears with difference in FECs (%) among samples with egg counts	345 (29.0%)	148 (49.8%)	97 (8.2%)	108 (36.4%)

4. No. of Kato-Katz thick smears with differences in presence/absence of helminth eggs (%) among samples with egg counts	51 (4.3%)	32 (10.8%)	51 (4.3%)	32 (10.8%)

1. and/or 2. (%)	381 (26.4%)	164 (11.4%)	145 (10.0%)	130 (9.0%)

No. of Kato-Katz thick smears with discrepancies according to respective guidelineb (%)	345 (23.9%)	164 (11.4%)	145 (10.0%)	130 (9.0%)

3. and/or 4. and proportion as percentage (%) among Kato-Katz thick smears with positive egg counts	381 (32.0%)	164 (55.2%)	145 (12.2%)	130 (43.8%)

No. of Kato-Katz thick smears with discrepancies according to respective guidelineb (%) among Kato-Katz thick smears with positive egg counts	345 (29.0%)	148 (49.8%)	145 (12.2%)	130 (43.8%)


Biologics	Pooled incremental efficacy	6-month incremental cost-effectiveness ratio

Base case	Best case 	Worst case	Base case	Best case	Worst case

Etanercept	58%	71%	45%	$30,954	$25,287	$39,897

Adalimumab	56%	59%	52%	$23,980	$22,760	$25,824

Infliximab	69%	76%	63%	$28,587	$25,954	$31,310

Ustekinumab 45 mg	58%	64%	51%	$28,943	$26,229	$32,915

Ustekinumab 90 mg	62%	66%	58%	$54,151	$50,869	$57,886


 	Low-income countries	Middle-income countries	High-income countries

Number of global countries where data is < 5% gross monthly income	5	78	46

% of subscriptions with broadband speeds 10 mbps or higher	7	50	75


Variable	RBHS group (n = 36)	Control group (n = 38)	Pvalue

Composite outcome (any morbid event)	1 (2.8)	5 (13.1)	0.20

Morbid eventsa

Infection	0 (0%)	1 (2.8%)	0.20

Thrombotic	1 (2.8%)	2 (5.3%)	0.87

Renal	1 (2.8%)	2 (5.3%)	0.87

Respiratory	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	NS

Stroke	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	NS

Myocardial infarction	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	NS


	RDP (n = 7)	LDP (n = 21)	P value

Mean operative time (min)	368	210	0.0002

Mean blood loss (mL)	200	250	0.451

Transfusion (no. of patients) (%)	0	0

Conversion (no. of patients) (%)	0	0

Reverse operation (no. of patients) (%)	0	1 (4.7)a

Mean postoperative stay (days)	8.7	10.6	0.004

Complications (no. of patients) (%)	2 (28.6)	7 (33.3)	0.815

Grade, Clavien classification	II (1), III (1)	I (5), II (1), III (1)

Hospital costs ($)	10,125	6921	0.0002


Group	Drug	Frequency	Percent (n/N) b

β-lactam		26	28.9 (26/90)

 Penicillin	PenicillinG	11	29.0 (11/27)

	Ampicillin	12	32.4 (12/26)

 Cephalosporin	Cephalothin	1	2.7 (1/37)

	Ceftiofur	1	2.7 (1/37)

 Combination	Amoxicillin/Clavulanic acid	1	2.7 (1/37)

Tetracycline	Doxycycline	1	2.7 (1/37)

Fluoroquinolone		6	8.6 (6/70)

	Enrofloxacin	3	7.9 (3/35)

	Orbifloxacin	3	7.9 (3/35)

Aminoglycoside		4	3.6 (4/110)

	Gentamicin	1	2.7 (1/37)

	Amikacin	1	2.7 (1/37)

	Kanamycin	2	5.3 (2/36)

Potentiated sulfonamide	Sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim	4	10.5 (4/34)

Amphenicols	Chloramphenicol	2	5.2 (2/36)

Lincosamides	Clindamycin	13	34.2 (13/25)

Aminoglycoside-lincosamide	Lincospectin	12	31.6 (12/26)

Macrolide	Tylosin	2	5.3 (2/36)


Predictor	1 year	2 years

Unadjusted OR (95% CI)	p Value	Adjusted OR (95% CI)	p Value	Unadjusted OR (95% CI)	p Value	Adjusted OR (95% CI)	p Value

HAQ score	1.84 (1.12 to 3.01)	0.02	1.87 (1.11 to 3.15)	0.02	1.47 (0.94 to 2.29)	0.09	1.42 (0.89 to 2.26)	0.14


Study Cohort	Number	Percentages

Women	36	34

Men	71	66

Mean Age 64.7 years

(Range 31–95 years)

Clinical Neuropathic Syndrome

MNM	1	1

DLRPN	35	33

DSPN	71	66

Histological Severity of Neuropathy

Normal	1	1

Mild	17	16

Moderate	54	50

Severe	35	33

Teased Fiber/Semithin Section Analysis

Normal	1	1

Axonopathy	45	65

Myelinopathy	23	35

Cellular Response

Perivasculitis	26	23

Microvasculitis	3	3

Necrotizing arteritis	3	3

Complement Immunofluorescence

C3 deposition	70	67

C5b-9	65	62

Other Findings

Onion bulb formation	10	9

Epineurial vascular thrombosis	5	5


Type	Strain/ Transgeneb	Main patternc	Myoepithelial differentiationd	EMT (%)e	K1	K5	K6	K8/18	K10	K14	K17	FLG	IVL	LOR	THH	SMA	VIM

Simple	FVB-Myc	Glandular	6/9	4/9 (<1%)		+	+	+		++	+

	FVB-Notch4	Glandular	0/6	0				+		+	+

	C57BL6/J-Tag	Glandular	1/5	0				+		+	+

	BALB/cJ (mostly)	Papillary, 1 cell thick	2/6	0		+	+	++		++	++

	C57BL6/J-Tag	Papillary	0/4	0				+		+	+

	FVB-Myc	Solid	1/4	3/4 (<1%)				+		+	+

	FVB-Neu	Solid	0/10	0

Complex	FVB and B6D2-Tgfa	Macrocyst	6/8	0		+	+	+++		+	+					+

	FVB and B6D2-Tgfa	Lactation plaque	3/3	0		++	+	+++		++	+					+

	BALB/cJ	Adenomyoepithelioma	5/5	0	+	+++	++	++		+++	++

	BALB/cJ (mostly)	Adenoacanthoma	7/7	0	++	++	++	++	++	+++	+++	++	++	+	+	+

	C3H/HeJ	Microacinar	8/8	0		++	+	++		++	+

	BALB/cJ, C3H/HeJ	Papillary, 2 cells thick	2/2	0		++		++	+	++	++					+++

	C3H/HeJ	Type P tumor	9/9	0		++	+	++		++	++		+			+++

	FVB-Wnt1	Type P tumor	6/6	0		++	++	+++		++	++	+	+			++

	B6SJL-Wnt1	Type P tumor	7/7	0		+	+	+		++	+					++

EMT	C57BL6/J-Tag	Glandular with EMT	2/3	3/3 (6%)				+++		+++	++					++	+

	FVB-Myc	Glandular with EMT	4/6	6/6 (20%)		+	+	++		++	++					+	+

	PL/J and SJL/J	Glandular with EMT	4/4	4/4 (38%)		++	+	+++		++	++		+			++	++

	FVB-Hras	Solid with EMT	3/4	3/4 (<1%)		+		++		+	+						+


CHEK2 mutation type	Controls(n = 1,026)a	Allelic frequency in controls	Cases(n = 1,014)a	Allelic frequency in cases	P value	OR	95% CI

Any CHEK2 mutation	4	0.39%	16	1.58%	0.0065	4.15	(1.38 to 12.50)

CHEK2 deleterious mutations	3	0.29%	15	1.48%	0.0042	5.18	(1.49 to 18.00)


Polysaccharide(s)	Source(s)	Animals	Dose/day	Duration	CNS tests performed	Significant effects	Reference

Alpha-glucan (isolichenan)	Cetrariella islandica	5-week-old ♂ Std-ddY mice treated with 30% ethanol p.o. 20 minutes before learning trial	100, 200, or 400 mg/kg p.o. once	30 minutes before learning trial	Passive avoidance step through and step down	All doses reversed ethanol impaired fear memory acquisition; no effects on mice without ethanol exposure	18

♂ Wistar rats receiving daily i.c.v. injections of A-beta peptide from day 7 to day 4	100 or 200 mg/kg p.o.	8 days	Morris water maze	100 mg/kg reversed A-beta-induced spatial memory deficits; no effects on rats without A-beta peptide pretreatment	18

Arabinoxylan; beta-glucan	Triticum aestivum L.; Hordeum vulgare L.	♂ Sprague–Dawley rats with bilateral common carotid artery occlusion	20 mg/kg p.o.	Days 8–14 post-surgery; testing on days 22–26 post-surgery	Morris water maze; immunohistochemistry and western blot (GFAP, MBP); Luxol fast blue and hematoxylin staining	Both treatments reversed ischemia-induced spatial memory deficits; arabinoxylan prevented loss of MBP in corpus callosum	20

Pectin	Citrus [peel]	9–11-week-old C56BL/6J mice injected i.p. with 100 μg/kg LPS	10% pectin diet	6–8 weeks post-weaning	Social exploratory behavior of a novel juvenile mouse	Faster recovery from LPS-induced social withdrawal compared with 5% cellulose diet	19

Polysaccharide fraction: PSF (no characterization provided)	Panax ginseng	Adult ♂ Wistar rats	4, 20, or 40 mg/kg i.p.	10 days	Conditioned Active Escape Response	All doses differentially improved indications of learning and memory	22

Alpha-glucan (FPS)	Fu Zi (Aconitum carmichaeli Debx)	8–11-week-old ♂ C57BL/6 mice	5 to 400 mg/kg i.p.	Varied with assay: 30 minutes, 6 hours, or 1–4 weeks	BrdU labeling; forced swim; open-field; novelty-suppressed feeding; chronic social defeat stress; monoamine levels in the frontal cortex; ELISA and Western blot (BDNF)	10–400 mg/kg doses increased newborn neurons in the DG; 50 and 100 mg/kg produced AD effects (similar to imipramine); 100 mg/kg increased BDNF expression in the hippocampus; AD and neurogenesis effects were blocked by co-injection with K252a (trkB inhibitor)	23


miRNAs	Expression in lung cancer	Cellular processes affected and targets	Reference

Let-7 family	Decreased	(i) Cell proliferation (KRAS, MYC, and HMGA2)	[28–30]

(ii) miRNA maturation Dicer mediated	[31]

(iii) Cell-cycle regulation (CDC25A, CDK6, and cyclin D2)	[32]

mir-34 family	Decreased	(i) Transcriptionally activated by p53	[40]

(ii) TRAIL-induced cell death and cell proliferation (BCL-2, MET, and PDGFR-α/β)	[41–43]

mir-21	Increased	(i) Apoptosis, cellular proliferation, and migration (TPM1, PDCD4, and PTEN)	[50–53]

(ii) TKI-treatment resistance	[54]

mir-17/92a cluster	Increased	(i) Transcriptionally regulated by c-MYC	[60]

(ii) Cellular proliferation and cancer development (PTEN, HIF-1a CL2L11, CDKNA, and TSP-1)	[57, 61–63]

mir-15a/16 cluster	Decreased	Cell cycle regulation (cyclin D1, D2 and E1)	[66, 67]

mir-200 family	Decreased	Promotion of EMT and metastasization(ZEB transcription factors,CDH-1, and vimentin)	[68–73]

miRNA-29 family	Decreased	Epigenetic regulation of gene expression (DNMT-3A and DNMT-3B)	[74]

mir-221/mir-222	Increased	(i) TRAIL resistance and cellular migration (PTEN and TIMP3)	[75, 76]

(ii) Transcriptionally regulated by EGFR and MET and gefitinib resistance (BIM and APAF1)	[77]

mir-548	Decreased	Tumor cell growth (CCND, ERBB2, DMNT3A, and DNMT3B)	[78]


Fatty acid	Name	Percentage in EVOO	mg FAME/g sample

C16:0	Palmitic acid	11,27	125,41

C16:1n7	Palmitoleic acid	0,86	9,56

C17:0	Margaric acid	0,04	0,46

C18:0	Stearic acid	3,85	42,81

C18:1n7c	Cis-Vaccenic acid	2,42	26,92

C18:1n9c	Oleic acid	75,99	845,97

C18:2n6c	Linoleic acid	4,2	46,74

C18:3n3	α-Linolenic acid	0,61	6,81

C20:0	Arachidic acid	0,4	4,46

C20:1n9	Cis-11 eicosenoic acid	0,22	2,42

C22:0	Behenic acid	0,1	1,14

C24:0	Lignoceric acid	0,05	0,544

Selected phenolic compounds (STP)			μg/g sample

Hydroxytyrosol			9,31

p-coumaric acid			0,14

Oleuropein			n.d.


Covariate	χ2	P-value	Hazard ratio	95% CI

Adjacent involvement (with vs. without)	11.841	0.001	2.295	1.430-3.683

Mitotic rate (> = 5/50 HPF vs. <5/50 HPF)	8.895	0.003	2.406	1.351-4.284

Risk grade (high risk vs. non-high risk)	26.129	<0.001	11.794	4.579-30.379


 	Validation against our test	Validation against the test in literature

 	The current experiment (n = 8)	Predicted value	Hashemi et al.’s experiment (n > 4)	Predicted value

High density	2015 ± 95.7 N	2028.8 N	2132.5 ± 119.3 N	2028.8 N

Low density	657 ± 69.4 N	607 N	688.2 ± 91.4 N	607 N


	n	%

Gender

 Male	432	49.3

 Female	444	50.7

Ethnicity

 White	536	61.2

 Non-white	340	38.8

Education

 Less than college	421	48.1

 Some college or higher	455	51.9

Household income

 Less than $20,000	506	57.8

 $20,000 or more	370	42.2

Marital status

 Single	665	75.9

 Married/living with partner	211	24.1

Insurance

 Managed care (HMO, PPO)	241	27.5

 Medicare	364	41.6

 Veterans Affairs Medical Center	41	4.7

 State Medicaid (MediCal for CA residents)	350	40.0

 No health insurance	61	7.0

 Don't know	16	1.8

Employment

 Employed full time	129	14.7

 Employed part time	163	18.6

 Student	29	3.3

 Retired	70	8.0

 Not employed	484	55.3

Atypical Medication

 On a atypical medication	628	71.7

	Mean	SD

Age	43.03	11.80

Number of comorbidities	1.27	1.30


Variable	ROSC	No ROSC	P value

Paramedics with prior OHCA case volume ≥ 15 (%)	24.5	22.7	<0.01

Male gender (%)	60.1	63.2	0.01

Non-Caucasian (%)	31.7	29.8	0.09

Age in years (mean, ± SD)	65.7	67.4	<0.01

Shockable rhythm (%)	38.9	21.2	<0.01

Layperson/first responder CPR (%)	51.8	36.3	<0.01

EMS response time in minutes (mean, ± SD)	7.7	8.9	<0.01


Component	Score	Definition

Physical Activity

	0	No exercise

	1	1–149 min of moderate exercise or 1–74 min of vigorous exercise/week

	2	150+ minutes of moderate exercise or 75+ minutes of vigorous exercise/week

Dieta

	0	0–1 components of healthy diet

	1	2–3 components of healthy diet

	2	4–5 components of healthy diet

Glucose

	0	≥126 mg/dL fasting

	1	100–125 mg/dL fasting or treated to <100 mg/dL

	2	<100 mg/dL fasting, unmedicated

Blood Pressure

	0	Systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥90 mmHg

	1	Systolic blood pressure 120–139 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure 80–89 mmHg or treated to <120/80 mmHg

	2	<120/80 mmHg, unmedicated

BMI

	0	≥30 kg/m2

	1	25.0–29.99 kg/m2

	2	<25.0 kg/m2

Cholesterol

	0	≥240 mg/dL

	1	200–239 mg/dL or treated to <200 mg/dL

	2	<200 mg/dL, unmedicated

Smoking

	0	Current smoker

	1	Former smoker, quit ≤12 months ago

	2	Never smoker or quit >12 months ago


Cancer type	Reference

Breast	Fernandez et al. (19), Gazit et al. (20)

Prostate	Daneshmand et al. (23), Fu et al. (24)

Gastric	Song et al. (26)

Ovarian	Huang, LW et al. (25)

Endometrial	Bifulco et al. (31), Calí et al. (32)

Hepatocellular	Su et al. (27); Shuda (28)

Esophageal	Langer et al. (29)

Fibrosarcoma	Jamora et al. (35)

Glioma	Pyrko et al. (34)

Melanoma	Zhuang et al. (33)

Lung	Lin et al. (21), Koomagi et al. (22)

Renal	Fu et al. (30)


LN

 	 	 	CD63

 	 	Number of patients, n (%)	Positive, n	Negative, n	P-value

MDR1	Positive	11 (22.9)	11	0

 	Negative	37 (77.1)	16	21	P < 0.05


	Age (Years)	Height (cm)	Weight (kg)

CFS	43 ± 4.6	164 ± 7.3	73 ± 21.2

Control	43 ± 6.5	167 ± 7.0	70 ± 16.7


	General health	Conditions and symptoms	Infections

‘Type 1’

 1a: Emerging female excess	General health – Past year General health – Past month	High temperature Rash	Eye infection Ear infection

 1b: Increasing female excess		Earache Stomach-ache Headache Lice/scabies	Cold sores Urinary infection

 1c: Disappearing male excess		Breathlessness

‘Type 2’

 2a: Consistent female excess	Health-related days off school	Constipation Eczema	Tonsillitis/laryngitis Cold Worm infections

 2b: Consistent no sex difference		Vomiting Cough Ear discharge Food/drink allergies Non-food/drink allergies	Chicken pox Influenza

 2c: Consistent male excess		Wheezing Asthma Hay fever	Chest infection

‘Type 3’

 3a: Emerging male excess		Pain in arms/legs

 3b: Increasing male excess		Diarrhoea


Cross-linked polyurethane	Macrodiols	Diisocyanate	Chain extender	State at room temperature	Tg (°C)	Tm (°C)

CPU 1	PCEG 1	HDI	TMP	Hard	−45	46

CPU 2	PCEG 2	HDI	TMP	Frangibility	−48	44

CPU 3	PCEG 3	HDI	TMP	Elasticity	−51	38


	Aerobe genomes	Anaerobe genomes	Facultative genomes

Predictions	Aerobe	137	87	%	Aerobe	6	6	%	Aerobe	43	44	%

Anaerobe	3	2	%	Anaerobe	95	88	%	Anaerobe	21	21	%

Facultative	17	11	%	Facultative	7	6	%	Facultative	34	35	%


Annotation type	Content	Elements involved

Curatorial	Meta annotation referring annotations commented on by a curator. Each annotated value can be accepted, rejected and discussed	All elements of the curated annotation

Batch	Meta annotation linking identical annotations referring to different annotated records	All elements of the linked annotation(s)

CuratorialBatch	Meta annotation referring to all curated annotations of a Batch and its annotation type. Each annotated value can be accepted, rejected or commented by the curator for all annotations linked by the referred Batch	All elements of the curated BatchAnnotations


Eikelboom morphotypea	Taxonomy	Classification

Phylum	Class	Order	Family	Genus

0092 (30)	RDPb	Chloroflexi	Anaerolineae	Anaerolineales	Anaerolineaceae

Greengenesc	Chloroflexi	Anaerolineae	DRC31

SILVAd	Chloroflexi	Ardenticatenia

MiDASe	Chloroflexi	Ardenticatenia	419	2-1	B45

0803 (27)	RDP	Chloroflexi	Caldilineae	Caldilineales	Caldilineaceae	Caldilinea

Greengenes	Chloroflexi	Anaerolineae	Caldilineales	Caldilineaceae	Caldilinea

SILVA	Chloroflexi	Caldilineae	Caldilineales	Caldilineaceae

MiDAS	Chloroflexi	Caldilineae	Caldilineales	Caldilineaceae	P2CN44

0914 (31)	RDP	Chloroflexi	Caldilineae	Caldilineales	Caldilineaceae

Greengenes	Chloroflexi	Anaerolinea	SHA-20

SILVA	Chloroflexi

MiDAS	Chloroflexi	SJA-15	1-20	1-20	Ca. Sarcinathrix

1851 (28, 32)	RDP	Chloroflexi	Chloroflexia	Chloroflexales	Chloroflexineae	Roseiflexus

Greengenes	Chloroflexi	Chloroflexi	Roseiflexales	Kouleothrixaceae	Kouleothrix

SILVA	Chloroflexi	Chloroflexia	Chloroflexales	Roseiflexaceae	Roseiflexus

MiDAS	Chloroflexi	Chloroflexia	Chloroflexales	Roseiflexaceae	Kouleothrix


Variables	Codes

−1	0	+1

Frying temperature (°C)	140	150	160

Frying time (min)	2	3	4

Level of BSCF (%)	20	30	40

Thickness (mm)	2	3	4


Material	Element type	Constitutive relation	Material properties

Bony structures

Vertebral cortical bone, endplates, and posterior cortical bone	8 Nodes brick element (C3D8)	Isotropic, elastic	E = 12,000 MPa ν = 0.3

Vertebral cancellous bone and posterior cancellous bone	8 Nodes brick element (C3D8)	Isotropic, elastic	E = 100 MPa ν = 0.2

Ligaments			Elastic modulus MPa (strain %)

Anterior longitudinal	Tension-only, truss elements (T3D2)	Hypoelastic	7.8 (<12%), 20.0 (>12%) ν = 0.3

Posterior longitudinal	Tension-only, truss elements (T3D2)	Hypoelastic	10.0 (<11%), 20.0 (>11%) ν = 0.3

Ligamentum flavum	Tension-only, truss elements (T3D2)	Hypoelastic	15.0 (<6.2%), 19.5 (>6.2%) ν = 0.3

Intertransverse	Tension-only, truss elements (T3D2)	Hypoelastic	10.0 (<18%), 58.7 (>18%) ν = 0.3

Interspinous	Tension-only, truss elements (T3D2)	Hypoelastic	10.0 (<14%), 11.6 (>14%) ν = 0.3

Supraspinous	Tension-only, truss elements (T3D2)	Hypoelastic	8.0 (<20%), 15.0 (>20%) ν = 0.3

Capsular	Tension-only, truss elements (T3D2)	Hypoelastic	7.5 (<25%), 32.9 (>25%) ν = 0.3

Intervertebral disk

Nucleus pulposus	8 Nodes brick element (C3D8)	Isotropic, elastic	E = 2 MPa ν = 0.499

Annulus fibrosus	8 Nodes brick element (C3D8)	Hyperelastic anisotropic (HGO)	Table 2

Apophyseal joints	GAPUNI elements	Non-linear soft contact	Pressure overclosure = 12,000 MPa


Causes of pulmonary hypertension in ICU	Causes of RV failure in ICU

1) PAH (for example, preexisting PAH; PoPH (8.5% ESLD)	1) RV Pressure overload, pulmonary hypertension, any cause

2) Elevated LAP: RV pressure overload (left-sided myocardial infarction/cardiomyopathy; mitral regurgitation; pulmonary stenosis)	2) Reduced RV contractility

3) PH due to hypoxia: acute (for example, ARDS)/preexisting lung disease (for example, COPD, IPF)	 RV infarction; sepsis; RV cardiomyopathy; myocarditis; pericardial disease; LVAD; after CPB; after cardiac surgery/transplantation

4) Thromboembolic (for example, acute PE; chronic (CTEPH); other causes of emboli (AFE, air, cement)	3) RV-volume overload

5) Mechanical (for example, increased Pplat - IPPV	 Cardiac causes: tricuspid and pulmonary regurgitation; intracardiac shunts


Gene	5′–3′ sequence

P5CS1	F‐GTAGACGACGACGACGATAATG

R‐ACTGCTGTCCCAACCTTAAC

P5CS2	F‐GGTGCTGAGGTGGGAATAAG

R‐ACTTGTCCCTTTCCTCTCATTATC

P5CR	F‐GAGGAGTAGCTGCTGGTTTAC

R‐CCTGGATGCTTCCCAGTTT

OAT	F‐TGCTTGAGCTTGAAGGAGAG

R‐GATCCATCTCGGAGTTCATCAG

PDH1	F‐AGCAGCTCATGGAAGGATTC

R‐GGGTTGGAGGATTGTGTCTT

PDH2	F‐GCGTAGAACACGCTGAAGA

R‐GCTTAAGTGAGACGAAGGTAGG

P5CDH	F‐AGGATGCACGCTCATCTAAC

R‐CCAGCATATGTAGTCCCATTCA

GAPDH	F‐TTGTTGTTGAGTCCACTG

R‐CTTGTATTCCTTCTCGTTGA


Author	Country	Year	Type of study	Patients	Control	Cut off (pmol/L)	TP	FP	FN	TN	SEN	SPE

Moore RG et al. [5]	USA	2008	prospective/retrospective	171	156	/	78	8	93	148	46	95

Zanotti L et al. [6]	Italy	2012	retrospective	193(152 + 41)	125	51	152	19	41	106	79	85

 	 	 	 	 	 	64	127	6	66	119	66	95

Angioli R et al. [7]	Italy	2013	prospective	101(95 + 6)	103	70	60	0	41	103	59	100

 	 	 	 	 	 	150	36	0	65	103	36	100

Omer Bet al. [8]	Turkey	2013	prospective l	64(54 + 10)	94(60 + 34)	60	48	32	16	62	75	66

Bignotti E et al. [9]	Italy	2011	prospective	138(109 + 29)	76	/	92	4	46	72	67	95

Zhang, Ai-min et al. [10]	China	2012	prospective	124	206(97 + 109)	/	51	10	73	196	41	95

Total	 	 	 	791	760


Training description	Related themes

1. Video: Invite for the workshop and foundational information on Rx for Change and systematic reviews<underline>Delivery:</underline> A video (prezi with audio narration) covering general information about Rx for Change and systematic reviews; the video was sent electronically 1 week prior to the workshop with a request for people to review it prior to attending the workshop; duration was 6 minutes<underline>Content:</underline> Quick facts about the database, information on the type of evidence included, information on when it can be used and how it can help participants in their work; an invitation to attend a free workshop and to explore Rx for Change on-line in a group environment was included	Need for knowledgeDiversity in delivery

2. Face-to-face workshop (1 hour)<underline>Delivery:</underline> Didactic presentation (15 min) + hands on skills training (45 min) + discussion (15 min) + handouts<underline>Content of didactic presentation</underline>: Rx for Change was presented as part of the evidence source “puzzle” Knowledge users’ questions (as per interviews) partly guided the session’s themes (e.g. What is Rx for Change? Can I trust the evidence presented? What types of questions are relevant? How is Rx for Change different compared to other evidence sources?); the didactic part of the session focused on emphasizing “How we turn a research question into a “searchable question” in the Rx for Change database”<underline>Content of hands-on skills training</underline>: A pre-determined example of a research question was used to demonstrate and familiarise participants with strategic navigation strategies for the Rx for Change database; screenshots were used along with an audio or live presentation/demonstration; the three-question framework based on Lavis et al. [21] was used to demonstrate different ways of searching efficiently, the layout of the database, the taxonomy and the layers of the database Participants were then asked to use one of their own work examples and search the database based on the same three-question framework; this was a facilitated exerciseThe session was facilitated by a research team member with expertise in Rx for Change or an external collaborator with knowledge of Rx for Change<underline>Content of discussion:</underline> The incorporation and applicability of the evidence in one’s context as well as the strengths and limitations of the database and the evidence that it includes was discussed<underline>Handouts:</underline> Frequently Asked Questions and a “map” of the database layout (screenshots) were given to participants in the form of handouts after the session (for desk use)	Didactic presentation: Need for knowledgeHands on skills training: Need for skill development in navigating the database and integrating evidence into decision-making, tailoringDiscussion: Knowledge and skillsHandouts: Need for knowledge, variety in delivery methods

3. Post-training remindersDelivery: Emailed at 1 and 3 months post-workshopContent: Cues and/or reminders regarding the database’s use, value, updates, and navigation tips	Routine habits


Motif	Number of matches

P. pastoris AT-ACS	15

P. pastoris GC-ACS	1

S. cerevisiae 11 bp ACS	11

S. cerevisiae 17 bp ACS	6


Driers	Appearance	Odor	Taste	Flavor	Texture	Palability	Acceptability	Shelf-life (1–30 days)

Plastic	Attractive	Pleasant	Fair	Fair	Hard	Good	Moderate	Long

Mosquito net	Attractive	Pleasant	Good	Good	Very hard	Good	High	Long

Glass	Very attractive	Pleasant	Very good	Very good	Very hard	Good	Very high	Longer

Aluminum	Attractive	Pleasant	Good	Good	Very hard	Good	High	Longer

Glass with black stone	Very attractive	Very pleasant	Very good	Very good	Very hard	Very good	Very high	Longest

Open-sun drying (control)	Not attractive	Not pleasant	Fair	Fair	Hard	Fair	Low	Not long


Opioids	Crystalloid	Colloid	P value

Fentanyl (mcg)	25 (0.0–100)	25 (0.0–75.0)	0.52

Pethidine (mg)	10.3 (23.7)	4.9 (16.2)	0.17

Rescue Anti-emetics

Number of Patients Requiring Rescue

Anti-emetics N(%)	9 (16.9)	5 (5.3)	0.37

Time of Anti-emetic administration. N (%)

0–30 min	2 (3.6)	3 (5.3)	0.98

30 min–2 hrs	5 (9.1)	2 (3.5)	0.42

2–24 hrs	3 (5.7)	0 (0.0)	0.22


Procedure	Number

Abdominal aortic aneurysm repair	1

Abdominoperineal resection	1

Atrial septal defect closure	2

Bronchoscopy	1

Coronary artery bypass grafting	2

Cardiac ablation	1

Cardiac catheterization	3

Inadvertent air bolus via IV line	1

Central vascular access	9

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography (ERCP)	1

Hysteroscopy	1

Laparoscopic liver resection	2

Necrotic bowel resection	1

Endovascular neurointervention	2

Neurosurgery (open procedures)	11

Pacemaker placement	1

Spinal surgery	2

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE)	1

Cardiac valve replacement	4

Varicose vein injection	2


		Base	P30	P60

Brachial systolic blood pressure (mmHg)	Before	117 ± 13	116 ± 8	116 ± 8

After	117 ± 10	116 ± 11	119 ± 12

Brachial mean arterial blood pressure (mmHg)	Before	90 ± 10	92 ± 9	92 ± 9

After	91 ± 8	89 ± 9	92 ± 10

Brachial diastolic blood pressure (mmHg)	Before	73 ± 10	73 ± 9	71 ± 7

After	70 ± 8	71 ± 8	74 ± 9

Brachial pulse pressure (mmHg)	Before	44 ± 8	43 ± 7	45 ± 7

After	47 ± 7	45 ± 8	46 ± 8

Carotid systolic blood pressure (mmHg)	Before	109 ± 5	107 ± 3	107 ± 3

After	109 ± 4	106 ± 4	110 ± 4

Carotid pulse pressure (mmHg)	Before	37 ± 3	34 ± 2	36 ± 2

After	39 ± 3	35 ± 2	36 ± 3

Heart rate (bpm)	Before	58 ± 7	62 ± 5	60 ± 5

After	56 ± 6	60 ± 7a	60 ± 8

β‐stiffness (U)	Before	7.4 ± 3.9	6.6 ± 3.5	6.9 ± 4.0

After	6.2 ± 3.0b	5.6 ± 2.8a,b	6.2 ± 2.7


Population	Genomic region	Number of windows	MinimumPperm	RefSeq genes

ID	Name	Cluster	Chr	Begin (bp)	End (bp)	Length (bp)

ITU	Telugu	A	10	132,953,074	133,048,305	95,232	189	0.013	TCERG1L

PJL	Punjabi	A	13	20,001,572	20,181,691	180,120	28	0.044	TPTE2


Component	M. indicus	R. oryzae

Biomass (g/L)	4.7 ± 0.2	4.0 ± 0.1

Biomass yield (g/g sugars consumed)	0.25 ± 0.01	0.28 ± 0.00

Protein 1	0.40 ± 0.01	0.51 ± 0.07

Total lipids 1	0.098 ± 0.011	0.044 ± 0.007

AIM 2 yield 1	0.31 ± 0.01	0.34 ± 0.01


Date of DNA extraction	OTUs	Abundance (%)

17 July 2014	Aerococcus	14

Dermabacteraceae	12

Micrococcus	10

Enhydrobacter	9

Leuconostoc	6

Kocuria	6

Actinomyces	6

25 March 2015	Methylobacterium komagatae	65

Ruminococcaceae	11

Methylobacterium	6

26 March 2015	Methylobacterium komagatae	67

Methylobacterium	6


 	Number of patients	Percentage

OCD Group	135	75.4%

Non-OCD anxiety disorders group	44	24.6%


Type	% Miss in positive	% Miss in random

All features	83%	85%

Gene expression	15–27%	24–43%

GO	39–66%	40–54%


Barriers to carrying out PU	Risk assessment number (%)	Documentation number (%)	Prevention number (%)

Total number of respondents	194 (100)	194 (100)	194 (100)

Lack of time	32 (23.7)	46 (34.1)	33 (24.4)

Unstable patient	17 (12.6)	16 (11.9)	24 (17.8)

Lack of training, resources, equipment, guidelines	26 (19.3)	0 (0)	22 (16.3)

Short staffed	33 (24.4)	30 (22.2)	20 (14.8)

Lack of knowledge	13 (9.6)	14 (10.4)	19 (14.1)

Lack of aids	0 (0)	15 (11.1)	14 (10.4)

Unable to assess	9 (6.7)	0 (0)	13 (9.6)

Problem with assessment tool	9 (6.7)	21 (15.6)	0 (0)

Forget	0 (0)	13 (9.6)	0 (0)

Lack of equipment	18 (13.3)	10 (7.4)	0 (0)

Patient un-cooperative/too ill	20 (14.8)	0 (0)	0 (0)


Label	Volume	t-value	Peak activation (LPI)

x	y	z

Left Thalamus	342	3.92	-9	6	12

Right Inferior Parietal Lobule	208	3.67	57	−57	39

Left Superior Medial Gyrus	184	3.65	3	36	42

Left Precuneus	179	3.59	3	−69	48

Right Middle Frontal Gyrus	137	3.64	33	15	60

Left Angular Gyrus	113	3.51	−57	−54	30

Left Middle Frontal Gyrus	96	3.69	−24	15	60

Left Middle Frontal Gyrus	90	3.48	−45	51	-3


Variables	Resource	Year	Operating institution

The number of general hospitals (per 100,000 persons)	Survey of Medical Institutions,	2002	Ministry of Health, Labor and welfare

The number of beds in hospital (per 100,000 persons)	Hospital Report	2002	Ministry of Health, Labor and welfare

Ratio of daily occupied beds in general hospital	Hospital Report	2002	Ministry of Health, Labor and welfare

The number of families in which the elderly were living alone (per 100 households with person 65 years or older)	Population Census	2002	Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications

Dwelling rooms (per dwelling)	Population Census	2002	Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications

Health service facilities for the elderly (per 100,000 persons 65 years old and over)	Survey of Institutions and Establishment for long-term care	2002	Ministry of Health, Labor and welfare


Data set name	Number of patients	Microarray type	Outcome

Chin [72]	130	Affymetrix GeneChip Human Genome U133A Array Set	Disease specific survival (Event = death from breast cancer)

Miller [73]	251	Affymetrix GeneChip Human Genome U133 Array Set	Disease specific survival (Event = death from breast cancer)

Pittman [74]	158	Affymetrix GeneChip Human Genome U95av2 Array Set	Overall survival (Even t = death from breast cancer)


	B	Se

Intercept	0.23	0.16

Quality aspects:

 Total quality score	0.75	0.19

 Adjustment for confounders at study level	-2.34	0.81

 Culturally adjusted questionnaire	-1.83	0.52

Study characteristics:

 Country US	1.67	0.60

 Publication year	-0.00	0.04

 Adjustment confounders outcome level	-0.00	0.41

 Sample size majority reference group	0.00	0.00

 Sample size immigrant groups	-0.00	0.00

 Length of reference period of use	-0.15	0.26

 Background immigrant groups a

European	1.69	0.92

African	0.14	0.77

Asian	0.92	0.56

(South/central) American	0.23	0.60

Variance study levelb	0	0

Variance outcome level	0.92	0.09


Sample no.	TDS (mg/L)	pH	Conductivity (Ds/m)

Before desalination	After desalination	Before desalination	After desalination	Before desalination	After desalination

Sample A-B	320	40	7.60	7.32	1	0.10


	eGFR	Urinary protein	Systolic blood pressure

B*	p value	B*	p value	B*	p value

Complement system components

Complement C1q subcomponent subunit C	−	0.3	+	0.2	+	0.5

Complement C1r subcomponent	−	0.003	+	0.5	+	0.02

Complement C1s subcomponent	−	0.005	+	0.7	+	0.003

Complement C3	−	0.3	−	0.5	+	0.2

Complement C4-B	−	0.2	+	0.9	+	0.05

Complement C5	−	0.04	−	0.3	+	0.02

Complement C6	−	0.03	−	0.3	+	0.09

Complement C7	−	0.06	−	0.5	+	0.2

Complement C8 alpha chain	−	0.03	−	0.4	+	0.05

Complement C8 beta chain	−	0.02	−	0.2	+	0.004

Complement C8 gamma chain	−	0.1	+	0.6	+	0.4

Complement C9	−	0.01	−	0.24	+	0.01

Complement system regulators

Clusterin	−	0.02	−	0.3	+	0.1

Complement factor H	−	0.1	−	0.5	+	0.02

Complement factor H-related protein 1	−	0. 4	−	0.8	+	0.1

Complement factor H-related protein 2	+	0.9	−	0.9	+	0.5

Complement factor H-related protein 5	−	0.3	−	0.5	+	0.5

Complement receptor type 1	+	0.07	+	0.9	−	0.4

C4b-binding protein alpha chain	−	0.06	−	0.4	+	<0.001


Phase	Normothermia	Hypothermia	Mortality

Male	Female	Male	Female	Total	n

1	23	20			7 (14%)	43

2	14	17	15	16	2 (3%)a	62

3	3	4	3	5	1 (6.25%)	15


	Skewed Distributions	Approximately Symmetric Distributions

Number of Factors	1	2	3	1	2	3

China	993	7	0	0	1000	0

India	62	938	0	0	932	18

Mexico	894	106	0	0	1000	0

Russian Federation	6	994	0	0	1000	0

South Africa	1000	0	0	0	396	604

Ghana	587	413	0	0	0	1000


	Time Between Ultrasound and MRI	PC VIPR Pressure (mmHg)	Ultrasound Pressure (mmHg)	Stenosis (%)

No Repair	7 days	16.3	42**	32.8

	5 months	32.3	33.8	26.2

	6 days	16.3	23.4	18.4

Post Repair	17 months	5.5	0*	11.1

	1 month	6.6	0*	6.9

	3 months	26.6	35.1	30.1

	2 years	-1.6	0*	24.8


	Training set (n = 86)	Validation set (n = 42)

Error rate (%)	9.1	16.7

Sensitivity (%)	97.5	93.3

Specificity (%)	74.8	58.3

AUC	0.93	0.89


Name	Function	Primer Sequence (5' to 3')	Tm (°C)	Product Length	Amplified Region

SIRT2	RT-PCR	CAACCTGGAGAAATACCGTCTT	61.0	166 bp	400–565

CAGTCCTTTTTCCTTCAGCAG

β-actin	Reference	CACCAACTGGGACGACAT	61.0	202 bp	320–521

ATACAGGGACAGCACAGC

RPS9	Reference	CCTCGACCAAGAGCTGAAG	61.0	64 bp	128–191

CCTCCAGACCTCACGTTTGTTC

GAPDH	Reference	CCAACGTGTCTGTTGTGGAT	61.0	80 bp	778–857

CTGCTTCACCACCTTCTTGA

Primer A	3'UTR region amplification	ACCCCTGACCTCACCAAAT	56.5	549 bp	19411–19959

GCACCTTTCAGCACTCTTC

Primer B	3'UTR region amplification	ACCCCTGACCTCACCAAAT	62.3	138 bp	19411–19548

CCTGTGGCCCCCTGAGCAGTTAGAGTCTAG


Data set name	Description

LIVER CANCER [46]	Microarrays: 181; Probes: 6,605; K = 2Samples and Class: 76 normal; 105 tumorConfiguration: (ngr = 8, ngc = 4, nsr = 27, nsc = 28)http://genome-www5.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/publication/viewPublication.pl?pub_no=107

LYMPHOMA [47]	Microarrays: 81; Probes: 6,850; K = 3Samples and Class: 29 normal, 43 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL); 9 follicular lymphoma (FL)Configuration: (ngr = 4, ngc = 4, nsr = 24, nsc = 24); (ngr = 8, ngc = 4, nsr = 24, nsc = 24)http://genome-www5.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/publication/viewPublication.pl?pub_no=79

RENAL CELL CARCINOMA [48]	Microarrays: 38; Probes: 13,608; K = 4Samples and Class: 3 normal; 26 clear cell carcinoma (CCC); 5 granular cell carcinoma (GCC);4 papillary carcinoma (PC)Configuration: (ngr = 8, ngc = 4, nsr = 27, nsc = 28)http://genome-www5.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/publication/viewPublication.pl?pub_no=210

GASTRIC CARCINOMA [49]	Microarrays: 130; Probes: 15,541; K = 2Samples and Class : 28 normal; 102 tumorConfiguration: (ngr = 12, ngc = 4, nsr = 30, nsc = 32); (ngr = 12, ngc = 4, nsr = 29, nsc = 32); (ngr = 12, ngc = 4, nsr = 30, nsc = 30)http://genome-www5.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/publication/viewPublication.pl?pub_no=232

LUNG CANCER [50]	Microarrays: 60; Probes: 20,601; K = 5Samples and Class: 6 normal; 35 adenocarcinoma (AC); 11 squamous cell carcinoma (SCC); 4 large cell lung cancer (LCLC); 4 small cell lung cancer (SCLC)Configuration: (ngr = 8, ngc = 4, nsr = 27, nsc = 28)http://genome-www5.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/publication/viewPublication.pl?pub_no=100


 	Ingenuity canonical pathways	p-value	Ratio	Molecules

A	TREM1 signaling	2.71 × 10-11	1.69 × 10-1	IL8, CXCL3, ICAM1, CD40, GRB2, IL10, TLR8, CASP1, IL1B, FCGR2B, NFKB1, TNF

 	Hepatic fibrosis/hepatic stellate cell activation	8.32 × 10-11	1.10 × 10-1	CXCL3, IL8, IL4R, CCR5, ICAM1, CD40, MYL6, IL10, IL6R, IL1B, IFNGR1, CCL5, NFKB1, TNF, CCR7, IL4

 	IL-10 signaling	3.82 × 10-9	1.41 × 10-1	TRAF6, SOCS3, FOS, IL4R, CCR5, MAPK14, IL10, IL1B, FCGR2B, NFKB1, TNF

 	IL-12 signaling and production in macrophages	6.87 × 10-9	8.97 × 10-2	IL10, MAF, IFNGR1, NFKB1, IRF1, TRAF6, FOS, MAPK14, CD40, ZNF668, NOS2, TNF, PRKD3, IL4

 	IL-17A signaling in gastric cells	3.33 × 10-8	2.80 × 10-1	IL8, FOS, MAPK14, CCL20, CCL5, NFKB1, TNF

B	Role of cytokines in mediating communication between immune cells	8.88 × 10-7	7.27 × 10-2	IL8, IFNB1, IL13, IL4

 	Communication between innate and adaptive immune cells	6.73 × 10-6	3.67 × 10-2	IL8, IFNB1, CCR7, IL4

 	Airway inflammation in asthma	1.81 × 10-5	3.33 × 10-1	IL13, IL4

 	Remodeling of epithelial adherens junctions	1.08 × 10-4	4.41 × 10-2	ACTR3, MAPRE1, CLIP1

 	Prolactin signaling	1.5 × 10-4	3.75 × 10-2	SOCS3, FOS, IRF1


Parameter	Total	With ≥ 2-year complete follow-up

Female	Male	Female	Male

Number of patients 	802	526	463	313

Number of knees	1069	716	574	397

Proportion right knees	51.7%	49.4%	51.4%	49.4%

Patient age, mean (range) years	71.9 (39–95)	70.9 (44–96)	73.3 (50–94)	71.6 (48–95)

Body mass index mean (range) kg/m2	33.2 (18–76)	32.3 (8–79)	32.6 (18–62)	32.0 (8–57)

Diagnosis

 Osteoarthritis	97.5%	98.6%	97.4%	98.7%

 Rheumatoid arthritis	1.6%	0.8%	1.9%	1.0%

 Avascular necrosis	0.6%	0.3%	0.4%	0.3%

 Osteonecrosis	0.1%	0.0%	0.2%	0.0%

 Posttraumatic arthritis	0.1%	0.1%	0.2%	0.0%

 Others	0.2%	0.1%	0.0%	0.0%

Length-of-stay, mean (range) days	2.5 (1–18)	2.2 (1–22)	2.4 (1–10)	2.1 (1–11)

Follow-up, mean (range) years	2.4 (0.7–7.2) 	2.4 (0.8–6.9)	2.9 (2–7.2)	2.9 (2–6.9)


Time points	Bowel movement frequency, mean ± SD, episodes per wk	Stool consistency, mean ± SD, BSFS grade

PEG	PEG + PM	P	PEG	PEG + PM	P

Enrollment	2.5 ± 1.1	2.3 ± 0.7	0.344	2.6 ± 0.6	2.5 ± 0.7	0.395

2-week follow-up visit	5.9 ± 1.3	5.4 ± 1.4	0.168	4.2 ± 0.5	3.9 ± 1.0	0.271

4-week follow-up visit	6.3 ± 0.9	6.0 ± 1.2	0.659	4.4 ± 0.5	4.1 ± 0.6	0.267

8-week follow-up visit	6.3 ± 0.9	6.3 ± 1.0	0.924	4.2 ± 0.5	4.2 ± 0.5	0.857


Variants	AA change	Novel	Exon	Sift Prediction	Polyphen Prediction	MAF (%)

Score	Prediction	Score	Prediction	Control	PS	PSE

+21059 C/T	333A > T	Yes	5	0.28	Tolerated	0	Benign	0	0.5	0

+21029 C/G	323A > P	Yes	5	0.08	Tolerated	0.476	Possibly damaging	0.5	0	0

rs2296651	267S > F	No	4	0.31	Tolerated	0.88	Probably damaging	0.9	0.9	2.3

+18885 A/G	256 M > T	Yes	4	0	Damaging	0.839	Possibly damaging	0	0	0.5

+18131 A/G	222 L > S	Yes	3	0	Damaging	0.637	Possibly damaging	0	0	0.5

rs202213974	200 V > M	No	3	0	Damaging	0.819	Possibly damaging	0	0	0.5

+11121 G/C	131 L > V	Yes	2	0.23	Tolerated	0.484	Possibly damaging	0.5	0	0

rs148467625	88I > T	No	1	0.57	Tolerated	0.072	Benign	0.5	0.5	0


							ICGA	FA

No.	Age	Sex	R/L	Cell/Flare	SRD	Optic disc hyperemia	Fuzzy choroidal vessels	Hypofluorescent dark dots	Pinpoints Hyperfluorescence	Pleocytosis

1	34	F	L	+	−	−	+	+	−	+

2	56	F	R	−	+	+	+	+	+	+

L	−	+	+	+	+	+

3	31	F	R	−	+	+	+	+	+	+

L	+	+	+	+	+	+

4	43	F	R	+	+	+	+	+	+	+

5	57	F	R	+	+	+	+	+	+	+

L	+	−	+	+	+	−

6	24	M	R	−	+	+	+	+	+	+

7	44	M	R	−	−	+	+	+	−	+

8	46	F	R	+	−	+	+	+	−	−

9	64	M	R	+	+	+	+	+	+	+

L	+	+	+	+	+	+

10	15	M	R	+	+	+	+	+	+	+

L	+	−	+	unknown	+	−


Potential operon (r value)	Gene ID	Putative or predicted function	Reference (s)

Iron uptake or heme synthesis

 yfeABCD operon* (r > 0.91)	YPO2439-2442	Transport/binding chelated iron	yfeABCD [54]

 hmuRSTUV operon (r > 0.90)	YPO0279-0283	Transport/binding hemin	hmuRSTUV [55]

 ysuJIHG* (r > 0.95)	YPO1529-1532	Iron uptake	-

 sufABCDS* (r > 0.90)	YPO2400-2404	Iron-regulated Fe-S cluster assembly?	-

 YPO1854-1856* (r > 0.97)	YPO1854-1856	Iron uptake or heme synthesis?	-

Sulfur metabolism

 tauABCD operon (r > 0.90)	YPO0182-0185	Transport/binding taurine	tauABCD [56]

 ssuEADCB operon (r > 0.97)	YPO3623-3627	Sulphur metabolism	ssu operon [57]

 cys operon (r > 0.92)	YPO3010-3015	Cysteine synthesis	-

 YPO1317-1319 (r > 0.97)	YPO1317-1319	Sulfur metabolism?	-

 YPO4109-4111 (r > 0.90)	YPO4109-4111	Sulfur metabolism?	-

Urea uptake and urease activation

 ure operon* (r > 0.96)	YPO2665-2672	Pathogenicity	ure [58, 59]

Stress response and adaptation

 dnaKJ operon (r = 0.97)	YPO0468-0469	Chaperones, chaperonins, heat shock	dnaKJ [60, 61]

 hslUV operon (r = 0.97)	YPO0105-0106	Adaptions and atypical conditions	hslUV [62]

 katY-cybCB operon* (r > 0.90)	YPO3319-3321	Detoxification and electron transport	-

 psp operon (r > 0.90)	YPO2349-2351	Adaptions and atypical conditions	psp operon [63]

Ribosome constituents

 rps-rpm-rpl operon (r > 0.90)	YPO0209-0235	Ribosomal protein synthesis and modification	rps-rpm-rpl operon [64]

Energy metabolism

 sdh-suc operon* (r > 0.92)	YPO1109-1116	Tricarboxylic acid cycle	sdhCDAB [65]

 cyo operon (r > 0.94)	YPO3164-3168	Aerobic respiration	cyoABCDE [55]

 nap operon (r > 0.94)	YPO3036-3040	Electron transport	nap operon [66]

 atp operon (r > 0.93)	YPO4120-4128	ATP-proton motive force	atpIBEFHAGDC [67]

 ace operon* (r > 0.90)	YPO3724-3726	Glyoxylate bypass	aceBAK [68]

 nuo operon* (r > 0.92)	YPO2543-2555	Aerobic respiration	nuo operon [69]

Degradation and transport/binding of amino acids

 pro operon* (r > 0.92)	YPO2645-2647	Transport/binding amino acids and amines	proVWX [70]

 ast operon (r > 0.90)	YPO1962-1966	Degradation of amino acids	astCADBE [71]

 gln operon* (r > 0.91)	YPO2512-2514	Transport/binding amino acids and amines	glnHPQ [72]

others

 YPO1994-1996* (r > 0.98)	YPO1994-1996	Unknown	-

 YPO0881-0884 (r = 0.99)	YPO0881-0884	Chemotaxis and mobility?	-

 YPO1087-1088 (r = 0.99)	YPO1087-1088	Phage-related functions and prophage	-

 YPO0623-0628* (r > 0.94)	YPO0623-0628	Unknown	-

 mur operon (r > 0.95)	YPO0550-0553	Murein sacculus and peptidoglycan	-

 idn operon (r = 0.96)	YPO2539-2540	Degradation of carbon compounds	-

 fad operon* (r = 0.95)	YPO3766-3767	Degradation of small molecule	-

 glg operon (r > 0.90)	YPO3938-3942	Synthesis and modification of cytoplasmic polysaccharides	glg operon [73]

 YPO3838-3839 (r = 0.92)	YPO3838-3839	Unknown	-

 YPO0408-0409* (r = 0.97)	YPO0408-0409	Unknown	-

 YPO1516-1517 (r = 0.90)	YPO1516-1517	Unknown	-

 YPCD1.15c-1.17c (r > 0.98)	YPCD1.15c-1.17c	Unknown	-

 yscGHIJK operon* (>0.90)	YPCD1.55-1.57	T3SS constituents	-

 YPPCP1.08c-1.09c (r = 0.97)	YPPCP1.08c-1.09c	Unknown	-


 	Actual positive	Actual negative

Predicted positive	TP	FP

Predicted negative	FN	TN


Clinical source	Total strains	ZOT positivity	Exotoxin 9 positivity	GSI	GSII

CD	29	72.41	72.41	10.34	89.66

Gastroenteritis	31	70.97	51.61	35.48	64.52

Lymphocytic colitis	1	100	100	0	100

Collagenous colitis	3	33.33	100	33.33	66.67

Bloody diarrhoea	8	100	37.5	50	50

Periodontal disease	1	100	100	100	0

Healthy	11	72.73	63.64	27.27	72.73

UC	4	25	50	50	50

All	88	71.59	60.22	28.41	71.59


Anterior segment pathology	Number of eyes

Cornea diseases

 Mucopolysaccharidosis	4

 Keratoconus	3

Anterior segment congenital condition

 Mesoectodermal dysgenesis	2

 Sclerocornea	1

 Congenital glaucoma	2

 Microphthalmia	3

 Keratoglobus	1

Ocular trauma

 Self-sealing corneal penetrating injury	1

Anterior segment surgery

 Cornea transplant and glaucoma drainage tube	1

 Glaucoma drainage tube	1

Iridocorneal angle abnormalities

 Anterior synechiae post-uveitis	1

 Neovascular glaucoma	2

 Synechia associated to ciliary body lesion	1

Intermediate Uveitis	2

Ocular surface lesions

 Corneoscleral dermoid	1


Age	Discharge type	Single duct?	Initial surgery	Initial histology	Final histology	Treatment

32	Fresh blood	Yes	Micro	DCIS	Intermediate grade DCIS	Mx + ANS + recon

43	Fresh blood	No	TDE	DCIS	Extensive intermediate grade DCIS	Mx + ANS + recon

51	Fresh blood/serous	Yes	TDE	DCIS	High grade DCIS	Mx + ANS

58	Fresh blood	Yes	TDE	IDC	3 mm grade 3 IDC + extensive DCIS	Mx + ANC + recon

60	Fresh blood	Yes	Micro	DCIS	High grade DCIS	Mx + ANS

68	Fresh blood	Yes	TDE	IDC	3 mm grade 2 IDC + DCIS	Mx + ANC

69	Fresh blood	Yes	Micro	DCIS	Multifocal intermediate grade DCIS	Mx + ANS

72	History of fresh blood; serous discharge identified, dipstick +++ for blood	Yes	TDE	IDC	10 mm grade 2 IDC + DCIS	Mx+ ANC

74	Altered blood	Yes	TDE	IDC	10 mm grade 2 IDC + widespread DCIS	Mx and ANC

78	Fresh blood	Yes	TDE	DCIS	Multifocal intermediate grade DCIS	Simple Mx

88	Fresh blood	Yes	TDE	DCIS	Low grade DCIS	Simple Mx


	Nonretreatment Group B	Retreatment Group A

(N = 106)	(N = 125)

Age, years

 Mean (SD)	61.4 (10.00)	60.8 (10.39)

Gender, N (%)

 Female	62 (58.5)	74 (59.2)

 Male	44 (41.5)	51 (40.8)

Body mass index, kg/m2 (mean ± SD)	28.4 (4.06)	28.3 (4.05)

Kellgren-Lawrence Score - Study Knee [N (%)]

 Grade 1	11 (10.4)	10 (8.0)

 Grade 2	46 (43.4)	42 (33.6)

 Grade 3	49 (46.2)	73 (58.4)

WOMAC pain subscores - Study Knee (mean)	68.1	69.0


Subtype	OMIM ID	Causative gene	HGNC ID	Cytogenetic location	Inheritance

FHL1	267700	HPLH1a	HGNC:23824	9q21.3 - q22	AR

FHL2	603553	PRF1	HGNC:9360	10q22.1	AR

FHL3	608898	UNC13D	HGNC:23147	17q25.1	AR b

FHL4	603552	STX11	HGNC:11429	6q24.2	AR

FHL5	613101	STXBP2	HGNC:11445	19p13.2	AR b

XLP1	308240	SH2D1A	HGNC:10820	Xq25	XLR

XLP2	300635	XIAP	HGNC:592	Xq25	XLR


Clinical symptoms	PCNSL(NO of patients)	GBM(NO of patients)

Organic brain syndrome	22	12

Signs of intracranial hypertension	16	23

Paresis	16	19

Vertigo	12	13

Phatic disorder	11	14

Visual disturbances	7	3

Cranial nerve dysfunction other than visual disturbance	5	0

Fatigue	4	7

Dysesthesia or hypesthesia	4	1

Seizure	1	9


Description	Unit	n	Abbreviation

Milk yield	l/day	285	dMY

FMI per visit	kg/visit	13,908	vFMI

Feeding duration per visit	s/visit	13,908	vFdur

FMI (fresh matter intake)	kg/day	311	dFMI

Feeding time	min/day	311	dFtime

Feeding frequency	visits/day	311	dFfreq

Mean FMI per visit	kg/visit	311	mvFMI

Mean feeding duration per visit	s/visit	311	mvFdur

Daily feeding rate	g/min	311	dFR

Cow feeding rate	g/min	16	cFR

Rumination duration per event	min/event	7,697	eRUMdur

Rumination time	min/day	311	dRUMtime

Rumination frequency	events/day	311	dRUMfreq

Mean rumination duration	min/event	311	meRUMdur


Downregulated Pathways	Fat	Liver	Muscle	Comments

Steroid Biosynthesis		Q; EQ		Target of Statins

Phagocytosis/ leukocyte extravasation	EQ			Innate Immune Response

EIF2 signaling			Q; EQ	Stress Response

Mitochondrial dysfunction			Q	Associated with disease

eIF4/p70S6K signaling			Q; EQ	Insulin Signaling

Oxidative phosphorylation			Q; EQ	Energy Production

PPARα/RXRα activation			Q	Gene Expression