Pool code	Region: Site	Elevation (m)	Coordinates	Date	Pool size	Species	Virus detected

T1	Aegean: Canakkale	280	39°29'36.1"N, 26°19'26.7"E	08/2015	20	Cx. theileri	Culex theileri flavivirus

T2	Aegean: Canakkale	280	39°29'36.1"N, 26°19'26.7"E	08/2015	20	Cx. theileri	Culex theileri flavivirus

T3	Thrace: Kirklareli	80	41°36'48.6"N, 26°57'56.3"E	08/2015	43	Cx. theileri	Culex theileri flavivirus

T4	Thrace: Kirklareli	80	41°36'48.3"N, 26°57'56.5"E	11/2014	21	Cx. pipiens (s.l.)	Culex theileri flavivirus

T5	Thrace: Edirne	206	41°48'53.7"N, 26°49'00.7"E	10/2014	1	Ur. unguiculata	Unknown Flavivirus

T6	Thrace: Kirklareli	80	41°36'48.6"N, 26°57'56.3"E	07/2014	52	Ae. caspius	Ochlerotatus caspius flavivirus

T7	Thrace: Kirklareli	120	41°40'23.2"N, 26°58'51.1"E	06/2014	41	Ae. caspius	Ochlerotatus caspius flavivirus

T8	Thrace: Kirklareli	80	41°36'48.3"N, 26°57'56.5"E	10/2014	24	Cx.pipiens (s.l.)	West Nile virus

T9	Thrace: Kirklareli	317	41°36'48.6"N, 26°57'56.3"E	08/2014	7	Cx. theileri	Culex theileri flavivirus

T10	Thrace: Kirklareli	317	41°51'48.3"N, 27°00'59.2"E	08/2014	1	Cx. theileri	Culex theileri flavivirus

T11	Thrace; Kirklareli	112	41°38'12.4"N, 27°10'36.3"E	07/2014	3	Cs. annulata (♂)	Flavivirus AV-2011


Item	Factor loading	Description	Original item no.	Initial factor	Mean (SD)	ritem-total correlation

1	0.722	Cuando tengo deseos intensos de comer, una vez que empiezo no puedo parar. [When I crave something, I know I won't be able to stop eating once I start]	2	Lack of control	3.01 (1.84)	0.722**

2	0.679	A veces, cuando como lo que se me antoja, pierdo control y como demasiado. [If I eat what I am craving, I often lose control and eat too much]	3	Lack of control	3.86 (1.85)	0.687**

3	0.734	Sin duda alguna, las ganas de comer me hacen pensar cómo voy a conseguirlo [Food cravings invariably make me think of ways to get what I want to eat.]	5	Intentions to eat	2.98 (1.87)	0.735**

4	0.734	No hago más que pensar en la comida. [I feel like I have food on my mind all the time]	6	Food-related thoughts	2.29 (1.56)	0.722**

5	0.650	A veces me encuentro pensativo preocupado con comida. [I find myself preoccupied with food]	8	Food-related thoughts	2.58 (1.73)	0.648**

6	0.679	Cada vez que deseo comer algo en particular me pongo a hacer planes para comer. [Whenever I have cravings, I find myself making plans to eat]	18	Intentions to eat	3.22 (1.89)	0.685**

7	0.623	Siento deseos de comer cuando estoy aburrida, enfadada, o triste. [I crave foods when I feel bored, angry, or sad]	20	Negative affect	3.19 (1.85)	0.634**

8	0.719	No tengo la fuerza de voluntad de resistir mis deseos de comer lo que se me antoja. [I have no will power to resist my food crave]	25	Lack of control	3.54 (1.99)	0.724**

9	0.795	Una vez que me pongo a comer tengo problemas en dejar de comer. [Once I start eating, I have trouble stopping]	26	Lack of control	2.79 (1.87)	0.788**

10	0.783	Por mucho que lo intento, no puedo parar de pensar en comer. [I can't stop thinking about eating no matter how hard I try]	27	Food-related thoughts	2.30 (1.66)	0.771**

11	0.791	Si me dejo llevar por la tentación de comer pierdo todo mi control. [If I give in to a food craving, all control is lost]	29	Lack of control	2.53 (1.85)	0.784**

12	0.784	Cada vez que se me antoja una comida sigo pensando en ella hasta que me la como. [Whenever I have a food craving, I keep on thinking about eating until I actually eat the food]	31	Food-related thoughts	3.08 (1.88)	0.782**

13	0.779	Cuando tengo muchas ganas de comer algo estoy obsesionado con comerlo. [If I am craving something, thoughts of eating it consume me]	32	Food-related thoughts	3.02 (1.86)	0.777**

14	0.633	A menudo deseo comer cuando siento emociones fuertes. [My emotions often make me want to eat]	33	Negative affect	2.72 (1.79)	0.638**

15	0.673	Es difícil resistir la tentación de tomar comidas apetecibles que están a mi alcance. [It is hard for me to resist the temptation to eat appetizing foods that are within reach]	35	Cue-depending eating	3.91 (1.94)	0.683**


	Apixaban	LMWH/VKA/Placebo	Difference	Apixaban	LMWH/VKA	Difference

Number of events(total population)

 Recurrent VTE and VTE-related death	514	577	−62	514	508	6

VTE-related death	63	71	−8	63	63	0

  Recurrent PE	130	146	−16	130	129	1

Recurrent DVT	321	359	−39	321	316	5

 Major bleeds	123	136	−13	123	149	−26

 CRNM bleed	603	631	−28	603	714	−111

 Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events	109	58	51	109	139	−30

Costs

 Anticoagulant costs	£1121	£98	£1023	£1121	£98	£1023

 Monitoring and administration costsa	£63	£261	-£200	£63	£446	-£385

 Event-related costs	£4069	£4214	-£145	£4069	£4170	-£101

QALYs	8.488	8.386	0.101	8.488	8.425	0.063

Life-years	10.421	10.311	0.110	10.421	10.375	0.046

Cost per QALY gained		£6692			£8528


Assay	LK>LK Ri	DH44>LK Ri	DH44>DH44 Ri	LK>DH44 Ri

Effect of manipulation	Global LK knockdown	LK knockdown in ABLKs	Global DH44 knockdown	DH44 knockdown in ABLKs

Desiccation survival	↑****	↑****	No effect	↑****

Starvation survival	↑****	↑****	↑****	↑****

Ionic stress survival	↑****	↑****	↑****	↑****

Chill coma recovery	No effect	↑*	↑*	↑*

Feeding	No effect	No effect	No effect	↓****

Water content	↑**	↑****	No effect	No effect


	TE1 (n = 24)	TE2 (n = 22)	TE3 (n = 30)	TE4 (n = 25)

Condition	D	CN	D	CN

Sex

 Girls	11 (45.8%)	13 (59.1%)	15 (50.0%)	15 (60.0%)

 Boys	13 (54.2%)	9 (40.9%)	15 (50.0%)	10 (40.0%)

Age, mean (SD)	10.58 (0.58)	10.46 (0.67)	10.43 (0.57)	10.48 (0.51)

Race/ethnicity	23 Latino	21 Latino	25 Latino	22 Latino

	1 European American	1 Asian	3 African American	2 African American

			2 Filipino	1 European American


Time of assessment	Survival

	1 year	2 years	3 years	5 years

After day 28	33.0%	27.0%	23.9%	19.8%

After ICU discharge (male and female)	61.8%	50.6%	44.7%	37.0%

After ICU discharge (male)	64.7%	53.8%	46.0%	37.7%

After ICU discharge (female)	53.8%	41.6%	41.6%	36.3%

General population (male, age 65 years)a	98.3%	96.5%	94.6%	90.3%

General population (female, age 65 years)a	99.2%	98.4%	97.4%	95.2%


	Antibiotic coated (n=31)	Antibiotic non-coated (n=40)	p

Mean age (years)	48.5	51.2	>0.05

Positive culture n (%)	4 (13)	14 (35)	0.002

Median follow-up (months)	29 (8 to 38)	53 (14 to 82)	<0.05

Mean revision time after first implant (years)	7.1 (2.4 to 8)	9.4 (0.8 to 17)	<0.05


Gene	Gene information	GO term

APOLD1	Apolipoprotein L domain containing 1	Response to abiotic stimulus

ATP13A4	ATPase type 13A4	Transmembrane transport

ATP1A2	ATPase, Na+/K+ transporting, alpha 2 polypeptide	Behavior / response to abiotic stimulus / transmembrane transport

CIART	Circadian associated repressor of transcription	Behavior

GJA1	Gap junction protein, alpha 1, 43 kDa	Behavior / response to abiotic stimulus / transmembrane transport

GPR37	G protein-coupled receptor 37 (endothelin receptor type B-like)	Behavior

HIF3A	Hypoxia inducible factor 3, alpha subunit	Response to abiotic stimulus

IGFBP7	Insulin-like growth factor binding protein 7	Response to abiotic stimulus

MLC1	Megalencephalic leukoencephalopathy with subcortical cysts 1	Response to abiotic stimulus / transmembrane transport

PLOD2	Procollagen-lysine, 2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 2	Response to abiotic stimulus

PREX2	Phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-trisphosphate-dependent Rac exchange factor 2	Behavior

PTN	Pleiotrophin	Behavior

S1PR1	Sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor 1	Behavior

SDC2	Syndecan 2	Response to abiotic stimulus

SDC4	Syndecan 4	Response to abiotic stimulus

SLC14A1	Urea transporter,Kidd blood group	Transmembrane transport

SLC1A2	Glial high affinity glutamate transporter	Behavior / response to abiotic stimulus / transmembrane transport

SLC1A3	Glial high affinity glutamate transporter	Behavior / response to abiotic stimulus / transmembrane transport

SLC4A4	Sodium bicarbonate cotransporter	Transmembrane transport

SLC5A11	Sodium/inositol cotransporter	Transmembrane transport

SLC7A11	Anionic amino acid transporter light chain, xc- system	Transmembrane transport

SLCO1C1	Solute carrier organic anion transporter	Transmembrane transport

TP53BP2	Tumor protein p53 binding protein 2	Response to abiotic stimulus

VEGFA	Vascular endothelial growth factor A	Behavior / response to abiotic stimulus


Data flow stages

Tool	SQS	Action property	Activity(Yes or No)

Data collection

Primary self-quantification tools	Digifit, BodyTrack and Wikilife	C	Yes

Primary self-quantification tools and apps		U	Yes

Data transmission

Universal Serial Bus (USB) network	Digifit, BodyTrack and Wikilife	S	No

Application has a feature for importing data		U	Yes

Data storing

Files (e.g., XML, CSV, etc.)	Digifit website, BodyTrack and Wikilife	C	Yes

Data aggregation

Connector	Digifit, BodyTrack and Wikilife	S	No

Web-based application		C	Yes

Data visualisation

Web-based application	Digifit website, BodyTrack, and Wikilife	C	Yes

Data sharing

Application has a feature for sharing data with social networks such as Facebook	Digifit website, BodyTrack, and Wikilife	C	Yes

Application has a feature for importing data		C	Yes


Pneumococcal serotype	Twofold response to vaccination	Post-vaccination anti-CP† antibody concentration

≥0.35 μg/mL	≥1.00 μg/mL	≥5.00 μg/mL

6B (n = 10)	8	7	3	1

9V (n = 7)	5	7	5	2

19A (n = 1)	0	1	1	0

19F (n = 6)	5	5	3	2

23F (n = 7)	6	6	3	1


Time seizure free after breakthrough seizure (months)	Number at risk	Risk of seizure in following 12 months. %

6	119	32 (28 to 36)

9	99	24 (21 to 27)

12	80	17 (15 to 19)


Cardiac contractility dP/dt (mmHg/sec)

Control	SHR

1622 ± 120	1056 ± 182*


Corpus	Named entity types

GE	Protein

ID	Protein, chemical, organism, Regulon-operon,

 	two-component-system

EPI	Protein

DNAm	Protein

EPTM	Protein

mTOR	Protein, Drug, ion, simple molecule, tag

MLEE	Protein, drug or compound, cellular component, cell, tissue,

 	organ, anatomical system, organism, [ ...]


Health Behaviour	Group	Net change%	Odds Ratio for change	95% CI	NNT#

Fish	Intervention	+7.06	1.37*	1.11-1.64	15

 	Control	+0.84

Spread	Intervention	+5.06	1.28*	1.06-1.51	21

 	Control	+0.37

Salt	Intervention	+5.43	1.19*	1.05-1.38	24

 	Control	+1.23

Veg and fruit	Intervention	+3.14	1.24	0.91-1.68	37

 	Control	+0.49

Meat	Intervention	+7.17	1.16	0.93-1.44	38

 	Control	+4.48

Milk	Intervention	+4.62	1.11	0.96-1.29	45

 	Control	+1.80

Alcohol	Intervention	+3.88	1.16	0.96-1.37	45

 	Control	+1.12

Physical activity	Intervention	+0.48	1.06	0.86-1.30	58

 	Control	−1.34

Body weight	Intervention	−0.12	0.96	0.85-1.09	161

 	Control	−0.82

Smoking	Intervention	+0.24	0.97	0.86-1.12	1000

 	Control	+0.36


No	Compound name	Area (%)	No	Compound name	Area (%)

1	3-Methyl butanol	0.14	19	β-Phellandrene	0.34

2	Eugenol	1.33	20	α -Thujene	1.26

3	1,8-Cineole	0.24	21	β -Caryophyllene	0.7

4	α -Pinene	0.99	22	γ-Terpinene	2.77

5	Geranyl acetone	0.5	23	Camphene	0.14

6	cis-Sabinene hydrate	0.68	24	α-Franesene	0.7

7	iso-Amylpropionate	0.23	25	Terpinolene	0.22

8	β-Bisabolene	3.77	26	β-Pinene	0.32

9	Linalool	3.32	27	α-Bisabolene	0.51

10	Myrcene	2.43	28	Nonanal	0.24

11	Caryophyllene oxide	1.53	29	trans-2-Carene-4-ol	0.73

12	4-Terpineol	4.1	30	β-Udesmol	0.32

13	iso-Butyl-2-methyl butyrate	0.19	31	α-Terpineol	0.42

14	Heptadecane	0.19	32	3-Carene	0.36

15	Thymyl methyl ether	1.21	33	α-Bisabolol	0.27

16	α-Terpinene	0.73	34	trans-Dihydrocarvone	0.26

17	Musk ambrette	0.08	35	para-Cymene	5.61

18	Carvacrol	63.17


Demographic variables	N	%

Gender	Males	409	55.5

 	Females	328	44.5

Year	First	149	20.2

 	Second	183	24.8

 	Third	152	20.6

 	Fourth	143	19.4

 	Fifth	69	9.3

 	Sixth	41	5.6


 	Probe	Primer 1	Primer 2

APOA1	CTGCCAGAAATGCCGAGCCTG	CTTTGAGCACATCCACGTACA	GCCGTGCTCTTCCTGAC

APOB	CTGGATACCGTGTATGGAAACTGCTCC	CATTGCCCTTCCTCGTCTT	CCAGAGACAGAAGAAGCCAAG

CPS1	TCCAGCAATCATTCCGGCCAAGA	CCACAGGATTTAAGATACCCCAG	GTAATTGTTCAGCCACACCAAG

CYP1A1	TCTGTGATGTCCCGGATGTGGC	CCCAACCCTTCCCTGAATG	TTCTTCTCCTGACAGTGCTCAATC

FGA	CAGGCAGACGATCCTCATGGAAAACA	CAGCCCCACCCTTAGAAAAG	CTCCTTCAGCTAGAAAGTCACC

FGG	AATAAGGGAGCTAAACAGAGCGGGC	CAAAGACACGGTGCAAATCC	TTCCAGACCCATCGATTTCAC

GSTA1	CGGGCTGACATTCATCTGGTGGA	AAATCGCTACTTCCCTGCC	GGAAGCTGGAGATAAGACTGG

HGD	ATGCAGGCCACTCACAAAGTCTACTT	AGCAAGCCATTGTTAGACTT	CCTGATCCTAACCAGCTTAGATG

HNF1A	CAGGTTGGTGGTGTCGGTGATGA	GCCCTCTACAGCCACAAG	CAGTGTCTGAGGTGAAGACC

HNF4A	CAAGAAATGCTTCCGGGCTGGC	ATAGCTTGACCTTCGAGTGC	TGGACAAAGACAAGAGGAACC

LXR	TGCATAGCTCGTTCCCCAGCATTT	CCCTTCAGAACCCACAGAG	CGCAGCTCAGAACATTGTAGT

RPL13A	AGCAGTACCTGTTTAGCCACGATGG	GCCTTCACAGCGTACGA	CGAAGATGGCGGAGGTG

RXR	AGTACTGCCGCTACCAGAAGTGC	AGGACTGCCTGATTGACAAG	GACTCCACCTCATTCTCGTTC

SERPINA1	TGGTGCCTGAAGCTGAGGAGAC	AGCCAGGGAGACAGGGA	CTTAAATACGGACGAGGACAGG

SLC10A1	AACCTCAGCATTGTGATGACCACCT	TGTACAGGAGGAGAGGCATC	ACCTGTCCAATGTCTTCAGTC

TF	CTGTGTCAACTGTGTCCAGGGTGT	TGAGCCACGTAAACCTCTTG	AGTATTGGTTAAGGGTGGAGC

TTR	AGCAGCCTAGCTCAGGAGAAGTGA	CAGGTTTGCAGTCAGATTGG	CCATCCTGCCAAGAATGAGT


Pathological target	Putative mechanism	Examples of supporting references	Form of MS most likely to benefit

T- and B-cells	Limit cell proliferation in the periphery and possibly in the CNS	Lederman et al., 1984	RRMS

		Warnke et al., 2009

		Sweeney et al., 2011

Cytokines	Modulate cytokine production in the periphery and possibly in the CNS	Del Vecchio et al., 2002	RRMS

		Weibach et al., 2004

		Leung et al., 2005

Perivascular iron (heme) deposits	Limit iron catalyzed tissue damage to myelin, the BBB, etc.	Wu et al., 1993	RRMS

		Guy et al., 1994

		Nakamura et al., 2004

	Stabilize HIF-1α	Schofield and Ratcliffe, 2005

		Semenza, 2012

		Singh et al., 2012

Demyelination and axonal injury leading to release of iron (or heme) containing products	Limit amplification of tissue damage by iron catalyzed reactions	Wu et al., 1993	RRMS/SPMS

		Kadiiska et al., 1995

		Nakamura et al., 2004

		Merkofer et al., 2006

	Stabilize HIF-1α	Schofield and Ratcliffe, 2005

		Semenza, 2012

		Singh et al., 2012

Activated and iron enriched macrophage, microglia or astrocytes	Limit production of ROS	Rajesh et al., 2004	RRMS/SPMS

	Limit production of proinflammatory cytokines	Molina-Holgado et al., 2008

		Rathnasamy et al., 2011, 2013

	Limit production of MMP-9	Mairuae et al., 2011

	Improve glutamate uptake to lower extracellular levels	Fernandes et al., 2011

Altered mitochondrial function in neurons	Limit ROS production by mitochondria	Richardson et al, 2001	RRMS/SPMS

		Liang et al., 2008

		Im et al., 2012

	Limit caspase-3 activation by mitochondria	Zhang et al., 2009

Enhanced iron deposition in deep gray matter	Limit glutamate excitotoxicity	Papazisis et al., 2008	RRMS/SPMS

		Yu et al., 2009

	Protect against oxidative stress	Molina-Holgado et al., 2008

	Reduce brain iron uptake	Crowe and Morgan, 1994

	Lessen iron induced inhibition of DNA repair machinery	Li et al., 2009

	Stabilize HIF-1α	Schofield and Ratcliffe, 2005

		Semenza, 2012

		Singh et al., 2012


Anatomical location	Talairach coordinates	Volume (mm3)

	x	y	z

VOCALIZATIONS > ACTION SOUNDS (P < 0.001)

Left aSTG	−58	−4	2	20,069

Left temporal pole	−34	10	−34	31

Right aSTG	54	−4	1	16,801

Right precentral g. (M1)	47	0	48	3303

ACTIONS SOUNDS > VOCALIZATIONS (P < 0.001)

Left Posterior Insula	−36	−28	18	1216

Right Posterior Insula	32	−16	15	761

ACTIONS SOUNDS > VOCALIZATIONS (P < 0.05)

Left MFG	−43	9	32	2848

Left Parietal	−42	−36	31	2011

Left pSTS	−52	−50	3	964

Left aIFS/vlPFC	−45	41	8	4908

Right aIFS/vlPFC	30	29	6	2836


Gene with likely pathogenic variant	Steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (number of patients)	Haematuria/Alport syndrome (number of patients)

Age group*	≤18 years (n=209)	>18 years (n=46)	Total (n=255)	≤18 years (n=20)	>18 years (n=15)	Total (n=35)

NPHS1	12	0	12	0	0	0

WT1	9	2	11	0	0	0

NPHS2	7	0	7	0	0	0

LMX1B	4	0	4	0	0	0

INF2	0	3	3	0	0	0

LAMB2	3	0	3	0	0	0

MYH9	2	0	2	0	0	0

PLCE1	2	0	2	0	0	0

ACTN4	1	0	1	0	0	0

SCARB2	0	1	1	0	0	0

SMARCAL1	1	0	1	0	0	0

TRPC6	0	1	1	0	0	0

COL4A3	0	1	1	3	2	5

COL4A4	1	1†	2	0	2	2

COL4A5	2	1	3	5	5	10

Total	44	10	54	8	9	17


		Predicted class

Cluster 1	Cluster 2	Cluster 3	Cluster 4

Actual class	Cluster 1	199	49	1	25

Cluster 2	5	441	2	0

Cluster 3	0	0	221	0

Cluster 4	0	0	0	312


Extracted Plant	Extracted Part	IC50 (mg/mL)	Lead Substance	Content (μg/mg)	IC50

Arbutus unedo (strawberry tree)	fruit	n.d. 1	arbutin	20.0 ± 1.3	n.d. 1	n.d. 1

Camellia sinensis (tea)	dried leaves	n.d. 1	caffeine	131.6 ± 5.0	0.9 ± 0.1 mg/mL	4.8 ± 0.6 mM

Cynara scolymus (artichoke)	dried leaves	0.9 ± 0.1	3,4-diCQA	2.5 ± 0.5	>500 μg/mL (49%)	>1.0 mM

luteolin	<0.08	11.8 ± 2.9 μg/mL	41 ± 10 μM

luteolin-7-O-glucuronide	2.7 ± 0.3	n.d. 1	n.d. 1

luteolin-7-O-glucoside	4.9 ± 1.0	n.d. 1	n.d. 1

apigenin	<0.08	n.d. 1	n.d. 1

Zingiber officinale (ginger)	dried rhizome	1.7 ± 0.2	[6]-gingerol	10.0 ± 0.6	>500 μg/mL (38%)	>1.7 mM

lipoid fraction (GLE)	~50	455 ± 19 μg/mL	-

hydrophilic fraction (GWE)	~950	10.5 ± 1.9 mg/mL	-


Control sheep (n = 18)	Disease-stressed sheep (n = 10)	Combined groups (n = 10 + 10)

Gene symbol	Stability value (M)	Gene symbol	Stability value (M)	Gene symbol	Stability value (M)

SDHA	0.316	YWHAZ	0.624	SDHA	0.591

YWHAZ	0.342	GAPDH	0.634	YWHAZ	0.593

HPRT	0.344	SDHA	0.667	ACTB	0.596

RPL19	0.361	ACTB	0.701	G6PD	0.666

B2M	0.362	B2M	0.720	GAPDH	0.681

ACTB	0.377	G6PD	0.740	GYPC	0.698

GYPC	0.412	GYPC	0.848	RPL19	0.746

TFRC	0.455	RPL19	1.000	B2M	0.760

G6PD	0.486	HPRT	1.188	HPRT	0.882

PGK1	0.498	PGK1	1.466	TFRC	1.158

GAPDH	0.579	TFRC	1.485	PGK1	1.295


	Guideline	Source

1	Use Dex/sal for MIF (unless documented why not)	NICE

2	Use fluid with 130–154mmol/l sodium for any resus	NICE

3	Receive 0.6-1.4mmol/Kg/day of maintenance sodium	NICE

4	Give <2.5L/day Dex/saline	NICE

5	Patients with Critical Care induced hypernatraemia	Local


Parameter	ITS	trnL-F	Combines

Number of accession	49	49	49

Range of sequence length (bp)	642–643	799–801	1442–1443

Characters of data matrix	643	800	1443

Number of constant sites (%)	584 (90.82%)	793 (99.13%)	1377 (96.09%)

Number of parsimony-information sites (%)	55 (8.55%)	7 (0.88%)	62 (4.32%)

Number of autopomorphic-information sites (%)	4 (0.62%)	0 (0.00%)	4 (0.28%)

Consistency index (CI)	0.892	0.969	0.891

Retention index (RI)	0.955	0.958	0.947

Rescaled consistency index (RC)	0.852	0.928	0.844

Homoplasy index (HI)	0.108	0.031	0.109


Hormonal tests	Values (normal range)

Plasmatic cortisol	<39 nmol/L (126.8–656.5)

Plasmatic aldosterone	14.2 pg/mL (18–232)

Plasmatic renin	12.9 μmU/mL (4–50)

Plasmatic noradrenaline	278.2 pg/mL (100–400 lying, 200–700 standing)

Plasmatic adrenaline	15.4 pg/mL (<50 lying, <100 standing)

Plasmatic dopamine	Nondetectable (0–80)

Urinary normetanephrines	289 μg/g creat (46–256)

Urinary metanephrines	98.8 μg/g creat (27–155)

Urinary vanillylmandelic acid	29.1 mg/24 H (1.8–6.7)

Urinary 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid	6.8 mg/24 H (0.7–8.2)


GO ID	Molecular Function	Observed Gene Count	FDR

GO.0004702	receptor signaling protein serine/threonine kinase activity	15	3.13E-21

GO.0005515	protein binding	7	2.03E-05

GO.0004708	MAP kinase kinase activity	41	2.41E-05

GO.0017137	Rab GTPase binding	5	2.74E-05

GO.0031489	myosin V binding	6	0.000307

GO.0017022	myosin binding	4	0.000381

GO.0004709	MAP kinase kinase kinase activity	5	0.000518

GO.0005488	binding	4	0.00169

GO.0017075	syntaxin-1 binding	59	0.00354

GO.0004707	MAP kinase activity	3	0.00402

GO.0004674	protein serine/threonine kinase activity	3	0.00636

GO.0004946	bombesin receptor activity	9	0.0113

GO.0005102	receptor binding	2	0.0128

GO.0004908	interleukin-1 receptor activity	14	0.018

GO.0019905	syntaxin binding	2	0.0215

GO.0019899	enzyme binding	4	0.0253

GO.0004871	signal transducer activity	15	0.032

GO.0005179	hormone activity	16	0.0377

GO.0060089	molecular transducer activity	4	0.0377

GO.0086083	cell adhesive protein binding involved in bundle of Hiscell-Purkinje myocyte communication	17	0.0377


Accession NO.	Strain name	Year	Province	Host	Length	Biological sample

KU641013	LN1401	2014	Liaoning	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645511	LN1402	2014	Liaoning	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645514	HB1404	2014	Hebei	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645516	HB1517	2015	Hebei	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645518	JS1501	2015	Jiangsu	Chicken	2298 bp	Bone marrow

KU645508	JS1502	2015	Jiangsu	Chicken	2298 bp	Bone marrow

KU645509	JS1503	2015	Jiangsu	Chicken	2298 bp	Bone marrow

KU645520	HN1405	2014	Henan	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645512	HN1504	2015	Henan	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645517	SD1513	2015	Neimenggu	Chicken	2298 bp	Bone marrow

KU645513	BJ1406	2014	Beijing	Chicken	2298 bp	Bone marrow

KU641014	JN1503	2015	Shandong	Chicken	2298 bp	Bone marrow

KU645523	SD1505	2015	Shandong	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645507	SD1507	2015	Shandong	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645519	SD1508	2015	Shandong	Chicken	2298 bp	Bone marrow

KU645510	SD1509	2015	Shandong	Chicken	2298 bp	Bone marrow

KU598851	SD1510	2015	Shandong	Chicken	2298 bp	Bone marrow

KU641015	SD1511	2015	Shandong	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645506	SD1512	2015	Shandong	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645521	SD1514	2015	Shandong	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645515	SD1515	2015	Shandong	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645522	SD1518	2015	Shandong	Chicken	2298 bp	Liver

KU645524	CAV-Dog	2015	Shandong	Dog	2298 bp	Feces

KU645525	CAV-Mouse	2015	Shandong	Mouse	2298 bp	Feces


 	No community sports participation	Community sports participation

 	No extracurricular school-based sports participation	Extracurricular school-based sports participation	No extracurricular school-based sports participation	Extracurricular school-based sports participation

 	β (S.E.)	β (S.E.)	β (S.E.)	β (S.E.)

Boys	3.38 (0.10)a	3.97 (0.07)b	4.28 (0.09)c	4.38 (0.04)c

Girls	3.71 (0.08)a#	3.74 (0.07)a#	4.16 (0.07)b	4.28 (0.05)b#


Country	Total number of notified TB cases	TB notification rate per 100 000	Number of notified TB in foreigna	Percentage foreign

Bulgaria	2649	35.0	2	0.1

Estonia	329	24.5	58	17.6

Finland	327	6.1	105	32.1

Greece	489	4.3	231	47.2

Hungary	1741	17.4	21	1.2

Latvia	934	41.5	62	6.6

Lithuania	1938	58.2	47	2.4

Poland	7509	19.7	46	0.6

Romania	21 078	98.2	38	0.2

Slovakia	439	8.1	8	1.8

Total	37 433	35.2	618	1.7


Antibiotic	MIC (μg/ml)

Ampicillin	9.8

Nafcillin	1.25

Ciprofloxacin	25

Nalidixic acid	312

Chloramphenicol	1.25

Minocycline	0.97

Tetracycline	> 50

Erythromycin	> 10

Clindamycin	5

Kanamycin	6

Rifampin	0.4

Metronidazole	0.5

Vancomycin	1.0


State	State Policy Extensiveness*	Geographic Area

California	High	West

Georgia	Middle	Southeast

Illinois	Middle/Low	Midwest

Massachusetts	Low	Northeast (township oriented)

New York	High	Northeast (not township oriented)

Texas	Middle	South Central


Antigen	Clone	Supplier	Dilution	Antigen retrieval

PR	Mouse Monoclonal, 16	Leica Microsystems	1:100	citrate

ER	Mouse Monoclonal, 6F11	Leica Microsystems	1:100	citrate

Vim	Mouse monoclonal, V9	Leica Microsystems	1:400	citrate

CEA	Mouse monoclonal, 12-140-10	Leica Microsystems	1:100	trypsin


Condition	SMM and M, number (%)	Maternal deaths

Peritonitis	58(30)	16

Hemorrhage	45(18.7)	10

Hypertensive disease	55(28.6)	9

Cancer	5(1.5)	4

 -pancreatic (1)

 -breast cancer (2)

 -leukemia (1)

Cardiomyopathy	7(3.6)	3

Malaria	6(3)	2

Pulmonary Embolism	2 (2.2)	0

Pulmonary Disease	1 (1.1)	1

Diabetes	2(2.2)

 -severe hypoglycemia,

 -diabetic coma

Hepatic Disease	2(2.2)	0

 -cirrhosis

 -hepatic abscess

Neurologic	2(2.2)

 -stroke postpartum

 -coma of unknown etiology)

Anesthetic complications	2(2.2)

Epilepsy	1 (1.1)	0

Other*	7(3.6)	5

Total number of patients experiencing severe maternal morbidity + mortalitya	192	50


Source	1	2	3	4

Farm	A			B		D	E	C	F		G

Health status	SPF			SPF		Non-SPF	SPF	Non-SPF	Non-SPF

Generation	G1	G2	GX	G1	G2	G2	GX	G1	G2	GX	GX

No. pigs:

Performance	47	684	373	92	259	148	300	94	398	72	175

Immune traits	47	0	373	92	68	59	300	94	0	72	175

APP	0	0	373	0	0	0	300	0	0	72	175

No. groups:

Sires	21	42	27	23	5 2,3	5 2,3	17	10	52	11	55

Full-sib families	33	155	200	53	53	53	121	19	53	18	72

Genetic lines	8	4	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	8	13

Breed	LW	LW	LW	LW	LW	LW	LW	LW	LW	LR	LW


Variable	Group at the beginning of treatment	Group at the definitive brace removal

Gender	Girls	87 (97%)	Girls	87 (97%)

	Boys	3 (3%)	Boys	3 (3%)

Mean age	Girls	13 years	Girls	15 years 10 months

	Boys	13 years 4 months	Boys	15 years 8 months

Curvative type	Double-major	67 (74.4%)	Double-major	67 (77.0%)

	Lumbar	3 (3.3%)	Lumbar	-

	Thoracic	7 (7.8%)	Thoracic	7 (8.0%)

	Thoraco- lumbar	13 (14.4%)	Thoraco-lumbar	13 (14.9%)

Cobb angle	Double-major	20.9° 20,0°	Double-major	20.6° 16.9°

	Thoracic	20.3°	Thoracic	17.3°

	Thoraco- lumbar	24.1°	Thoraco- lumbar	21.5°

SkeletalMaturity	Risser 0	33 (36.7%)	Achieved

	Risser 1	15 (16.7%)

	Risser 2	21 (23.3%)

	Risser 3	14 (15.6%)

	Risser 4	7 (7.8%)

Theoretical VC	Girls	3.2 litres	Girls	3.6 litres

	Boys	4.1 litres	Boys	4.5 litres

FVC	Girls	2.3 litres	Girls	2.7 litres

	Boys	2.9 litres	Boys	4 litres


Setting	Level	Type of participants	Type of interviews	Number of interviews

MoH	Principal	Policy makers	Key informant	3

HSB	Principal	Policy makers	Key informant	2

ZACH	Principal	Policy makers	Key informant	1

MEPMO	Principal	Policy makers	Key informant	1

ELB/local clinics	Local/agent	Policy makers	Key informant	3

Local clinics	Local/agent	Sisters in charge/personnel managers	In-depth	7

Local clinics	Local/agent	Healthcare workers	Sample	19

Community	Local/agent	Community members	Focus group discussions (10 people each)	5


 	SLE	HD

Number of cases	103	65

Number of visits (2 or more)	180 (60)	65 (0)

Mean age, years (range)	44 (25–68)	33 (19–59)

Sex, female/male/unknown, n	90/13/0	31/9/24

Race, AA/EA/LA/AsA/IrA/unknown1, n	35/50/12/3/3/0	10/18/6/3/2/25

Race by visit (AA/EA/LA/AsA/IrA/unknown)1, n	64/86/20/7/3/0	10/18/6/3/2/25

Active/inactive by SLEDAI, number of patients	49/131	N/A

Main clinical features, number of patients

Malar rash	9/94	N/A

Discoid lesions	2/101	N/A

Photosensitivity	8/95	N/A

Oral ulcers	7/96	N/A

Arthritis	17/86	N/A

Serositis	4/99	N/A

Pleuritis	5/98	N/A

Nephritis	49/54	N/A

Seizures	2/101	N/A

Psychosis	1/102	N/A


	Wildtype	Mahidolheterozygote	Chinese-4heterozygote	Kaipingheterozygote	Mahidolhomozygote	Mahidol-Canton	Total	Overall allelicfrequency ofall variants	Allelic frequencyof Mahidol variant

Sgaw Karen	91	47	1	1	7	0	147	21.4%	20.7%

Poe Karen	34	12	0	1	4	0	51	20.6%	19.6%

Burman	67	9	1	2	0	1	80	8.8%	6.3%

“Muslim”	11	0	0	0	0	0	11	0.0%	0.0%

Other	6	1	0	0	0	0	7	7.1%	7.1%

“Mixed”	16	5	0	0	0	0	21	11.9%	11.9%

Total	225	74	2	4	11	1	317	16.3%	15.3%


Therapeutic modalities	Frequency (%)

Concomitant radio-chemotherapy	66 (43.7)

Concomitant radio chemotherapy followed by surgery	22 (14.9)

Exclusive radiotherapy	12 (7.9)

Surgery followed by exclusive radiotherapy	25 (16.6)

Surgery followed by concomitant radio chemotherapy	21 (13.9)

Surgery alone	4 (2.6)

Palliative chemotherapy	1 (0.7)


Description	Notation	Baseline value	Reference

Population size	N	100,000	assumed

Average life expectancy at birth	1/μ	69.4 (years)	[1]

Transmission coefficient of obesity	β	2.96 × 10-7 (per year)	[12]

Non-contagious hazard of obesity	ε	0.012 (per year)	[13]

Relative hazard of obesity among ex-obese	σ	8.0	[12]

Average duration of obesity	1/γ	35.8 (years)	[13]


	Curative or not	N	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. error mean

Group statistics

 Total HNA score	Curative	3671	26.08	34.312	.566

Not curative	1293	41.13	41.040	1.141

 Number of problems	Curative	3675	5.86	5.460	.090

Not curative	1297	7.64	6.576	.183

 Minutes and seconds for HNA completion	Curative	3675	6 min 56 s	5 min 53 s	6 s

Not curative	1297	8 min 36 s	7 min 5 s	11 s


Sample	Litter Concentrations	Application Rates	Analyst

Fe	As	Fe	As

Litter from 2012	2200 ± 252	2.5 ± 3.0	7.41	0.009	This study

Litter from 2014	1106 ± 89	5.2 ± 0.4	3.73	0.013	This study


Time between onset of symptoms and care at CAMH clinic	n (%)

Within a week	29 (17.5)

More than a week but less than a month	7 (4.2)

1–6 months	50 (30.1)

7–12 months	22 (13.2)

13–24 months	24 (14.5)

25–36 months	14 (8.4)

37–48 months	8 (4.8)

49 months/more	12 (7.2)


Characteristics	N (%)

Sex

 Male	1087 (53.9%)

 Female	931 (46.1%)

Age (years)

 <3	65 (3.2%)

 3 to <4	294 (14.6%)

 4 to <5	604 (29.9%)

 5 to <6	670 (33.2%)

 ≥6	385 (19.1%)

Residence

 Outlander	765 (37.9%)

 Native	1253 (62.1%)

Town

 Fengjiang	1264 (62.6%)

 Pengjie	754 (37.4%)

Father's education

 Primary school	585 (29.0%)

 Middle and high school	1335 (66.2%)

 College or higher	98 (4.9%)

Father's occupation

 Lead-related	1033 (51.2%)

 Not lead-related	985 (48.8%)

Mother's education

 Primary school	709 (35.1%)

 Middle and high school	1197 (59.3%)

 College or higher	112 (5.6%)

Mother's occupation

 Lead-related	926 (45.9%)

 Not lead-related	1092 (54.1%)

Cares' education

 Primary school	877 (43.5%)

 Middle and high school	1055 (52.3%)

 College or higher	86 (4.3%)

Yearly household income (RMB)

 <10000	679 (33.7%)

 10000–15000	977 (48.4%)

 >15000	362 (17.9%)


Item	Concentrate mix (%)	Rye straw (%)	BF-based silage2) (%)

Dry matter	87.9	90.0	58.3

Organic matter	91.7	95.4	88.5

Crude protein	16.4	4.2	16.9

Ether extract	2.5	0.2	3.9

Neutral detergent fiber	32.7	67.7	50.6

Acid detergent fiber	19.5	41.7	38.9

Hemicellulose	13.2	25.9	11.7

Crude fiber	11.3	37.8	31.2

Nitrogen free extracts	61.5	53.3	36.6

Crude ash	8.3	4.6	11.5


Training Standards in Implant Dentistry, 2016

1	Basic sciences: surgical anatomy, pathological process, bone defects, healing processes

2	Implant science: design and materials, limitations

3	Patient assessment and medical considerations

4	Case assessment and treatment planning: straightforward and complex cases

5	Radiographic assessment and Ionising Radiation Medical Exposure Regulations (IRMER)

6	Communication and informed consent

7	Infection control and asepsis

8	Soft tissue management (raising flaps and suturing)

9	Hard tissue management (autogenous bone augmentation, guided bone regeneration)

10	Pharmacological management

11	Surgical techniques for implant placement procedures

12	Implant-supported restorative procedures

13	Complications and their management

14	Long-term monitoring of implants

15	Record-keeping, documentation and quality assurance


		PPV (%)	Sensitivity (%)

Jitterbug	raw	37.16	89.72

	filtered	92.7	85.05

RetroSeq	extended +/- 100 bp and merged	61.01	90.26

	extended, merged and filtered	87.31	88.21


 	n	%	Mean (SD)

Overall satisfactiona	 	 	4.2 (0.77)

Not at all	93	0.9	-

To a small extent	170	1.7	-

To some extent	955	9.5	-

To a large extent	4797	48.0	-

To a very large extent	3987	39.9	-

Benefit of treatmenta	 	 	4.0 (0.92)

No benefit	189	1.9	-

Little benefit	424	4.3	-

Some benefit	1861	18.8	-

Large benefit	4368	44.1	-

Very large benefit	3064	30.9	-

Malpracticea	 	 	4.6 (0.86)

To a very large extent	182	1.8	-

To a large extent	235	2.3	-

To some extent	653	6.4	-

To a small extent	1018	10.0	-

Not at all	8051	79.4	-

Patient-reported experiencesb

Waiting time (elective patients)	4535	-	64.0 (28.8)

Doctor services	10,153	-	73.7 (19.0)

Nursing services	10,245	-	75.4 (17.4)

Information	10,124	-	71.0 (21.0)

Contact with next of kin	7138	-	77.7 (20.8)

Standard	10,199	-	72.6 (17.2)

Organization	10,034	-	68.0 (20.2)

Discharge information	8114	-	58.3 (31.3)

Cooperation with other health services	6071	-	63.8 (29.8)

Sociodemographic variables

Age, years	10,477	 	61.1 (17.9)

Gender, % women	10,477	55.1	-

Self-perceived health

 Excellent	693	7.5	-

 Very good	1,755	19.0	-

 Good	3,139	34.0	-

 Rather good	2,477	26.8	-

 Poor	1,162	12.6	-

Education

Primary school	2,504	27.3	-

 Secondary school	3,560	38.8	-

 University/college < 4 years	2,149	23.4	-

 University/college 4 years or more	974	10.6	-


Models (Prevent/Treatemnt)	Materials	Effect	Dose (Dose-Effect)	Bioactive Compounds	References

Rats treated with ethanol diet (Prevent)	Green tea	↑ Enzymes, non-enzymatic antioxidants; ↓ lipid and protein oxidation	7 g/L in ethanol Lieber-DeCarli diet	Epicatechin, epicatechin gallate	[84]

Rats treated with ethanol (Prevent)	Ziziphus mauritiana leaf	↓ ALT, AST, ALP, total bilirubin, CAT; ↑ GSH-Px, glutathione reductase and SOD	200 and 400 mg/kg b.w. (Dose-effect)	Tannins, saponins and phenolic compounds	[42]

Rats sub-chronically exposed to ethanol (Prevent)	Amaranthus hypochondriacus seed	↓ MDA, NADPH; ↑ Cu, Zn-SOD	140 g/kg in diet	Total phenols	[87]

Mice with acute alcohol-induced liver injury (Prevent)	Peduncles of Hoveniadulcis	↓ ALT, AST, MDA; ↑ SOD, GSH-Px	100, 350 and 600 mg/kg b.w. (Dose-effect)	Non-starch polysaccharide	[86]

Rats treated with ehanol (Prevent)	Methanolic extract from Hammada scoparia leaves	↓ Aminotransferase, glycogen synthase kinase-3 β, lipid peroxidation; ↑ GSH-Px	200 mg/kg b.w.	Phenolic compounds	[85]

Mice with chronic alcoholic liver damage (Prevent)	Jujube honey	↓ Lipoprotein oxidation, AST, ALT, MAD, 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine; ↑ GSH-Px	27 and 54 g /kg b.w. (Dose-effect)	Phenolic acids	[88]

Mice with alcohol-induced hepatotoxicity (Treatment)	Freeze-dried, germinated and fermented mung bean	↑ Antioxidant levels, NO	200 and 1000 mg/kg b.w.		[89]

Chronic ethanol exposure in rats (Prevent)	Virgin olive oil	↓ Transaminases levels, hepatic lipid peroxidation; ↑ GSH-Px, SOD and CAT	5% (wt/wt) in diet	Tocopherols, chlorophyll, total polyphenols	[90]


Ethical considerations	Supporting arguments	Opposing arguments	Questions to direct future research

Tobacco harm reduction

 Potential for smoking cessation	E-cigarettes may be as effective as the nicotine patch.	Inconclusive evidence of efficacy for smoking cessation.	What is the efficacy of nicotine and non-nicotine e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and reduction?

Potential for smoking reduction	Demonstrated in multiple studies.	Unlikely that cigarette reduction results in significant health benefits.	What is the long-term impact of dual use of e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes on health outcomes?

Product safety

 Potential for long-term adverse effects	Unknown impact of long-term propylene glycol inhalation.	No documented serious adverse events to date.	What are the long-term safety implications of nicotine and non-nicotine e-cigarette use?

Propylene glycol inhalation causes short-term respiratory irritation.

 Autonomy to use a product of unknown risk	Ethical imperative given informed consent.	Public health concerns trump individual rights.	How should consumer rights be weighed against public health concerns?

Use among non-smokers

 Potential to lead to nicotine addiction	Perceived harmlessness may lead never smokers to initiate e-cigarettes.	No evidence for increased nicotine addiction to cause net public health harms.	What is the long-term health impact of nicotine addiction?

 Potential gateway effect	Nicotine acts as a priming agent for the brain.	Unclear implications for transitioning to tobacco cigarettes.	How many non-smokers initiating e-cigarettes transition to other tobacco products, including cigarettes?

Use among youth

 Potential to lead to nicotine addiction	Minors require protection.	No evidence of increased nicotine addiction causing net public health harms.	How many youth initiating e-cigarettes report continuous long-term product use (1 year or longer)?

E-liquid flavorings are attractive to youth.

 Potential gateway effect	Nicotine is a priming agent for the brain.	Unclear implications for transitioning to tobacco cigarettes.	How many youth initiating e-cigarettes transition to other tobacco products, including cigarettes?

 Nicotine poisoning among children	Increased calls to poison control centers.	None.	To what extent can the risk of nicotine poisoning among children be mitigated?

E-liquid flavors are appealing to youth.

Use in public places

 Potential for passive vaping	Stem cell cytotoxicity.	Limited evidence that passive vaping poses significant health concerns.	What is the long-term impact of passive vaping and second-hand vapor exposure?

Aerosolized nicotine emissions.

Renormalized smoking culture

 Potential to subvert decades of anti-smoking efforts	Increased acceptability of smoke-like vapor and smoking behavior.	No evidence that e-cigarettes would be conflated with tobacco cigarettes.	How are the increased awareness and use of e-cigarettes affecting perceptions of cigarette smoking?

Market ownership

 Unethical collaboration with the tobacco industry	Public health endorsement of e-cigarettes increases tobacco company market share.	Possible necessity to collaborate with the tobacco industry to achieve public health gains.	What are the public health implications of tobacco industry ownership of major e-cigarette brands?


	Lesser illness severity (HoNOS ≥21) (n = 21)	Greater illness severity (HoNOS <21) (n = 26)	P-value ( t-test)

Counts/ day	303697 (194674)	259940 (112820)	0.12 ns

Steps/ day	8563 (3996)	8562 (3237)	0.63 ns

Light activity (mins/day)	197 (42)	214 (48)	0.56 ns

Moderate activity (mins/day)	42 (28)	35 (25)	0.72 ns

Vigorous activity (mins/day)	5 (16)	2 (3)	0.05 ns

Wear time (mins/day)	784 (89)	809 (96)	0.5 ns

Sedentary time (mins/day)	540 (75)	559 (83)	0.65 ns


						Genotyped (n)

DPS	Tributary/Region	MPG	# pops	Lineage	Run	Min	Max	Mean	Total

Southwest WA	Columbia Estuary	n/a	4	Coastal	Winter	43	164	85.8	343

Lower Columbia	Clackamas	Cascade	4	Coastal	Mixed	43	92	60.3	241

Lower Columbia	Other	Cascade; Gorge	9	Coastal	Mixed	28	94	68.1	613

Upper Willamette	Willamette	Willamette	3	Coastal	Mixed	39	93	60.7	182

Upper Willamette	Willamette/West Side	Willamette	3	Coastal	Winter	25	30	27.0	81

Middle Columbia	Klickitat	Cascade East Slope	10	Inland	Summer	33	48	43.4	434

Middle Columbia	Deschutes	Cascade East Slope	5	Inland	Summer	31	63	51.4	257

Middle Columbia	John Day	John Day	10	Inland	Summer	18	107	36.3	363

Middle Columbia	Yakima	Yakima	7	Inland	Summer	21	59	36.9	258

Middle Columbia	Other	Mixed	7	Inland	Mixed	34	148	100.1	701

Upper Columbia	Wenatchee	Upper Columbia/East Slope Cascades	6	Inland	Summer	19	99	40.8	245

Upper Columbia	Other	Upper Columbia/East Slope Cascades	5	Inland	Summer	90	99	94.3	475

Snake	Lower Snake	Lower Snake	6	Inland	Summer	49	105	83.5	501

Snake	Lower Clearwater	Clearwater	5	Inland	Summer	49	156	107.8	539

Snake	M. F. Clearwater	Clearwater	14	Inland	Summer	35	99	56.4	789

Snake	S. F. Clearwater	Clearwater	4	Inland	Summer	36	104	57.8	231

Snake	Grande Ronde	Grande Ronde	7	Inland	Summer	45	95	62.7	439

Snake	Imnaha	Imnaha	4	Inland	Summer	23	61	41.5	166

Snake	S. F. Salmon	Salmon	4	Inland	Summer	39	45	43.5	174

Snake	M. F. Salmon	Salmon	8	Inland	Summer	23	84	48.3	386

Snake	Upper Salmon	Salmon	7	Inland	Summer	37	117	83.1	582

Snake	Other Salmon	Salmon	7	Inland	Summer	43	99	55.1	386

Snake	Hatchery	Mixed	6	Inland	Summer	89	146	104.2	625

Total			145						9011


 	Johnson et al.	Dong et al.

Probe length (nucleotides)	60	60

Median genomic region between probes (nucleotides)	10	153

Number of probes/array	244 000	44 000

Average length of DNA segment hybridized to the array	497	600

Amplification technique	Ligation-Mediated Amplification	Whole Genome Amplification


		EmA		TG2-ab (U)

Patient	GFD years	Medium 24 h	PT-gliadin 24 h	PT-gliadin 48 h		Medium 24 h	PT-gliadin 24 h	PT-gliadin 48 h

12	1	neg	neg	neg		2.0	4.8	13.3

13	2	neg	neg	neg		8.8	6.9	4.4

14	4	neg	neg	neg		2.2	6.2	10.3

15	4	neg	neg	neg		2.5	1.7	2.6

16	6	neg	neg	neg		8.1	7.7	12.4

17	7	neg	neg	neg		2.4	3.7	1.9

18	8	neg	neg	neg		2.5	1.3	1.7

19	14	neg	neg	neg		0.9	2.9	0.7

20	20	neg	neg	neg		11.6	2.5	11.6

Median		neg	neg	neg	Median	2.5	3.7	4.4*


Main options	Choices among main options	Ancillary manoeuvres among main option and choices

Loop colostomy (C) (bridge to resection or palliation)

Primary resection with end colostomy: Hartmann’s procedure (HP)

Resection and primary anastomosis (RPA)	Total/subtotal colectomy (TC)	Intraoperative colonic irrigation (ICI)Manual decompression (MD)Covering stoma

Segmental colectomy (SC)

Tube decompression

Endoscopic colonic stenting by self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS)	Bridge to surgery

Palliation


Factor	Subgroup	Patients on glargine	Patients on other types of insulin	p-value

(N = 13)	(N = 66)

Breast surgical procedure	Quadrantectomy or lumpectomy Mastectomy	7	23	0.20

6	43

Axillary surgical procedure	Sentinel node biopsy	5	24	0.78

Lymphadenectomy	8	42

Adjuvant Chemotherapy	No	9	50	0.72

Yes	4	16

Adjuvant Hormone therapy	No	3	6	0.17

Yes	10	60

Adjuvant Trastuzumab	No	13	62	1.00

Yes	0	4

Adjuvant Radiotherapy	No	5	32	0.49

Yes	8	34

Outcome	Alive	13	63	1.00

Died of disease	0	3


Manufacturer and phantom type	Speed of sound [m/s]	Attenuation [dB/cm/MHz]	Young’s modulus [kPa]

ATS hydrogel-based [25]	1540	n/a	n/a

ATS rubber-based [25]	1440–1460	0.48–0.52	n/a

CIRS hydrogels [26, 27]	1480–1600	0.45–0.75	3–48

Madsen agar with evaporated milk [16]	1541–1543	0.1–0.7	n/a

Hall gelatins [28]	1559–1600	n/a	3–126

King hydrogel-baseda [29]	1539–1583	0.51–0.55	n/a

Our gelatins with evaporated milk:

125-bloom	1532–1574	0.45–0.55	8–11

175-bloom	1536–1566	0.45–0.61	16–22

250-bloom	1543–1563	0.46–0.62	24–34


Outcome	No. of studies	Factor tested	P	Adjusted R2

Total symptom score	9	age	0.296	2.69%

ethnicity	0.254	6.74%

		risk of bias	0.026	49.92%

Severity of inattention	5	age	0.16	54.94%

ethnicity	0.421	−5.75%

		risk of bias	0.345	0.80%

Severity of Hyp-Imp	5	age	0.972	−40.99%

ethnicity	0.257	29.91%

		risk of bias	0.022	100.00%


Characteristic		HR	95% CI	p-value

Age	Per year	0.99	0.96–1.02	0.47

Hormone receptor status	Negative	1 (reference)

	Positive	1.50	0.56–4.06	0.41

HER2 Status	Negative	1 (reference)

	Positive	0.89	0.35–2.25	0.80

Grading	Per grade	1.45	0.70–3.00	0.32

Therapy line	Per line	0.98	0.75–1.26	0.85

CTC count	0	1 (reference)

	≥1	4.20	1.86–9.46	0.001


Data process	How and when measured

Frequency of dressing changes in both trial arms	This was calculated from the number of treatment monitoring forms completed by the research nurses indicating a dressing change and included forms completed both prospectively and retrospectively

 	Such data were collected retrospectively when a participant changed location or was self-caring. In such instances, the research nurse would consult patient notes or records kept by the patient to determine the number of dressing changes over a specified period of time

Duration of treatment with allocated trial treatment	Calculated as the difference between the date a patient receiving their allocated treatment to the date they stopped receiving this treatment. This information was available from treatment monitoring forms (as described above)

Reasons for ceasing allocated trial treatment	When, in the clinical judgement of the nurses, a patient could no longer receive their allocated trial treatment, the reason for treatment change was recorded on a treatment monitoring form

Define common adverse events in the study population	All serious and non-serious adverse events that occurred in participants were recorded on adverse events forms. The nature, description and relationship of the event to trial treatment were recorded. The research nurse indicated whether the event was considered to be related to the reference pressure ulcer


Tumor types	56 expression CD

Negative	Positive

Pleomorphic adenoma	6 cases(40%)	9cases(60%)

Low-grade malignant tumors(Mucoepidermoid carcinoma grade I)	8 cases(100%)	0 case(0%)

high-grade malignant tumors	Mucoepidermoid carcinoma grade III	6 cases(27.3%)	1 case(4.5%)

Adenoid cystic carcinoma	3 cases(13.6%)	12 cases(54.5%)


	Excluded from Analysis	Included in Analysis

Basic Stats	N = 1534	N = 946	ANOVA

<underline>Age at NAF visit:</underline>

Mean	43.9 *	42.6

Median	42	41

Std Err	0.39	0.42

Min-max	16–89	16–87

			p = 0.04

<underline>Age at breast cancer diagnosis:</underline>

N	81 **	93

Mean	62.0	60.8

Median	62	62

Std Err	1.5	1.27

Min-max	30–89	34–86

			p = 0.54

<underline>Breast cancer:</underline>	<underline>n (%)</underline>	<underline>n (%)</underline>

	90 (6%)	93 (10%)	Chi Square

			p <0.001

<underline>NAF Cytology:</underline>	<underline>n (%)</underline>	<underline>n (%)</underline>

No fluid	929 (61%)	714 (75%)

Insufficient specimen	45 (3%)	19 (2%)

Normal	232 (15%)	89 (9%)

Hyperplasia	234 (15%)	97 (10%)

Atypia	81 (5%)	27 (3%)

[Unable to classify]	13 (1%)

			p <0.001


Chinese name	Full scientific name	Parts of plant use	%	Dose of dry plant	Constituent	Dose after extraction	Function in Chinese medicine

Huang Qi 	Radix Astragali 	Dry root 	 	15	Astragaloside 	3.75	Tonifies Qi

Sheng Di 	Rehmannia glutinosa Libosch	Dry root	 	15	 	3.75	Nourishes Yin

Shan Zhu Yu 	Fructus Cornus 	Dry fruit	 	5	Loganin	1.25	Tonifies the liver and kidney and retains the essence

Bai Shao 	Paeonia lactiflora 	Dry root 	 	15	Paeoniflorin	3.75	Nourishes blood and preserves Yin

Dan Pi 	Cortex Moutan Radicis	Dry root and stem 	 	15	Paeonol	3.75	Clears deficient fire and heat

She She Cao 	Herba Hedyotidis Diffusae	Dry leaf	 	15	Oleanic acid	3.75	Clears heat and resolves toxins

Total	 	 	100	80	 	20


Genes	5’ Primer sequence	3’ Primer sequence

CD14	CCGCTGCCTCTGGAAG	GGCGAGTGTGCTTGGG

TLR4	GTCCTCAGTGTGCTTGTAG	ATCCTGGCTTGAGTAGATAAC

MD-2	CACCATGAATCTTCCAAAGC	CTTGAAGGAGAATGATATTGTTG

MyD88	CGGATGGTGGTGGTTGTCTC	CGCTTCTGATGGGCACCT

GAPDH	CTGAGTACGTCGTGGAGTC	AAATGAGCCCCAGCCTTC


Maternal PCB concentration (ng/g lipid)	Model R2

Model 1: preconception PCBs	0.22

 Explained variation	22%

Model 2: preconception PCBs + prenatal PCBs	0.26

 Explained variation	25%	6%

Model 3: preconception PCBs + prenatal PCBs + postnatal PCBs	0.28

 Explained variation	20%	8%	2%

Model 4: preconception PCBs + prenatal PCBs + postnatal PCBs + breast-feeding duration	0.56

Explained variation	15%	2%	< 1%	32%


	Variables	Expected difference, mean	Expected standard deviation	α	Power %

Primary outcome	10 years risk of CVD (%)	2.5	5.9	0.0166	0.90

Secondary outcomes	WC (cm)	5	14	0.0166	0.75

	BP (mm Hg)	5	12	0.0166	0.88

	RHR (per minutes)	10	20	0.0166	0.97

	HDL (mmol/l)	0.2	0.4	0.0166	0.97

	Non-HDL (mmol/l)	0.45	1.1	0.0166	0.87

	HbA1c (mmol/mol)	0.5	1.1	0.0166	0.94

	FEV1 (L)	-0.36	0.92	00166	0.84

	VO2max	3.5	9	0.0166	0.73

	Sedentary (minutes/day)	60	140	0.0166	0.90

	MVPA (Minutes/day)	20	40	0.0166	0.97


Point of view	OQRA	PQRA

Computation	 Every time a request initiated.	Precomputes paths from a source to all destinations.

Scalability	Limited.	 Large-scale networks.

Suitability	When requests arise infrequently.	 When requests arise very frequent.

Pros	Optimal routing during congestion state.	(i) Saves time.(ii) Better scalability.(iii) Improved load balancing.

Cons	Puts excessive time on packet processing.	(i) Path oscillation.(ii) Nonoptimal routing during congestion.(iii) Resources consumption.(iv) Complexity.


Variable	Total population, N=565	Current use of LARC, N=179

 	n (%)	n (%)

Knowledge of LARC

a) Knowledge of duration of protection from pregnancy

IUD	387 (68.5)	136 (75.98)

Implant	395 (69.9)	139 (77.65)

Injectable	494 (87.4)	161 (89.94)

b) Knowledge of site of administration

IUD	429 (75.9)	148 (82.68)

Implant	453 (80.2)	158 (88.27)

Injectable	519 (91.9)	171 (95.53)


Pathway/substance	n	%	P-value

Animal faeces	73	48.7

Raw meat	57	38.0

Soil	40	26.7*	P = 0.036a

Food	39	26.0

Arthropods	37	24.7

No idea	37	24.7

Mother to child	31	20.7

Plants	20	13.3

Environmental contamination	18	12

Claw scratch	1	0.7*	P < 0.0001b


Characteristic	Percentage*	Sample size

Gender (female)	87.8%	983

Age	 	983

 <50 years	2.0%

 50–59 years	14.5%

 60–69 years	30.0%

 70–79 years	33.7%

 ≥80 years	19.7%

BMD based on most recent lowest T-score, mean (SD) 	−2.16 (1.55)	946

Additional fracture risk factors	 	977

 Previous fragility fracture	27.8%

 Systemic glucocorticoids for >3 months	8.5%

 Previous fragility fracture and systemic glucocorticoids for >3 months	3.3%

Length of treatment for osteoporosis	 	980

 <1 year	11.3%

 1–5 years	43.8%

 >5 years	44.9%

Osteoporosis therapy	 	983

 Bisphosphonate	79.0%

 Selective estrogen-receptor modulator	3.0%

 Hormone therapy	2.3%

 Parathyroid hormone	2.2%

 Calcitonin	1.3%

Prescribed supplementation	 	983

 Calcium	84.8%

 Vitamin D	84.8%


A: Comparison between patients with active TB and control subjects

		P < 0.02	0.02≤P < 0.05	0.05≤P < 0.10

Patients versus control subjects		18	12	24

B: Comparison between stimulated and unstimulated conditions

		P < 0.02	0.02≤P < 0.05	0.05≤P < 0.10

Patients	Mtb antigens versus no stimuli	0	2	2

	Mitogen versus no stimuli	3	5	11

Control subjects	Mtb antigens versus no stimuli	0	1	13

	Mitogen versus no stimuli	2	83	8


Study/year	Sample size (I/C)	Setting	Prophylaxis drugs	Comparator	Patient characteristics (I/C)

Age, mean, (years)	Disease severity, median (IQR) or mean (SD)	Patient receiving EN, n/N (%)	MV (%)	Follow up (months)

Alhazzani et al. 2017 [18]	49/42	Mixed	Pantoprazole 40 mg once daily IV	Placebo	62/55	APACHE II score21 (17–26)/22(14–27)	81/91 (89)	100/100	Unknown

El-Kersh et al. 2017 [29]	55/47	MICU	Pantoprazole 40 mg once daily IV	Placebo	62/58	SAPS II score41 (34.5–53)/44 (34–54)	102/102 (100)	100/100	Unknown

Selvanderan et al. 2016 [27]	106/108	Mixed	Pantoprazole 40 mg once daily IV	Placebo	52/52	APACHE III score66 (26)/66 (28)	214/214 (100)	100/100	12

Lin et al. 2016 [28]	60/60	Mixed	Lansoprazole OD 30 mg once daily	No prophylaxis	67/65	APACHE II score21.3 (6.7)/19.9 (6.9)	120/120 (100)	100/100	1

Ben-menachem et al. 1994 [22]	200/100	MICU	Cimetidine 900 mg InfusionSucralfate OD 1 g every 6 h	No prophylaxis	60/60	APACHE II score17.4 (7.3)/16.5 (6.9)	198/300 (67)	74/65	10

Apte et al. 1992 [21]	16/18	MICU	Ranitidine 50 mg/every 6 h IV	No prophylaxis	27/26	MTS score11 (4–16)/10 (6–16)	34/34 (100)	31/22	Unknown

Van den Berg et al. 1985 [23]	14/14	Mixed	Cimetidine 20 mg/kg/every 24 h IV	Placebo	44/48	-	17/28 (61)	100/100	Unknown


Experiment	Power (W)	Duration (s)	Tip-to-Tip Distance (mm)	Orientation	Peak Pressure (kPa)

1	5	74	0.5	Parallel	71.6

2	3	105	1.2	Parallel	48.4

3	4	60	2.5	Parallel	5.8

4	5	52	5	Perpendicular	1.9


Parameter	DB

HISTogram parameter ( HIST )	0.53

Zero Crossing parameter (ZC)	0.70

Auto Regressive coefficients (AR)	1.01

Integral Absolute Value (IAV)	1.24


Name	Sequence 5'-3'	Description

H-exon 2-3 reverse	ATTTGTGATACCCCTCGACGAG	Normal human ERCC1 transcript reverse primer

Hskin4RTreverse	TGTACAGAGATCGCCCTGCTCTATGC	Larger Human ERCC1 transcript reverse primer

REV1	CGGTCCTCCAGAACCATAGA	Larger Human ERCC1 transcript reverse primer

Oligo dT anchor	GACCACGCGTATCGATGTCGACTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTV (V=A, C or G)	Anchor primer

PCR anchor	GACCACGCGTATCGATGTCGA	Internal anchor primer


	Diamniadio District	Rufisque District

Before	During	% Increase	Before	During	% Increase

Number of contraceptives provided	8,351	11,935	43%	17,551	22,779	30%

Pills	4,540	6,097	34%	9,465	11,867	25%

Injectables	3,568	5,277	48%	7,224	9,373	30%

Implants	187	470	151%	536	1,097	105%

Intrauterine devices (IUDs)	56	91	63%	326	442	36%

Long-acting methods	243	561	131%	862	1,539	79%

Couple-years of protection	2,164	3,932	82%	5,977	9,340	56%


	Men with varicocele	Men without varicocele

	Normal sperm	Sperm disturbances	Normal sperm	Sperm disturbances

Dark-eyed men 	25.6%	74.4%	16.7%	83.3%

Light-eyed men	44.4%	55.6%	23.4%	76.6%

P	0.419	0.586


Variables	No (%)

Perceived need*

 Food	114 (97.4%)

 Shelter	88 (75.2%)

 Water (Drinking & Washing)	74 (63.2%)

 Clothes	55 (47.0%)

 Information about Family Members/relatives	35 (29.9%)

 Adsorbents for Menstrual Hygiene	22 (18.8%)

 Mobiles	17 (14.5%)

 Medicine/First aid	13 (11.1%)

 Safe place	12 (10.3%)

 Soap	8 (6.8%)

 Cattle	7 (6.0%)


Past Week NSSI Measures	n	d	p

Number of NSSI episodes (ABASI)	1514	.13	.01

Medical severity of NSSI (ABASI)	1239	.29	<.001

Impulsivity of NSSI (ABASI)	1234	-.01	.87

Craving for NSSI (ABUSI total score)	1476	1.16	<.001

Past Year NSSI Methods (ABASI)

Cut	676	.13	.09

Scratch	676	.20	.01

Burn	676	.12	.11

Tattoo/Pierce	676	.01	.91

Choke	676	.33	<.001

Pull Hair	676	.20	.01

Draw Blood	676	.09	.25

Insert/Embed	676	.19	.01

Hit	345	.45	<.001

Bang	676	.28	<.001

Prevent Wound Healing	676	.24	.002

Fall Down	676	.00	.99

Break Bones	676	.11	.16

Gouge	676	.05	.51

Fight	676	.11	.14

Ingest/Swallow	676	.09	.25

Mutilate Genitals	343	.00	1

Worsen Medical Condition/Ignore Medical Advice	676	.23	.003

Past Year Number of NSSI Methods (ABASI)	676	.52	<.001

Past Year Number of Days with NSSI (ABASI)	345	.65	<.001


Gene ID	Gene	Protein description	Mean RPKM WT	Mean RPKM ΔgacA	ΔgacA/WT	P-value

gacS/gacA

 Pchl3084_3491	gacA	Response regulator	266.9	1.43	0.01	0.00

 Pchl3084_4333	gacS	Sensor protein	29.17	21.15	0.73	0.05

phz genes

 Pchl3084_4951	phzX	Phenazine biosynthesis protein	40.50	4.52	0.11	0.03

 Pchl3084_4952	phzY	Phenazine biosynthesis protein	37.87	5.28	0.14	0.03

 Pchl3084_4953	phzF	Phenazine biosynthesis protein	20.00	2.63	0.13	0.03

 Pchl3084_4954	phzA	Phenazine biosynthesis protein	8.52	0.78	0.09	0.15

 Pchl3084_4955	phzB	Phenazine biosynthesis protein	13.47	2.08	0.15	0.04

 Pchl3084_4956	phzC	Phenazine biosynthesis protein	8.24	1.90	0.23	0.00

 Pchl3084_4957	phzD	Phenazine biosynthesis protein	7.63	1.40	0.18	0.10

 Pchl3084_4958	phzO	Phenazine biosynthesis protein	44.23	21.70	0.49	0.06

Regulatory genes

 Pchl3084_4949	phzI	Autoinducer synthase	5.24	1.50	0.29	0.01

 Pchl3084_4950	phzR	Transcriptional activator	125.1	67.12	0.54	0.02

 Pchl3084_1189	rpoS	Sigma factor	1045.7	101.8	0.10	0.03

 Pchl3084_5155	pip	Phenazine-inducing protein	123.4	105.4	0.85	0.04

 Pchl3084_1659	iopA	Inducer of phenazine A	49.10	8.35	0.17	0.01

 Pchl3084_1660	iopB	Inducer of phenazine B	20.71	2.51	0.12	0.00

 Pchl3084_3224	rpeA	Sensor histidine kinase	46.78	49.28	1.05	0.67

 Pchl3084_3225	rpeB	Response regulator	45.37	55.20	1.22	0.07

 Pchl3084_2449	csaI	Autoinducer synthase	8.15	8.72	1.07	0.65

 Pchl3084_2451	csaR	Transcriptional activator	0.54	0.38	0.71	0.50

 Pchl3084_0554	hfq	RNA chaperone	1642.19	1408.2	0.84	0.28

 Pchl3084_4387	rsmA	Translational regulator	151.82	307.24	2.02	0.03

 Pchl3084_2024	rsmE	Translational regulator	292.7	204.83	0.70	0.06

 Pchl3084_3970	rsmX	ncRNA	1486.51	201.13	0.14	0.02

 Pchl3084_5419	rsmY	ncRNA	38112.4	329.2	0.01	0.02

 Pchl3084_1190	rsmZ	ncRNA	1679.64	261.26	0.16	0.05


Grade	Description

0	No changes

1	Doubtful narrowing of joint space and possible osteophytic lipping

2	Definite osteophytes and possible narrowing of joint space

3	Moderate multiple osteophytes, definite narrowing of joint space, and some sclerosis, and possible deformity of bone ends

4	Large osteophytes, marked narrowing of joint space, severe sclerosis and definite deformity of bone ends


	cELISA assay	Total

P	N

Skin test	P	45	31	76

N	45	177	222

Total	90	208	298


Indicator	Baseline	Mid-term	End-term	DID adjusted BL-ML	Sig.	DID adjusted BL-EL	Sig.

Comparison	Intervention	Comparison	Intervention	Comparison	Intervention

%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N

Proportion of women reporting health worker introduction	26%	53	37%	68	30%	89	38%	120	40%	62	49%	85	−4%	0.77	−4%	0.82

Proportion of women reporting having been clinically examined	57%	53	46%	68	99%	89	96%	120	92%	62	91%	85	5%	0.73	6%	0.75

Proportion of women reporting having received an explanation of the examination	100%	30	100%	31	64%	88	58%	115	54%	57	58%	77	−5%	0.69	−2%	0.85

Proportion of women reporting having received medication/treatment	92%	53	71%	68	87%	89	88%	120	66%	62	79%	85	23%	0.07	29%	0.03*

Proportion of women reporting having received an explanation for the medication	59%	49	63%	48	42%	77	46%	106	56%	41	73%	67	−3%	0.85	12%	0.54

Proportion of women reporting having had a blood test done	26%	53	47%	68	21%	89	8%	120	23%	62	36%	85	−35%	0.03	−2%	0.90

Proportion of women reporting having received an explanation for the test	93%	14	75%	32	32%	19	30%	10	64%	14	65%	31	9%	0.69	10%	0.65

Proportion of women reporting consent being sought before procedures were performed	55%	53	61%	66	62%	87	63%	112	68%	60	75%	77	−5%	0.73	1%	0.96

Proportion of women having been encouraged to ask questions	36%	53	49%	68	25%	89	33%	120	45%	62	58%	85	−8%	0.63	2%	0.89

Proportion of women reporting being offered to have guardian during delivery	42%	53	57%	68	22%	89	58%	120	50%	62	55%	85	18%	0.29	3%	0.87

Proportion of women reporting their privacy/confidentiality being protected	96%	53	96%	68	91%	89	94%	120	90%	62	96%	85	3%	0.67	8%	0.55

Proportion of women reporting blood pressure was checked before delivery	53%	53	51%	68	49%	89	37%	120	61%	62	65%	85	−15%	0.22	19%	0.26

Proportion of women reporting blood pressure was checked after delivery	40%	53	44%	68	66%	89	57%	116	45%	58	68%	81	−13%	0.36	19%	0.25


Country	Region	Classification category of country for ZIKV transmission as per WHO	Number of cases reported

American Samoa	American Samoa	Category 3 (interrupted transmission areas)	51

Angola	Angola	Category 1 (virus transmission areas followed by new/re introduction of virus)	2

Argentina	Chaco, Formosa, Salta, Tucuman	Category 1 (virus transmission areas followed by new/re introduction of virus)	4

Bahamas	Bahamas	Category 1 (virus transmission areas followed by new/re introduction of virus)	25

Bangladesh	Bangladesh	Category 2 (virus transmission areas following previous circulation of virus)	1

Brazil	Acre, Alagoas, Amapa Amazonas, Ceara, Distrito Federal, Espirito Santo, Goias, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso Do Sul, Minas Gerais, Para, Paraiba, Parana, Pernambuco, Piaui, Rio Grande Do Norte, Rio Grande Do Sul, Rondonia, Roraima, Santa Catarina, Sao Paulo, Sergipe, Tocantin	Category 1 (virus transmission areas followed by new/re introduction of virus)	27

	Bahia, Maranhao	Category 2 (newly documented intense transmission areas)

	Rio de Janeiro	Category 2 (virus transmission areas following previous circulation of virus)

Colombia	Colombia	Category 1 (virus transmission areas followed by new/re introduction of virus)	46

Costa Rica	Costa Rica	Category 1 (virus transmission areas followed by new/re introduction of virus)	23

Dominican Republic	Dominican Republic	Category 1 (virus transmission areas followed by new/re introduction of virus)	30

India	Gujarat, Tamil Nadu	Category 2 (virus transmission areas following previous circulation of virus)	2

Indonesia	Bali, Bangka Belitung, Banten, Bengkulu, Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, Dki Jakarta, Gorontalo, Jambi, Jawa Barat, Jawa Tengah, Jawa Timur, Kalimantan Barat, Kalimantan Selatan, Kalimantan Tengah, Kalimantan Timur, Kepulauan-Riau, Lampung, Maluku, Maluku Utara, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, Nusa Tenggara Barat, Nusa Tenggara Timur, Papua, Papua Barat, Riau, Sulawesi Barat, Sulawesi Selatan, Sulawesi Tengah, Sulawesi Tenggara, Sulawesi Utara, Sumatera Barat, Sumatera Selatan, Sumatera Utara	Category 2 (virus transmission areas following previous circulation of virus)	31

Malaysia	Malaysia	Category 2 (virus transmission areas following previous circulation of virus)	8

Mexico	Aguascalientes, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Campeche, Chiapas, Coahuila, Colima, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Jalisco, Michoacan, Morelos, Nayarit, Nuevo Leon, Oaxaca, Puebla, Quintana Roo, San Luis Potosi, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tabasco, Tamaulipas, Veracruz, Yucatan, Zacatecas	Category 1 (virus transmission areas followed by new/re introduction of virus)	25

Philippines	Philippines	Category 2 (virus transmission areas following previous circulation of virus)	57

Thailand	Thailand	Category 2 (newly documented intense transmission areas)	33

United States of America	Cameron	Category 1 (virus transmission areas followed by new/re introduction of virus)	202

	Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Pinellas	Category 3 (interrupted transmission areas)

Vietnam	Vietnam	Category 2 (newly documented intense transmission areas)	232


Number of criteria positively scored	Sensitivity	Specificity

1. criteria or more	0.88	0.31

2. criteria or more	0.85	0.41

3. criteria or more	0.83	0.52

4. criteria or more	0.78	0.69

5. criteria or more	0.70	0.85

6. criteria or more	0.50	0.94

7. criteria	0.18	0.98


Confounder	Variables	How to measure

Demographic characteristics	Age, sex, social status, family size, educational attainment, occupational history, income	Questionnaire

Lifestyle	Smoking, alcohol	Questionnaire

Genetic factor	Family history of diabetes/hypertension	Questionnaire

Drugs	Different medications for diabetes and hypertension	Clinical record


Tissue type	Pegcantratinib (MF)	CT340 (MF)	Ratio

Skin with anagen follicles	1.05	1.05	1.00

Cylindroma and spiradenoma	0.97	0.96	1.01

Cylindroma only	1.07	1.05	1.02

Spiradenoma only:	0.92	1.01	0.91

– Mean	1.00	1.02	0.99

– SD	0.07	0.04	0.05

– CV (%)	7.1	3.9	5.0


Case no.	@Age/ $Gender	Stage	Grade	#Recurrence	MSI

BC 1	45/M	T2	High, G3	2	*High (BAT – 26, BAT – 40)

BC 2	59/M	T1	High, G2	1	High (BAT – 26, BAT – 40, D9S1851)

BC 3	66/M	Ta	Low, G1	0	High (D9S283, D9S1851)

BC 4	39/M	T2	High, G3	0	High (BAT – 26, BAT – 40, D9S283)

BC 5	72/M	T2	High, G3	0	High (BAT – 40, D9S1851)

BC 6	59/M	T2	High, G2	1	Low (D9S1851)

BC 7	78/M	T2	High, G3	0	High (D9S283, D9S1851)

BC 8	52/M	Ta	High, G2	0	High (BAT – 40, D9S283, D9S1851)

BC 9	71/M	Ta	High, G2	0	**Low (BAT – 40)

BC 10	84/M	T1	High, G2	0	***MSS

BC 11	55/M	T1	High, G1	0	MSS

BC 12	53/M	T2	High, G2	0	Low (D18S58)

BC 13	52/M	T3	High, G3	0	High (D9S283, D9S1851)

BC 14	40/M	T3	High, G3	0	MSS

BC 15	55/M	T2	High, G3	0	MSS

BC 16	60/M	T2	High, G3	0	High (BAT – 40, D9S283, D18S58)

BC 17	66/M	T1	High, G3	1	High (BAT – 40, D2S123, D9S283, D9S1851, D18S58)

BC 18	80/M	T1	High, G3	1	High (BAT – 26, D9S283, D18S58)

BC 19	42/M	T1	High, G2	0	Low (D9S283)

BC 20	73/M	T3a	High, G3	0	MSS

BC 21	55/M	T2	High, G3	0	Low (D2S123)

BC 22	58/M	T2	High, G3	0	High (BAT – 26, D2S123)

BC 23	70/M	T1	High, G2	0	Low (BAT – 26)

BC 24	53/M	Ta	High, G3	0	High (D9S1851, D18S58)

BC 25	60/M	T2	High, G3	0	High (D9S283, D9S1851)

BC 26	54/M	Ta	Low, G1	0	MSS

BC 27	72/M	Ta	High, G2	0	MSS

BC 28	58/M	T1	High, G3	0	Low (D9S283)

BC 29	80/M	T2	High, G3	0	High (D9S283, D9S1851)

BC 30	64/M	Ta	High, G2	2	Low (BAT – 40)

BC 31	74/M	Ta	High, G3	0	High (D9S283, D9S1851)

BC 32	60/M	T1	Low, G1	0	MSS

BC 33	41/M	T1	Low, G1	3	Low (BAT – 26)

BC 34	66/ F	T2	High, G3	0	High (D2S123, D9S283)

BC 35	53/M	T1	Low, G1	0	Low (D2S123)

BC 36	66/M	T1	High, G2	1	High (D2S123, D9S283, D18S58)

BC 37	55/M	T2	High, G3	0	High (BAT – 26, BAT – 40, D9S1851)

BC 38	65/M	T2	High, G3	0	Low (D18S58)

BC 39	69/M	T1	Low, G1	0	Low (D9S283)

BC 40	74/M	T1	High, G2	1	MSS

BC 41	72/ F	T2	Low, G1	0	MSS

BC 42	71/M	T1	High, G3	1	Low (D9S283)

BC 43	64/M	T2	High, G3	0	High (BAT – 40, D9S1851)

BC 44	73/M	T1	High, G2	1	Low (D9S283)


Statements	At my PHCC,a management is positive toward our work with promotion of healthy lifestyles	At my PHCC, we collaborate with other stakeholders such as municipalities and community associations about our patients’ lifestyles	At my PHCC, there are incentives to promote healthy lifestyles among our patients	At my PHCC, there are local guidelines/care programs on how we should promote healthy lifestyles among our patients	At my PHCC, there are many factors that facilitate the promotion of healthy lifestyles among our patients	At my PHCC, there are many factors that hinder the promotion of healthy lifestyles among our patients	I perceive there is a need for National CPGsb for lifestyle interventions in the work at my PHCC

Characteristics	%	P-value	%	P-value	%	P-value	%	P-value	%	P-value	%	P-value	%	P-value

Profession		0.782		0.207		0.465		0.618		0.154		0.729		0.049

Registered nurse	80		37		60		63		37		17		77

Public health nurse	71		22		57		51		42		17		84

Physician	68		20		63		50		43		12		65

Residentc	68		14		50		50		14		18		68

General practitioner	72		19		72		72		38		25		75

Years in profession		0.489		0.829		0.111		0.948		0.075		0.861		0.783

0–10	74		22		54		51		27		18		79

≥11	70		23		63		52		37		17		78

Total	71		22		59		51		33		17		78


Type of triangulation	Example

Data source triangulation	Existing data review	Analyzed main health problem by reviewing existing health data from CDC

	Investigation	Prioritized health problem by investigating health problem and risk factors with different methods

Methods triangulation	Participation (Ranking)	Prioritized health problem by listing and ranking health concerns (people's perceived needs and priorities)

	FGD	Discussed the health problems, risk factors and their influencing factors (people's perceived needs, priorities, influence factors)

	Key informant interview	Assessed the health resources for health promotion (resources, policy)

	Questionnaires	Surveyed the health problems ("actual needs"), risk factors

Researchers triangulation	Teachers	Role of moderator in 4 FGDs and key informants interviews, and analyzed all FGDs and key informants interviews

	Graduates	Role of moderator in 8 FGDs


Classification results L2-norm SVM

Features	Accuracy (%)	Accuracy p-value	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Sparsity (%)	Stability (%)

Event-related fMRI dataset

Sparse inverse covariance	73.68	0.01⁎	73.68	73.68	–	37.81 ± 0.26

Full inverse covariance	44.73	> 0.05	47.37	42.11	–	9.90 ± 0.78

Correlation	68.42	0.02⁎	84.21	52.63	–	9.29 ± 1.56

Partial correlation	65.78	> 0.05	73.68	57.89	–	11.33 ± 0.16

Block-related fMRI dataset

Sparse inverse covariance	78.33	0.01⁎	80.00	76.67	–	25.81 ± 0.45

Full inverse covariance	40.00	> 0.05	20.00	60.00	–	12.81 ± 0.89

Correlation	60.00	> 0.05	86.67	33.33	–	8.61 ± 2.17

Partial correlation	58.33	> 0.05	53.33	63.33	–	10.93 ± 0.78


Sample month	Raw sludge enteric virus (PFU/4 g)	Treated biosolids enteric virus (PFU/4 g)

1	< 1	< 1

2	< 1	< 1

3	< 1	< 1

4	< 1	< 1

5	< 1	< 1

6	5	< 1

7	2	< 1

8	1	< 1

9	1	< 1

10	7	< 1

11	6	1

12	31	< 1


	Landmarks on single curves

Sellion	The most posterior point of the frontonasal soft tissue contour in the midline of the base of the nasal root

The point of maximal curvature of the mid‐line nasal profile curve at its nasal root end

Subnasale	The point where the nasal septum merges with the upper cutaneous lip in the mid‐sagittal plane

The point of maximal curvature on the mid‐line curve at the base of the nasal septum

Alare	The most lateral point on each alar contour

The point of maximal curvature along the alar curve

Alare crest	The facial insertion of each alar base

The point of maximum curvature on the alar curve where this meets the paranasal area

Cheilion	The point located at each labial commissure

The point of maximum curvature at the lateral end of the labial seal curve

Sublabiale	The most posterior mid‐point on the labiomental soft tissue contour that defines the border between the lower lip and the chin

The point of maximal curvature in the mid‐line curve as it passes through the mentolabial sulcus

Tragion	The point located at the upper margin of each tragus

The point of maximum curvature at the superior end of the tragus curve

Otobasion inferius	The point of attachment of the ear lobe to the cheek, which determines the lower border of the ear insertion

The final point at the preauricular end of the ear rim curve.


Characteristic	Standardized coefficients	P-value	95 % Confidence Interval for B

Beta	Lower bound	Lower bound

Number of medications for each patient	0.556	<0.001	0.196	0.288

Patient age group	0.045	0.381	−0.090	0.235

Number of comorbid diseases the patient have	0.049	0.367	−0.056	0.151


Highest stage of education achieved by participants’ parent(s) No. (%)	Entry route into Undergraduate Medical Education No. (%)	Medical Degree Type No. (%)	Medical Degree Stage No. (%)

- Primary Level 1 (5)- Secondary Level14 (70)- Tertiary Level 5(25)	-Direct entry from Tertiary Education15 (75)-Gap year between Tertiary Education and Medical School 2 (10)-Graduate Entry 3 (15)	-Extended (6 Years) 11 (55)-MBBS (5 Years) 9 (45)	-Pre-Clinical Stage 10 (50%)-Clinical Stage 10 (50%)

Total 20(100)	Total 20(100)	Total 20(100)	Total 20(100)


Antibody (host, clonality, Company)	Purpose	Dilution

FGFR1 (rabbit, polyclonal, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, CA)	IHC	1:150

FGFR2 (rabbit, polyclonal, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, CA)	IHC	1:150

FGF7 (rabbit, polyclonal, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, CA)	IHC	1:150

FGF7 (rabbit, polyclonal, Abcam, Cambridge, UK)	WB	1:200

FGF10 (rabbit, polyclonal, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, CA)	IHC	1:150

FGF10 (goat, polyclonal, Peprotech Inc., Rocky Hill, NJ)	WB	1:200

p-p44/42 MAPK (Thr202/Tyr204) (rabbit, polyclonal, Cell Signaling, Beverly, MA)	WB	1:1,000

Akt (rabbit, polyclonal, Cell Signaling, Beverly, MA)	WB	1:1,000

p-Akt (Ser473) (rabbit, polyclonal, Cell Signaling, Beverly, MA)	WB	1:1,000

Actin (mouse, monoclonal, Amersham, Buckinghamshire, UK)


Characteristics	Controls n = 67	NSTEMI n = 38	STEMI n = 30

Age	66 ± 12	72 ± 15	72 ± 13

M/F	46/21	29/9	21/9

Diabetes Mellitus	8	8	4

Prior IHD	29	18	12

Hemoglobine, g/l	135 ± 15	132 ± 15	132 ± 16

Platelet count, ×109/l	224 ± 74	218 ± 51	222 ± 66

Cholesterol mmol/l	-	4,67 ± 0,94	4,60 ± 0,79

Triglycerides mmol/l	-	1,19 ± 0,46	1,28 ± 0,94

BMI	-	24 ± 2,8	27 ± 3,2


	Up/Down-regulatedc	Regulated by

	Genea	Enzymeb	CAZy family	ΔxlnR	ΔaraR	ΔrhaR	ΔgalX	ΔamyR	This study	Literature	Reference

E-1	An15g04900 (eglD)	LPMO	AA9	2.1	−1.2	−1.7	−1.6	−1.8	nd	nr	[38]

An03g00190 (pelB)	PEL	PL1	–	–	–	1.2	1.0	nd	nr	[73]

E-2	An07g09760	BGL	GH3	–	–	–	–	–	nd	nr	[38]

An08g01100	EXG	GH5	1.6	1.1	1.1	–	3.8	nd	nr	[38]

An11g03200 (inuA/inuB)	INU	GH32	–	–	–	–	–	nd	InuR	[8, 79]

An12g08280 (inuE/inu1)	INX	GH32	2.9	2.0	1.9	5.2	4.1	nd	InuR	[8]

An02g04900 (pgaB)	PGA	GH28	2.6	−2.3	–	2.2	−2.1	nd	GaaR	[15, 34, 80]

An08g11070 (sucA/suc1)	SUC	GH32	–	–	–	–	–	nd	InuR	[9, 81, 82]


Surface material	SBS	ARI

Enamel	Chi-square test	18.512	11.686

 Df	2	2

Asymptotic significance	0.000	0.003

SR Adoro	Chi-square test	0.281	1.636

Df	2	2

Asymptotic significance	0.869	0.441

Filtek Supreme XTE	Chi-square test	20.847	14.017

Df	2	2

Asymptotic significance	0.000	0.001

Wisil	Chi-square test	6.970	6.444

Df	2	2

Asymptotic significance	0.031	0.040

Dispersalloy	Chi-square test	9.223	6.691

Df	2	2

Asymptotic significance	0.010	0.035

Herador	Chi-square test	3.583	8.561

Df	2	2

Asymptotic significance	0.167	0.014

e.max Press	Chi-square test	23.086	11.600

Df	2	2

Asymptotic significance	0.000	0.003

ZirCAD	Chi-square test	16.423	15.612

Df	2	2

Asymptotic significance	0.000	0.000

Mark II	Chi-square test	9.762	19.815

Df	2	2

Asymptotic significance	0.008	0.000


Year	Number of districts	Districts reporting at least one suspected case	Number of suspected cases reported	Blood specimens collected	Confirmed cases	Districts with confirmed cases

	n	 n 	 % 	n	 n 	 % 	 n 	 %

2003	144	52 	36.1	156	156	100	3	1.3	Bafia, Méri, Ntui

2004	159	80 	50.3	434	434	100	2	0.5	Ngaoundéré Rural

2005	159	88 	55.3	831	831	100	2	0.2	Yoko

2006	167	114	68.2	859	859	100	1	0.2	Messamena


Type of ZnO nanostructure	Turn-on field (V μm-1)	Threshold field (V μm-1)	β

Leaf-like (30 min)	2.94	4.35	2,800

Long NWs arrays (60 min)	3.69	5.72	2,526

Needle-like	3.87	5.65	2,284


Patient no.	CSF leakage	Leakage pattern	Location of CSF leakage	Exact location of CSF leakage

1	+	Pseudodiverticular	Left T11/12	+

2	+	Gray rim	L1	+

3	−		−	−

4	+	Gray rim	T12/L1	+

5	+	Pseudodiverticular	Left L2/3 and L3/4	+

6	+	Gray rim	T3	+

7	+	Gray rim	From C5/6 to L1/2	Extensive

8	+	Gray rim	From C1/2 to T10/11	Extensive

9	+	Pseudodiverticular	Right L3/4 and L4/5	+

10	+	Gray rim	L4/5/S1	+

11	+	Gray rim and pseudodiverticular	From T12 to L2	Extensive

12	+	Gray rim	From cervical to upper T-spine	Extensive

13	+	Gray rim	T-spine	Extensive

14	+	Pseudodiverticular	Both T11/12	+

15	+	Gray rim	C5/6/7 and T7/8/9	Extensive

16	+	Pseudodiverticular	Right C5/6	+

17	+	Gray rim	T5/6	+

18	+	Gray rim and pseudodiverticular	From C4 to T4	Extensive


Instrument	Unprepared apical area (%)	Unprepared coronal area (%)

Mean ± SD	Min-Max	Mean ± SD	Min-Max

ProTaper Next	11.03 ± .96	10.11–12.8	55.70 ± 1.25	53.26–57.19

WaveOne	12.06 ± 1.21	9.25–13.10	55.53 ± 1.01	53.48–57.24

P value	.683c	.684c


Heart evaluation parameters	CRT	IMRT

Average maximum heart dose (cGy)	5295.26	5209.87

Range (cGy)	4858.3–5743.8	4895.17–5862.8

P-value	0.08	0.08


	All studies (n = 102)	Randomized trials (n = 25)	Nonrandomized studies (n = 77)

Number of participants	66 386	7172	59 214

Age range of participants (years)	18–99	29–89	18–99

Number of participating centres (%)

Single	58 (57)	13 (52)	45 (58)

Multiple	44 (43)	12 (48)	32 (42)

IRB or ethical approval reported (%)	52 (51)	14 (56)	38 (49)

Tumour site (%)

Colon	10 (9)	2 (8)	7 (9)

Rectum	54 (53)	11 (44)	44 (55)

Mixed colon and rectum	38 (38)	12 (48)	26 (34)

Surgical approach (%)

Laparoscopy	1 (1)	0	1 (1)

Hand‐assisted laparoscopy	0	0	0

Open	5 (5)	1 (4)	4 (5)

Mixed	13 (12)	9 (36)	5 (6)

Not reported or incomplete information reported	83 (81)	15 (60)	67 (87)

Neoadjuvant treatmenta (%)

Radiotherapy alone	20 (20)	9 (36)	11 (14)

Chemotherapy alone	0	0	0v (0.0)

Chemoradiotherapy	22 (22)	3 (12)	18 (24)

None	7 (7)	1 (4)	6 (8)

Not reported or incomplete information reported	53 (51)	12 (48)	42 (54)

Adjuvant treatmenta (%)

Chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy	56 (55)	16 (64)	40 (52)

None	0	0	0

Not reported or incomplete information reported	46 (45)	9 (36)	37 (48)

Number of PROMs reported

1	43	10	33

2	47	12	35

3	6	2	4

4	4	1	3

5	2	0	2


Figure #	Algorithms Used	Initial Benefit	Acquired Benefit	Lost Benefit	Overall Distance	Solution Time (s)

11a	Greedy TA Heuristic MP	21,000	9479	11,521	2446	1.85

11b	Greedy TA Heuristic MP	21,000	9440	11,560	2462	2.73


Epigenetic discovery	Health promotion research innovation domains	Example translational research questions

Individual variation in whether risk exposures negatively influence gene expression	Improving motivational potency of health communications	Evaluating relative benefit of validating beliefs about individual variability in extent of harm produced by risk behaviors on motivation

Intervention adherence can prompt measurable gene expression	Intervention targeting and tailoring	Comparative effectiveness of targeting relapse prevention approach based on gene expression profile following intervention participation

New technology to measure epigenetic processes (e.g., methylation) in saliva and blood samples	Novel biomarkers of intervention impact	Evaluate intervention adherence on gene expression in randomized effectiveness trials


Patient	1	2	3

Age(year)	47	39	48

Follow-up(month)	70	54	5

Outcome	Favorable	Favorable	Favorable

Pre-operation upper-limb blood pressure(mm Hg)	125/65	135/65	145/50

Pre-operation lower-limb blood pressure(mm Hg)	100/55	110/50	125/45

Post-operation upper-limb blood pressure(mm Hg)	125/65	125/80	130/80

Post-operation lower-limb blood pressure(mm Hg)	130/70	130/80	130/75


 	Serology (serologicmarkers)∗	Endoscopy of duodenum (mucosal morphologic alternations∗∗)	Genotype (genetic markers)

 	IgA anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies (IgA anti-tTG, IgG anti-tTG antibodies)	Mucous membrane thickness	 HLA-typing

Anti-endomysial antibodies (AEA, IgA-anti-EMA)	Villus height

Anti-deamidated gliadin peptide (IgA anti-DGP, IgG anti-DGP)	Crypt depth

 	Crypt-villus ratio

Limitations	Specificity and sensitivity of test method; the active period of the disease; long-term gluten-free diet	Similar histological pattern of some other diseases; long-term gluten-free diet	—


	Caf1	Ccr4

	Gene	Synonyms	Gene	Synonyms

Saccharomyces cerevisiae	POP2	CAF1	CCR4	FUN27, NUT21

Schizosaccharomyces pombe	caf1	pop2	CCR4

Caenorhabditis elegans	CCF-1		CCR-4

Drosophila melanogaster	Pop2	CAF1	Twin	CCR4

Xenopus laevis	Cnot7	caf1, caf-1	Cnot6	CCR4A

	Cnot8	pop2, calif	Cnot6l	CCR4B

Danio rerio	Cnot7	zgc:153168	Cnot6	Zgc:65822

	Cnot8	zgc:63844	Cnot6l	Zgc:111987

Mus musculus	Cnot7	Caf1	Cnot6

	Cnot8		Cnot6l

Homo sapiens	CNOT7	Caf1; Caf1a	CNOT6	Ccr4; Ccr4a

	CNOT8	Pop2; Calif; Caf1b	CNOT6L	Ccr4-like;


Patient number	Patient age	Early or late infection	Procedure	Time after first washout that NPWT was applied	Duration of NPWT	Number of NPWT changes	Long-term outcome

1	17 years	Late	Corrective surgery for severe scoliosis	0 days	21 days	3	Metalwork retained, no infection

2	46 years	Early	Instrumented lumbar spine fusion	0 days	14 days	2	Metalwork retained, no infection

3	43 years	Early	Instrumented lumbar spine fusion	0 days	14 days	2	Metalwork retained, no infection

4	41 years	Early	Instrumented anterior lumbar spine fusion	0 days	15 days	2	Metalwork retained, no infection

5	72 years	Early	Instrumented lumbar spine fusion	0 days	14 days	2	Metalwork retained, no infection


MAA Category	Commercial Agreement	Payment for Performance Agreement	Coverage with Evidence Development

Contract type	• Discount-based contract	• Permanent risk-shifting agreement (outcomes guarantee/insurance) applied on a per-patient basis	• Provisional agreement until new, clearly specified evidence develops from a cohort of patients

Collection and analysis of patient health outcomes data by the payer	• None	• Per patient	• Cohort of patients

Timeframe of the MAA	• Permanent/not linked to final decision-making	• Permanent/not linked to final decision-making based on new robust evidence	• Temporary/provisional until new evidence allows making a final decision

Underlying concept (payer perspective)	• Reducing pharmaceutical expenditure	• Avoiding inefficient expenditure on treating patients who do not respond to a drug and who cannot be identified ex ante (by permanently linking the payment to drug's performance in individual patients)	• Reducing uncertainty about drug's real-life effectiveness (by linking a final HTA, reimbursement and/or pricing decision to drug's performance in a cohort of patients, during a defined test period)

Examples	• Flat price per patient (regardless of the number of doses administered)• Cost Sharing• Rebate• Discount	• Payment for performance• Pay-back for non performance	• Temporary coverage on a condition that new evidence reduces uncertainty about a pre-specified health outcome:- Real-life effectiveness- Higher efficacy in a pre-specified subpopulation of patients- Long-term effect- Improved patient's adherence- Reduction of use of health care resources (e.g. hospitalization)


	All patients	Cases	Control

Samples	10,324	6,564	5,072b

Identified CNVs	14,226a	9,186	495,916

Type of CNVs:

Loss	7,554	5,101	343,489

Gain	6,672	4,085	152,427

Average CNV length (Kb)	3,336	3,014	31

Type of inheritance:

De novo constitutive	14,501	2,454

Inherited from normal parent	9,345	1,945

Inherited from parent with similar phenotype to child	1,345	240

Unknown	21,946	3,638


 	Flexion	Extension

Pre-operation	13 months after the operation	18 months after the operation	Pre-operation	13 months after the operation	18 months after the operation

Left hip	0°-25°	0°-85°	0°-110°	Flexion deformity	0°-15°	0°-15°

Right hip	0°-15°	0°-80°	0°-105°	0°-10°	0°-10°

Left knee	0°-15°	0°-100°	0°-125°	0°	0°

Right knee	0°-10°	0°-90°,	0°-127°	0°	0°


Trait	Description (ability assessed)	CLDRC-RD (564)	UK-RD (958)	SLIC (498)	CLDRC-ADHD (163)

WRead	Reading real words	x (0.918)	x (0.918)	x (0.902)	x (0.871)

WSpell	Spelling real words	x (0.813)	x (0.852)	x (0.862)	x (0.764)

PD	Ability to convert letter strings into sounds, according to given phonetic rules	x (0.895, 0.861)*	x (0.809)		x (0.821, 0.729)*

PA	Ability to recognize and manipulate speech sounds (phonemes)	x (0.801)	x†		x (0.744)

OC	Ability to recognize a word as an orthographic unit and to retrieve the corresponding phonological form	x (0.764)	x (0.888)		x (0.644)

NWR	Ability to repeat nonsense words orally presented	x (0.493)		x (0.665)	x (0.355)

ELS	Sentence recalling and production (expressive domain of language)			x (0.856)

RLS	Listening and auditory comprehension (receptive domain of language)			x (0.837)

VIQ	Verbal reasoning	x	x	x	x

PIQ	Logical reasoning	x	x	x	x

PC1	Common variance in reading and language skills	544	914	245	159

IQ-adjusted PC1	Common variance in reading and language skills, not shared with general cognitive abilities	544	878	245	159


 	T-cell development	Naive T-cell homeostasis	T-cell activation	T-cell differentiation	T-cell memory	References

Slc7a5–/– mice	No	No	T-cell activation↓	Th1 and Th17 cells↓	Not available	11

Slc1a5–/– mice	No	(1) For young micea: No (2) For older miceb: CD4+ T cells↓CD44loCD62Lhi CD4+ T cells↑	Activation of mTORC1 in T cellsc↓	Th1 and Th17 cells↓	(1) For young micea: No(2) For older miceb: Memory CD4+ T cells↓	10

Slc6a1–/– mice	No	No	IL-2 secretion and CD69 expression in T cellsc ↑	Th1 cells↑	Not available	9, 71


Term	Number of medications	Number of studies	References

Polypharmacy	≥ 2 for > 240 days (long term)	1	[101]

	≥ 5 medications in the same month	1	[103]

	> 5 medications for ≥ 90 days	1	[104]

	≥ 5 medications in the same quarter of a year	1	[105]

	≥ 5 medicines at hospital discharge	1	[106]

	5 to 9 medicines on the day of maximum number of prescriptions of the study year (on the day of the study year when the number of medications prescribed was highest)	1	[107]

	5 to 9 medications for ≥ 90 days	1	[108]

	5 to 9 medicines during hospital stay	1	[109]

	≥ 10 medicines during hospital stay	1	[110]

Major polypharmacy	≥ 10 on the day of maximum number of prescriptions of the study year (on the day of the study year when the number of medications prescribed was highest)	1	[107]

Hyperpolypharmacy	≥ 10 medications for ≥90 days	1	[108]

Excessive polypharmacy	≥ 10 medications in the same quarter of a year	1	[105]

	≥ 10 medications during hospital stay	1	[109]

Persistent polypharmacy	≥ 5 medications for 181 days	1	[52]

Chronic polypharmacy	≥ 5 medications in 1 month for 6 months (consecutive or not) in a year	1	[111]


Water Microbe	Amplified NuclearRibosomal Regions	Primer Sets (from 5' to 3')	PCR Program

Bacteria [19,20]	16S rRNA V4-V5 region	515F: GTGCCAGCMGCCGCGGTAA907R: CCGTCAATTCCTTTGAGTTT	95°C for 2 min, 30 cycles of 95°C for 30 s, 55°C for 30 s, 72°C for 30 s, with a final extension at 72°C for 5 min

Fungi [21]	Internal transcribedspacer-1 (ITS1) region	1737F:GGAAGTAAAAGTCGTAACAAGG2043R:GCTGCGTTCTTCATCGATGC	95°C for 1 min, 30 cycles of 95°C for 10 s, 55°C for 30 s, 72°C for 30 s, with a final extension at 72°C for 5 min


whale	age/sex	year	tag duration (days)	min. latitude (° S)	max. SST (°C)

1	adult/female	2009	08 Jan–16 Jan (9)	64	2.3

2	adult/female	2009	14 Jan–27 Jan (14)	67	2.1

3	adult/female	2009	15 Jan–31 Jan (17)	60	2.9

4	adult/female	2009	24 Jan–13 Feb (21)	51	11.2

5	subadult/male	2010	13 Feb–24 Feb (12)	63	2.1

6	adult/female	2010	13 Feb–21 May (98)	30	22.4

7	adult/female	2010	13 Feb–01 Jun (109)	30	22.4

8	adult/male	2011	13 Jan–31 Jan (19)	67	1.8

9	adult/female	2011	13 Jan–25 Feb (44)	37	22.9

10	adult/female	2011	15 Jan–16 Apr (93)	36	20.9

11	adult/female	2011	15 Jan–22 Apr (99)	30	24.2

12	adult/female	2011	24 Jan–13 Feb (21)	65	1.9


Age (yrs)	Weight (kg)	Gender	Ethnicity	Indication	Target INR	Drug Interaction(s)	Therapeutic warfarin dose (mg/d)	Reference

69	79.8	Female 	Japanese	AFib	1.5–20	NR	0.5	[8]

71	82	Male 	White	AFib	2.0–3.0	Amiodarone 	0.9	[11]

58	70	Male 	Japanese	AFib	NR	Propafenone 	0.25–0.75	[12]

68	70	Female 	Chinese	AFib	2.0–3.0	NR	0.63	[13]

50	88	Male 	Chinese	AFib	2.0–3.0	NR	1.25	[13]

74	54	Female 	White	AFib	2.0–3.0	Amiodarone/Atorvastatin	0.5	Present case


	N	%

Clozapine	9	39

Other antipsychotics	14	61

 Traditional antipsychotics	6	26

 Atypical antipsychotics	8	35

Mood stabilizers	5	22

Clozapine dose	481 ± 218 mg (range 300 - 900)

Serum level of clozapine	1671 ± 1164 μmol/l (range 326 - 3333)


Barrier	1st Barrier	2nd Barrier	3rd Barrier	Total

Freq	%	Freq	%	Freq	%	N

Delay before care is received	59	10.9	35	6.5	9	1.7	103

Long distance to treatment centres	6	1.1	24	4.5	11	2	41

Financial challenges	68	12.6	24	4.4	19	3.5	111

Job insecurity	14	2.6	7	1.3	5	0.9	26

No challenge	198	36.7	350	64.8	418	77.4	966

Shortage of drugs and other commodities	72	13.3	34	6.3	12	2.2	118

Fear of side effects	26	4.8	8	1.5	2	0.4	36

Stigmatisation	7	1.3	6	1.1	3	0.6	16

Total	540	100	540	100	540	100	1620


Parameters	Lead (Pb)	Cadmium (Cd)	Zinc (Zn)	Iron (Fe)	References

Water concentration (ppm)	0.33 ± 0.03	0.02 ± 0.00*	0.01 ± 0.00**	2.61 ± 0.07**	This study

Liver concentration (ppm)	0.35 ± 0.04	0.04 ± 0.00*	2.17 ± 0.30**	11.66 ± 1.32**	This study

Bioaccumulation factor	1.06	2.00	217.00	4.46	This study

Maximum acceptable water limit (ppm)	0.01	0.003	3.00	0.30	NIS (2007)

0.01	0.01	5.00	0.30	WHO (2003) [24]

Maximum acceptable liver limit (mgkg-1)	0.01	0.01	5.00	0.30	WHO (2003) [24]


Factor	Effect on efficiency	Implications

Decreased morale	Decrease	Increase staff support and supervision, plan for retention, access to ART

Increased experience	Increase	Plan to increase retention to keep experienced staff

Increased training	Increase long term (short-term training time may decrease efficiency)	Plan for quality training on-hire (practical and didactic), continuing education, work to integrate into preclinical education in health services

Staff flexibility	Potentially increase	Provide education and support to encourage staff willing to expand/change roles to increase efficiency of the overall programme


Error type and antimicrobial	Organism	No. of errors	MICa	AST resultb	Breakpointa	Reportable rangea

AXDX	REF	AXDX	REF	S	R	Low	High

Very major errors

Daptomycin	Staphylococcus aureus	1	0.5	≥2	S	NS	1	N/A	0.25	2

Erythromycin	Staphylococcus warneric	1	0.25	≥16	S	R	0.5	8	0.125	16

Cefoxitin (MRSA/MRS)	Staphylococcus epidermidis	4	N/A	N/A	NEG	POS	4	8	4	8

	Staphylococcus haemolyticus	1	N/A	N/A	NEG	POS	4	8	4	8

Erythromycin-clindamycin (MLSb)	Staphylococcus warneri	1	N/A	N/A	NEG	POS	2	4	2	4

Major errors

Ampicillin	Enterococcus faecium	1	16	8	R	S	8	16	2	32

Daptomycin	Enterococcus faecium	1	≥8	2	NS	S	4	N/A	1	8

Doxycyclinec	Staphylococcus hominis subsp. hominis	1	16	4	R	S	4	16	1	32

Staphylococcus aureus	4	≥32	2	R	S	4	16	1	32

Erythromycin	Staphylococcus aureus	1	≥16	0.25	R	S	0.5	8	0.125	16

Cefoxitin (MRSA/MRS)	Staphylococcus epidermidis	1	N/A	N/A	POS	NEG	4	8	4	8

Staphylococcus aureus	1	N/A	N/A	POS	NEG	4	8	4	8

Erythromycin-clindamycin (MLSb)	Staphylococcus epidermidis	1	N/A	N/A	POS	NEG	2	4	2	4

	Staphylococcus warneri	1	N/A	N/A	POS	NEG	2	4	2	4

TMP-SMXc,d	Staphylococcus aureus	1	≥8	2	R	S	2	4	0.5	8

2	≥8	≤0.5	R	S	2	4	0.5	8

2	4	1	R	S	2	4	0.5	8

2	4	≤0.5	R	S	2	4	0.5	8

Staphylococcus lugdunensis	3	4	≤0.5	R	S	2	4	0.5	8


	Target population (n = 5)	Key stakeholders (n = 5)

Gender	Male (4)	Male (3)

Age	21–34 years
(mean: 26 years)	23–38 years
(mean: 29 years)

Educational status	Primary (1)	High-school (2)

Secondary (2)	Bachelors (2)

High-school (1)	Masters (1)

Bachelors (1)

Countries visited	Malaysia (2)	n/a

Saudi Arabia (1)

Qatar (1)

UAE (1)

Occupation	Domestic service (1)	Coordinator (1)

Driver (1)	Counselor (2)

Construction (2)	Field worker (2)

Cook (1)

Work experience	3–8 years
(mean: 5.2 years)	1–6 years
(mean: 4.4 years)


 	No. (%)

State of health

Good	349 (37.0)

Poor	595 (63.0)

Emotional status

Blank	144 (15.3)

Unhappy (ever)	99 (10.5)

Ordinary	343 (36.3)

happy	348 (36.9)

No response	10 (1.1)

Smoking

No	925 (98.0)

<5 cigarettes per day	11 (1.2)

6 ~ 10 cigarettes per day	5 (0.5)

11 ~ 20 cigarettes per day	3 (0.3)

Alcohol use

No	856 (90.7)

<1 time per week	63 (6.7)

1 ~ 2 times per week	18 (1.9)

3 ~ 6 times per week	6 (0.6)

≥1 time per day	1 (0.1)

Religion

No	580 (61.4)

Yes	364 (38.6)

Exercise regularly

No	487 (51.6)

Yes	457 (48.4)

Exercise duration (years)

<3	93 (9.9)

3 ~ 5	116 (12.3)

6 ~ 10	118 (12.5)

>10	74 (7.8)

No response	46 (4.9)


Reason of Intake	Cat	Dog

Stray	100 (80.6%)	58 (47.5%)

People Issues (allergic, relocating, etc.)	5 (4.0%)	16 (13.1%)

Deceased Caretaker	3 (2.4%)	1 (0.8%)

Negligence	2 (1.6%)	0 (0%)

Abandoned (chip and no reclaim)	0 (0%)	9 (7.4%)

Animal Illness	13 (10.5%)	27 (22.1%)

Behavior	1 (11.9%)	11 (9.0%)


Target	Species	Dilution	Reference

Primary antibodies

 Nrf2	Rabbit	1:100	ab31163; Abcam, UK

 AhR	Rabbit	1:200	sc-5579; H-211; Santa Cruz, Heidelberg, Germany

Secondary antibodies

 Anti-rabbit	Goat	1:2000	AS09 633; Agrisera, Vännas, Sweden


Tumor and normal cells	Cis-3M-RESIC50 (μM)*	ResveratrolIC50 (μM)*

Unstimulated human peripheral T cells	>10.0	N.D

PHA-stimulated human peripheral T cells**	0.23	N.D

Human acute T cell leukemia Jurkat E6.1	0.07	110.1

Human acute T cell leukemia Jurkat (JT/Neo)	0.08	97.5

Human acute T cell leukemia Jurkat (JT/BCL-2)	>10.0	>250.0

Human monoblastoid U937	0.08	86.6

Human promyelocytic leukemia HL-60	0.08	60.5

Human cervical carcinoma HeLa	0.17	193.4


Variable	Categories	Unadjusted Odd ratio (CI)

Fistula size	Large (> 3 cm)	5.33(0.93-30.50)

	Medium (1-3 cm)	0.63(1.39-2.86)

	Small (< 3 cm)	1

Level of vaginal scarring	Moderate severe	NA

	Mild or no scarring	1

Urethral involvement	Circumferential	10.50 (1.39-79.13)*

	Partial/Juxta	5 (1.14-22.00)*

	Urethral involvement

	No urethral involvement	1

Class of Fistula	Type II b	5.56(1.34-23.02)*

	Type II a	O.625(0.06-6.30)

	Type I	1

Previous Repair	Yes	4.8(1.27-18.11)*

	No	1


	Adult n (%) (n = 186)a	Paediatric n (%) (n = 17)a	p-value

Pulmonary TB	125 (67)	14 (82)	0.198

 Multidrug-resistant TB	7 (6)	2 (14)	0.099

Method TB detected

 Screening performed at arrival	35 (19)	7 (41)	0.029

 During contact tracing of another TB patient	14 (8)	4 (24)	0.026

 Sought care for symptoms or by chance	137 (74)	6 (35)	<0.01

Time from arrival to Finland to diagnosis of TB

< 3 months	39 (21)	9 (53)	<0.01

 3–23 months	51 (27)	4 (24)	0.73

≥ 24 months	80 (43)	4 (24)	0.119

 Unknown	16 (9)	0 (0)	0.254

Person had resided in

 Reception centre in Finland	27 (15)	8 (47)	<0.01

 Refugee camp abroad	25 (13)	5 (29)	0.076

No TB-related symptoms	40 (22)	10 (59)	<0.01


 	All participants(N = 2,467)

Age, years	58.3 (15.7)

Sex, women, n	1,438 (58.3%)

Regular exercise,an	831 (33.8%)

Smoking	Current smoker, n	381 (15.5%)

 	Ex-smoker, n	460 (18.7%)

Alcohol consumption, g/week	72.1 (133.7)

Body mass index, kg/m2	23.1 (3.4)

Systolic blood pressure, mm Hg	132.1 (19.4)

Diastolic blood pressure, mm Hg	79.4 (11.1)

HbA1c (NGSP), %	5.8 (0.8)

Total cholesterol, mg/dL	206.3 (35.1)

HDL cholesterol, mg/dL	62.6 (16.0)

Hypertension,bn	1,158 (46.9%)

Diabetes mellitus,cn	254 (10.3%)

Hypercholesterolemia,dn	1,030 (41.8%)

Low HDL cholesterol,en	181 (7.3%)


Characteristic	No. of participants (n = 15)

Age [median (range)]	47 (33–59)

Sex

Male	8

Female	7

Ethnicity

White British	13

Other	2

Profession

Surgeon	5

Clinical oncologist	3

Specialist nurse	4

Research nurse	1

Specialist radiographer	1

Speech and language therapist	1

Geographic area of sample, no.

North West England	4

North East England	2

South West England	1

London	4

South East England	3

Wales	1


Data	Characteristics	Description

Classes of deprivation	Group 1: low deprivation	Census block with high median income, low proportion of households without a car, low proportion with non-owner-occupied primary residences

Group 2: moderate deprivation	Census block with median income average, medium proportion of households without a car, medium proportion with non-owner-occupied primary residences

Group 3: high deprivation	Census block with low median income, high proportion of households without a car, high proportion with non-owner-occupied primary residences


			95% Confidence Interval for odds

	P value	OR	Lower	Upper

Gender(female)			1.259	5.725

Jobless	<.001	1.870	1.412	2.478

Illegal Income	.001	1.617	1.217	2.150

Substance use of family members	.005	1.471	1.125	1.925

pleasure/enjoyment as cause of first injection	.001	1.583	1.209	2.074

First place of drug use (Roofless public places)	.003	1.558	1.157	2.097

First place of drug use (Roofed public places)	.019	1.621	1.084	2.424

Alone injection	<.001	.515	.388	.682

Groin injection	.013	1.642	1.111	2.427

Testis injection	.022	1.573	1.068	2.318

Nonfatal overdose	<.001	1.686	1.282	2.216

Arresting in past year	.022	1.385	1.049	1.829


	Position at foot contact (deg)

	Flexion	Ext. tibial rot.	Varus

ICC	0.93	0.94	0.95

SEM (deg)	1.80	1.42	0.61

	Displacement during landing (deg)

	Flexion	Int. tibial rot.	Varus	Valgus

ICC	0.96	0.87	0.64	0.86

SEM (deg)	1.41	2.18	1.22	0.39

	Electromyographic data (%MVC)

	Rectus femoris	Hamstrings

ICC	0.79	0.62

SEM (%)	10.84	9.49


	Metric	F	R2	p value*

HC (n = 29)vsRTT (n = 50)	Unweighted UniFrac	6.84	0.08	≤0.003

	Weighted UniFrac	15.6	0.16	≤0.003

	Bray-Curtis	6.94	0.08	≤0.003

HC (n = 29)vsRTT-C (n = 34)	Unweighted UniFrac	5.59	0.08	≤0.003

	Weighted UniFrac	12.1	0.16	≤0.003

	Bray-Curtis	5.39	0.08	≤0.003

HC (n = 29)vsRTT-NC (n = 14)	Unweighted UniFrac	5.27	0.11	≤0.003

	Weighted UniFrac	8.75	0.17	≤0.003

	Bray-Curtis	5.47	0.11	≤0.003

RTT-C (n = 34)vsRTT-NC (n = 14)	Unweighted UniFrac	1.31	0.02	0.180

	Weighted UniFrac	1.10	0.02	0.687

	Bray-Curtis	1.76	0.03	0.180


		CECA22*	CECA10	CECA6	CECA4

N° of items	22	10	6	4

Scoring distribution

Valid observations	132	133	134	134

Mean	44.9	44.6	38.8	53.4

SD	17.5	22.3	23.9	29.3

Percentile 50	43.7	40	37.5	53.1

% scoring 0	0	0	5	3 (2.2%)

% scoring 100	0	1	2	8 (5.9%)

Correlation item-global scoring	0.21–0.72	0.53–0.73	0.65–0.79	0.78–0.89

Reliability (Cronbach's alpha)	0.87	0.86	0.84	0.86

Results of Rasch analysis	Person separation	2.28	2.21	1.87	1.79

	Person reliability	0.84	0.83	0.78	0.76


Factors	Simple regression	Multiple regression

 	Unstandardizedcoefficient(B)	P value	Unstandardizedcoefficient(B)	Standardizedcoefficient(beta)	P value

Gly1057Asp polymorphism in IRS-2

 Asp/Asp(n = 41)	reference	 	reference	reference

 Gly/Gly(n = 69) + Gly/Asp(n = 80)	0.007	0.902	−0.023	−0.029	0.678

Age(year)	−0.002	0.245	−0.003	−0.107	0.147

Diabetes mellitus	0.194	<0.001	0.151	0.213	0.003

Hypertension	0.103	0.037	0.078	0.115	0.121

Male	0.019	0.697	−0.032	−0.048	0.574

Smoking	0.013	0.800	−0.012	−0.017	0.830

Total cholesterol(mmol/L)	0.033	0.197	0.040	0.114	0.103

Serum creatinine(μmol/L)	0.002	0.019	0.003	0.206	0.007

Body mass index(kg/m2)	0.023	<0.001	0.017	0.189	0.008


Category	Part A	Part B	Part C	Total

Preferred Term	(N = 12)	(N = 10)	(N = 10)	(N = 32)

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

Subjects with Any Adverse Event	1 (8.3)	3 (30.0)	7 (70.0)	11 (34.4)

Subjects with Any Study Drug Related Adverse Event	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (10.0)	1 (3.1)a

Subjects with Any Serious Adverse Event	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)

Subjects with Any Study Drug Related Serious Adverse Event	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)

Subjects with Any Adverse Event Leading to Discontinuation	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)


	25 JIA patientswith secondary LOE	28 JIA patientswithout secondary LOE

median age (range)	14.4 (6.0-27.0) years	13.8 (7.6-21.5) years

Sex	21 female, 4 male	18 female, 10 male

median ADM dose (range)	25.8 (10.7-58.8) mg/m2 every other week	24.3 (6.6-37.1) mg/m2 every other week

median duration of anti-TNF therapy (range)	2.2 (0.2-6.0) years	1.3 (0.2-10.4) years

MTX comedication	12/25 (48.0%)	15/28 (53.6%)

median MTX dose (range)	10.0 (3.9-12.1) mg/m2 weekly	10.8 (7.7-13.4) mg/m2 weekly


ETIOLOGY	NO. OF PATIENTS	PERCENTAGE

ONCOLOGICAL RES.	75	42.1%

TMJ ANKYLOSIS	35	19.6%

POST-TRAUMATIC	44	24.7%

OSTEOMYELITIS OF MANDIBLE	24	13.5%

TOTAL	178	100 %


 	Control	Intervention	Comparison	Treatment effect	P value

Maternal	n = 75	n = 79	 	(95% CI)

GDM	24 (32%)	22 (28%)	Risk difference	−4% (−19 to 13)	0.574

 	 	 	Risk ratio	0.87 (0.54 to 1.41)

Neonatal	n = 84	n = 86

LGA	7 (8%)	7 (8%)	Risk difference	0% (−8 to 8)	0.982

 	 	 	Risk ratio	0.99 (0.36 to 2.7)

>4 Kg	16 (19%)	13 (15%)	Risk difference	−4% (−15 to 8)	0.518


Green alga/land plant	Size (bp)	IR size (bp)	Genes (no.) a	Introns (no.) b	GenBank accession no.

Charophyceae

Chara vulgaris	184,933	10,919	127	2/16	GenBank:NC_008097

Chaetosphaeridium globosum	131,183	12,431	125	1/17	GenBank:NC_004115

Chlorokybus atmophyticus	152,254	7,640	138	1/0	GenBank:DQ422812

Mesostigma viride	118,360	6,057	137	0	GenBank:NC_002186

Staurastrum punctulatum	157,089	-	121	1/7	GenBank:NC_008116

Zygnema circumcarinatum	165,372	-	125	1/12	GenBank:NC_008117

Land Plants

Acorus calamus	153,821	25,697	110	1/20	GenBank:NC_007407

Amborella trichopoda	162,686	26,651	111	1/20	GenBank:NC_005086

Anthoceros formosae	161,162	15,744	120	2/20	GenBank:NC_004543

Arabidopsis thaliana	154,478	26,264	110	1/20	GenBank:NC_000932

Atropa belladonna	156,687	17,031	111	1/20	GenBank:NC_004561

Calycanthus floridus	153,337	23,296	111	1/20	GenBank:NC_004993

Cucumis sativus	155,293	24,753	111	1/20	GenBank:NC_007144

Eucalyptus globulus	160,286	26393	109	1/20	GenBank:NC_008115

Huperzia lucidula	154,373	15,314	119	1/20	GenBank:NC_006861

Lactuca sativa	152,765	25,033	111	1/20	GenBank:NC_007578

Lotus japonicus	150,519	25,156	109	1/20	GenBank:NC_002694

Marchantia polymorpha	121,024	10,058	120	1/19	GenBank:NC_001319

Nicotiana tabacum	155,939	25,341	110	1/20	GenBank:NC_001879

Nymphaea alba	159,930	25,177	111	1/20	GenBank:NC_006050

Oenothera elata	163,935	27,807	109	1/18	GenBank:NC_002693

Oryza sativa	134,525	20,799	108	1/17	GenBank:NC_001320

Panax ginseng	156,318	26,071	111	1/20	GenBank:NC_006290

Phalaenopsis aphrodite	148,964	23,787	99	1/18	GenBank:NC_007499

Physcomitrella patens	122,890	9,589	116	1/20	GenBank:NC_005087

Pinus thunbergii	119,707	-	106	1/15	GenBank:NC_001631

Saccharum officinarum	141,182	22795	108	1/17	GenBank:NC_006084

Spinacia oleracea	150,725	25,073	110	1/19	GenBank:NC_002202

Triticum aestivum	134,545	20,703	108	1/17	GenBank:NC_002762

Zea mays	140,384	22,748	108	1/17	GenBank:NC_001666

Prasinophyceae

Nephroselmis olivacea	200,799	46,137	128	0	GenBank:NC_000927

Trebouxiophyceae

Chlorella vulgaris	150,613	-	112	3/0	GenBank:NC_001865

Ulvophyceae

Oltmannsiellopsis viridis	151,933	18,510	104	5/0	GenBank:NC_008099

Pseudendoclonium akinetum	195,867	6,039	105	27/0	GenBank:NC_008114

Chlorophyceae

Chlamydomonas reinhardtii	203,827	22,211	94	5/2	GenBank:NC_005353

Scenedesmus obliquus	161,452	12,022	96	7/2	GenBank:NC_008101

Stigeoclonium helveticum	223,902	-	97	16/5	GenBank:DQ630521


	N-starved cells	P-starved cells

Total sequences collected	2,259,219	1,501,972

Total signatures	44,779	27,722

Reliable, significant signatures	27,217	20,161

Signatures unique to library	10,756	3,700


	CKD (n= 6)	CKD + pravastatin (n= 5)

Focal glomerulosclerosis (%)

 Normal	32.9 ± 7.6	23.4 ± 13.1

 Partial	48.1 ± 10.6	62.7 ± 10.4

 Total	19.0 ± 6.7	14.0 ± 15.8

Tubulo-interstitial damage

 Fibrosis	0.78 ± 0.31	0.85 ± 0.14

 Inflammation	1.72 ± 0.54	1.66 ± 0.22

 Atrophy	1.09 ± 0.65	0.56 ± 0.09


Dependent variables:	Complaints of generalised anxiety

	MEN	WOMEN

	B	B

Intercept	-0.027 ***	-0.004

Contextual effects

Unemployment rate	0.032	0.075

Median area income (in euros)	0.245	1.214

Density	-0.081	0.032

Individual effects

Social support	-0.018 ***	-0.028 ***

Current employment situation (ref.: paid labour)

Retired	0.003	0.003

Disabled	0.091 ***	0.101 ***

Unemployed	0.022 ***	0.022 ***

Househusband/wife	-0.028	-0.011 *

Student and others	0.032 **	0.102

Educational level (ref.: tertiary education)

No diploma or primary education	0.008 *	0.038 ***

Lower secondary	0.009 *	0.017 ***

Higher secondary	-0.001	0.010 ***

Equivalent income of the household (ref.: > 2.500 €)

< 750 €	0.018 **	0.017 *

750 - 1.000 €	0.009	0.013 *

1.000 - 1.500 €	0.002	0.005

1.500 - 2.500 €	-0.002	-0.002

Missing income	-0.008	-0.011 *

Age	-0.002	-0.002

Household type (ref.: couple with child(ren))

Single	-0.001	-0.001

Single with child(ren)	-0.010	0.008

Couple	0.006	0.009 *

Complex household	0.004	0.003