	Tree 1	Tree 2	Tree 3	Pfam

Average sequence identity	19%	30%	42%	-

Alignment length	1080	629	597	404

Sequence length	173	177	169	171

Original number of sequences	32	33	46	-

Average number of sequences after MaxAlign	14.1	22.6	28.8	-

Average number of indels per sequence	66.6	54.3	48.5	32

Average length of indels	13.6	8.3	8.8	7


Baseline	Pre App	App	Post App

Complete DASS-21	Rate subjective wellbeing and distress daily for 7 days	Rate subjective wellbeing and distress daily for 7 days	Complete DASS-21

	Complete DASS-21 after 7 days	Record answers to MOL-style questions received as text messages	Attend short, semi-structured interview to describe the experience of receiving and answering questions


Parameter	Value

Maximum data rate	250 kbps

Discovery packet time	10 s

Transmission power	0 dBm

Receiver sensitivity	−85 dBm

Average frame length	22 Bytes

MAC layer	CSMA/CA

Maximum number of backoffs	4

Packet loss	1%

Coverage radio	50 m

Mode	Active

Jamming	Reactive

Scenario	Static

Area	150 m × 150 m


Primers and probes	Gene sequence

GAPDH sense	TGCACCACCAACTGCTTAG

GAPDH antisense	GGATGCAGGGATGATGTTC

GAPDH probe	CAGAAGACTGTGGATGGCCCCTC

IL-1β sense	TCCTGAACTCAACTGTGAAATGC

IL-1β antisense	AGCCCAGGTCAAAGGTTTGG

IL-1β probe	AGCAGCCCTTCATCTTTTGGGGTCCG

IL-6 sense	CCGGAGAGGAGACTTCACAGA

IL-6 antisense	GTTGTTCATACAATCAGAATTGCCATT

IL-6 probe	ACCACTCCCAACAGACCTGTCTATACCACT

CCL2 sense	TCTGGGCCTGCTGTTCACA

CCL2 antisense	CCAGCCTACTCATTGGGATCA

CCL2 probe	TTGGCTCAGCCAGATGCAGTTAACGC

CCL3 sense	ATTCCACGCCAATTCATCGT

CCL3 antisense	TTGGAGTCAGCGCAGATCTG

CCL3 probe	CCTTTGCTCCCAGCCAGGTGTCATT


		Baseline	Reexamination

	N	27	25

	Mean dmft ± SD	5.1 ± 1.8	8.8 ± 0.7

ECC stages	Initial stage (N, %)	(27) 100%	(0) 0%

	Circular stage (N, %)	/	(7) 28%

	Destructive stage (N, %)	/	(5) 20%

	Radix relicta stage (N, %)	/	(9) 36%

	Extraction (N, %)	/	(4) 16%


Number (%) of 	Pre-eclamptic (N = 143)	Controls(N = 143)	P

Primigravidae	49(34.3)	27(18.9)	0.01

lack of antenatal care	21(14.7)	33(23.1)	0.02

Educational level < secondary	36(25.2)	24(16.8)	0.8

Bednets coverage	21(14.7)	23 (16.1)	0.6

History of malaria	31(21.7)	11(7.7)	0.001

Family history of hypertension	122(85.3)	81(56.6)	0.001

Placental malaria	28(19.6)	16(11.2)	0.04


Test	Cutoff for “abnormal”	All Stages (N = 5731)	Stage 1 (N = 4058)	Stage 2 (N = 981)	Stage 3 (N = 692)

Urine Tests

Eosinophils	≥1 %	6.9	5.8	7.2	7.5

Total Protein	>15 mg/dl	70.8	63.0	64.3	83.3

UPEP	M spike	7.9	5.0	9.8	10.0

Blood Tests

ANCA	Titer > 1:20	10.6	8.0	3.7	14.9

Anti-GBM	≥1.0	0	0	0	0

Cryoglobulin	>0 %	21.8	26.3	0	21.2

C3	<90 mg/dl	36.5	26.9	21.1	45.6

C4	<10 mg/dl	12.9	11.6	10.5	14.3

Free Light Chains	See below	41.6	44.7	42.9	36.7

SPEP	M spike	19.1	16.4	23.9	19.7

Radiology Tests

Renal Ultrasound	See Methods	34.6	40.6	23.4	34.9

CT Abdomen/Pelvis	See Methods	33.3	26.7	27.3	39.3


Variable	Median (25th, 75th percentile)

Sleep

 Time in bed (hours:minutes)	9:31 (9:02, 9:58)

 Sleep duration (hours:minutes)	8:29 (7:59, 8:59)

 Sleep midpoint (hours:minutes)	2:44 (2:14, 3:29)

 Sleep efficiency (%)	90.0 (86.3, 92.5)

Physical activity (minutes/day)

 Outdoor active play (minutes/day)	32.7 (15.8, 54.2)

 Organized sports (minutes/day)	18.8 (0.0, 48.6)

 Curriculum-based physical activity (minutes/day)	9.8 (2.1, 16.6)

 Active transportation (minutes/day)	12.2 (5.4, 21.3)


Pre-SBRT factors	G4-5 RP	G0-3 RP	Total	X2 test	1-year cumulative incidence of G4-5 RP	log-rank

Serum KL-6

high value	6	17	23	p = 0.0002	32%	p < 0.0001

within normal level	2	78	80		3%

not available	1	13	14

Serum SP-D

high value	5	14	19	p = 0.0002	29%	p = 0.0001

within normal level	2	79	81		3%

not available	2	15	17

IP shadow in CT

(+)	7	6	13	p < 0.0001	57%	p < 0.0001

(-)	2	102	104		2%


	Cross-section 2004	Panel 2002–2004

Variable	Average for treated	Average for untreated	Single difference in averages	% difference	Boot-strapped Std. Err.	P-value	Double differences/differences-in-differences (absolute)

No. of outpatient (OP) visits in the 12-month recall period	0.818	0.786	0.033	4%	0.060	0.585	0.06

no. of OP visits at commune level clinics	0.380	0.308	0.072	23%	0.034	0.034	0.10

no. of OP visits at district hospital	0.144	0.078	0.066	85%	0.022	0.003	Not available

no. of OP visits at provincial/central hospital	0.051	0.029	0.022	74%	0.009	0.018	Not available

no. of OP visits at govt. hospital	0.195	0.107	0.088	82%	0.025	0.000	0.08

no. of OP visits at private facility	0.222	0.357	-0.135	-38%	0.039	0.000	-0.12

No. of inpatient (IP) admissions in the 12-month recall period	0.125	0.118	0.007	6%	0.012	0.557	0.00

no. of IP admissions at commune level clinics	0.026	0.037	-0.010	-28%	0.004	0.020	0.00

no. of IP admissions at district hospital	0.060	0.038	0.023	60%	0.008	0.003	Not available

no. of IP admissions at provincial/central hospital	0.035	0.038	-0.002	-6%	0.006	0.721	Not available

no. of IP admissions at govt. hospital	0.096	0.075	0.021	27%	0.011	0.065	0.02


Strain of C. jejuni	Rate of growth (μmax) in microaerobic conditions	Death times (D-values) in aerobic conditions

Bf	0.5763	\**

subsp. jejuni NCTC 11168	0.7714*	0.9737

subsp. jejuni 00-2538	0.9198*	1.1039

subsp. jejuni 00-2426	0.8964*	1.5442

subsp. jejuni 00-2544	0.8303*	1.4554

subsp. jejuni 00-2425	0.9085*	1.3785

subsp. jejuni 81-176	0.9477*	0.4765

subsp. jejuni NCTC 11828	0.7899*	1.3417

subsp. doylei 269.97	0.7765*	2.2691

subsp. jejuni RM 1221	0.6793*	1.9276


Level of Adaptation to Heat	% Who Reported Adverse Health Impacts	Confidence Interval	Coeff. of Variation	Odds Ratio	Confidence Interval	Pr > χ2

Individuals who adapt well	45.77	(41.78–49.76)	4.44	1.37	(1.13–1.66)	0.0011

Individuals who do not adapt as well 	38.11	(33.66–42.56)	5.95	1.00


	Kidney	Kidney pancreas

Number recruited	42	19

Sex male/female	31M/11F	9M/10F

Median age (range)	54 (26–74)	47 (30–59)

Donor type

Living (male/female)	16 (11M/5F)	n/a

DBD (male/female)	11 (7M/4F)	16 (7M/9F)

DCD (male/female)	15 (13M/ F)	3 (2M/1F)

Drug treatment regimen

Alemtuzumab	19	19

Basiliximab + MMF	13	n/a

Basiliximab + Aza	10	n/a


Demographic	Physicians (n = 13)	Nursing staff (n = 13)	Overall (n = 26)

Sex	Male	4	1	5

Female	9	12	21

Age (yr)	Mean (range)	45 (25–60)	45 (24–61)	45 (24–61)

Years of professional experience	Mean (range)	15 (0–36)	17 (0–32)	16 (0–36)

Type of facility	Nursing home	10	9	19

Residential care home	3	4	7

Facility location	Urban area	8	7	15

Rural area	5	6	11

Professional specialism	Nursing home	Elderly care physician (7)	Nurse* (4)	-

Elderly care physician in training (1)

Junior doctor (1)	Nurse assistant* (5)

Physician assistant (1)

Residential care home	General practitioner (3)	Nurse assistant* (4)


Year	Main Objetive	Assay Employed	Reference

In vitro studies

2014	Effect of MGN on gamma radiation-induced DNA damage in human lymphocytes and lymphoblastoid cells.	Comet assay	[74]

2012	Evaluation of protective effects of MGN against several mutagens (bleomycin, CP, AFB1, B[a]P, 2-AAF, H2O2, sodium azide, cisplatin, MMC, and DMNA).	Ames test, SOS Chromotest assay & Comet assay	[75]

2009	Cytoprotective and antigenotoxic potential of mangiferine against cadmium chloride CdCl2-induced toxicity in HepG2 cells.	Comet assay & Micronucleus	[76]

2011	Evaluation of the protector effect of MGN against methylmercury (MeHg) induced neurotoxicity by employing IMR-32 (human neuroblastoma) cell line.	Comet assay & Micronucleus	[77]

2011	Antigenotoxic potential of MGN against mercuric chloride (HgCl2)-induced genotoxicity in HepG2 cell line.	Comet assay & Micronucleus	[78]

2015	Evaluation of the Mangiferin to reduce etoposide-induced DNA damage in human umbilical cord mononuclear blood cells.	Comet assay & Micronucleus	[79]

In vivo studies

2008	Protective role of mangiferin against B[a]P induced lung carcinogenesis in experimental animals.	Comet assay	[80]

2005	Ability of the mangiferin to reduce the frequency of radiation-induced micronucleated binucleate cells (MNBNCs) in cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes.	Micronucleus	[81]

2010	The protective role of mangiferin (MGN) against cadmium chloride CdCl2-induced genotoxicity studied in Swiss albino mice.	Micronucleus	[82]


	RMSE

EKF	BD-AEKF

Heading (degree)	1.0069	0.3751

Pitch (degree)	0.6812	0.1453

Roll (degree)	0.6488	0.1466

East position (m)	0.8297	0.2050

North position (m)	0.8104	0.2194


Ownership	n(%)

Household owning nets	638(95.2)

Households without nets	32(4.8)

Total	670(100)

No. of bed nets	No. of HH(%)

0	32(4.8)

1	120(17.9)

2	244(36.4)

3	147(21.9)

4	88(13.1)

5+	39(5.8)

Total	670(100)

Mean number of nets per HH 2.4

Source of bed nets	No. of HH(%)

Campaign nets	298(46.7)

Non campaign nets	205(32.1)

Campaign &non campaign nets	112(17.6)

*Other sources	23(3.6)

Total	638(100)

Cost of non-campaign nets (KES)

50	180(56.8)

100	64(20.2)

> 100	73(23.0)

Total HH	317(100)


Rank	Symptoms	Rate of patients with the symptom	Rate of patients with high PeCDF (> 50 pg/g lipids)

1	Black comedones (trunk) <+ or severer>	0.0671	0.6563

2	uric acid (high)	0.1761	0.6310*

3	Black comedones (face) <+ or severer>	0.0860	0.6098

4	Third quartile age	0.2348	0.6071*

5	urea nitrogen (high)	0.1111	0.6038

6	red blood cell count (low)	0.1342	0.5938

7	History of pigmentation <present>	0.3669	0.5886*

8	Classification of testee <qualified>	0.7526	0.5794*

9	Subjective symptoms, etc. <present>	0.1488	0.5775

10	Second quartile age	0.2788	0.5714


Protocol	Denaturation	Touchdown annealing cycles	Additional annealing cycles	Extension	Final extension

GP5+/GP6+	1 min, 94°C	-	2 min, 40°C (40–50 cycles)	1.5 min, 72°C	4 min, 72°C

TDP1	1 min, 94°C	2 min, 45°C to 40°C in 0.5°C decrements (11 cycles)	2 min, 40°C (29–39 cycles)	1.5 min, 72°C	4 min, 72°C

TDP2	1 min, 94°C	2 min, 50°C to 40°C in 1.0°C decrements (11 cycles)	2 min, 40°C (29–39 cycles)	1.5 min, 72°C	4 min, 72°C

TDP3	1 min, 94°C	2 min, 50°C to 40°C in 0.5°C decrements (21 cycles)	2 min, 40°C (19–29 cycles)	1.5 min, 72°C	4 min, 72°C

TDP4	1 min, 94°C	2 min, 55°C to 40°C in 1.0°C decrements (16 cycles)	2 min, 40°C (24–34 cycles)	1.5 min, 72°C	4 min, 72°C


Characteristic	HR	95% CI

Male sex	1.39	1.06–1.81

Age, per 10-year increment	1.09	1.07–1.10

Smoking	1.34	1.03–1.76

Drinking	1.03	0.81–1.31

Obesity	0.96	0.75–1.23

Hypertension	2.65	2.11–3.31

Dyslipidemia	1.08	0.87–1.35

Diabetes mellitus	2.07	1.40–3.06

AF	4.11	2.28–7.41


	t0 control	t0 inoculated	t1 control	t1 inoculated	t2 control	t2 inoculated

Resistance to antibiotics and toxic compounds	80.7	81.4	78.9	78.8	79.7	79.8

–	9.7	9.1	10.3	10.2	10.4	10.2

Multi locus sequence typing	7.2	7.2	8.2	8.4	7.5	7.4

Adhesion	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5

Bacteriocins, ribosomally synthesized antibacterial peptides	0.4	0.5	0.6	0.5	0.4	0.6

Invasion and intracellular resistance	0.4	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.3

Toxins and superantigens	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.1


Baseline Characteristics (at time of diagnosis)	Mean ± SD or N (%)

Age (Years)	37.41 ± 10.14

Gender

 Male	14 (66.7%)

 Female	07 (33.3%)

Stage of Disease

 I	3 (14.3%)

 II	2 (9.5%)

 III	4 (19.0%)

 IV	12 (57.1%)

LDH

 High	18 (85.7%)

 Normal	03 (14.3%)

Extra Nodal site involvement

 None	5 (23.8%)

 Yes	16 (76.2%)

Bulky Disease

 Yes	5 (23.8%)

 No	16 (76.2%)

Bone Marrow Involvement

 Yes	8 (38.1%)

 No	13 (61.9%)

IPI

 1	04 (19.0%)

 2	09 (42.9%)

 3	08 (38.1%)


Variables	N	%

Gender	Male	29	58

Female	21	42

Educational level	Basic science (pre-clinical) years	12	24

Clinical years	38	76

Previous EBM exposure	Read about or attended a lecture	28	56

Had a formal EBM training	0	 0

Previous research exposure	Participated in ≥ 1 research activity	31	62

No previous research exposure	19	38

Frequency of online search for evidence	≥ once per week	16	32

< once per week, or not at all	34	68

First source sought for evidence (before the course)	Google	23	46

UpToDateTM	13	26

PubMed	7	14

The Cochrane library	1	 2

Other	3	 6


Characteristics	Patients (P, n=131)	Spousal caregivers (SC, n=131)

	n (%)	n (%)

Age (mean± SD), years	56.6±12.1 (ranging from 25 to 79)	56.0±11.3 (ranging from 29 to 80)

Gender

 Male	82 (62.6)	49 (37.4)

 Female	49 (37.4)	82 (62.6)

Level of education

 Primary school or less	64 (48.9)	67 (51.1)

 High school	49 (37.4)	49 (37.4)

 University or above	18 (13.7)	15 (11.5)

Working status

 Working	75 (57.3)	69 (52.7)

 Not working	56 (42.7)	62 (47.3)

The average time since diagnosis/the duration in their role as a SC	13.7±23.0 months (ranging from 1 to 192 months)	<6 months:	67 (51.2)

6 months ~2 years:	43 (32.8)

>2 years ~5 years:	13 (9.9)

>5 years:	8 (6.1)

Couples were informed about the diseaseb

 Partly informed	33 (25.2)	24 (18.3)

 Well informed	98 (74.8)	107 (81.7)

Time spent by SC in caring for patients/day [in hours, n (%)]		<2 hours:	10 (7.6)

2~4 hours:	14 (10.7)

>4~6 hours:	25 (19.1)

>6~8 hours:	21 (16.0)

>8 hours:	61 (46.6)

Types of cancera	Digestive system cancer: 72 (55.0); Lung cancer: 35 (26.7);

	Urogenital system cancer: 19 (14.5); Others: 5 (3.8)

Dyad Characteristicsc

Duration of marriage (mean± SD), years	30.8±11.6 (ranging from 1–52)

Relationship with their partner before the diagnosis of the cancer	Very goodBad	115 (87.8)0	Normal	16 (12.2)

Change in the relationship with their partner after the diagnosis of the cancer	ImprovedGetting worse	38 (29.0)0	No change	93 (71.0)

Financial burden on the family due to the treatment of cancer	Serious	77 (58.8)	Normal	49 (37.4)

	Mild or None	5 (3.8)


 	Johannesburg**	Cape town	Rustenburg

 	Surveys#	FGDs^	Diaries	Surveys#	FGDs*	Diaries	Surveys#	FGDs^	Diaries

Pre-World Cup	-	2	-	-	2	-	-	1	-

World Cup	350 (95%)	2	8	128 (77%)	2	7	123 (91%)	1	8

Post-World Cup	273 (98%)	1	16	83 (83%)	2	6	102 (88%)	1	8


Severe disability	Any severe cerebral palsy (child non-ambulant and likely to remain so; GMFCS level 4 or 5), severe developmental delay (standardised score <−3 SD) or blindness.

Moderate disability	Moderate cerebral palsy (child non-ambulant at 2 years of age but who is likely to ambulate subsequently; GMFCS level 2 or 3), or deafness, or moderate developmental delay (standardised score from −3 SD to <−2 SD).

Mild disability	Mild cerebral palsy (child walking at 2 years of age with only minimal limitation of movement (GMFCS level 1), or suspect developmental delay (standardised score from −2 SD to <−1 SD).

No neurosensory disability	Children without any neurosensory impairment.


What influences the decision about prenatal examinations?

n = 302	n (%)

Worry about the health of the baby	268 (89)

I want to know as much as possible	117 (39)

No reasons to refuse	81 (27)

Personal experience of chromosomal aberration or other severe disease among relative	69 (23)

The values of the society	44 (15)

Expectations from others	41 (14)

Everyone else does	14 (5)

Important to know the gender of the baby	4 (1)

Who influences the decision about prenatal examinations?

n = 302

My partner	250 (83)

The doctor in antenatal care	168 (56)

Family and friends	132 (44)

The midwife in antenatal care	129 (43)

No one, I make the decision myself	80 (26)


		Crude ORsab	95% CIc	p-value	Adjusted ORsd	95% CI	p-value

Age	≥30 years	(reference)			(reference)

	<30 years	3.43	1.96-5.99	< 0.001	2.74	1.36-5.50	0.005

Sex	Male	(reference)			(reference)

	Female	0.46	0.10-2.05	0.297	0.30	0.05-1.69	0.171

Mental health service	No	(reference)			(reference)

	Implemented	0.45	0.24-0.84	0.009	0.35	0.16-0.76	0.008

Key person	No	(reference)			(reference)

	Yes	0.80	0.45-1.41	0.438	0.58	0.28-1.19	0.135

Route of infection	Homosexual	(reference)

	Others	0.75	0.42-1.34	0.327

Regular employment	Yes	(reference)			(reference)

	No	2.46	1.38-4.39	0.002	3.38	1.58-7.23	0.002

Welfare benefits	No	(reference)

	Yes	0.43	0.05-3.48	0.414

HIV test motive	Voluntary	(reference)			(reference)

	Others	0.40	0.25-0.63	<0.001	1.50	0.38-2.70	0.180

Mental illness	No	(reference)

	Yes	0.92	0.31-2.77	0.886

Illicit drug use	No	(reference)

	Yes	1.25	0.67-2.33	0.492

Nationality	Japanese	(reference)

	Others	1.00	0.32-3.09	1.000

AIDS diagnosis	No	(reference)

	Yes	0.19	0.07-0.51	0.002

Antiretroviral therapy	Yes	(reference)			(reference)

	No	8.47	3.91-18.33	<0.001	7.51	3.34-16.9	< 0.001

CD4+ lymphocyte count	<200/mm3	(reference)

	200-499/mm3	3.94	1.35-11.5	0.012

	≥500/mm3	6.11	2.01-18.6	0.001


Vascular smooth muscle cells	Respiratory epithelial cells

Viability for different pressures (0, 0.4, 0.8, 1.2, 1.6, 2 bar)	Viability (0.4 bar)

Viability for different velocities (10, 30, 55, 75, 95 mL/min)	Short-term differentiation (pan-cytokeratin expression)

Short-term differentiation (α-SMA expression)	Long-term differentiation (14 and 28 days: pan-cytokeratin expression and PAS reaction)


p (FWEcorr)	T	Z	Coordinates x, y, z {mm} max. peak	Brain area

0.003843	7.936576	4.986516	18, 36, −8	Right medial orbitofrontal cortex


Economic interventions	Definition	Search terms

Price Interventions - Taxes and Subsidies	Interventions that target prices for goods and services paid/received by households or firms	“tax”, “subsidy”, “subsidized”, “subsidies”, “penalty”, “penalties”, “voucher”, “vouchers”

Income Transfer Programs	Interventions that transfer resources directly to households	“income support”, “financial supplement”, “income supplement”, “fina ncial assistance”, “welfare benefits”, “social security”, “cash assistance”, “income transfer”, “asset transfer”, “pensions”, “welfare payments”, “cash transfer”, “cash support”, “bonus”, “economic support”

Incentive Programs	Interventions that provide rewards or penalties to motivate specific behaviours/outcomes	“results-based financing”, “pay for performance”, “performance pay”, “performance incentives”, “financial incentives”, “activity based funding”, “provider payment”

Livelihood Support Programs	Interventions that provide resources or skills to support income generation	“livelihood support”, “entrepreneurship training”, “business training”, “vocational skills training”, “vocational training”

Health-related Financial Services	Interventions that provide mechanisms for managing resource allocations and financial risks.	“microcredit”, “microlending”, “microloans”, “microfinance”, “loans”, “lending”, “microinsurance”


 	Paucigranulocytic phenotype	Eosinophilic phenotype	Neutrophilic phenotype	Mixed granulocytic phenotype

Steroid naïve (n = 153)	65 (42.5%)	60 (39.2%)	25 (16.3%)	3 (2%)

Steroid-treated (n = 355)	138 (38%)	151 (43%)	55 (15%)	11 (3%)*


Sample No.	HN37	HN44	HN48

RL2	6a	9c	8b

RL3	11c	10b	9a

SL2	9a	12c	10b

SL3	12a	13b	12a


	Frequency

’NNP’,’DISEASE’,’NNP’	36

’NNP’,’NNP’,’DISEASE’,’NNP’	16

’NNP’,’DISEASE’,’NNP’,’NNP’	11

’IN’,’DISEASE’,’CC’	10


Characteristic	Total

Patients, N	448

HAE diagnosis, n (%)

 Type 1	423 (94.4)

 Type 2	25 (5.6)

Sex, n (%)

 Female	263 (58.7)

 Male	185 (41.3)

Age at enrollment, y

 Mean (SD)	40.8 (14.7)

 Median (min, max)	39.1 (16.5, 81.8)

Country, n (%)

 France	119 (26.6)

 Spain	69 (15.4)

 Germany	57 (12.7)

 United Kingdom	53 (11.8)

 Italy	46 (10.3)

 Israel	45 (10.0)

 Denmark	19 (4.2)

 Brazil	16 (3.6)

 Greece	14 (3.1)

 Austria	8 (1.8)

 Sweden	2 (0.4)


Client Characteristic	No. (%)

Sex

Female	1303 (91)

Male	122 (9)

Age, years

<15	75 (5)

15–18	786 (55)

19–20	514 (36)

21–24	50 (4)

No. of living children

0	757 (53)

1	502 (35)

2	148 (10)

3	14 (1)

5 or more	4 (0.3)

Marital status

Married or cohabiting	553 (39)

Single or living alone	872 (61)

First-time family planning user

Yes	987 (69)

No	438 (31)


Terms	aklB, ada	aklB, ada, dinJ

DNA repair (SP-PIR)	5.1E-28

DNA damage (SP-PIR)	6.2E-28

Cellular response to stress (GO)		7.5E-23

DNA repair (GO)		1.6E-21

Response to DNA damage stimulus (GO)		1.6E-21


AFL	AML	Stack	Description

signal S	-	(--)	Definition of a signal S.

: $S .. ;	DEF	(arg --)	Definition of a handler for signal S. The signal argument is pushed on the top of the data stack.

raise	RAISE	(arg sig# pid --)	Send a signal S with an argument to the process pid.

timer	TIMER	(sig# tmo --)	Install a timer (tmo > 0) raising signal sig if the time-out has passed. If tmo = 0, then the timer is removed.


 	n	% who correctly identified the firstline anti-malarial therapy	Unadjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval; P value)

Malaria training

Attended malaria workshop

 	Yes	46	65%	0.94 (0.42 - 2.07; 0.873)

 	No	66	67%	Ref

Attended malaria workshop after 2006

 	Yes	34	62%	0.32 (0.06 - 1.71; 0.184)

 	No	12	83%	Ref

Received drug information from MOH

 	Yes	94	69%	0.96 (0.85 - 1.08; 0.483)

 	No	19	53%	Ref

Dispensing Practices

Recommended AL for uncomplicated malaria in children under 5

 	Yes	43	74%	2.41 (1.01 - 5.76; 0.048)*

 	No	53	55%	Ref

Recommend AL for uncomplicated malaria in adults

 	Yes	55	76%	3.55 (1.49 - 8.47; 0.004)*

 	No	42	48%	Ref

Table 4b: Relationship between shop worker recommendation of AL to children under 5 and their response to clinical scenarios

 	 	n	% who would recommend AL to children under 5	Unadjusted odds ratio and (95% confidence interval; P value)

Paediatric Case Management**

Refer pediatric patients rather than treat

 	Yes	43	49%	2.45 (1.04 - 5.79; 0.041)*

 	No	65	31%	Ref

Refuse Fansidar to a mother requesting it

 	Yes	94	67%	3.59 (1.08 - 11.90; 0.036)*

 	No	19	58%	Ref


Link	Antecedent	Consequent	Measure(s) of consequent	results

Link found?	Consequent (‘effect’) stronger in DLC?

A	DLC training (DLC sites only)	Staff characteristics	DAS, ADQ, SNCW	Yes	No for DAS, ADQ and parts of SNCW. Yes for SNCW Development and Patient Knowledge components.

Sick-leave	Yes	Yes

Turnover	No	No

B	PDSA cycles	Reported/not reported	Yes	Yes

C	Staff characteristics	Immediate impact of work routines	DCM WIB scores	Partly: for SNCW but not DAS, ADQ.	No

D	PDSA	Yes, but ‘High-WIB’ homes only	Yes, but ‘High-WIB’ homes only

E	Immediate impact of work routines	Quality of life	QUALID	Yes	No

End-of-life care discussion	No	No

End-of-life care plans	No	No

TEP decision forms	No	No

F	Quality of Life	External impacts	Ambulance call-outs	No	No

Emergency admissions	No	No


Characteristic	cv-lysozyme-3	cv-lysozyme-1*	cv-lysozyme-2**

<underline>Lysozyme activity</underline>

 Optimal pH	7.5-8.5	5.5-6.5	5.5-6.5

 Optimal ionic strength (I)	0.005-0.01	0.18-0.20	0.005-0.01

<underline>Antibacterial activity (MIC)</underline>

 E. coli	12.5 μg/mL	1.56 μg/mL	50 μg/mL

 V. vulnificus	ND***	12.5 μg/mL	100 μg/mL

<underline>Molecular properties</underline>

 MW (Dalton)b	17782.3	17861.0	12984.6

 Theoretical pI	6.84 (7.12)	8.95	6.33

<underline>Amino acid sequence</underline>

 Total amino acid number	168	164	117

 Arginine residue number	5	19	5

<underline>Protease cutting sites</underline>

 Trypsin	9	18	9

 Thermolysin	32	28	20

 Pepsin (pH > 2.0)	19	12	5

<underline>Major sites of gene expression</underline>	Digestive glands	Labial palps, mantle	Digestive glands

<underline>Tissues with low mRNA level</underline>	Mantle, labial palps, gill, style sac-midgut, hemocytes	Gill, style sac-midgut, digestive gland, gonad	Style sac-midgut


	Utilization of postnatal care

		Confidence interval

Characteristics	Odds ratio	Lower	Upper	p

Occupation

 Agriculture	1

 Service	4.82	1.18	19.62	0.028

 Business	3.47	0.75	16.12	0.112

 Wage laborer	2.88	0.44	18.86	0.270

 Housewife	2.55	0.85	7.62	0.094

Wealth quintile

 Lowest	1

 Second	3.21	0.82	12.52	0.093

 Middle	3.24	0.75	13.94	0.115

 Fourth	7.03	1.87	26.45	0.004

 Highest	7.12	1.84	27.95	0.005

Ethnicity

 Disadvantaged Janajati and Dalit	1

 Newar	0.44	0.18	1.08	0.073

 Brahmin/Chhetri	0.34	0.14	0.84	0.019


Isolate name	rpoBa	Spoligotype classification

R160	Ser531Leu	LCC

R376	Ser531Leu	Haarlem

R458	Ser531Leu	Unknown/unique

R486	Leu533Pro	Beijing

R631	His526Tyr	Unknown/unique

R637	Ser531Leu	Beijing

R641	Leu533Pro	Beijing

R721	Ser531Leu	Beijing

R912	His526Tyr	EAI

R965	Leu533Pro	Beijing

R966	His526Tyr	Beijing

R1035	Ser531Leu	LAM

R1415	His526Tyr	Beijing


Gene	Forward primer (3′-5′)	Product length (bp)	NCBI Genbank	Slope	R2#	Efficiency*

Reverse primer (5′-3′)

Reference genes

ATP5G1	CAGTCACCTTGAGCCGGGCGA	94	NM_001025218	−3.42	0.999	1.96

TAGCGCCCCGGTGGTTTGC

ACTB	GACATCCGCAAGGACCTCTA	205	XM_003124280	−3.60	0.998	1.89

ACATCTGCTGGAAGGTGGAC

RPS9	GTCGCAAGACTTATGTGACC	325	XM_003356050	−3.64	0.999	1.88

AGCTTAAAGACCTGGGTCTG

Target genes

COX4/1	GTGGAACTGTACCGCCTGAA	257	XM_003355730	−3.44	1.000	1.95

TTGTCGTAGTCCCACTTGGC

COX6A1	CTCAGCTCGCATGTGGAAGA	139	NM_001190221	−3.34	0.996	1.99

GATGCGAAGATGGGGGTAGG

CACT/SLC25A20	GCAAAGCCCATTAGCCCTCT	235	XM_003483178	−3.21	0.988	2.05

GAGCACATCCTCTGGGTGTT

PPARGC1A	TAAAGATGCCGCCTCTGACT	168	NM_213963	−3.94	0.993	1.79

TGACCGAAGTGCTTGTTCAG

PPARGC1B	AAGTGCGGCTTCGTCACCTA	216	XM_003124093	−3.28	0.998	2.02

GCTGTCGAAATCCATGGCTT

SLC22A5	TGCATTTGGCTACATGCTGC	174	XM_003123912	−3.76	0.995	1.85

ATGATCACCTCAGCTTCCTG

SDHA	CTACGCCCCCGTCGCAAAGG	380	DQ402993	−3.24	1.000	2.03

AGTTTGCCCCCAGGCGGTTG

MYH2	GGCCCTTTGATGCCAAGACA	188	NM_214136	−3.45	1.000	1.95

GGCCATGTCCTCGATCTTGT

MYH4	GTGCCCTGCTGCCATCAATA	363	NM_001123141	−3.53	1.000	1.92

TGCGTAACGCTCTTTGAGGT

MYH7	TGCCAGCTTGAGCCTCTTTC	380	NM_213855	−3.33	0.999	2.00

GTAGCGCTCCTTGAGGTTGT

FATP1	GGTTCCAGCCTGTTGAATGT	275	NM_001083931	−3.44	0.990	1.95

AACAAAACCTTGGTGCTTGG

UCP2	AGTGTGAGACCTGACGAAGC	435	NM_214289	−3.64	0.996	1.88

GCTTGACGGAGTCGTAGAGG

UCP3	GCCACTTTGTCTCTGCCTTC	219	NM_214049	−3.49	0.998	1.93

CAAACATCACCACGTTCCAG


OTU	No. of clones	Phylogenetic class	Closest cultivated species (% similarity)

Bioreactor for CH4 production

Archaea

 MET-BR-A01	49	Methanobacteria	Methanothermobacter thermautotrophicus (99)

 Total	49

Bacteria

 MET-BR-B01	79	Clostridia	Tepidanaerobacter syntrophicus (93)

 MET-BR-B02	5	Clostridia	Acetivibrio cellulolyticus (91)

 MET-BR-B03	4	Clostridia	Gelria glutamica (98)

 MET-BR-B04	1	Clostridia	Tepidanaerobacter syntrophicus (92)

 MET-BR-B05	1	Clostridia	Desulfosporosinus acidiphilus (95)

 Total	90

Bioreactor for H2 production

Bacteria

 HYD-BR-B01	47	Clostridia	Thermotalea metallivorans (99)

 HYD-BR-B02	10	Clostridia	Tepidanaerobacter syntrophicus (83)

 HYD-BR-B03	9	Flavobacteria	Schleiferia thermophila (88)

 HYD-BR-B04	5	Clostridia	Desulfotomaculum putei (99)

 HYD-BR-B05	5	Clostridia	Desulfotomaculum putei (89)

 HYD-BR-B06	4	Clostridia	Thermosyntropha lipolytica (94)

 HYD-BR-B07	4	Clostridia	Thermotalea metallivorans (99)

 HYD-BR-B08	3	Clostridia	Oxobacter pfennigii (92)

 HYD-BR-B09	3	Clostridia	Clostridium thermosuccinogenes (93)

 HYD-BR-B10	1	Clostridia	Anaerobranca horikoshii (98)

 Total	91


	Average (in days)	Within 1 week (in %)	Within 1 month (in %)	Within 3 months (in %)

All scientific fields	39	15	61	92

General	40	14	58	92

Natural sciences	34	17	66	94

Engineering	32	18	71	95

Mathematics and Computer sciences	33	18	69	95

Medicine	38	15	60	93

Public health	29	18	71	99

Psychology	50	12	46	90

Economics and Business	64	3	39	79

Social sciences	50	9	49	87

Humanities	47	10	52	90


Type or gene involved	Number	Mean, kb	Range, kb

Copy number losses : large

 Interstitial deletion	18	5,070	1,048–16,837

 Terminal deletion	14	5,273	1,218–13,593

 Unbalanced translocation	15	7,053	880–17,107

 Subtotal	47

Copy number losses: small

 DOCK8	24	299	97–431

 KANK1	3	369	184–670

 DOCK8 and KANK1	3	419	75–676

 EHMT1	16	417	22–790

 ASTN2	4	150	78–271

 FREM1	2	369	166–573

 STXBP1	1	592	NA

 COL5A1	1	370	NA

 GLDC	1	50	25–75

 TOPORS	1	337	NA

 CDK5RAP2	1	74	NA

Subtotal	57

Large copy number gains

 Trisomy 9p/proximal 9q	15	45,996	13,826–95,453

 9q duplications	6	12,172	6,277–18,399

 Unbalanced translocation	4	25,717	6,794–68,089

 Tetrasomy 9q and proximal 9q due to isochromosome	3	66,477	49,843–81,113

 Trisomy 9	2	140,833	NA

 Triplication	1	15,972	NA

 Subtotal	31

Complex chromosomal rearrangements (CCRs)

 Inverted duplication with terminal deletion of 9p	3	Deletion: 6,377; Duplication: 32,271

 Inverted duplication with terminal deletion of 9q	1	Deletion: 161; Duplication: 3,127

 Multiple deletion and duplication	2	Losses: 1091; Gains: 12,517

 Chromothripsis	1	Loss: 134; Gains: 21,094

 Subtotal	7

 Total	142


Age group of children (months)	Rotavirus status of Children

		Positive	Negative	Total	P-value

0-6	count	2	8	10

	% of total	1.3%	5.0%	6.3%

7-12	count	12	40	52

	% of total	7.5%	25.0%	32.5%	0.047

13-24	count	6	54	60

	% of total	3.8%	33.8%	37.5%

25-60	count	2	36	38

	% of total	1.3%	22.5%	23.8%

Total	count	22	138	160

	% of total	13.8%	86.2%	100.0%


Dataset		#Subjects	#Case	Platform	#SNPs

Croatia	(Before QC)	306	103	Illumina 550 K	561,466

	(After QC)	305	103		489,200

NINDS	(Before QC)	542	0	Illumina 550 K	561,466

	(After QC)	534	0		489,096

HGDP	(Before QC)	1,043	0	Illumina 650Y	660,918

	(After QC)	1,043	0		584,835

		Merged datasets

Croatia+NINDS	(After QC)	839	103	-	475,964

Croatia+HGDP	(After QC)	1,348	103	-	478,287


Species	Female	Male

Dichaetophora acutissima	20	25

Drosophila annulipes	31	27

Drosophila bizonata	31	31

Drosophila busckii	35	41

Drosophila curviceps	20	26

Drosophila hydei	11	20

Drosophila immigrans	41	41

Drosophila lutescens	14	42

Drosophila rufa	41	41

Drosophila sternopleuralis	42	42

Drosophila suzukii	22	19

Hirtodrosophila sexvittata	41	41

Liodrosophila aerea	41	41

Microdrosophila sp.	15	10

Scaptodrosophila coracina	5	34

Scaptomyza graminum	36	32


	Arabidopsis	Rice

Origin of nat-siRNAs	Total	Unique	Total	Unique

Entire NATs	33,826	17,059	162,397	56,209

 Introns in entire NATs	14,500	6,988	88,605	29,654

OR of NATs	10,429	6,532	27,852	10,761

Introns in OR of NATs	4,367	2,350	14,207	5,494


Sample	Potential (mV)	Dissolution Current Density at −400 mV (A cm−2)

No Exposure	−486.5	1.3 × 10−4

Arica	−574.7	4.0 × 10−4

Quintero	−611.1	12 × 10−4

Laja	−515.0	1.6 × 10−4

Antarctic	−548.7	4.6 × 10−4


					It is likely that people who

					have consumed bushmeat in

Variable	Response	Estimatea	SE	RVIb	the year prior to survey...

ARUc	yes	−0.652	0.218	1.00	are not ARUs

Marital status	single	0.619	0.216	0.99	are from single parent households

Benefit from MUPd	yes	0.424	0.172	0.95	have benefitted from MUP

Well‐beinge	somewhat bad	0.030	0.223	0.95	rate their lives average or somewhat bad

	worst	−0.644	0.319

Education	4 years or more	−0.309	0.174	0.45	have 3 or fewer years of formal education


Gene	GC% M. davidii	GC% P. alecto	Gene length M. davidii	Gene length P. alecto

IKZF1	49.6	53.2 / 51.5	1908	228/816

GPSM1	49.1	65.4	705	2118

SPRR1	44.0	47.1	339	342


Clinicopathological parameters	n	NgBR expression	P

Low	High

Age (y)

	≤ 54	47	22	25	0.051

	> 54	42	11	31

Gender

	Male	80	29	51	0.906

	Female	9	4	5

Hepatitis history

	No	27	8	19	0.474

	Yes	62	25	37

Cirrhosis

	No	27	8	19	0.474

	Yes	62	25	37

Tumor size

	≤ 5 cm	38	13	25	0.306

	> 5 cm	51	20	31

Tumor number

	Single	46	15	31	0.389

	Multiple	43	18	25

Vascular invation

	No	78	30	48	0.700

	Yes	11	3	8

TNM stage

	I + II	46	19	27	0.511

	III + IV	43	14	29


	Parameter

GROUP	Norepinephrine	Dopamine	Serotonin

Control	0.376 ± 0.07	1.45 ± 0.12	0.80 ± 0.115

Leaded gasoline	0.47 ± 0.086 a*	1.71 ± 0.14 a*	0.60 ± 0.043 a**

Unleaded gasoline	0.41 ± 0.036	1.35 ± 0.24 b**	0.385 ± 0.057 a*** b**


MIGS ID	Characteristic	Details

MIGS-28	Libraries used	2kb (pUC19) and 40kb (pcc1FOS) Sanger and 454 standard libraries

MIGS-29	Sequencing platform	ABI-3730, 454 GS FLX Titanium

MIGS-31.2	Sequencing coverage	1.1× Sanger 40kb insert, 31.3× pyrosequencing

MIGS-31	Finishing Quality	Finished

MIGS-30	Assembler	gsAssembler (Newbler) version 2.5.3

MIGS-32	Gene calling method	IMG-ER pipeline [27](CRISPR: CRT [28] and PILERCR [29];tRNAs: tRNAScan-SE-1.23 [30]; rRNA: RNAmmer [31];other genes: Prodigal [32])

	GenBank ID	CP003985, CP003986

	GenBank date of release	14.01.2013

	GOLD ID	Gi18068

	NCBI project ID	91121

	IMG Taxon ID	2512875001

MIGS-13	Source material identifier	DSM 10523T

	Project relevance	Sulfur cycle


Criteria	Percentage

WHO	61.43%

Not sure	17.14%

ADA	12.38%

IADPS	9.05%


	Coefficient of drug interaction (CDI)

Etoposide	Epirubicin	Doxorubicin	Vincristine	Colchicine

Ad5GS3	0.27	0.31	0.33	0.89	0.78

Ad5WS1	0.67	0.46	0.88	0.79	0.81


Wired	Wireless

High bandwidth	Low-medium bandwidth

High performance	Higher latency

Robust	Interference

Reliable	Unreliable by nature

Installation expensive	Installation cheap

“Unlimited” resources	Low power, memory

Static network	Mobile network

Less security problems	More security problems


Training section	Examples for tasks

Planning strategies	Shopping lists, key search of the BADS subscales, to get items out of a bottle, special wooden 3-dimensional jig saw

Mnemonics	Using memory hooks, writing of suitable mnemonics, and planning where to place them

Decision making	Computer tasks, painting

Set shifting	To solve various tasks according to changing rules, to calculate for 5 min, then to read for 10 min and to write for 5 min, or to switch tasks after every third answer, categorising items according to different rules

Calculation	Calculation tasks

Navigational skills	Finding the way through a maze on a screen, finding the way around obstacles on a paper or on a screen

Information speed processing	Connecting numbers or letters, connecting figures to an image, and finding the meaning of a fictive word

Summary	Extracting the relevant information from news or from a story or a short movie

Concentration	 Finding similar or dissimilar items


Gene		N	Mean ± SD	P-value (Mann-Whitney test)

APC	Cases	11	2.06 ± 2.6	0.3

	Controls	10	0.95 ± 1.31

ATM	Cases	9	0.5 ± 0.9	0.9

	Controls	10	1.48 ± 2.2


Variable	N

Age (yrs)	51	66.7 (12.0)

Sex (M/F)	51	26/25

MMSE	51	28.7 (1.4)

Education	51	5 (2)

NRS 50 kPa 	51	1.2 (1.6)

NRS 200 kPa 	51	2.9 (2.3)

NRS 400 kPa	51	5.0 (2.6)

Facial expressions 50 kPa 	51	0.4 (0.6)

Facial expressions 200 kPa 	50	0.7 (0.9)

Facial expressions 400 kPa	51	1.2 (1.4)

Stroop Word card (s)	51	55.9 (15.9)

Stroop Color card (s)	51	67.3 (20.1)

Stroop Color/Word card (s)	51	127.5 (95.2)

Zoo Map score	51	11.0 (4.0)

Digit Span Backward	51	5.8 (2.3)

AVLT immediate recall	51	38.6 (11.1)

AVLT delayed recognition	51	27.3 (2.9)

RBMT immediate story recall	51	7.5 (3.4)

RBMT delayed story recall 	51	6.3 (3.2)


Characteristic	Value

Blood flow (ml/min)a	421 ± 42

Time of utilization (h)	30.6 ± 21.0

Access pressure (mmHg)a	− 145 ± 14

Filter pressure (mmHg)a	301 ± 19

Return pressure (mmHg)a	154 ± 21

Heparin bolus at insertion (IU)	3100 ± 1330

Heparin (IU/kg/24 h)	230 ± 78

Activated partial thromboplastin time ratio	1.8 ± 0.6

Serious adverse eventb

 Nonfatal cardiac arrest	1 (5)

Study-related adverse event

 Mild hemoptysis resolved with stopping anticoagulationc	2 (10)

 Membrane clotting	10 (50)

Time it occurred (h)	20.0 ± 9.7


	N	Dog Owners(n = 43)	Non dog owners(n = 43)

Match Characteristics

 Gender (N female, %)	43	27 (63%)	27 (63%)

 Age at start of study (years)	43	69.9 (± 4.1)	70.2 (± 4.1)

 Ethnicity (N White British)	43	43 (100%)	43 (100%)

 Cat ownership (N yes)	43	4 (9%)	4 (9%)

Townsend Index	43

 1 (least deprived)		11 (26%)	11 (26%)

 2		15 (35%)	15 (35%)

 3		12 (28%)	12 (28%)

 4		4 (9%)	4 (9%)

 5 (most deprived)		1 (2%)	1 (2%)

Other Characteristics

 Distance between homes (km)	42	12.8 [22.8]

 BMI (kg.m−2)	43	25.4 (± 4.3)	25.8 (± 3.7)

 Participants reporting a chronic health condition at start of study	38/41	14 (37%)	15 (37%)

 Self-reported continuous walking distance (km)	38/37	6.1 ± (2.2)	6.5 ± (2.6)


FAK location	Parameter	Correlation co-efficient	p-value

Vessels	Patient age	0.096	0.246

 	Tumour size	0.089	0.28

Tumour cells	Patient age	-0.138	0.094

 	Tumour size	0.119	0.148


Parameters	DMFT index	H	Found p	p	Sig./N. sig.

Zn concentration, mmol/l (before stimulation)	<1	2.54	0.28	>0.05	N. sig.

1–6

>6

Zn concentration, mmol/l (after stimulation)	<1	3.56	0.16	>0.05	N. sig.

1–6

>6

Zn quantity, μmol/l (before stimulation)	<1	5.66	0.05	>0.05	N. sig.

1–6

>6

Zn quantity, μmol/l (after stimulation)	<1	7.99	0.01	<0.05	Sig.


Risk	Kupelian	D'Amico	Pound

Low	85%	83%	94-82%

Intermediate	65%	50%	72%

High	32%	28%	54%


	Days of pseudopregnancy

Cell Types	1	2	3	4	5	6	7

Luminal epithelium	+	+	+	+/-	+/-	+/-	+/-

Glandular epithelium	+/-	+	+	+/-	+/-	+/-	+/-

Stromal cells	-	-	-	-	-	-	-


Database name	Organization	Remarks	Relevance to investigation interests

National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)	CDC	Section on “Hearing/audiometry (AUQ) for 1 year and over, 1999-2012 with component or lab tests conducted on original sample description. In 2013-2014, there was no component/lab test conducted.	Yes

National Health Interview Survey Occupational Health Supplement (NHIS-OHS)	CDC	Does not contain any audiometric topics.	No

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)	National Center for Chronic	Option to respond ‘hearing problem’ as the major impairment that limits activities 1998-2002, 2013; Veteran’s Status included, 2003-2008, 2010-2012	Yes

Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP)

National Health Survey	CDC	Questions by family and individuals on hearing can derive some information about associations with the military, data available from 1997 onward. QOL is a supplemental (optional) component of the survey, available 2010-2012	Yes

Health and Retirement Study (HRS)	University of Michigan	Data from 1992-2014 on hearing status, employment, and QOL measures	Yes


Genes	Forward primer (5′–3′)	Reverse primer (5′–3′)

m-PAX2	AAGCCCGGAGTGATTGGTG	CAGGCGAACATAGTCGGGTT

m-WT1	CAGTTCCCCAACCATTCCTT	AAGCTGGGAGGTCATTTGGT

m-Brachyury (Bry)	ACCCAGACTCGCCCAATTTT	GGAAAGCAGTGGCTGGTGAT

m-CD24	GTTGCACCGTTTCCCGGTAA	CCCCTCTGGTGGTAGCGTTA

m-Osr1	ATTCACCCTAAGCCAGAGATCA	AGGCCAGGTTAGCGAAATCAA

m-Six2	CTCACCACCACGCAAGTCAG	CTCGGAACTGCCTAGCACC

m-Sall1	CTCAACATTTCCAATCCGACCC	GGCATCCTTGCTCTTAGTGGG

m-E-cad	CTCCAGTCATAGGGAGCTGTC	TCTTCTGAGACCTGGGTACAC

m-AQP1	AGGCTTCAATTACCCACTGGA	GTGAGCACCGCTGATGTGA

m-PDGFR	CCACACCCTTGGGGAATAGT	TTTGAAGGGCAAGGAATGTG

m-GAPDH	ACTTCAACAGCAACTCCCACTC	TAGGCCCCTCCTGTTATTATGG

r-IL-10	TAACTGCACCCACTTCCCAGT	TGGCAACCCAAGTAACCCTTA

r-bFGF	CGACCCACACGTCAAACTAC	CCAGGCGTTCAAAGAAGAAA

r-TGF-β1	GCCCTGGATACCAACTACTGCT	GTTGGTTGTAGAGGGCAAGGAC

r-EGF	CGTCTCAGTGGTCATGGATTT	TCAGAAGAACACGGGAATTGT

r-HGF	CTCTCGTTCCTTGGGATTATTG	GATCCCCCACAGATGTGTTTAT

r-PDGF	ATCGAGCCAAGACACCTCAAAC	ATGGGGGCAGTACAGCAAATAC

r-GAPDH	AGTGCCAGCCTCGTCTCATAG	CGTTGAACTTGCCGTGGGTAG


Locus no.	Putative identification	Avg fold difference

Mobile and extrachromosomal element functions: Transposon functions

PG0019	ISPg4 transposase	1.57

PG0050	ISPg4, transposase	1.81

PG0177	ISPg4, transposase	1.87

PG0194	ISPg3, transposase	2.18

PG0225	ISPg4, transposase	1.80

PG0261	ISPg3, transposase	2.20

PG0459	ISPg5, transposase	1.60

PG0487	ISPg4, transposase	1.98

PG0798	ISPg3, transposase	2.11

PG0819	Integrase	1.80

PG0838	Integrase	3.36

PG0841	Mobilizable transposon, excision protein, putative	3.78

PG0842	Mobilizable transposon, hypothetical protein, putative	2.84

PG0872	Mobilizable transposon, xis protein	3.87

PG0873	Mobilizable transposon, tnpC protein	9.34

PG0874	Mobilizable transposon, int protein	2.42

PG0875	Mobilizable transposon, tnpA protein	1.68

PG0970	ISPg4, transposase	1.79

PG1032	ISPg3, transposase	2.23

PG1061	ISPg6, transposase	2.03

PG1261	ISPg4, transposase	2.06

PG1262	ISPg3, transposase	2.11

PG1435	Integrase	2.77

PG1454	Integrase	1.88

PG1658	ISPg4, transposase	1.83

PG1673	ISPg4, transposase	1.77

PG2194	ISPg4, transposase	1.85

PG0461	ISPg7, transposase	−2.77

PG0277	ISPg2, transposase	−1.58

PG0865	ISPg2, transposase	−1.53

PG1746	ISPg2, transposase	−1.63

PG2176	ISPg2, transposase	−1.58

PG1350	ISPg2, transposase	−1.53


TCGA acronym	Cancer type	Paired samples	Unpaired tumor samples	Reference

BRCA	Breast invasive carcinoma	107	929	(3)

COAD	Colon adenocarcinoma	26	236	(1)

HNSC	Head/neck squamous cell carcinoma	38	384	(27)

KICH	Kidney chromophobe	21	41	https://tcga-data.nci.nih.gov/

KIRC	Kidney renal clear cell carcinoma	71	434	(4)

LUAD	Lung adenocarcinoma	57	431	(28)

LUSC	Lung squamous cell carcinoma	50	433	(2)

PRAD	Prostate adenocarcinoma	48	247	https://tcga-data.nci.nih.gov/

THCA	Thyroid carcinoma	58	439	https://tcga-data.nci.nih.gov/


Description	Number of features

Mean, range, interquartile range (x, y, z)	9

Moments: standard deviation, skew, kurtosis (x, y, z)	9

Histogram: bin counts of −2 to 1 z-scores (x, y, z)	12

Derivative of moments: mean, standard deviation, skew, kurtosis (x, y, z)	12

Mean of the squared norm	1

Sum of axial standard deviations	1

Pearson correlation coefficient, r (xy), r (xz), r (yz)	3

Mean cross products (raw and normalized), xy, xz, yz	6

Absolute mean of cross products (raw and normalized)	6

Power spectra: mean, standard deviation, skew, kurtosis (x, y, z)	12

Mean power in 0.5 Hz bins between 0 and 10 Hz (x, y, z)	60


Gene Ontology (GO) Name	Number of Genes Involve	Fold Change	Genes

Highly Expressed in Susceptible Group	Highly Expressed in Resistant Group

Negative regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase II promoter	21	2.0	ELK4, GATAD2A, KANK2, MNT, ARHGAP35, SMAD3, TAL1, CBX6, GFI1, HDAC4, NFATC2, RXRA, RUNX3, ZNF8	N4BP2L2, ANKRD2, BMP4, DUSP26, FOXH1, HSF4, IRF7

Ion transport	17	2.0	ATP7A, KCNA1, SLC39A10, TTYH3, TPCN1	ATP5E, ATP5I, FXYD1, CACNA2D4, CHRNA2, KCNK7, KCNJ15, SLC10A1, SLC22A17, SLC26A8

Protein phosphorylation	15	2.2	PDPK1, ATM, BCR, JAK3, SBK1, ACVR1B, EIF2AK3, HUNK, LMTK2, PRKCI, PDK4, RUNX3	DMPK, NTRK1, TEX14

Immunity	13	1.9	DDX3X, ETS1, JAK3, C3, ERAP1, LST1	CLEC4E, ISG15, S100A12, ZBP1, APOBEC3A, IRF7, PGLYRP1

Innate immunity	9	2.5	DDX3X, JAK3, C3	ISG15, S100A12, ZBP1, APOBEC3A, IRF7, PGLYRP1

Innate immune response	9	1.4	DDX3X, JAK3, APOBEC3A, F12	CLEC4E, S100A12, ZBP1, IRF7, PGLYRP1

RNA polymerase II regulatory region seq-specific DNA binding	9	2.9	GATAD2A, MNT, PRDM15, SMAD3, TAL1, RXRA, RUNX3, ZNF8	-

GTPase activation	9	3.4	AGAP1, ADAP1, BCR, ARHGAP23, ARHGAP35, TBC1D2B, TBC1D9, SIPA1L3	TBCD7

Peptidyl-serine phosphorylation	8	4.4	PDPK1, ATM, BCL2, RICTOR, EIF2AK3, LMTK2, PRKCI	DMPK

Rab GTPase binding	6	3.0	ERC1, RAB11FIP4, RAB29, TBC1D2B, TBC1D9	TBC1D7


Clinicopathological characteristic	Number (%)

Age, years

 Median	70

 Range	47–84

Sex

 Male	30 (85.7)

 Female	5 (14.3)

Smoking status

 Smoker	31 (88.6)

 Never-smoker	4 (11.4)

Histological subtype

 Pure SCLC	2 (5.7)

 Combined SCLC	11 (31.4)

 Pure LCNEC	8 (22.9)

 Combined LCNEC	14 (40.0)

Accompanied component in combined SCLC	Number (% in all combined SCLC)

 LCNEC	9 (81.8)

 Adenocarcinoma	4 (36.4)

 Squamous cell carcinoma	1 (9.1)

 Large cell carcinoma	2 (18.2)

Accompanied component in combined LCNEC	Number (% in all combined LCNEC)

 Adenocarcinoma	10 (71.4)

 Squamous cell carcinoma	6 (42.9)

 Large cell carcinoma	0 (0)


	RNA-Seq datasets comparison	number of DEGs

48 hai	96 hai

up	down	up	down

2Hb8	R NIL Fusarium inoculated – R NIL mock inoculated (R_F/M)	11	21	415	192

M69 Fusarium inoculated – M69 mock inoculated (M69_F/M)	45	167	1283	354

R NIL Fusarium inoculated – M69 Fusarium inoculated (R/M69_F)	350	80	321	426

R NIL mock inoculated – M69 mock inoculated (R/M69_M)	355	70	401	282

6Hb7	R NIL Fusarium inoculated – R NIL mock inoculated (R_F/M)	100	14	304	15

Lacey Fusarium inoculated – Lacey mock inoculated (Lacey_F/M)	12	53	693	227

R NIL Fusarium inoculated – Lacey Fusarium inoculated (R/Lacey_F)	66	36	5	10

R NIL mock inoculated – Lacey mock inoculated (R/Lacey_M)	12	89	4	19


Study name	Treatment arms	Time horizon (weeks)	Relapses	AE-related disc's	Non-AE-related disc's	Completers	Total Nr of patients	Nr of patients experiencing >7% weight gain (total Nr of patients)	Nr of patients experiencing EPS (total Nr of patients)

Kane (42)	Haloperidol depota	52	17	1	18	44	80	NA	NA

	Placebob	52	15	0	2	8	25	NA	NA

Kane (41)	Olanzapine pamoatec	24	68	21	91	419	599	100 (599)	52 (599)

	Olanzapine oral	24	23	8	33	258	322	68 (322)	28 (322)

	Placebob	24	42	6	20	76	144	12 (144)	12 (144)

Hough 2010 (38)	Paliperidone palmitate	31	36	3	28	139	206	12 (206)	21 (206)

	Placebo	42	97	2	27	78	204	6 (204)	12 (204)

Kane (40)	Aripiprazole once-monthly	52	27	9	31	202	269	17 (269)	45 (269)

	Placebo	52	53	5	15	61	134	7 (134)	14 (134)

Fleischhacker (37)	Paliperidone palmitate	53	95	29	100	155	379	50 (346)	67 (379)

	Risperidone LAI	53	56	25	105	184	370	52 (338)	76 (370)

Fleischhacker (39)	Aripiprazole once-monthly	38	22	8	39	196	265	42 (265)	52 (265)

	Aripiprazole oral	38	21	7	60	178	266	43 (266)	46 (266)

	Placebob	38	29	7	34	61	131	8 (131)	18 (131)


Compound	RRI a	S. boveanum 	C. myrica	H. flagelliformis

Heptadecane	1698	-	-	4.1 ± 0.63

Tetradecanoic acid methyl ester	1718	8.1 ± 0.7	20.3 ± 3.5	8.2 ± 0.9

9-(Z)-Hexadecenoic acid methyl ester	1900	4.0 ± 1.2	54.6 ± 36.3	-

Hexadecanoic acid methyl ester	1922	58.2 ± 4.5	165.7 ± 23.7	95.9 ± 11.5

9,12-(Z,Z)-octadecadienoic acid methyl ester	2094	-	5.8 ± 1.8	-

9-(Z)-octadecenoic acid methyl ester	2101	8.4 ± 2.4	30.1 ± 10.6	8.1 ± 1.2

9-(E)-octadecenoic acid methyl ester	2107	-	16.1 ± 2.0	7.9 ± 1.03

Octadecanoic acid methyl ester	2120	3.6 ± 0.7	11.9 ± 1.5	4.6 ± 0.3


Farm location	Goat breed	Feed type

Farm 1 (F1), Hulu Langat, Selangor	Saanen cross (SC)	Napier grass silageBarley sproutsDatesMulberry leavesCorn grainGoat pellet

Farm 2 (F2), Banting, Selangor	Saanen pure (SP)	Napier grass freshDairy bran

Farm 3 (F3), Hulu Langat, Selangor	Saanen pure (SP)	Napier grass freshGoat pellet 1Goat pellet 2

Farm 4 (F4), Sungai Buloh, Selangor	Saanen–Boer cross (SBC)	Napier grass freshGrower pelletBreeder pelletRice straw

Farm 5 (F5), Nilai, Negeri Sembilan	Jamnapari Koplo (JK)	Napier grass silageWide leavesSoy-bran mixture

Farm 6 (F6), Sungai Buloh, Selangor	Jamnapari Peranakan Etawa cross (JPEC)	Napier grass freshSoy wasteGoat pellet

Farm 7 (F7), Shah Alam, Selangor	Jamnapari–Toggenburg cross (JTC)	Napier grass freshMix grassesDairy bran

Farm 8 (F8), Jeram, Selangor	Jamnapari cross (JC)	Sarang Buaya grass (Ischaemum timorense Kunth)Mix bran


Study groups	N	Mean	SD	P-value

Live Demonstration	26	6.69	1.4	.864*

Procedural Video	23	6.78	2.1

Total	49	6.73	1.8


Resource	Connectivity Comments	Reference

BindingDB	Comprehensive ligand-target database, we now cross-reference selected patent extractions from this source	(43)

ChEMBL and UniChem	Inclusion of our target protein pointers and a ChEMBL look-up for our ligand entries loaded in UniChem	(2,44)

DrugBank	Target cross-references and chemical ontology connection via an API	(45)

ESTER	Alpha/beta hydrolase cross-references	(46)

GeneCards	Gene expression and functional data aggregator	(47)

GPCRDB	Specific pointers to their detailed features, curation of mutations, sequence display toolbox and residue numbering system	(48)

GUDMAP	Links to proteins involved in GenitoUrinary (GU) tract development	(49)

HGNC	Long standing and frequent interactions on target family nomenclature issues	(10)

IMGT/mAb-DB	Pointers to provenanced sequences for clinical antibodies, target interactions, display tools and residue numbering system	(50)

MEROPS	Feature details, classification, ligand mapping, other protease-specific issues	(7)

neXtProt	Data and features additional to Swiss-Prot, semantic mining technology	(51)

NURSA	Detailed NHR information including transcriptome mining functionality	(52)

Orphanet	Unique rare genetic disease curation and disease term connectivity	(53)

PubChem	Covering aspects of chemical curation, drug naming and our submitted structures. Plans for future peptide and BioAssay Links	(4,14)

UniProtKB	Maintenance of our own selectable cross-references to proteins with quantitative interactions	(5)

Wikipedia	Updating, adding new target and ligand links, including filling in ‘chemistry boxes’	(54)


Multivariate Cox regression

Factor	P	HR	95% CI

			Lower	Upper

INSS Stage (1-3, 4S vs 4)	0.002	7.15	2.08	24.64

NB-hypo	0.007	2.73	1.31	5.69

Age (< 1y vs > 1y)	0.801

MYCN (normal vs amplified)	0.671


Author (year) of published PCR assay	PCR target	PCR technique	Amplicon size (bp)	Zika virus lineage analytical	Zika virus lineage field	No. of human patients tested in studies	Sample types positive in field

Lanciotti et al. (2008)43	Zika virus prM/E,target 1	Hydrolysis probe	76	Asian, African	Asian	 > 200 (combined set)5,10,23,24,34,36,38,40–42,49,50	Serum, urine, amniotic fluid

Lanciotti et al. (2008)43	Zika virus E, target 2	Hydrolysis probe	76	Asian, African	Asian	 > 200 (combined set)5,10,23,24,34,36,38,40–42,49,50	Serum, urine, amniotic fluid

Faye et al. (2013)51	Zika virus NS5	Locked nucleic acid probe	102	Asian, African	African	3 (B Rockx, personal communication, February 2016)	Serum

Tappe et al. (2014)19	Zika virus NS3	Hydrolysis probe	94	Asian	Asian	519–22,25	Serum

Faye et al. (2008)52	Zika virus E	Conventional	364	African	Asian	 > 15 (combined set)53,54	Serum

Pyke et al. (2014)15	Zika virus NS1	Hydrolysis probe	65	Asian	Asian	155	Serum

Pyke et al. (2014)15	Zika virus E	Hydrolysis probe	71	Asian	Asian	155	Serum

Moureau et al. (2007)56	Flavivirus NS5	SYBR®-green-based	269–272	African	Asian	218,57	Serum, urine

Kuno et al. (1998)58	Flavivirus NS5	Conventional	1079	Asian, African	Asian	5159	Serum

Scaramozzino et al. (2001)60	Flavivirus NS5	Conventional (semi-nested)	220	African	Asian	155 (L Barzon, personal communication, February 2016)	Serum, urine

Maher-Sturgess et al. (2008)61	Flavivirus NS5	Conventional	800	African	Asian	115	Serum

Ayers et al. (2006)62	Flavivirus NS5	Conventional	863	–	Asian	117	Serum, urine, nasopharynx


Explanatory variable	OR	95%CI	P value

Presence of C allele in genotype at rs3173798 (Yes=1, No=0)	0.28	0.12–0.67	0.0043

Age (years)	0.97	0.93–1.02	0.27

Gender (female=1, male=0)	0.92	0.39–2.20	0.85

Pre-treatment BCVA (logMAR)	1.49	0.50–4.43	0.47

GLD (μm)	1	1.00–1.00	0.88


	The GP and the patient are a well-functioning team (n = 270)

	OR	95% CI	p-value

Age

 16–39	1.30	0.63–2.71	0.471

 40–59a	1.00	–	–

 60+	0.90	0.36–2.24	0.816

Education

 Primary	0.56	0.19–1.69	0.306

 High school	1.69	0.77–3.70	0.192

 University 1–4 yearsa	1.00	–	–

 University 5 years +	0.53	0.25–1.13	0.101

Self-rated degree of CFS/ME

 Mild	0.66	0.32–1.35	0.250

 Moderatea	1.00	–	–

 Severe/very severe	0.38	0.14–0.99	0.047

GP duration

 0–2 yearsa	1.00	–	–

 3 years+	2.32	1.09–4.95	0.030

GP frequencyb

 0 visits	0.75	0.27–2.10	0.590

 1–4 visitsa	1.00	–	–

 5–9 visits	1.13	0.56–2.29	0.730

 10+ visits	2.12	0.75–5.99	0.155


Age group	Patients, no.	%

Infant	9	0

Child	12	0

Adolescent	4	0


Patient	Breed	Age	Sex	Activity	Laminitis Stage	Venography Stage	Prognosis (before Treatment)

CASE 1	QUARTER HORSE	18	F	MARE	BILATERAL ROTATION	4	POOR

CASE 2	QUARTER HORSE	14	F	MARE	BILATERAL CHRONIC ROTATION	4	POOR

CASE 3	THOROUGHBRED	13	G	PLEASURE	MONOLATERAL SINKING AND ROTATION	4	POOR

CASE 4	QUARTER HORSE	10	F	PLEASURE	MONOLATERAL SINKING	3	GUARDED PROGNOSIS

CASE 5	WARMBLOOD	18	G	PLEASURE	BILATERAL SINKING AND ROTATION	3	POOR

CASE 6	WARMBLOOD	15	F	PLEASURE	MONOLATERAL SINKING AND ROTATION	3	POOR

CASE 7	DUTCH WARMBLOOD	21	F	PLEASURE	BILATERAL SINKING AND ROTATION	3-4	POOR

CASE 8	THOROUGHBRED	15	G	PLEASURE	MONOLATERAL ROTATION	3	POOR

CASE 9	PONY	16	G	PLEASURE	BILATERAL SINKING AND ROTATION	4	POOR


Clinical and epidemiological characteristic	Another malignancy	P

PostiodineN = 7 (46.66%)	PreiodineN = 8 (53.33%)

Males N (%)	4 (57.14)	3 (37.5)	0.6193

Age at thyroidectomy (years)*	61 ± 17	51 ± 13.7	0.2295

Follow-up period (months)**	75 (48; 336)	56.5 (20; 60)	0.1505

Age at diagnosis of a second neoplasia* (years)	69.4 ± 11.4	46.1 ± 20.2	0.0187

Classic nonpapilliferous histological type N (%)	3 (42.85)	2 (25)	0.6084


CONSENSUS CRITERIA FOR DEMENTIA CASE ASCERTAINMENT

PROBABLE DEMENTIA	POSSIBLE DEMENTIA

ANY of the following (without opposing evidence from same/other source):- dementia diagnosis on death certificate (any part)- dementia diagnosed on clinical review (ICD-10/DSM-IV)- dementia diagnosis in electronic general medical records (Trak)- dementia diagnosis in electronic psychiatric records (PIMS)- ICD-10 criteria for dementia diagnosis met by data within any existing records	ANY of the following (without opposing evidence from same/other source):- recorded cognitive impairment on death certificate- cognitive impairment/decline recorded in notes, but incomplete evidence to meet ICD-10 diagnostic criteria- possibility of dementia recorded in notes but no formal diagnosis/incomplete evidence to meet ICD-10 diagnostic criteria


(1) Memory	(2) Language	(3) Perceptual	(4) Visuospatial	(5) Calculation

Rey immediate recall	Semantic fluency 	VOSP X-detection	Barrage	Additions

Rey delayed recall	Phonological fluency	Benton	Spatial span	Subtractions

Recognition accuracy	Reading	Famous faces	H cancellation

 	Naming


#	Nugget Topic	Nugget Content (3rd ed.)

6.	Pharmacological management of neuropathic pain	Use a step-wise evidence-based protocol for the management of neuropathic pain in SCI, and review pain management annually.

10.	Diet & fluid management in neurogenic bowel	Refer spinal cord injured patients with persistent constipation to a specialist with experience with SCI or neurogenic bowel.

11.	Screening of colorectal cancer	Initiate colorectal cancer screening for patients with SCI using the same principles as those for the general population.

13.	Recognizing Urinary Tract Infections in SCI Patients	Diagnosis of UTI in SCI patients requires 3 criteria: (1) significant bacteriuria; (2) pyuria; and (3) signs & symptoms.

14. 	Pharmacological management of UTI in SCI	There is no superior agent or class of antibiotics for UTIs in spinal cord injury. Recurrent UTIs should be treated as complicated infections, and treatment must be customized to the patient and the infecting organism.

15.	Screening for Bladder Cancer	Routine screening for bladder cancer is recommended only for high-risk patients; that is those with indwelling or suprapubic catheters, complete lesions, >10 years since injury, bladder stones, or recurrent urinary tract infections.

17.	Treatment of Skin Breakdown	Treat Stage I or II wounds with standard wound care. Treat Stage III or IV wounds with specialist/surgical intervention.

20.	Wheel chair accessibility of your practice	Conduct an accessibility audit of your office or clinic space and procedures using the Primary Care Accessibility Checklist.


Sample	Number of lethality (%)

Tribolium castaneum	Rhyzopertha dominica	Callosbruchus analis

Crude extract	0.33 ± 0.57	3.3 ± 5.7	0	0	0	0

Chloroform 	1.33 ± 0.57	13.3 ± 5.7	4.66 ± 0.57	46.6 ± 5.7	0	0

Ethyl acetate 	0.66 ± 0.57	6.6 ± 5.7	6.66 ± 1.15	66.6 ± 11.5	6.6 ± 5.7	66.6 ± 0

n-butanol 	0	0	0	0	0.66 ± 0.57	6.6 ± 5.7

Aqueous 	0	0	1.33 ± 0.57	13.3 ± 5.7	0	0

Permethrin (standard)	10 ± 0	100	10 ± 0	100	10 ± 0.01	100

Saline	0	0	0	0	0	0


Costa	Argentina	Brazil	Chile	Colombia	Ecuador	Mexico	Peru

< 1	Rivaroxavan	Rivaroxavan	Rivaroxavan	Rivaroxavan	–	Rivaroxavan	Rivaroxavan

1–4	Apixaban, Indacaterol, Linagliptin, Ticagrelor	Apixaban, Roflumilast, Ticagrelor	Apixaban, Indacaterol	Apixaban, Indacaterol	Indacaterol	–	–

5–9	–	Belatacept	–	–	–	Azilsartan, Linagliptin	–

10–19	–	–	Belimumab	–	–	Apixaban, Ticagrelor	–

20–39	Aflibercept, Regorafenib	Aflibercept	Aflibercept	Aflibercept	–	–	–

40–59	Belatacept, Tofacitinib	Belimumab	–	Tofacitinib	–	–	–

60–99	Telaprevir	–	–	–	–	–	–

100–149	–	Telaprevir	–	–	–	–	–

150–200	Pasireotide	Pertuzumab	–	–	–	Tofacitinib	–

201–896	Ipilimumab, Vandetanib	Ipilimumab, Vandetanib	Ipilimumab, Taliglucerase alfa	–	–	Pasireotide, Pertuzumab	–


Origin	Methods	Dysregulated miRNAs	Study Details

Aortic stenosis

Aortic valve leaflets [24]	Microarray qPCR	Downregulated: 26a, 30b, 195	9 patients with BAV (AS vs. aortic insufficiency requiring AVR)

Aortic valve leaflets [26]	qPCR	Downregulated: 30b	10 AS patients requiring AVR (calcific vs. adjacent tissue)

Aortic valve leaflets [27]	qPCR	Downregulated: 148a-3p 	4 BAVs vs. healthy aortic valves

Aortic valve leaflets [28]	Microarray qPCR	Upregulated: 125b Downregulated: 374b*, 602, 939	20 calcific AS valves vs. 6 control valves

Aortic valve leaflets [25]	Microarray qPCR	Upregulated: 151-3p, 152, 030e, 032, 145, 768-5p, 190, 373* Downregulated: 141, 370, 022, 1972, 330-5p, 566-pre, 1469, 1908, 648-pre, 637, 1282, 622, 486-3p, 187, 1909*, 564, 027a, 194*, 125b-1-pre, 551a-pre, 575, 585-pre, 211-pre, 449b*, 124-3-pre, 185-pre, 1202	19 BAVs vs. 17 TAVs from AS patients requiring AVR

LV intraoperative biopsies [29]	qPCR	Upregulated: 133a	46 AS patients requiring AVR

LV intraoperative biopsies [31]	qPCR	Upregulated: 21	75 AS patients requiring AVR vs. 32 surgical controls

LV intraoperative biopsies [32]	qPCR	Downregulated: 1	5 AS patients before TAVI vs. healthy controls

Endomyocardial biopsies [33]	Microarray qPCR	Downregulated: 18b, 122	28 AS patients with severe myocardial fibrosis vs. non-severe fibrosis

LV intraoperative biopsies [30]	qPCR	Upregulated: 133a	74 AS patients requiring AVR

Mitral valve disease

Tissues from the right and the left atrial appendages [37]	Microarray qPCR	Upregulated: 4484 Downregulated: 1, 23b-3p, 26a-5p, 30c-5p, 125b-5p, 133b, 143-3p, 145-5p, 4454	18 rheumatic mitral valve disease patients (10 AF vs. 8 SR) requiring mitral valve surgery

Tissues from the left atrial appendage [36]	Microarray qPCR	Upregulated: 466, 574-3p, 3613-3p Downregulated: 1, 26a-5p 	12 patients with mitral stenosis (6 SR, 6 AF) requiring mitral valve surgery

Mitral valve leaflets [38]	RNA-seq	Upregulated: 656, 379-3p, 664a-3p, 34c-3p 	10 patients with myxomatous mitral valve vs. 10 controls

Mitral valve leaflets [39]	whole genome miRNA qPCR	Upregulated: 500, 3174 Downregulated: 17, 203, 505, 646, 939, 1193, 1273e, 4298	10 myxomatous mitral valve prolapse vs. fibroelastic deficiency


Variable	Base case value	Distribution	Parameters	Source/Notes

Probability of sustained virological response (SVR) in control group	0.02%	Beta	Alpha = 1 Beta = 559	Koretz et al.[23]

Log risk ratio (SVR: interferon versus no-intervention control)	2.9209 	Normal	Mean = 2.9209 Standard deviation = 1.0255	Koretz et al.[23] Note this yields a base case probability of SVR in the interferon group of 3.31%

5-year probability of death in no-intervention control group	6.72%	Beta	Alpha = 57 Beta = 791 	Koretz et al.[23] Annual probability therefore = 1.40% (= SRc in Table 2)

Log risk ratio (death: interferon versus no-intervention control)	0.3424 (0.1649)	Normal	Mean = 0.3424 Standard deviation = 0.1649	Koretz et al.[23] Note this yields a base case 5 year probability of death with interferon = 9.47%, annual probability = 2.01% = SRi in Table 2

Annual all-cause mortality by age	0.34% for 50 year male; 0.23% for 50 year female; 0.09% for 30 year male; 0.04% for 30 year female; 2.17% for 70 year old male; 1.41% for 70 year old female	Constant	Not applicable	Interim life tables (based on all reported deaths in the UK)[25], the sample size is assumed large enough for the standard error to be zero

Discount rate	3.50%	Constant	Not applicable	HM Treasury Green Book[26]


Tx-type; Cause of Death	< 12 months	> 12 months	p-value

Total: 278

SLTx (n = 97)

 Total number of deaths	17	51	0.158

 Death from Organ Rejection	2 (12%)	10 (20%)

 Death from Infection	4 (23%)	16 (31%)

 Death from Malignancy	1 (6%)	10 (20%)

 Death from Other Causes	10 (59%)	15 (29%)

DLTx (n = 172)

 Total number of deaths	16	47	0.388

 Death from Organ Rejection	4 (25%)	20 (42%)

 Death from Infection	4 (25%)	6 (13%)

 Death from Malignancy	1 (6%)	6 (13%)

 Death from Other Causes	7 (44%)	15 (32%)

HLTx (n = 9)

 Total number of deaths	1	4	0.576

 Death from Organ Rejection	0 (0%)	1 (25%)

 Death from Infection	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

 Death from Malignancy	0 (0%)	0 (0%)

 Death from Other Causes	1 (100%)	3 (75%)


Variable	Bivariate linear regression	Multivariate linear regression

Coefficient (95 % CI)	P-value	Coefficient (95 % CI)	P-value

Male gender	5.707 (2.887, 8.526)	<0.001	5.429 (2.517, 8.341)	<0.001

Age (in years)	0.988 (0.297, 1.679)	0.005	0.460 (−0.241, 1.160)	0.198

University educational program	0.716 (−2.252, 3.684)	0.636	-

Number of births managed during training	0.183 (0.074, 0.291)	0.001	0.164 (0.055, 0.273)	0.003

Felt classroom resources were available and helpful	−0.131 (−2.888, 2.626)	0.926	-

Felt number of instructors was adequate	2.191 (−0.565, 4.947)	0.119	2.428 (−0.529, 5.385)	0.107

Felt instructors were effective in facilitating learning	−2.469 (−5.217, 0.278)	0.078	−3.543 (−6.360, −0.726)	0.014

Felt instructors were fair and unbiased in assessing	−2.742 (−5.648, 0.164)	0.064	−2.794 (−5.710, 0.122)	0.060

Felt skills lab resources were available and helpful	3.593 (0.574, 6.612)	0.020	2.749 (−0.528, 6.025)	0.100

Felt number of skills lab assistants was adequate	2.835 (−0.171, 5.840)	0.064	2.239 (−1.043, 5.520)	0.181

Felt skills lab assistants supported students effectively	0.073 (−2.678, 2.824)	0.959	-

Felt number of preceptors was adequate	2.070 (−1.254, 5.395)	0.222	0.204 (−3.92, 4.321)	0.922

Felt clinical teachers and preceptors supported students	1.892 (−1.575, 5.359)	0.284	0.636 (−3.651, 4.923)	0.771

Felt clinical experience was sufficient	4.619 (1.915, 7.323)	0.001	4.650 (1.863, 7.437)	0.001


Post Hoc Test (1 mL)	Age group (i)	Age Group (j)	Mean Difference (μi − μj)	95% Confidence Interval

Lower	Upper

Scheffé’s *	51–60	21–30	0.152	−0.077	0.381

51–60	31–50	0.334	0.118	0.551

21–30	31–50	0.183	−0.020	0.385


Systemic organ class and preferred terma	Total (N = 209)

Number of Subjects (%)	Number of Adverse Events

Resistance mechanism disorders

 Infection susceptibility increased	1 (0.48)	1

 Polyomavirus infection	1 (0.48)	1

Gastro-intestinal system disorders

 Diarrhoea	5 (2.39)	5

 Stomatitis	3 (1.44)	3

 Stomatitis ulcerative	1 (0.48)	1

 Abdominal pain	2 (0.96)	2

 Nausea	1 (0.48)	1

Urinary system disorders

 Azotaemia	6 (2.87)	6

 Albuminuria	1 (0.48)	1

 Oliguria	1 (0.48)	1

Skin and appendages disorders

 Acne	1 (0.48)	1

 Rash	1 (0.48)	1

 Rash erythematous	2 (0.96)	2

 Dermatitis	1 (0.48)	1

Metabolic and nutritional disorders

 Diabetes mellitus	1 (0.48)	1

 Diabetes mellitus aggravated	1 (0.48)	1

 Plasma osmolality increased	1 (0.48)	1

Body as a whole– general disorders

 Edema peripheral	1 (0.48)	1

 Face edema	2 (0.96)	2

 Anaphylactic reaction	1 (0.48)	1

Liver and biliary system disorders

 Hepatic function abnormal	1 (0.48)	1

 Cholangitis	1 (0.48)	1

Musculo-skeletal system disorders

 Avascular necrosis bone	1 (0.48)	1

Secondary terms – events

 Transplant rejection	2 (0.96)	2

Respiratory system disorders

 Coughing (≥ 4 weeks)	1 (0.48)	1

White cell and RES disorders

 Leucopenia	1 (0.48)	1


Variable	Category	IIR	Non- IIR	Total

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

Age	≥ 35 years	31 (38.3)	31 (38.3)	62 (38.3)

Marital status	Married	74 (91.4)	72 (88.9)	146 (90.1)

Family type	Nuclear	38 (46.9)	47 (58)	85 (52.5)

Extended nuclear	13 (16)	10 (12.3)	23 (14.2)

Joint	30 (37)	24 (29.6)	54 (33.3)

Education	≥ Primary education	65 (80.2)	48 (59.2)	113 (69.7)

Literacy	Read and write	59 (72.8)	41 (50.6)	100 (61.7)

Household visit /week	Mean (±SD)	52 (±42)	42 (±68)	47 (±57)

Serving population	Mean (±SD)	255 (±134)	206 (±147)	231 (±142)

Focus group discussion held prior to join Mitanin program	Yes	54 (66.7)	60 (74.1)	114 (70.4)

Village meeting held prior to join Mitanin program	Yes	38 (33.3)	43 (53.1)	81 (50)

Prior work experience	Yes	14 (17.3)	09 (11.1)	23 (14.2)

Primary reason of join Mitanin program	Financial incentives	04 (4.9)	04 (4.9)	08 (4.9)

Opportunity to learn	07 (8.6)	06 (7.4)	13 (8)

Support village health facilities	23 (28.4)	13 (16)	36 (22.2)

Social prestige	01 (1.2)	01 (1.2)	02 (1.2)

Pressure from family and relatives	37 (45.7)	47 (58)	84 (51.9)

Other	9 (11.1)	10 (12.3)	19 (11.7)


	Parent, N = 100/217	Child, N = 63/130

Missing values (1st–3rd quartiles)	No missing values	No missing values

Response pattern	PF and HRQoL positively skewed	PF and HRQoL positively skewed

Floor effect, median

 PF	92.0%	90.5%

 HRQoL PhH	60.0%	71.4%

 HRQoL PsH	66.0%	69.8%

 Pain VAS	47.0%	36.5%

 Disease activity VAS	39.0%	36.5%

 Well-being VAS	48.0%	50.8%

Ceiling effect, median

 PF	0.0%	0.0%

 HRQoL PhH	4.0%	1.6%

 HRQoL PsH	0.0%	0.0%

 Pain VAS	1.0%	0.0%

 Disease activity VAS	3.0%	1.6%

 Well-being VAS	0.0%	0.0%

Items with equivalent item-scale correlation	87% for PF, 90% for HRQoL	73% for PF, 90% for HRQoL

Items with items-scale correlation ≥ 0.4	87% for PF, 100% for HRQoL	67% for PF, 100% for HRQoL

Cronbach’s alpha

 PF-LL	0.82	0.84

 PF-HW	0.74	0.89

 PF-US	0.64	0.47

 HRQoL-PhH	0.86	0.86

 HRQoL-PsH	0.85	0.76

Items with item-scale correlation lower than the Cronbach alpha	93% for PF, 100% for HRQoL	100% for PF, 100% for HRQoL

Test–retest intraclass correlation

 PF total score	0.60	–

 HRQoL-PhH	0.62	–

 HRQoL-PsH	0.97	–

Spearman’s correlation with JIA core-set variables, median

 PF	0.4	0.4

 HRQoL PhH	0.4	0.4

 HRQoL PsH	0.3	0.2

 Pain VAS	0.2	0.3

 Disease activity VAS	0.3	0.4

 Well-being VAS	0.3	0.4


	n (%) of sites

	Dacron (N = 38b)	PTFE (N = 19b)	Any material (N = 57b)

Bleedinga at 0 min

“No bleeding”	34 (89)	19 (100)	53 (93)

“Oozing”	4 (11)	0 (0)	4 (7)

“No bleeding” or “oozing”	38 (100)	19 (100)	57 (100)

Bleedinga at 10 min

“No bleeding”	37 (97)	19 (100)	56 (98)

“Oozing”	1 (3)	0 (0)	1 (2)

“No bleeding” or “oozing”	38 (100)	19 (100)	57 (100)


Variable	N	%

Child’s gender

Male	232	48.54

Female	246	52.46

Child’s age (months)

12–35	186	38.91

36–59	292	61.09

Child’s skin color

White	379	79.29

Non-White	99	20.71

Household income

>1 BMW*	338	74.78

≤1 BMW*	114	25.22

Mother’s level of education

≥8 years	268	56.78

<8 years	204	43.22

Father’s level of education

≥8 years	247	55.38

<8 years	199	44.62

Does the child brush his/her teeth?

Yes	434	90.99

No	43	9.01

Children’s dental caries

dmft = 0	317	66.32

dmft ≥ 1	161	33.68

Children’s previous visit to the dentist

Yes	112	23.68

No	361	76.32

Reason for dental visit

Preventive	82	67.77

Others than preventive	39	32.23

Type of healthcare system

Private	45	36.89

Public	77	63.11


Box D. Content validity (including face validity)

General requirements	yes	no	?

1	Was assessed if all items refer to relevant aspects of the construct to be measured?	□	□	□

2	Was assessed if all items are relevant for the study population? Considering e.g. age, gender, disease characteristics, country, setting	□	□	□

3	Was assessed if all items are relevant for the purpose of the application of the measurement instrument? i.e. (1) discriminative (distinguish between groups at one point in time), (2) evaluative (assess change over time), and/or (3) predictive (predict future values)	□	□	□

4	Was assessed if all items together comprehensively reflect the construct to be measured in terms of (1) content coverage and description of domains, and (2) the theoretical foundation?	□	□	□

5	Were there any important flaws in the design or methods of the study?	□	□


	Single cellular RNA sample	Pooled RNA sample	Pooled DNA sample

TNF-α	95	95	100

β2-MG	90	90	100

MIF	88	88	100

UBC	81	80	100


	cn/cn	cn/+

Growth plates studied	# Histologic sections	Range of # of sections per growth plate	Growth plates studied	# Histologic sections	Range of # of sections per growth plate

Humerus	12	46	(1–9)	8	23	(2–5)

Femur	7	31	(1–7)	7	31	(2–11)

Tibia	7	40	(2–12)	9	30	(2–6)

	26	117		24	87


	Parity

Measurements	0	1	2	3	4	5	6 or later

Number of serviced records	93,604	78,243	70,596	62,258	53,371	43,634	52,352

Number of first return records	11,458	8734	5625	4730	3772	2694	2614

First return occurrences, %	12.2	11.2	8.0	7.6	7.1	6.2	5.0

Number of second return records	2325	1324	834	695	490	297	290

Number of culled records after the second returna	246	142	87	105	68	55	49

Number of removed records after the second returnb	394	232	168	136	90	68	64

Number of SRB femalesc	532	235	145	104	70	34	38

SRB risk for first-served females, %	0.57	0.30	0.21	0.17	0.13	0.08	0.07


Kidney cancer dataset	CANOVA	Kendall	Pearson	Spearman	Hoeffding	Distance	MIC

Significant gene number	5901	11569	8239	11629	4953	10946	8081

Computing time (seconds)	24	65	32	32	44	~106	114


Biomolecule	Molecular weight (kDa)	Isoelectric point	Charge	Hydrodynamic radius (Å)	Amount (μg)

AcSDKP peptide	0.4	5.5	Negative	7a	1000

Insulin	5.73	5.3	Negative	13	111

PEG-QK	11.27	9.4	Positive	36.9a,b,c	27

Lysozyme	14.3	11.35	Positive	19.1	1200 (transwell) 350 (release)

VEGF	45.5	9.22	Positive	30.2	7.5

BSA	66.4	4.7	Negative	36.3	1200


Delivery system	Diameter (mm)	Headspace (ml)	Milk-to-air interface (cm2)

Gerber (G)	52	176	21.23

Ventaire (V)	54	183	22.89

Dr. Brown's (DB)	50	66*	19.63

Elan (EL)	67	180	35.24*

BornFree (BF)	65	127*	33.17*

Playtex Drop-Ins (PD)	56	158	24.62*

Avent Natural (AN)	66	205	34.19*

Control	52	74*	20.42


Dataset	Nematode hits 	Trematode hits 	Cestode hits

C. elegans proteins (Wormpep)	8457	345	280

S. mansoni proteins	3440	598	419

Human proteins	4539	408	326

NR protein database	10116	652	497

S. japonicum proteins	3456	612	416


Variables		Frequency	Percent

Abdomen palpated to rule out the presence of second baby	Yes	331	62.7

No	197	37.3

Uterotonic drugs given	Oxytocin	432	81.8

Ergometrine	61	11.6

Misoprostol	30	5.7

Not given	5	0.9

Dose of uterotonic drugs given	0.5 mg	24	4.5

10 IU	486	96.6

0.5 mg	12	2.3

Others	6	1.1

Route of uterotonic drugs given	IM	519	97.2

IV	9	1.7

Oral	6	1.1

Wait uterine contraction 2–3 min to apply CCT	Yes	243	46

No	285	54

Wait gush of blood	Yes	283	53.6

No	245	46.4

Counter cord traction applied	Yes	472	89.4

No	56	10.6

Placenta supported by two hands during placenta delivery	Yes	421	79.7

No	107	20.3

Membrane extracted gently with lateral movement	Yes	293	55.5

No	235	44.5

Uterine massage immediately after delivery of placenta	Yes	227	43

No	301	57

Uterine relaxation ensured	Yes	161	30.5

No	367	69.5

Inform and demonstrate the mother massage uterus	Yes	196	37.1

No	332	62.9

Skill	Skilled	173	32.8

	Not skilled	355	67.2


Cutoff	Results	African populationN (%)	Caucasian populationN (%)	p

AR ≥ 1%	Negative	22 (33.8)	22 (16.9)

Positive	43 (66.2)	108 (83.1)	0.008

AR ≥ 10%	Negative	25 (38.5)	27 (20.8)

Positive	40 (61.5)	103 (79.2)	0.009


Species	Title of publication	cDNAs used for reprogramming	Origin of cDNAs

Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta)	Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from adult rhesus monkey fibroblasts [24]	POU5F1, SOX2 KLF4 and MYC 	Rhesus

Common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus)	Generation of induced pluripotent stem cells from newborn marmoset skin fibroblasts [25]	POU5F1, SOX2 KLF4 and MYC 	Human

Common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus)	Generating induced pluripotent stem cells from common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) fetal liver cells using defined factors, including Lin28 [26]	POU5F1, SOX2, KLF4, MYC, NANOG and LIN28 	Human

Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta)	Reprogramming Huntington monkey skin cells into pluripotent stem cells [27]	POU5F1, SOX2 and KLF4 	Rhesus

Pigtailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina)	Efficient generation of nonhuman primate induced pluripotent stem cells [28]	POU5F1, SOX2 KLF4 and MYC 	Human

Cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis)	Development of histocompatible primate induced pluripotent stem cells for neural transplantation [29]	POU5F1, SOX2 KLF4 and MYC 	Human

Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta)	Generation of pancreatic insulin-producing cells from rhesus monkey induced pluripotent stem cells [30]	POU5F1, SOX2 KLF4 and MYC 	Rhesus

Pigtailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina)	Safeguarding nonhuman primate iPS cells with suicide genes [31]	POU5F1, SOX2 KLF4 and MYC 	Human

Drill (Mandrillus leucophaeus)	Induced pluripotent stem cells from highly endangered species [32]	POU5F1, SOX2 KLF4 and MYC 	Human

Cynomolgus monkey (Macaca fascicularis)	Induction of retinal pigment epithelial cells from monkey iPS cells [33]	POU5F1, SOX2 KLF4 and MYC 	Human


Age	Sex	Cause of death

60	F	Hemorrhagic stroke

56	F	Hemorrhagic stroke

25	M	Traumatic brain injury

40	F	Hemorrhagic stroke

50	F	Hemorrhagic stroke

28	M	Traumatic brain injury

43	F	Traumatic brain injury

20	M	Traumatic brain injury

58	F	Hemorrhagic stroke

20	M	Hypoxic brain injury

19	M	Traumatic brain injury

19	M	Traumatic brain injury

35	M	Hemorrhagic stroke

49	M	Hemorrhagic stroke

55	F	Hemorrhagic stroke

33	M	Traumatic brain injury

27	M	Traumatic brain injury

18	M	Traumatic brain injury

23	M	Traumatic brain injury

52	M	Hemorrhagic stroke

56	M	Hemorrhagic stroke

45	F	Hemorrhagic stroke

55	F	Hemorrhagic stroke


Predictor	B	SE	t

MEDIATOR—PERCEPTIONS OF INJUSTICE

Control: Negative affectivity	0.13	0.02	8.27***

Predictor: Observed incivility toward women	0.61	0.04	17.51***

Moderator: Observer gender	0.02	0.02	1.04

Interaction: Observed Incivility × Observer Gender	0.09	0.04	2.50*

OUTCOME—PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY

Control: Negative affectivity	−0.19	0.03	−6.25***

Mediator: Perceptions of injustice	−0.14	0.05	−2.68**

Predictor: Observed incivility toward women	−0.07	0.07	0.85

Moderator: Observer gender	0.54	0.03	16.58***

Interaction: Observed incivility × Observer gender	0.13	0.07	1.94†

Direct and indirect effects	B	SE	95% CI

CONDITIONAL DIRECT EFFECTS ON PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY

Men	−0.07	0.11	−0.15, 0.28

Women	−0.19*	0.08	−0.36, −0.02

CONDITIONAL INDIRECT EFFECTS ON PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY

(THROUGH PERCEPTIONS OF INJUSTICE)

Men	−0.10	0.04	−0.14, −0.00

Women	−0.07	0.03	−0.18, −0.00

Index of moderated mediation	−0.02	0.02	−0.07, −0.00


Source	Patients	Inclusion criteria	Antioxidant agent	Dose	Route	Endpoints	Followup	Events

CHAOS [106]	2002	Angiographically demonstrated CAD	Vit E	400/800 IU	PO	CV death + MI; nonfatal MI	510 d	CV death: 27 vit E, 23 pl; nonfatal MI: 14 vit E, 41 pl

WHS [107]	39876	Healthy women	Vit E	600 IU q48 h	PO	Composite endpoint (CV death, MI, and stroke)	10.1 y	CV events: Vit E 482, pl 517; CV death: Vit E 106, pl 140; MI: Vit E 196, pl 195

SPACE [108]	196	Hemodialysis CV disease pts	Vit E	800 IU	PO	Composite endpoint (MI, ACS, PAD, and stroke)	519 d	Composite endpoint: Vit E 15, pl 33;CV death: vit E 9, pl 15; nonfatal MI: vit E 8, pl 18

Tepel et al. [109]	134	Hemodialysis CV disease pts	Acetylcysteine	1200 mg 	PO	Composite endpoint (CV death, MI, PTCA/CABG, PAD, and stroke)	14.5 m	Composite endpoint: acetylcysteine 18, pl 33

Milman et al. [110]	1434	Diabetes mellitus Hp 2-2 genotype	Vit E	400 IU	PO	Composite endpoint (CV death, MI, and stroke)	18 m	Composite endpoint: Vit E 16, pl 33


Language version ofsurvey	Responses

English	17785

Spanish	1052

French	955

Russian	330

Chinese	265

Japanese	258

Arabic	18

Total	20663


 	Correlation coefficient (r)	P value

Tissue estriol-tissue OxLDL	0.36	 0.004

Tissue estriol-GW	0.25	 >0.05

Tissue OxLDL-GW	0.04	 >0.05

Tissue estriol-infant's birth weight 	0.39	 0.002

Tissue estriol-systolic BP 	−0.44	0.001

Tissue estriol-diastolic BP 	−0.48	0.001


Variable	N	Median	Mean	SD

Programs offering residential treatment*

 Average daily client census	49	26.0	43.4	59.0

 Client occupancy ratio (%)†	49	87.7	86.2	0.1

 Average length of stay (days)	47	96.0	118.8	92.8

 Daily residential reimbursement ($)	38	183.00	200.92	99.72

 Quality Score#	78	15.0	14.6	1.6

Programs offering outpatient treatment*

 Average daily client census	59	20.0	39.7	57.1

 Client occupancy ratio (%)†	47	50.0	55.9	0.3

 Average treatment duration (days)	47	120.0	131.7	92.8

 Daily outpatient reimbursement ($)	26	50.50	55.73	26.47

 Quality Score#	93	15.0	14.3	1.9


MMCO Metrics	Metrics Detail	MMCO V2.0 (Existing Work) [6]	MMCO V3.0 (Extended Work)

Metrics	Axioms	793	1092

Logical Axioms	624	859

Class count	45	225

Object Property count	3	25

Individual count	114	157

DL Expressivity	ALCO	ALCHOF(D)

Asserted Triples	0	3312

Inferred Triples	0	6041

Class Axioms	SubClassOf	32	222

Equivalent Classes	9	17

Disjoint Classes	5	14

Individual Axioms	Class Assertion	360	58

Object Property Assertion	212	27

Data Property Assertion	0	1


Canagliflozin (300 mg q.d.) and cyclosporine A (400 mg q.d.)

Parameter	Arithmetic mean (SD)	Geometric meana

Canagliflozin alone (n = 18)	Canagliflozin + cyclosporine A (n = 17)	Canagliflozin alone (reference) (n = 17)	Canagliflozin + cyclosporine A (test) (n = 17)	Estimated ratio (test/reference), % (90% CI)

Cmax.ss (ng/mL)	2,887 (735)	2,923 (467)	2,864.03	2,887.13	100.81 (91.31; 111.30)

AUCτ.ss (ng×h/mL)	22,158 (4203)	27,819 (5267)	22,243.50	27,355.78	122.98 (118.66; 127.46)

tmax.ss (h)b	2.00 (1.00 – 3.00)	4.00 (1.50 – 6.00)	–	–	–


Factor	HR	95 % confidence interval	P value

Acute kidney injury 3	7.35	2.15–25.07	0.001

Peripheral vascular disease	1.95	1.12–3.39	0.019

Chronic renal failure	1.59	0.96–2.62	0.07

Diabetes mellitus	0.83	0.49–1.40	0.48

Female gender	0.47	0.28–0.80	0.005


	MIC (μg/mL)

Formulation	MS-Lac	Estimated Gentamicin in Microspheres *

MS-Lac1	2.16	0.31

MS-Lac2	2.92	0.31

MS-Lac3	4.00	0.31


Variable	Adjusted PR (95%CI)	p-valuea

Housing area

Urban	1

Rural	1.15 (1.0-1.3)	0.030

School type

Municipal	3.30 (1.1-9.4)	0.026

State	3.40 (1.1-9.6)	0.022

Particular	1

School education of mother

Illiterate or up to the 4th grade	1.67 (1.1-2.4)	0.005

High school	1.54 (1.0-2.2)	0.023

Completed college	1

Flossing

Yes/daily	0.97 (0.8-1.1)	0.703

Sometimes	0.80 (0.7-0.9)	0.003

Never	1


Variable	Patients (%)

Gender

 Male	74 (71.8)

 Female	29 (28.2)

Age (y)

 Mean	58.3

 Range	26–75

Tumor location

 EGJ	41 (39.8)

 Body	27 (26.2)

 Antrum	35 (34.0)

Treatment

 FOLFOX	19 (18.5)

 SOX	46 (44.7)

 XELOX	24 (23.3)

 XP	6 (5.8)

 Other	8 (7.7)

Clinical tumor stage

 II	33 (32.0)

 III	70 (68.0)

Tumor regression grade (TRG)

 1a	8 (7.8)

 1b	9 (8.7)

 2	23 (22.3)

 3	63 (61.2)


Patients	n = 3191

Age, years	70 ± 10

≤65 years, %	30

66-79 years, %	54

≥80 years, %	16

Gender, male vs. female, %	43 vs. 57

BMI, kg/m2	23 ± 3

SBP at entry, mmHg	147 ± 17

Uncontrolled SBP (≥140 mmHg) at entry, %	66

DBP at entry, mmHg	83 ± 11

Uncontrolled DBP (≥90 mmHg) at entry, %	37

Uncontrolled SBP and/or uncontrolled DBP at entry, %	68

Diabetes, %	32

Smoking, %	12

Drinking, %	14


 	Progression-free survival	Overall survival

AUC (95% CIs)	0.71 (0.57–0.83)	0.65 (0.50–0.78)

Criterion (cut-off)	≥19%	≥13%

Sensitivity	73%	58%

Specificity	77%	70%

p value	0.0054	0.057


Patient characteristics	Value

Age (years), median (IQR)	38.0 (29.0–43.0)

Sex, n (%)

 Female	13 (68.4)

 Male	6 (31.6)

Race, n (%)

 White	19 (100)

Main comorbidities, n (%)a

 Hypertension	3 (15.8)

 Asthma	2 (10.5)

 Hypercholesterolaemia	2 (10.5)

Major features for TSC diagnosis, n (%)a

 Renal AML	19 (100)

 Facial angiofibromas/forehead plaque	15 (79.0)

 Cortical tuber	10 (52.6)

 Hypomelanotic macules (≥3)	7 (36.8)

 Subependymal nodule	7 (36.8)

 Non-traumatic ungual/periungual fibroma	4 (21.1)

 Single/multiple cardiac rhabdomyoma	4 (21.1)

 Lymphangiomyomatosis	3 (15.8)

 Connective tissue nevus	2 (10.5)

Minor features for TSC diagnosis, n (%)a

 Multiple renal cysts	11 (57.9)

 Multiple randomly distributed pits in dental enamel	3 (15.8)

 Bone cysts	3 (15.8)

 Non-renal hamartoma	2 (10.5)

 “Confetti” skin lesions	1 (5.26)

Sum of volumes of target renal AML lesions (cm3), median (IQR)	260.0 (127.8–322.2)

Volume of right kidney (cm3), median (IQR)	329.4 (193.0–979.7)b

Volume of left kidney (cm3), median (IQR)	299.0 (184.2–404.7)c


No.	IUPAC Name

BDE-209	Deca-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-208	2,2',3,3',4,5,5',6, 6'- nona-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-207	2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6,6'-nona-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-206	2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-nona-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-203	2,2',3,4,4',5,5',6-octa-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-196	2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6'-octa-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-190	2,3,3',4,4',5,6-hepta-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-183	2,2',3,4,4',5',6-hepta-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-181	2,2',3,4,4',5,6-hepta-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-155	2,2',4,4',6,6'-hexa-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-154	2,2',4,4',5,6'-hexa-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-153	2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexa-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-139	2,2',3,4,4',6-hexa-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-138	2,2',3,4,4',5'-hexa-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-100	2,2',4,4',6-penta-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-99	2,2',4,4',5-penta-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-85	2,2',3,4,4'-penta-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-77	3,3',4,4'-tetra-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-47	2,2',4,4'-tetra-bromodiphenyl ether

BDE-28	2,4,4'-Tri-bromodiphenyl ether


	Appearance

Rich looking/smart/elegant	Liked the colors

Different	Simple/neat

Looks cold/refreshing/clean	Eye-catching/bold

Bright	Attractive

Happy	Modern and up-to-date

Ordinary	Plain

Similar to others	Cheap looking

Dull/drab	Unattractive

Messy/chopped up/gaudy/cluttered

	Functionality

Was easier to open	Did a better job keeping tobacco out of your pocket or purse

Was easier to close	Did a better job of keeping cigarettes from spilling out

Protected the cigarettes better	Did a better job of keeping cigarettes fresh

Was more pleasing to look at	Did a better job of keeping cigarettes from being crushed

Felt more comfortable in your hand	Was more different from other cigarette packages

Fit better in your pocket or purse


	Arm A IRI+LV+5FU	Arm B LV+5FU	P (log-rank)

Disease-free survival (DFS)			0.436

 Progressions, n (%)	110 (24.9)	112 (25.9)

 Median (months)	Not reached yet	Not reached yet

 three-year DFS (%)	78	76

 five-year DFS (%)	70	68

 seven-year DFS (%)	66	63

Overall survival (OS)			0.334

 Deaths, n (%)	118 (26.8)	128 (29.6)

 Median (months)	Not reached yet	Not reached yet

 three-year OS (%)	88	86

 five-year OS (%)	78	76

 seven-year OS (%)	72	69


Deliveries in six months	Total number %	Without malformation number %	With malformation number %

Ayder referral hospital	503**	33	484	32	19	3.8

Mekelle hospital	1013**	67	1000	66	13	1.3

Males	684	45	662*	44	22*	3.2

Females	832	55	822	54	10	1.2

LBW	822	54	800	97	22	2.7

LBW Male	374	25	362	97	12	3.2

LBW Female	448	30	438	98	10	2.2

VLBW	530	35	515	97	15	2.8

VLBW Male	243	16	238	98	5	2.1

VLBW Female	287	19	277	97	10	3.5

Total deliveries	1516	100	1484	98	32	2.1


Author	Year	Population	Sample size	Method	Cut-off	miRNA	Survival analysis	Source of HR	Follow-up (month)

Luo	2015	China	88	qRT-PCR	Median	miR-26b	OS, RFS	Reported	mean 74 (5.12-98.5)

Safari	2015	Iran	40	qRT-PCR	Median	miR-20a	OS	DE	100

						miR-10a	OS	DE

Wang C	2015	China	138	qRT-PCR	Median	miR-335	OS, RFS	Reported, DE	Mean 71(23-117)

Wang Q	2015	China	114	qRT-PCR	Median	miR-145	OS	Reported	median 47(11-69)

He	2014	China	73	qRT-PCR	ROC curve	miR-107	OS, DFS	DE	median 68.4

						miR-130a	OS, DFS	DE

Liang	2014	China	335	qRT-PCR	X-tile algorithm	miR-215	DFS	Reported	60

Ma	2014	China	60	qRT-PCR	ROC curve	miR-205	OS	Reported	60

Park	2014	Korea	45	qRT-PCR	2.5-fold	miR-363-3p	OS	Reported	60

Wang	2014	China	54	qRT-PCR	Median	miR-31	OS	Reported	60

Yang	2014	China	133	qRT-PCR	Median	miR-126	OS	Reported	60

Luo	2013	China	60	qRT-PCR	Mean	miR-497	OS, DFS	Reported, DE	60

Shen	2013	China	126	qRT-PCR	Median	miR-224	OS	DE	median 51.9

Huang	2012	China	44	qRT-PCR	Mean	miR-125b	OS	Reported	mean 23.6 (2-70)

						miR-100	OS	Reported

						miR-143	OS	DE

						miR-145	OS	DE

						miR-199a-5p	OS	DE


 	Mean (±SD) nuclear gray level

Normal urothelium (NU), global	106±15

NU, superficial epithelial layer	104±15

NU, intermediate cell layers	106±15

NU, basal cell layer	108±14

Urothelial carcinoma (UC), global	100±15

UC, nuclei not adjacent to the stroma	101±15

UC, nuclei adjacent to the stroma	99±16


Study Authors	Best Model/Main Finding	Subsequent Criticisms

Hubbell (2001)	ZSM	Goodness of fit only determined by graphical observation.

McGill (2003)	ZSM does not fit the data better than the lognormal	Used simulations to fit the ZSM

Volkov et al. (2003)	Derived an analytical solution for the ZSM and found the ZSM provided the best fit	Analytical equations did not represent the full solution as they applied solely to the mean number of species in a given class (Etienne and Olff 2004)

Vallade and Houchmandzadeh (2003)	Published a full analytical solution for the ZSM	Equations were later determined to be flawed (i.e., they applied the mean number of species in a given class) and were corrected by Etienne and Alonso (2005)

Alonso and McKane (2004)	Developed a different analytic solution	Rigorous fitting of the ZSM required likelihood methods

Etienne and Olff (2004)	Found slightly better support for the lognormal using a Bayesian approach

Etienne (2005)	Published the correct analytical solution and sampling formula. Two forms of the likelihood equations exist: (a) Ewens’ (1972) sampling formula of neutral alleles is used in the case of no dispersal limitation and (b) Etienne's (2005) formula in cases of dispersal limitation

Etienne and Alonso (2005)	Unified two different approaches to arrive at the full analytical solution: the genealogical approach (Etienne 2005) and master equation-based approach (e.g., Alonso and McKane 2004)

McGill et al. (2006)	Compared nine goodness-of-fit measures with the BCI data and found that for eight out of the nine measures the lognormal outperformed the ZSM

Jabot and Chave (2011)	Built on Etienne's (2005) maximum likelihood framework to develop a more robust test of neutrality incorporating the SAD of Hubbell's SINM and Shannon's index. The SAD of the BCI 50-ha plot did not significantly differ from neutrality; however, the SADs of smaller scale subplots from within the BCI plot were significantly non-neutral

Rosindell and Cornell (2013)	(a) The gamma and negative binomial distributions provided a better fit than the ZSM (b) The SENM predicts SADs which are more realistic than those from the SINM


Function units	Known or possible role	References

ULK1 complex

ULK1	Binds with ATG13, ATG101, and FIP200	[19, 20, 163]

ATG13	Bridges the interaction of ULK1 and FIP200; is required for the localization and stability of ULK1 and stimulates the kinase activity of ULK1	[164]

ATG101	Interacts with ULK1 in an ATG13-dependent manner; regulates the stability and basal phosphorylation of ATG13 and ULK1	[24, 25, 164]

FIP200	Scaffold protein, binds with ULK1 and ATG13; is required for proper localization, stability and kinase activity of ULK1	[19, 20, 29, 164, 165]

PI3K complex III

Beclin 1	BH3-only protein; interacts with Bcl-2	[28, 29, 39]

ATG14L	Enhances Vps34 lipid kinase activity, upregulates autophagy	[28, 30]

hVps15	Ser/Thr protein kinase, is required for Vps34 membrane association	[166]

Vps34	PI3K, forms Phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate (PI3P) for autophagy	[167, 168]

ATG12 conjugation system

ATG5	Forms isopeptide bond with ATG12	[31, 169]

ATG12	Ubiquitin-like protein; forms isopeptide bond with Atg5 conjugation	[31, 169]

ATG7	E1-like activating enzyme, catalyzes ATG12–ATG5 and LC3-II-PE conjugation	[31]

ATG10	E2-like activating enzyme; catalyzes ATG12–ATG5	[31]

ATG16L1	Conjugates to ATG12-ATG5 complex	[170]

LC3 conjugation system

LC3	Ubiquitin-like protein, conjugates to PE, an important marker of autophagy	[34, 171]

ATG4	Cysteine protease, regulates the level of free LC3-I	[31, 34]

ATG7	E1-like activating enzyme, catalyzes ATG12–ATG5 and LC3-II-PE conjugation	[31, 34]

ATG3	E2-like conjugating enzyme analog, catalyzes LC3-II-PE conjugation	[31, 34]

Other essential proteins

WIPI-2	Mammalian homolog of yeast Atg18, a PI3P-binding protein, facilitates LC3 lipidation	[35, 172]

ATG2	Probably plays an essential role at late step of autophagosome formation	[29, 36]

ATG9	The only known transmembrane protein, may contribute to membrane recruitment	[37]


Factors of associationa	All (n = 3458)	Uganda (n = 491)

Adjusted OR	95 % CI	P value	Adjusted OR	95 % CI	P value

UC allocation by sleeping place (vs by people)	1.63	1.07–2.48	0.025	1.60	1.02–2.52	0.042

Wealth quintile

 Lowest	1.00		<0.001	1.00		0.172

 Second	1.09	0.78–1.53	1.21	0.59–2.46

 Middle	1.39	1.01–1.91	1.40	0.72–2.71

 Fourth	1.66	1.19–2.31	1.48	0.76–2.91

 Highest	1.91	1.37–2.64	2.79	1.20–6.53

Household of four people or more (vs three or less)	0.25	0.18–0.35	<0.001	0.42	0.24–0.76	0.005

Household with any child under five (vs no child under five)	0.37	0.30–0.47	<0.001	0.20	0.10–0.38	<0.001


Set	Description	Min	Max	Mean	Median	St.dev.

1	Training Set (32 articles)	4	147	19	14	24

2	Test Set (50 articles – gold standard)	0	375	33	19	63

3	Test Set (507 articles – silver standard)	0	375	18	12	27


 	Intervention armn/N(%, 95% CI)	Standard invitation armn/N(%, 95% CI)

Possible unintended consequences

Parents made an informed decision	28/54 (51.9, 26.7–76.1)	9/33 (27.3, 7.6–63.2)

Acceptability

Incentives are a good idea	42/59 (71.2, 47.7–87.0)	25/35 (71.4, 45.0–88.4)

Possible mechanisms of action

Very/quite motivated to return the form	105/200 (52.5, 35.0–69.4)	101/191 (52.9, 45.7–59.9)

Very easy/easy to remember to return the form	154/201 (76.6, 43.5–93.3)	133/193 (68.9, 63.6–73.8)

Returning the form is very/quite important	125/203 (61.6, 39.7–79.6)	131/194 (67.5, 59.1–74.9)

Gave consent form to parents the same day they received it from school	141/202 (69.8, 47.6–85.5)	111/193 (57.5, 52.3–62.5)


Cluster	n	%	Cluster group1	Pulsotype	n	%	Pulsotype group1

C1	6	3.2	Less common	C1a	3	1.6	Less common

 	 	 	 	C1b	1	0.5	Rare

 	 	 	 	C1c	2	1.0	Rare

C2	1	0.5	Rare	C2a	1	0.5	Rare

C3	18	9.7	Less common	C3a	17	9.2	Less common

 	 	 	 	C3b	1	0.5	Rare

C4	1	0.5	Rare	C4a	1	0.5	Rare

C5	1	0.5	Rare	C5a	1	0.5	Rare

C6	1	0.5	Rare	C6a	1	0.5	Rare

C7	1	0.5	Rare	C7a	1	0.5	Rare

C8	2	1.0	Rare	C8a	2	1.0	Rare

C9	1	0.5	Rare	C9a	1	0.5	Rare

C10	5	2.7	Less common	C10a	3	1.6	Less common

 	 	 	 	C10b	1	0.5	Rare

 	 	 	 	C10c	1	0.5	Rare

C11	82	44.3	Common	C11a	79	42.7	Common

 	 	 	 	C11b	1	0.5	Rare

 	 	 	 	C11c	2	1.0	Rare

C12	1	0.5	Rare	C12a	1	0.5	Rare

C13	1	0.5	Rare	C13a	1	0.5	Rare

C14	1	0.5	Rare	C14a	1	0.5	Rare

C15	54	29.2	Common	C15a	8	4.3	Less common

 	 	 	 	C15b	40	21.6	Common

 	 	 	 	C15c	6	3.2	Less common

C16	1	0.5	Rare	C16a	1	0.5	Rare

C17	7	3.8	Less common	C17a	3	1.6	Less common

 	 	 	 	C17b	3	1.6	Less common

 	 	 	 	C17c	1	0.5	Rare

C18	1	0.5	Rare	C18a	1	0.5	Rare


Elements	GP (genome proportion, %)

Retrotransposon	11.05

 Copia	5.81

 Gypsy	4.88

 LINE/SINE	0.33

 Unclassified LTR	0.03

Transposon	1.41

 hAT	0.93

 Mutator	0.27

 DNA/CMC-EnSpm	0.10

 Tc1-Mariner	0.11

rDNA	4.32

Satellite	12.93

Unclassified	1.02

Total	30.73


Characteristic	Non-recurrent	Metachronous metastasis	p-value1

absolute	%	absolute	%

Total number	33	 	12

Age [years]	n.s.

Mean	65	 	68

Median	67	 	67

Disease-free survival time [months]	0.000

Mean	78	 	17

Median	77	 	13

Gender	 	 	 	 	n.s.

Female	14	42,4	8	66,7

Male	19	57,6	4	33,3

UICC stage	n.s.

I	6	18,2	2	16,7

II	18	54,5	8	66,7

III	9	27,3	2	16,7

Location	n.s.

Colon	14	42,4	5	41,7

Sigma	16	48,5	4	33,3

Rectum	3	9,1	3	25


	Cortical region

1	Banks of the superior temporal sulcus

2	Caudal anterior cingulate

3	Caudal middle frontal

4	Cuneus

5	Entorhinal

6	Frontal pole

7	Fusiform

8	Inferior parietal

9	Inferior temporal

10	Insula

11	Isthmus of the cingulate

12	Lateral occipital

13	Lateral orbitofrontal

14	Lingual

15	Medial orbitofrontal

16	Middle temporal

17	Parahippocampal

18	Paracentral

19	Pars opercularis

20	Pars orbitalis

21	Pars triangularis

22	Peri-calcarine

23	Postcentral

24	Posterior cingulate

25	Precentral

26	Precuneus

27	Rostral anterior cingulate

28	Rostral middle frontal

29	Superior frontal

30	Superior parietal

31	Superior temporal

32	Supra-marginal

33	Temporal pole

34	Transverse temporal


	Healthy weight	Increased weight

Persistent oligoarthritis	95 (90.5)	10 (9.5)

ERA	55 (68)	26 (32)

Poliarthritis RF (+)	46 (78)	13 (22)

Systemic	28 (90.5)	1 (9.5)

Undifferentiated	17 (81)	4 (19)

Psoriatic	16 (100)	0 (0)

Extended oligoarthritis	8 (89)	1 (11)

Poliarthritis RF (-)	4 (80)	1 (20)


Function	Genes		Fold change

Intestinal peptides	GIP	Glucose inhibitory peptide	−1.72

GKN1	Gastrokine 1	−1.54

GKN2	Gastrokine 2	−1.51

VIP	Vasoactive intestinal polypeptide	1.30

Inflammation and oxidative stress	PTGS2	Prostaglandin-endoperoxide synthase – COX-2	1.20

DUSD1	Dual specificity phosphatase 1	1.37

S100A8	S100 calcium binding protein A8	1.59

S100A9	S100 calcium binding protein A9	1.51

IL1B	Interleukin 1 beta	1.21

GPX8	Glutathione peroxidase 8	1.21

FOS	Cellular oncogene c-Fos	1.55

JUN	Jun proto-oncogene	1.32

Transporters	SLC28A2	Sodium-coupled nucleoside transporter	−1.68

SLC2A3	Facilitated glucose transporter 3	1.25

Extracellular matrix	MUC5AC	Mucin 5 AC	−1.58

MUC2	Mucin 2	−1.32

MUC6	Mucin 6	1.21

MMP7	Metalloproteinase 7	1.27

VIL1	Villin 1	−1.22

Digestive functions	PGA5	Pepsinogen A	−1.97

LCT	Lactase	1.76

GLB1	β-galactosidase	−1.21

PNLIPRP2	Pancreatic lipase	1.30

PRSS1	Trypsin 1	1.24

ELA3A	Elastase	1.25

Immunity	GP2	Glycoprotein 2	1.38

HLA-A	Major histocompatibility complex class I A	2.63

HLA-C	Major histocompatibility complex class I C	−1.20

HLA-F	Major histocompatibility complex class I F	−1.28

HLA-DQA1	Major histocompatibility complex class II DQ alpha 1	1.38

HLA-DQB1	Major histocompatibility complex class II DQ beta 1	1.22

HLA-DRB1	Major histocompatibility complex class II DR beta 1	−1.35

HLA-DRB4	Major histocompatibility complex class II DR beta 4	1.39

Cholesterol homeostasis	LDLR	Low density lipoprotein receptor	1.30

APOD	Apolipoprotein D-III	1.20

APOA1	Apolipoprotein A-I	−1.37


 	Hospital plan for follow-up

General practitioner (n = 23)	Specialist health service (n = 66)

Hospital guidelines for follow-up	General practitioner (n = 11)	3	8

Specialist health service (n = 78)	20	58


Viral Systems	Copolymers	Genes	Targets	Administration	Observations	References

rAAV	Pluronic® F127	GM-CSF	solid tumors	in vivo intratumoral infusion (mouse)	higher efficiency by combining DC, local tumor irradiation and controlled supply of recombinant mGM-CSF with Pluronic®	[77]

	Pluronic® F68	lacZ	adipose tissue	in vivo inguinal (mouse)	increased transgene expression after 4 weeks	[78]

	Pluronic® F127	lacZ	cartilage	in vitro hMSCs	controlled release of rAAV for high efficiencies over time and gene expression levels similar to those achieved by direct vector application	[80]

	Pluronic® F68, Tetronic® 908	RFP, lacZ, and SOX9	cartilage	in vitro hMSCs	encapsulation of rAAV in polymeric micelles for effective, durable, and safe modification of hMSCs; restoration of hMSC transduction in conditions of gene transfer inhibition; effective chondrogenesis	[79]

	Pluronic® F68, Tetronic® 908	lacZ	cartilage	in vitro hOACs in situ human osteochondral model	micellar encapsulation for increased stability and bioactivity of rAAV; high levels of safe transgene expression in vitro and in experimental osteochondral defects in situ	[81]

	Pluronic® F68, Tetronic® 908	TGF-β	cartilage	in vitro hOACs in situ human osteochondral model	increased levels of transgene expression compared with free vector treatment; high proteoglycan deposition and increased cell numbers in hOACs in vitro; high deposition of type-II collagen and reduced hypertrophy in osteochondral defects models in situ	[82]

	Pluronic® F68, Tetronic® 908	lacZ	cartilage	in vitro hMSCs	high concentrations of rAAV; sustained levels of transgene expression over time	[92]


	Dispensation rate of generics	P

Pre-adoption[% (drugs/total drugs)]	Post-adoption[% (drugs/total drugs)]

All drugs subjected to analysis	48.3 (447/926)	57.7 (604/1046)	< 0.001*

Drugs that have the same ingredients or different ingredients as the newly adopted generic drugs

 Drugs with same ingredients	44.7 (135/302)	64.0 (217/339)	< 0.001*

 Drugs with different ingredients	50.0 (312/624)	54.7 (387/707)	0.094

Priscribing facility

 Gifu Municipal Hospital	47.5 (197/415)	66.5 (254/382)	< 0.001*

 Other hospitals/clinics	48.9 (250/511)	52.7 (350/664)	0.219


Descriptor	P-values

	Not ranked	30 Top-ranked	20 Top-ranked

C	1.2 e-1	5.8 e-1	5.6 e-1

D	5.1 e-3	2.6 e-1	2.4 e-1

Variance	9.0 e-2	3.4 e-1	5.7 e-1


Migraine Triggers	N	%

Identified any Triggers	3416	82.9

Stress	2669	55.8

Environment (weather, etc...)	2870	60.0

Lack of Sleep	2484	51.9

Hormones/menstrual cycle	1792	37.4

Certain food drink	2138	44.7

Missing meals	1884	39.4

Certain smell	2046	42.7

Alcohol/drugs	1235	25.8

Physical Activity	1241	25.9

Sexual Activity	325	6.8

Other	739	15.4

Steps taken to avoid triggers	3033	63.4


Group	Cohesive fracture in tooth	Cohesive fracture in laminate	Adhesive	Mixed cohesive and adhesive

Control	5	1	0	5

SC	4	0	3	4

LC	1	0	5	4

Total	10	1	8	13


PAMAM dendrimer generation (G)	Terminal amines (#)	Naked dendrimer molecular weight (kDa)	Gd-G5-doxorubicin dendrimer molecular weight (kDa)	Gd-DTPA conjugation (%)	Doxorubicin conjugation (%)	Molar relaxivity (mM-1s-1)

G5	128	29#	85‡	48.1	7.8	10.1&


Temperature E (°C)	Dry weight of mycelial mat (mg/flask)	Protein content (mg/ml)	Cellulase

aFPase (FPU/ml)	bCMCase (U/ml)	cΒ-glucosidase (U/ml)

25 °C	293	1.02	-nd-	4.56	0.62

30 °C	457	2.12	2.03	9.83	1.04

37 °C	457	2.12	1.62	6.24	0.99


Age MTfer	Mean age	Number

Posetive	50.75	4

Negative	40.60	42

Total	41.48	46


Health centre	# fulltime professionals in labour ward	Midwives	Obstetric bed	Delivery couch	# deliveries in the last month

Woreda 7	6	6	4	2	40

Bole 17	10	8	11	2	68

Woreda 9,NSLSC	5	3	10	1	52

Saris	8	3	8	4	53

Teklehaymanot	6	6	4	2	25

Kebena	6	6	5	2	18

Meshualekiya	5	5	6	2	27

Shiromeda	5	5	8	2	33

Entoto 1	9	4	8	3	67

Woreda 9, KKSC	12	6	7	2	122

Total	72	52	71	22	505


Categories and Themes and No. of participants disclosing the theme

Category 1: The experience of maladaptive coping responses and the perceived barriers to recovery

Isolating self from social support (6/8)

Using alcohol to gain temporary relief and to both avoid depression and associated emotions (5/8)

Lack of available psychological support or understanding of depression from others (4/8)

Not being listened to and the lack of collaboration in first experience of treatment (4/8)

Dealing with publicity and the continued expectations from elite sport (4/8)

Overtraining interpreted as self-harm (3/8)

Category 2: Adaptive processes and turning points in recovery

Separate from elite sport environment to understand depression and embark on self-discovery (6/8)

Channeling sporting will to win and personal agency toward a high level of commitment to recovery (6/8)

Experiencing acceptance and expressing real self in therapeutic relationship (5/8)

Support from significant other, recognizing depression and developing hope (4/8)

Category 3: The process of recovery and the transitions within the self

Being less defined by sport, broadening identity, and adopting self-care (5/8)

Developing intrinsic motivation an internal locus of evaluation and falling in love with sport again (5/8)

Coming out and gaining self-acceptance in sport and society as central to healing and recovery (4/8)