Human protein	Targeting DNA virus families	Targeting RNA virus families

HNRPK – heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein K	Asfarviridae, Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Poxviridae	Arteriviridae, Filoviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Togaviridae

YBOX1 – nuclease‐sensitive element‐binding protein 1	Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Polyomaviridae, Poxviridae	Arteriviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Reoviridae, Togaviridae

EF1A1 – elongation factor 1‐alpha 1	Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Poxviridae	Bunyaviridae, Filoviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Reoviridae, Togaviridae

IMA1 – Importin subunit alpha‐1	Adenoviridae, Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Parvoviridae, Polyomaviridae, Poxviridae	Coronaviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae

ADT2 – ADP/ATP translocase 2	Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Poxviridae	Filoviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Reoviridae,Togaviridae

TBA1C – Tubulin alpha‐1C chain	Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Poxviridae	Arenaviridae, Bunyaviridae, Filoviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Reoviridae

ROA1 – heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A1	Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Poxviridae	Arteriviridae, Coronaviridae, Filoviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Togaviridae

GRP78 – 78 kDa glucose‐regulated protein	Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Poxviridae	Bunyaviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Rhabdoviridae, Togaviridae

TBB5 – Tubulin beta chain	Herpesviridae, Poxviridae	Bunyaviridae, Filoviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Reoviridae, Togaviridae

P53 – cellular tumor antigen p53	Adenoviridae, Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Parvoviridae, Polyomaviridae	Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Togaviridae

NPM – nucleophosmin	Adenoviridae, Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Poxviridae	Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Togaviridae

GBLP – guanine nucleotide‐binding protein subunit beta‐2‐like 1	Adenoviridae, Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Poxviridae	Arteriviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Togaviridae

TCPG – T‐complex protein 1 subunit gamma	Adenoviridae, Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae	Arenaviridae, Bunyaviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Reoviridae

EF1A3 – putative elongation factor 1‐alpha‐like 3	Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Poxviridae	Bunyaviridae, Filoviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Reoviridae

HNRPC – heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoproteins C1/C2	Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae, Poxviridae	Arteriviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Rhabdoviridae, Togaviridae

TCPE – T‐complex protein 1 subunit epsilon	Adenoviridae, Herpesviridae	Arenaviridae, Bunyaviridae, Filoviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Reoviridae

HS90B – heat shock protein HSP 90‐beta	Herpesviridae, Poxviridae	Bunyaviridae, Filoviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Togaviridae

HNRH1 – heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein H	Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae	Arteriviridae, Bunyaviridae, Filoviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae

TBA1A – Tubulin alpha‐1A chain	Herpesviridae, Poxviridae	Arenaviridae, Bunyaviridae, Filoviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Reoviridae

HNRPF – heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein F	Herpesviridae, Papillomaviridae	Arteriviridae, Bunyaviridae, Filoviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae

ROA2 – heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoproteins A2/B1	Herpesviridae, Poxviridae	Arteriviridae, Filoviridae, Flaviviridae, Orthomyxoviridae, Paramyxoviridae, Togaviridae


Characteristics	Yes n (%)	Non-compliance to HPV vaccination

Prevalence	p value	Odds Ratio (CI 95 %)

Parent’s religion	Protestant	262 (44,1 %)	17,9 %	ns	1,03 (0,576–1,45)

Non protestant	332 (55,9 %)	17,5 %		1

Parent’s schooling	Elementary school	203 (26,8 %)	16,7 %	ns	0,98 (0,71–1,73)

High school / higher	554 (73,2 %)	16,9 %		1

Monthly household income	Up to I$ 400	353 (49,5 %)	16,1 %	ns	1,02 (0,61–1,41)

More than I$ 400	360 (50,5 %)	18,6 %		1

Type of school	Private school	99 (12,5 %)	43,7 %	0,003	4,51 (1,63–12,46)

Public school	698 (87,5 %)	15,9 %		1

Correct answers in 10 knowledge questions	Less than 50 %	287 (38,8 %)	20,2 %	0,02	1,60 (1,05–2,42)

More than 50 %	453 (61,2 %)	13,6 %		1

Knowing that HPV infections is not rare	Wrong	400 (50,2 %)	21,5 %	0,001	1,81 (1,24–2,64)

Right	397 (49,8 %)	13,1 %		1

Knowing the recommended age group for vaccination	Wrong	700 (87,8 %)	18,3 %	0,04	1,94 (1,02–3,86)

Right	97 (12,2 %)	10,3 %		1

Knowing that the vaccine is effective in preventing HPV	Wrong	301 (37,7 %)	20,6 %	0,01	1,62 (1,08–2,41)

Right	496 (62,3 %)	14,0 %		1

Knowing that the vaccine prevents cervical cancer	Wrong	152 (19,1 %)	24,4 %	0,01	1,73 (1,14–2,84)

Right	645 (80,9 %)	15,6 %		1

Knowing that HPV is a STD	Wrong	248 (31,1 %)	17,7 %	ns	1,04 (0,73–1,66)

Right	549 (68,9 %)	17,1 %		1

Knowing that men are affected by HPV	Wrong	449 (56,3 %)	18,0 %	ns	1,12 (0,71–1,60)

Right	348 (43,7 %)	16,3 %		1

Knowing that HPV causes genital warts	Wrong	484 (60,7 %)	18,8 %	ns	1,41 (0,92–2,17)

Right	313 (39,3 %)	15,0 %		1

Knowing that HPV causes CC	Wrong	152 (19,1 %)	19,7 %	ns	1,35 (0,85–2,16)

Right	645 (80,9 %)	16,7 %		1

Knowing that the HPV infection is usually asymptomatic	Wrong	610 (76,5 %)	16,1 %	ns	0,71 (0,43–1,06)

Right	187 (23,5 %)	21,4 %		1

Knowing that there is no curative treatment for HPV	Wrong	731 (91,7 %)	17,6 %	ns	1,53 (0,63–3,67)

Right	66 (8,3 %)	13,6 %		1


Population	IDF guideline recommendation	Assessment in study

All acne patients	Assign treatment according to acne severity	Not assessed in study: could not be evaluated by computerized query (Disease severity not stated within diagnosis field)

All acne patients	Progress gradually between treatment lines	Correctness of treatment progression assessed for treatment courses of distinct acne medications (see Table 4)

Patients treated with oral retinoids	Rule out psychiatric diagnoses prior to treatment initiation, and refer to psychiatrist if necessary	Not assessed in study: information not available in computerized patient records

Patients treated with oral retinoids	Monitor laboratory test values (liver enzymes, plasma lipid profile) before and during treatment.	Not assessed in study: computerized laboratory test records were not available for cross analysis between databases.

Patients treated with oral retinoids	Prescribe supportive care if necessary.	Concomitant prescribing or dispensing of supportive care medications was assessed (see Table 5).

Patients treated with oral retinoids	Restrict patient participation in strenuous physical activity by temporarily adjusting medical profile.	Not assessed in study: documentation of temporary change in medical profile was not available after reinstatement of permanent profile.

Female patients treated with oral retinoids (teratogenic)	- Rule out pregnancy (laboratory test).	Documented concomitant prescribing or dispensing of oral contraceptives to female patients receiving OI’s.

- Inform the patient of potential hazards and explain about required birth control measures.

- Have the patient sign a statement and file in their medical record (see background).


Characteristic	No. of patients	%

Patients evaluable	70	100

Age, years

 Median (range)	65 (32–75)

Sex

 Male	41	58.5

 Female	29	41.5

Response to prior chemotherapy

 Yes	44	63

 No	26	37

Status of primary tumor

 Resected	25	36

 Unresected	45	64

Tumor histology

 Diffuse	33	47.2

 Intestinal	29	41.4

 Unknown	8	11.4

ECOG PS

 0	10	14.5

 1	40	57

 2	20	28.5

Number of metastatic sites

 1	17	24

 2	32	46

 3	21	30

Site of metastases

 Liver	48	68.5

 Nodes	41	58.5

 Peritoneum	41	58.5

 Lung	13	18.5

 Bone	6	8.5

PFS under first-line chemotherapy

 ≥ 6 months	42	60

 < 6 months	28	40

Chemotherapy-free interval

 > 3 months	38	54

 < 3 months	32	46


	Lipid emulsion (n = 16)	Control (n = 11)

Initiation of enteral nutrition (h)	10.63 ± 5.49	9.27 ± 6.69

Age at feeds >100 mL/kg per day (days)	11.69 ± 4.75	7.55 ± 3.77*

Period of parenteral nutrition (days)	12.75 ± 5.84	8.91 ± 3.70*

Human milk/enteral nutrition at 2 weeks (%)	91.29 ± 21.55	73.84 ± 39.72

Lipid emulsion

 Initiation (day)	5.13 ± 2.31	–

 Amount of initiation (g/kg per day)	0.60 ± 0.17	–

 Period (days)	6.88 ± 3.61	–

 Total amount of infusion (g/kg)	3.89 ± 3.22	–


Indicator	Participantsa	P

With probable depression at baseline(n = 309)	Without probable depression at baseline(n = 266)

Treatment outcome, no. (%)

Treatment success	269 (87.1)	257 (96.6)	< 0.001

Treatment failure	4 (1.3)	2 (0.8)	ND

Treatment default	12 (3.9)	2 (0.8)	< 0.05

Death	24 (7.8)	5 (1.9)	< 0.01

Quality-of-life score, mean(SD)b,c

At baseline before tuberculosis treatment	4.7 (2.7)	5.7 (2.4)	< 0.001

After 6 months of treatment	5.0 (2.4)	6.0 (2.2)	< 0.001

Disability score, median(IQR)c,d

At baseline before tuberculosis treatment	30 (16)	18 (8)	< 0.001

After 6 months of treatment	22 (19)	14 (4)	< 0.001


	Age group, years

Demographics	< 65	≥65

Participants, n	9,883	3,566

Person-years,	124,466	50,269

Deaths (all causes), n	460	1,379

Deaths (CVD), n (% of all deaths)	119 (26)	592 (43)

Mean age at baseline, years (± SD)	45.8 (11.3)	73.1 (6.1)

Mean body mass index, kg/m2 (± SD)	29.5 (4.0)	29.0 (3.9)

Mean waist circumference, cm (± SD)	95.3 (10.0)	95.1 (10.3)

Mean SBP, mmHg (± SD)	142.5 (17.3)	160.9 (22.3)

Mean DBP, mmHg (± SD)	85.1 (11.0)	87.7 (12.9)

Mean serum triglycerides, mmol/L (± SD)	2.8 (1.4)	2.6 (1.1)

Mean serum glucose, mmol/L (± SD)	5.6 (1.7)	6.3 (2.4)

Mean serum HDL, mmol/L (± SD)	1.1 (0.3)	1.2 (0.3)

Mean percentage of people taking diabetes medication (± SD)	3.8 (0.04)	12.6 (0.1)

Mean percentage of people taking BP medication (± SD)	11.5 (0.1)	33 (0.3)

Mean percentage of current smokers (± SD)	32.2 (0.3)	15.9 (0.1)

Mean percentage of sedentary occupational work (± SD)	28 (0.2)	45 (0.3)

Mean percentage of college or university education (± SD)	18 (0.2)	5 (0.05)

Participants' PA levelsb, %

 Inactive	9	19

 Low	38	39

 Moderate	27	29

 High	26	12


	Masamoto et al. [5]	Lee et al. [6]	Matsuda et al. [7]	Oswal and Agarwal [8]	Ville et al. [11]	Ville et al. [11]	Present case

Warfarin dose (mg/day)	3.5	6–7	NA	NA	3–6	5–6	3–4.5

Start of warfarin (weeks)	20	14	14	24	26	15	12

PT (INR)	2.7–2.9	2.2–3.0	NA	NA	1.7–2.5	0.7–1.9	1.5–2.0

GA at diagnosis (weeks)	23	23	31	24	32	29	31

Hemorrhage site	Subdural	Subdural	Subdural	Subdural	Intraventricular	Intraventricular	Subdural

Delivery (weeks)	23	25	31	24	36	29	36

Fetal outcome	Stillbirth	Neonatal death	Alive	Termination	Stillbirth	Stillbirth	Alive


	Crude immediate brush material [21]	2-step ALI [5, 8, 22, 23]	2-step suspension [2, 3, 24, 25]	3D-E spheroids [9, 13]

Characteristics

 Sampling of cells	Nasal brush biopsy	Nasal brush biopsy	Removal of nasal polyp or nasal forceps biopsy	Removal of nasal polyp/nasal brush biopsy

 Anesthesia required	No	No	Yes	Yes (polyp removal)No (nasal brush)

 Preparation steps	Cell collectionCell dispersion	Cell collectionCell dispersionCell proliferation Ciliary regeneration	Tissue washingEnzymatic tissue digestionCell dispersionCell proliferationCiliary regeneration	Cell collectionCell dispersionSpheroid formation

 Longevity of cells/culture	1–3 days	>1 month	>1 month	At least 16 days

 Time from sampling to analysis	Immediately	4 weeks	4–6 weeks	24 h

 Materials and reagents	Falcon tubeNaClGlass slide	Falcon tubeCulture mediumT25/75 flask24-well plateTranswell insert filtersD-PBSTrypsin–EDTATrypsin-inhibitorCentrifugeCO2 incubator	Falcon tubePronaseCulture mediumPlastic plateCollagen gelCollagenaseT25/75 flaskGyrotori shakerCO2 incubator	Falcon tubeCulture medium24-well plateCO2 incubator

 Complexity	Simple	Complex	Complex	Simple

 Terminally differentiated cells	Yes	No	No	Yes

 Cell divisions	No	Yes	Yes	No

 Ciliogenesis	No	Yes	Yes	No

Known applications

 Diagnostics	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

 Study of transport mechanisms	No	Yes	No	Yes

 Study of ciliary physiology	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

Potential applications

 Study of drug effects	No	Yes	Yes	Yes


Analysis	Description of measurement of benefits/effects	Hypothetical example applied to simulation

Cost minimisation analysis (CMA)	A comparison of costs when the effects are considered equal in all respects	Measurement of the simulation education method versus an alternative education method produced equivalent learning outcomes within a meaningful threshold; however, the simulation method is less costly.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA)	Benefits/effects are measured in natural units (e.g. students educated)	Measurement of the simulation education method resulted in less clinical errors by the learner than the alternative education method.

Cost utility analysis (CUA)	Benefits/effects measured in ‘utility’ units—e.g. a measure of satisfaction derived from consumption/attainment of benefit	Measurement of the simulation education method resulted in higher levels of patient satisfaction with their care compared to the alternative education method.

Cost benefit analysis (CBA)	Benefits monetized	The simulation education method was measured to be of higher value (willingness to pay) by the learners when compared to the alternative education method.


Preferred strategy	Patient characteristics

Invasive	Recurrent angina or ischaemia at rest or with low-level activities despite intensive medical therapy

	Elevated cardiac biomarkers (troponin I or T)

	New or presumably new ST-segment depression

	Signs or symptoms of heart failure or new or worsening mitral regurgitation

	High-risk findings from non-invasive testing

	Haemodynamic instability

	Sustained ventricular tachycardia

	PCI within 6 months

	Prior CABG

	High-risk score (e.g. TIMI, GRACE)

	Reduced left-ventricular function (LVEF < 40%)

Conservative	Low-risk score (e.g. TIMI, GRACE)

	Patient or physician preference in the absence of high-risk features


			Nurses	Midwives

Baseline inputs	Doctors	Clinical officers	registered	enrolled	registered	enrolled	direct entry	Total

Number of staff

 At baseline (2008)1	806	1236	1453	5134	339	1711	0	10 679

 Minimum level required to meet need (same for all years)2	1778	3737	14 053	4751	24 319

Inflow from training

 Annual training enrolment (# of new students)3	74	155	660	423	136	173	174	1795

 Total years of training required3	7	3	3	2	1	1	2	n/a

 Graduation rate (% of students)3	90.0%	90.0%	96.7%	94.3%	97.1%	90.7%	90.0%	n/a

 Public sector entry rate from training schools (% of graduates)3,4	85.3%	91.4%	75.5%	81.4%	81.4%	81.4%	81.4%	n/a

 Inflow from immigration (# per year)4	20	0	0	0	0	0	0	20

Outflow from attrition

 Training program requires other professional diploma/degree and work experience before enrolling; or enrols students who leave the public sector workforce before enrolling	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	no	n/a

 If yes, which specific cadre is the feeder cadre for training programs	n/a	n/a	enrolled nurses	n/a	registered nurses	enrolled nurses	n/a	n/a

 Percent of enrolling students to which entry barrier applies (% per year)	n/a	n/a	14.89%	n/a	100%	100%	n/a	n/a

 Total attrition from cadre (% per year)	9.80%	4.48%	5.30%	4.48%	4.48%	4.48%	4.48%	n/a

 Involuntary attrition (% per year) [24,26]	6.66%	3.05%	3.60%	3.05%	3.05%	3.05%	3.05%	n/a

 Voluntary attrition (% per year) [25,26]	3.14%	1.43%	1.70%	1.43%	1.43%	1.43%	1.43%	n/a


Neural-Network Parameters	Levenberg-Marquardt

Number of input parameters	3

Number of hidden neurons	9

Number of output parameters	1

Hidden transfer function	Sigmoidal

Output transfer function	linear

Maximum number of epochs	1000

Learning rate	0.01

Momentum rate	0.9

Stopping gradient	5.5292 × 10−8

MU (momentum )	1 × 10−8


	Intervention	Control

(n, first year)	(n = 343)	(n = 350)

(n, second year)	(n = 330)	(n = 241)	P (2)

(n, both years)	(n = 673)	(n = 591)

Received the study leaflet

 First year	37.0	20.0	0.005

 Second year	48.2	44.4	0.748

 Both years	42.5	29.9	0.090

Seen the study poster

 First year	27.7	12.6	0.016

 Second year	50.6	34.4	0.142

 Both years	38.9	21.5	0.014

Received the advice on maternal care from township midwives

 First year	70.0	49.1	0.031

 Second year	63.9	64.7	0.942

 Both years	67.0	55.5	0.196

Received the advices on maternal care from FP worker

 First year	16.0	17.4	0.797

 Second year	33.3	37.8	0.698

 Both years	24.5	25.7	0.858


Intake	All dysphagic patients (N = 120)	Spinal onset dysphagic patients (N = 64)	Bulbar onset dysphagic patients (N = 56)	p

Normal	8 (7)	7 (11)	1 (2)	ns

Postural	31 (26)	20 (31)	11 (20)	ns

Syrup/nectar	13 (11)	12 (19)	1(2)	0.007

Cream	43 (36)	22 (34)	21 (37)	ns

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy	25 (20)	3 (5)	22 (39)	0.0001


 Frequency (%) questions	Most often	sometimes	Not often	never	No answer

How often are you giving oral health education to school (nurseries) children?	48 (19.7)	70 (44.6)	19 (12.1)	20 (12.7)	—

How do you supervise fluoride mouth wash programme in school?	31 (19.7)	54 (34.4)	20 (12.7)	52 (33.2)	10 (6)

Are you examining mouth and teeth of pregnant women?	59 (37.6)	35 (22.3)	17 (10.8)	46 (29.3)	—

How do you refer the patients to dentist or oral hygienist?	76 (48.4)	37 (23.6)	19 (12.1)	25 (15.9)	—

	yes	no	No answer

Have you had any partnership with parents regarding oral health?	45 (28.7)	112 (71.3)	—

Have you had any partnership with other health sector regarding oral health?	24 (15.3)	133 (84.7)	—

Do you know about the water fluoride content of your area?	26 (16.6)	107 (68.1)	24 (15.3)

Do you have any information about oral health status (DMFT/CPITN) of the population under your care?	55 (35)	102 (65)	—

Do you complete the annual oral health report form?	76 (30.2)	81 (51.6)	—


Type of study	Scale of analysis	Data sources	Interviewee profiles	No. of interviewees

History of free care	National	Scientific literature, administrative archives and print media, in-depth semi-structured interviews	Health, agriculture and education (decision-makers, technicians, implementers)	n = 28

Fee exemptions for malaria (prevention, treatment)	District (Hauts-Bassins region)	Scientific literature, routine data, in-depth semi-structured interviews, group discussions	Decision-makers, local actors (NGOs, associations) and healthcare providers	n = 63

Antiretroviral drug exemptions for children and adults	Regional (Centre and Hauts-Bassins regions)	Scientific literature, routine data, semi-structured interviews	Institutional decision-makers, local actors (NGOs, associations), healthcare providers, service users	n = 30


	Raw data		Clean data

Number of reads	300,582		23,498

Number of nucleotides (bp)	673,594,247		20,685,462

Longest read length (bp)	11,914		2,261

Mean read length (bp)	2,241		880

Genome coverage %		100%

Average depth of coverage		132×

Number of contigs		1

Whole cp genome length (bp)		156,749

Run time		45 min×2

Total DNA requirements (ng)		700


Apicomplexan species 	Positive training set 	Negative training set

B. bovis 	18 	30

B. microti 	23 	22

C. hominis 	1 	28

C. muris 	0 	34

C. parvum 	2 	33

E. tenella 	30 	143

N. caninum 	21 	77

P. berghei 	49 	94

P. chabaudi 	51 	98

P. cynomolgi 	31 	90

P. falciparum 	51 	132

P. knowlesi 	48 	90

P. vivax 	51 	101

P. yoelii 	41 	87

T. annulata 	23 	41

T. parva 	25	61

T. gondii 	 42 	86


Total	High-Blimp-1	Low-Blimp-1	P value

(n = 24)	(n = 13)	(n = 11)

Age, years

 Median	61	59	0.797

 Range	23–75	24–77

Gender

 Male	6	4	0.628

 Female	7	7

WBC, × 109/l

 Median	82.9	24.9	0.033

 Range	5.8–364.6	5.1–87

PB blast, %

 Median	68	73	0.721

 Range	1.9–93.8	18–90.8

Absolute blast counts, × 109/l

 Median	41	16	0.026

 Range	0.1–342	3–47

BM blast, %

 Median	60	64.5	0.626

 Range	1.5–88	34.5–79

Cytogeneticsa

 Adverse	6	6	0.799

 Intermediate	5	4

 Favorable	1	1


Variable	n or M	% or SD

Time Since Loss (months)	6.25	2.36

Severity of PGDa	23.33	10.27

Age (years)	44.30	16.07

Gender	Female	123	71.9%

 	Male	47	27.5%

Education	Less than High School	1	0.6%

 	High School	35	20.5%

 	College/Undergraduate Degree	92	53.8%

 	Graduate Degree	31	18.1%

 	Professional Degree	9	5.3%

Relationship to the Deceased	Grandparent	22	12.9%

Spouse	36	21.1%

 	Child	6	3.5%

 	Sibling	12	7%

 	Parent	59	34.5%

Friend	18	10.5%

 	Ex-Spouse/Partner	3	1.8%

 	Other	14	8.2%

Cause of Death	Suicide	12	7.0%

 	Accident	7	4.1%

 	Illness	109	63.7%

 	Natural Sudden	35	20.5%

 	Other	7	4.1%


Characteristics	Total (n = 412)	Men (n = 198)	Women (n = 214)

Total steps per day	8182.4 ± 3537.1	8448.4 ± 3379.5	7934.4 ± 3668.7

Total energy expenditure (kcal/day)	624.6 ± 275.1	722.7 ± 298.9*	531.7 ± 212.9

Actical total counts (per day)	186699.7 ± 104354.9	203739.6 ± 110309.5ψ	170724.9 ± 95992.9

Time in sedentary activity (actical) (min/d)	1098.1 ± 99.2	1092.8 ± 99.8	1103.0 ± 98.6

Time in light activity (actical) (min/d)	206.9 ± 59.8	204.1 ± 59.3	209.6 ± 60.3

Time in moderate activity (actical) (min/d)	131.2 ± 51.7	138.7 ± 53.3ψ	124.1 ± 49.2

Time in vigorous activity (actical) (min/d)	3.8 ± 7.8	4.3 ± 8.6	3.3 ± 7.0

Total self reported energy expenditure (MET*hr/wk)	388.6 ± 74.8	381.9 ± 77.5	394.9 ± 71.9


Paramètres	ε3 (E3/E3)	ε4 (E4/E3+ E4/E4)

Nombre de sujets	31	9

Age (années)	58±7	59±7

BMI (kg/m2)	26±5	30±2*

TA (mm Hg)	15±3	14±3

Cholestérol total (mg/dl)	278	300±15

LDL cholestérol (mg/dl)	219± 27	230±25

Triglycérides (mg/dl)	120±12*	210±18*

Apo B (g/l)	135±15*	148±20*

t.Xt (%)	17	20

MCV (%)	18	20


Outcome		Rank obtained	Percentage of responders	Priority

						Post	Pre	Chi

		Post	Pre	Post	Pre	P1	P2	P3	P1	P2	P3	P

Aesthetics	Aes	1	3	100%	89%	78%	19%	3%	58%	26%	5%	<0.01

Quality of life	QoL	2	4	91%	74%	75%	6%	9%	63%	21%	0%	<0.01

Disability	Dis	3	11	91%	63%	69%	6%	16%	47%	11%	5%	<0.01

Back Pain	BP	4	7	87%	68%	63%	13%	13%	58%	16%	11%	<0.01

Psychological well-being	PWB	5		84%		66%	13%	6%	79%	5%	0%

Progression in adulthood	PiA	6	2	84%	84%	56%	28%	0%	74%	5%	16%	<0.01

Breathing function	BF	7	1	84%	95%	44%	25%	16%	63%	16%	5%	<0.01

Scoliosis Cobb degrees	SCD	8	5	84%	84%	44%	34%	6%	58%	11%	21%	<0.01

Needs of further treatments in adulthood	NTA	9	6	81%	89%	53%	22%	6%	53%	21%	0%	<0.01

Rib hump	RH	10	8	78%	84%	59%	13%	6%	42%	26%	0%	<0.01

Self control of posture		11		75%		41%	25%	9%

Perdriolle degrees	PD	12	9	75%	84%	16%	50%	9%	47%	11%	11%	<0.01

Knowledge and understanding of scoliosis		13		72%		44%	16%	13%

Movement of the vertebral column		14		72%		38%	25%	9%

Kypho-lordosis Cobb degrees	KLD	15	10	72%	68%	31%	34%	6%	58%	26%	5%	<0.01

Balance		16		69%		44%	19%	6%

Body motor awareness and learning skills		17		69%		9%	34%	25%

Sensory motor integration of the corrective pattern		18		62%		41%	16%	6%

Improved processing of vestibular input		19		59%		6%	31%	22%

Equality of weight bearing		20		56%		22%	19%	16%

Exercise efficiency		21		56%		22%	28%	6%


 	Normal controls	2-kidneys-1-clip model of hypertension	1-kidney-1-clip model of hypertension	P

Heart rate (bpm)	455.3 ± 60.8	472.5 ± 54.9	463.6 ± 55.4	ns

Systolic blood pressure - baseline (mmHg)	100.9 ± 5.5	144.8 ± 13.0	152.3 ± 16.6	<0.0001

Diastolic blood pressure - baseline (mmHg)	76.7 ± 4.3	106.4 ± 12.7	109.2 ± 8.7	0.0001

Heart rate – after atropine (bpm)	559.8 ± 58.1	575.9 ± 82.5	604.4 ± 55.4	ns

Systolic blood pressure - after atropine (mmHg)	108.9 ± 6.6	152.7 ± 16.1	151.2 ± 15.3	<0.0001

Diastolic blood pressure - after atropine (mmHg)	85.9 ± 6.0	116.0 ± 11.9	111.2 ± 8.4	<0.0001

Heart rate – after metoprolol (bpm)	463.0 ± 74.0	513.8 ± 67.6	479.3 ± 49.4	ns

Systolic blood pressure - after metoprolol (mmHg)	100.2 ± 10.8	155.1 ± 14.9	151.1 ± 15.3	<0.0001

Diastolic blood pressure - after metoprolol (mmHg)	77.3 ± 9.2	114.1 ± 13.4	111.4 ± 10.5	<0.0001


GEO	Tissue type	Test sample size (n vs. c)	Sig genes DN	Reference

GSE18520	Ovary	10 vs. 53	79	[66]

GSE14407	Ovary	12 vs. 12	109	[67]

GSE764	Uterus	4 vs. 7 benign	0	Unpublished

GSE764	Uterus	4 vs. 8 malignant	2	Unpublished

GSE15471	Pancreas	39 vs. 39	120	[68]

GSE23878	Colon	24 vs. 35	74	Unpublished


 	Animals	−7	−4	−1	+1	+2	+3	+4	+7	+8	+10	+11	+14

 	 	d a.i.	d a.i.	h a.i.	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi	dpi

PFT	C. psittaci	n = 18	n = 18	 	 	 	n = 18	n = 15	n = 12	n = 9	n = 9	n = 6	n = 6

 	Controls	n = 18	n = 18	 	 	 	n = 18	n = 15	n = 12	n = 9	n = 9	n = 6	n = 6

Blood	C. psittaci	 	 	n = 21	n = 21	n = 21	n = 18	n = 15	n = 12	 	n = 9	 	n = 6

 	Controls	 	 	n = 21	n = 21	n = 21	n = 18	n = 15	n = 12	 	n = 9	 	n = 6


Study	Subject (number)	Design	Particles	Results

Gong et al [26]	Healthy volunteers (12)Patients with mild asthma (12)	Crossover	Filtered air, Fine CAPS (174 μg/m3)	CAPS induced modest and similar increases in parasympathetic stimulation of HRV in both groups

Gong et al [42]	Healthy elderly, age (6)Elderly patients with COPD (13)	Crossover	Filtered air, Fine CAPS (200 μg/m3)	Decrease in HRV in healthy elderly but not in COPD patients

Frampton et al [40]	Healthy volunteers (40), Patients with asthma (16)	Crossover	Filtered airUltrafine carbon particles (10, 25 and 50 μg/m3)	In healthy subjects, reduced CD54 and CD18 on monocytes; decreased CD18 and CD49d on granulocytes; decreased CD25 in blood monocytes, basophils, and eosinophils; increased lymphocyte expression of CD25.In asthma, reduced CD11b on monocytes and eosinophils, CD54 on granulocytes, the percentage of CD4+ T cells, basophils, and eosinophils

Piatropaoli et al [41]	Healthy volunteers (40), Patients with asthma (16)	Crossover	Filtered airUltrafine carbon particles (10, 25 and 50 μg/m3)	No changes in airway eNO and total cell count/differentials in induced sputum; Increased percentage macrophages in the sputum of asthmatics;No changes in IL-6 and IL-8 in the sputum

Gong et al [67]	Healthy volunteers (4)Patients with mild asthma (12)	Crossover	Filtered air Coarse CAPS (157 μg/m3)	Decrease HR and PNN50 4 hours post-exposure

Stenfors et al [43]	Healthy volunteers (25)Patients with mild asthma (15)	Single-blind randomized crossover	Filtered airDiesel exhaust (PM10, 108 μg/m3)	Increased neutrophils, IL-8 and IL-6 in BAL fluid and P-selectin and VCAM-1 in bronchial biopsy, no difference between normal and asthmatics

Gong et al [44]	Healthy volunteers (14)Patients with mild asthma (17)	Crossover	Filtered airUltrafine CAPS (100 μg/m3 or 145,000/cm3 particle counts	Decreased O2sat, FEV1 and low frequency power; no differences between normal and asthmatics


EPDnew database	Source data: type, reference or source repository	# of libraries	total tags (millions)

H. sapiens	CAGE from ENCODE/RIKEN, downloaded from UCSC genome browser database (12)	148	3841

M. musculus	CAGE from FANTOM5 (http://fantom.gsc.riken.jp/5/))	339	6236

D. melanogaster	CAGE from modENCODE (ftp://data.modencode.org/) TSS-seq from Machibase (13)	57	646

D. rerio	CAGE from Nepal et al. (14), downloaded from SRA (8), ID SRA055273	12	65

C. elegans	GRO-cap from Kruesi et al. (15)	8	236


 	Dependent variable	P	OR	95% CI

 	AIH-1

Model 1

 HLA-DRB1∗	Different from 03 and/or 13	<0.001	8.28	3.46–19.82

03 and/or 13

 IL13 rs20541	AG plus GG	0.002	9.45	2.28–39.18

AA

 IL4RA rs1805011	AG plus GG	0.001	3.72	1.78–7.77

AA

 	IL5 rs2069812

Model 2

 Treatment suspension	Yesa	0.004	6.41	1.83–22.44

No

 	IgE levels

Model 3

 IL4 rs2227284	TT and GT	0.022	7.42	1.33–41.34

GG


Model	Insight	Author, weblink

TECHNIQUES TO STUDY METABOLIC ADAPTATION IN SALMONELLA

S. Typhimurium metabolite profiling for different (nutrient poor, virulence induced) environments and genome-scale metabolite model	→Central carbon metabolism strongly altered (depletion in glycerol catabolism (glycerol, glycerol 3-phosphate, dihydroxyacetone phosphate, and pyruvate), increased glucose. Synthesis and uptake of polyamines (may protect Salmonella against osmotic stress inside host cells).	Kim et al., 2013

doi: 10.1039/C3MB25598K

Metabolic model and microbiology, metabolite measurements; for survival (unrelated to growth): “maintenance requirements” and “costs” (to resist host) are calculated as ATP expenditure.	→ Accumulation of metabolites in the infected gut (lactose, galactinol, melibiose, and raffinose) Salmonella and murine host lack necessary enzymes → used by Bacteroidetes and other commensals (glycosidases).	Deatherage Kaiser et al., 2013

PMID: 22168414

	→ Model predicted hundreds of virulence phenotypes with 90% accuracy.

	→ Costs become very high under excess nutrient availability

Model	Result	Author, weblink

METABOLIC MODELING TECHNIQUES

Hypothesis of nutrient-limitation during infection	→ Inactivation of Salmonella enzyme → metabolic bottleneck → overexpression of another enzyme.	Steeb et al., 2013

PMID: 23633950

Deletion effects, e.g., calculations for Δppc	→ No compensatory flux via the glyoxylate shunt.	Fong et al., 2013

PMID: 23432746

Model	Result	Author, weblink

MODELING REGULATION OF SALMONELLA METABOLISM

Boolean modeling of genes in SPI1, SPI2, and T6SS Integrated: osmolarity, glucose, iron, calcium and magnesium concentrations, growth phase-dependent stationary phase factors.	→ Description of pathogenicity island cross-talk (e.g., SPI2-secreted proteins low → activation of T6SS). → Antagonistic cross-talk (e.g., SsrAB to SciS; MviA to RcsB).	Das et al. (2013)

doi: 10.1186/1757-4749-5-28

Spatiotemporal distribution of ROS in neutrophils, macrophages carrying Salmonella and in vivo expression of ROS defense enzymes (KatG, SodAB, and host NADPH oxidase).	→ (a) Neutrophils: lethal concentrations of hydrogen peroxide	Burton et al. (2014)

→ (b) Macrophages: only sub-lethal ROS concentration during infection	PMID: 24439899


Booklet themes	Principal professionala

Aging	PT

Physical activity helps keep you physically fit	PT

Food is a prerequisite for health	PT

You can take care of problems with your health	RN

How to use medicine	RN

Coping with everyday life	OT

You do not need to feel insecure	OT

Technology in everyday life	OT

Will I lose my memory?	OT

Life events and quality of life during aging	SW

Anyone who needs help can get help	SW


Gene symbol/lncRNA	Degree 	Style 	Type

Shmt2 	55 	Up 	Coding

NONMMUT069313 	54 	Up 	Noncoding

Vimp	54 	Down 	Coding

NONMMUT068653 	54 	Up 	Noncoding

Asap3 	53 	Up 	Coding

NONMMUT001721 	53 	Down 	Noncoding

NONMMUT067923 	53 	Up 	Noncoding

Flna	52 	Up 	Coding

XR_141418 	52 	Down 	Noncoding

Ganab	52 	Down 	Coding


Most prevalent colonizing serotype(s)	Region	Reference

Ia, Ib, II, III, V	North America, United States, Europe	Johri et al., 2006; Ippolito et al., 2010; Lamagni et al., 2013; Melin and Efstratiou, 2013; Florindo et al., 2014; Fabbrini et al., 2016

Ia	Mexico	Ippolito et al., 2010

IV, Ia	United Arab Emirates	Amin et al., 2002

V	Egypt	Shabayek et al., 2014

Ia, VI	Malaysia	Karunakaran et al., 2009; Dhanoa et al., 2010

VI, VIII	Japan	Lachenauer et al., 1999; Matsubara et al., 2002


	H1	Mesendoderm	Trophoblast-like cells	Mesenchymal stem cells	Neuronal progenitor cells

1	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H2aK5ac,H3K27ac, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K27ac,H3K23ac, H3K9ac,H3K18ac	H2aK5ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac,H3K18ac	H3K4me2,H3K36me3, H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K23ac,H3K9me3, H3K4ac,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac	H3K4me1,H3K36me3, H2aK5ac,H3K27ac, H2bK5ac,H3K27me3, H3K23ac,H3K79me1, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac

2	H2aK5ac,H2bK5ac, H3K23ac,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K27ac,H3K23ac, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac	H3K4me1,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac,H3K18ac	H3K4me2,H3K36me3, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac	H3K4me1,H3K36me3, H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K9me3, H3K79me1,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac

3	H2bK5ac,H3K27me3, H3K23ac,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac	H2aK5ac,H2bK5ac, H3K79me1,H3K4ac, H2bK120ac,H3K18ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K18ac	H3K36me3,H2aK5ac, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K4ac H3K9ac	H3K4me2,H2aK5ac, H3K23ac,H3K9me3, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac

4	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H2aK5ac,H3K27ac, H2bK5ac,H3K27me3, H3K23ac,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac,H3K18ac	H3K4me1,H3K36me3, H3K27ac,H3K23ac, H3K79me1,H3K4ac, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac, H3K18ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H2bK120ac	H3K36me3,H2aK5ac, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K4ac,H3K9ac	H3K4me2,H2aK5ac, H3K23ac,H3K9me3, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac

5	H2bK5ac,H3K27me3, H3K23ac,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K18ac	H3K27ac,H3K27me3, H3K9me3,H3K4ac, H2bK120ac,H3K18ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K9ac	H3K4me2,H3K36me3, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K9ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K9me3, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac

6	H2aK5ac,H2bK5ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac	H3K4me2,H3K27ac, H3K9me3,H3K4ac, H2bK120ac,H3K18ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1	H3K36me3,H2aK5ac, H2bK5ac,H3K9me3, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K9me3, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac

7	H2aK5ac,H2bK5ac, H3K23ac,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K27ac,H3K27me3, H3K9me3,H3K18ac	H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K4ac	H3K4me2,H3K36me3, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K4ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K23ac,H3K9me3, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac

8	H3K4me2,H2aK5ac, H3K27ac,H2bK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac,H3K18ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K27ac,H3K27me3, H3K4ac,H3K18ac	H3K4me2,H3K27ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K9ac	H3K4me2,H3K36me3, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K4ac,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K23ac,H3K9me3, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac

9	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H2aK5ac,H3K27ac, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac H3K18ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K27ac,H3K27me3, H3K4ac,H2bK120ac	H3K4me1,H3K27ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K9me3,H3K4ac, H3K9ac,H2bK120ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H3K36me3,H2aK5ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K79me1,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac

10	H2aK5ac,H2bK5ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1, H3K4ac,H3K9ac	H3K4me2,H3K27ac, H3K27me3,H3K4ac, H2bK120ac,H3K18ac	H3K4me1,H3K27ac, H3K27me3,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H3K79me1	H3K4me2,H3K36me3, H2bK5ac,H3K23ac, H3K9me3,H2bK120ac	H3K4me2,H3K4me1, H2aK5ac,H3K27ac, H3K9me3,H3K9ac, H2bK120ac


First author	Year	Year of recruitment	Race	Stage	Pathological type	No. of Patients	HPV + veN (%)	Age, y	Genotype(s)	DNA method	Median follow-up period (months)	Hazardratio

Iwamasa	2000	1993-1995	Asian	I-II	LSCC	41	25(61.0)	69.8(+)/70.8(-)	6,11,16,18	PCR	NA	SC

Miyagi	2001	1995-1997	Asian	I-II	LA+LSCC	120	41(34.2)	LA: 67.3(+)/66.9(-)LSCC: 66.3(+)/69.7(-)	6,11,16,18	PCR	NA	SC

Hsu	2009	2000-2006	Asian	I	NSCLC	171	17(9.9)	65.2 (37-83)	16,18	IMC	56.4	SC

Wu	2012	1998-2014	Asian	I-III	NSCLC	165	74(44.8)	NA	16,18	PCR	59.3	SC

Chen	2013	2002-2007	Asian	I-III	LC	319	91(28.5)	NA	16,18	PCR	57.6	SC

Anantharaman	2014	2007-2010	Caucasian	NA	LC	62	15(24.2)	62.1	21 types*	PCR	43.44	Report

Chen	2014	1993-2014	Asian	NA	NSCLC	117	62(53.0)	NA	16,18	PCR	NA	Report

Wang	2014	2003-2011	Asian	I-IV	LA	210	74(35.2)	69.5	16,18	PCR	12.6	Report


Type of Study/Description	Advantages	Limitations

Cell culture – in vitroFood item is placed in cells or other tissues in culture conditions.	Help determine mechanisms of action.Provide clues for further investigation to define mechanisms responsible for how food components interact with host cells.	What occurs in cells may be different from what occurs in human body.Not conclusive.

Animal – in vivoFood item is fed to laboratory animals (e.g. rat, mouse, guinea pig, rabbit). Tests the effects of food on certain diseases, physiological conditions, and behaviors	Can be tightly controlled for testing the metabolism, specificity, and reproducibility of the effect of a certain food component.Tests the toxicity and safety of food components added to the diet.	Humans differ from animals in many aspects of their physiology, such as food digestion, nutrient absorption, genetics, lifestyle, etc.Not conclusive.

Case studiesOne individual’s experience with food or a food component is documented.	Help determine how certain food/components may affect clinical conditions or disorders in humans.Focus on social, psychological, or medical conditions.Provide clues for further investigation.	Not scientifically rigorous – only one person’s experience.Not conclusive but is more evidence-building.

Epidemiological/observationalGroups of subjects, typically living in one geographical area, who have developed a disease or condition are compared with a similar sample of subjects who have not developed the disease.	Address whether a certain food/component could cause a disease but not whether it did cause a disease.	Memory recall is often used to assess how a food/component might have affected an individual – long-term memory recall may not be accurate.Regionally biased – differences observed between regions may be related to different dietary of cultural preferences or genetic differences.Not conclusive but is more evidence-building.

Prospective cohort studiesA large group of individuals with a similar background who are healthy when the study begins are followed over time. Diets are assessed at the beginning, during, and end of the study. Eating habits of those who get a disease are compared to those who do not acquire a disease.	Provide clues about the risk/benefits of a given diet, food component or lack of an important vitamin/mineral (e.g., development of iron deficiency and neurodevelopmental impairment) over time.	The controls may not be similar to those who acquire a disease with respect to demographic and health factors.Not conclusive but is more evidence-building.

Randomized, controlled clinical trial (RCT)Evaluates the efficacy of a specific nutritional intervention (e.g., food/component) within a population. Subjects with similar backgrounds are randomly allocated to receive either the test item or placebo.	Represents the “gold standard” for clinical trial methodology.Randomization minimizes allocation bias by balancing both known and unknown social and health factors.Sample sizes are often large to detect subtle differences in treatments, diet or food component when they exist.Provides most conclusive evidence.	Unethical to randomize breastfed infants into an infant formula feeding group.

Meta-analysisReview of the existing scientific literature. Pooled data from several studies are subjected to a statistical meta-analysis.	Meta-analysis of trials provides a more precise estimate of the treatment effect because of the increased sample size and statistical power.Results can be generalized to a larger population.Inconsistency of results across studies can be quantified and analyzed.	The validity of the meta-analysis depends on the quality of the systematic review and studies included in the analysis.If confounding variables are not controlled for in the primary studies, there will be potential bias in the meta-analysis (e.g., differing definitions of breastfeeding).


 	Reliability

Study characteristics	# of data points K	Total sample size N	Sample-weighted mean reliability (SD)	95nnnnn CI	PVASE

EDI total	2	471	.81 (.06)	.72 - .90	12.68%

EDI body dissatisfaction subscale	3	256	.77 (.14)	.62 - .92	10.66%

EDI drive for thinness subscale	4	715	.60 (.15)	.45 - .75	10.07%

EDI bulimia subscale	4	715	.64 (.12)	.53 - .76	14.12%

EAT-26	4	920	.87 (.02)	.85 - .88	100.00%


S. no.	Inflammatory response/pathologic condition	Reference	Treatment dose	Radiation dose	Period of course	Drug type

1	Pneumonitis	(107)	Adriamycin: 50 mg/m2 rechallenged for two further cycles with no symptoms with steroid cover	15 Gy	2 months	Steroid

2		(108)	Adriamycin: 30 mg/m2	36 Gy	3 weeks	Steroids

3		(108)	Adriamycin: 30 mg/m2	59.4 Gy	6 weeks	Steroids

4		(109)	Paclitaxel: 175 mg/m2 rechallenged for one further cycle with no recurrence after premedication with steroids	43.2 Gy	12 days	Not specified

5		(110)	Intrapleural instillation of 30 mg of adriamycin	36.5 Gy	1 month	Steroids and diuretics

6		(111)	Mn porphyrin, MnTE-2-PyP5+ (6 mg/kg/24 h)	28 Gy	2 weeks	Antioxidant and redox-modulating Mn porphyrin

7		(112)	Genistein diet (10 mg/kg) (in combination with radiation)	10 Gy	9 fractions of 3.1 Gy over 30 days	Soy isoflavone

8		(113)	Omeprazole, esomeprazole, and lansoprazole	Radiation regimen was reformulated after 50 Gy if the lesion was extended	7 days	Proton pump inhibitors

9		(114)	Pentoxifylline (400 mg orally)	40–84 Gy	8 weeks	Anticytokine

10	Stages I–III NSCLC after radiation therapy	(80, 81)	Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)	60 Gy	During the entire course of RT (not specified for individual patient)	ACEIs

11	Radiation pneumonitis/radiation-induced fibrosis	(115)	Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor twice daily	13.5–14.75 Gy	40 consecutive days from the day of local thoracic irradiation or 40 or 80 days later	Celecoxib (an inducible enzyme)


Factor	Items	Responses	values

Outcome variables

 Latrine ownership	Ownership of latrine	No/Yes for ownership of latrine	0/1

 Consistent latrine use

Predictor variables

Risk Perception

 Vulnerability	How high or low are the chances that you contract diarrheal disease when defecating in the open field?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high	1 to 5

 Severity	If you have diarrheal disease because of open defecation, how severely would that impact your life?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high	1 to 5

Attitude (affective)

	How much beneficial/important it is building Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very highyour own latrine in the one year	1 to 5

	How much beneficial/important it is to defecate using latrine regularly	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high	1 to 5

	How much do you like to use latrine?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high	1 to 5

	How much do you do you enjoy defecating in latrine?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high	1 to 5

Self-efficacy (latrine ownership)Injective norm (latrine ownership)	How much ability you think you have building your own latrine in the next one year	Five point scale, that ranges from almost Very low, to Very high	1 to 5

Most of the people in my village think I should have my own latrine	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

People in my village will judge me if I don’t have my own	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

Descriptive norm (latrine use)	Most of the people I know in the community defecate using latrine regularly	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

How many of your neighbors use latrine for defecation?	Five point scale, that ranges from almost nobody to almost all	1 to 5

	Using latrine regularly is the right thing to do because everybody does so	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

Injunctive norm (latrine use)	people who are important to me approve /disapprove that you use latrine	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

Defecating using latrine is regularly is something that most of the people in my village think	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

People in my village will judge me if I defecate in the open field	Five point scale, that ranges from completely disagree to completely agree	1 to 5

Cues to action

 Exposure to Health education (HEW)		Yes/No

 Exposure to CLTSH triggering		Yes/No


Variable	Mean	Median	Standard deviation	Relative standard deviation

Child survey

Percentage of overweight and obese pre-school children (5–6 years) (dependent variable)	9.31	8.60	4.19	45.02

Social index (based on parents education and employment status)	13.97	14.00	1.95	13.97

Percentage of non-German children	35.78	33.40	22.57	63.09

Percentage of non German children with insufficient German language skills	8.29	6.50	8.34	100.51

Percentage of children with measles vaccination	91.15	92.40	4.18	4.59

Percentage of children with bad dental hygiene	12.39	11.20	7.24	58.41

Percentage of children participating in regular medical check-ups	87.67	88.00	4.68	5.34

Percentage of children living in household with at least one smoking parent	36.03	37.20	10.72	29.75

Percentage of children having their own TV in bedroom	11.45	10.10	7.06	61.63

Percentage of children with poor eye-hand coordination	15.63	15.40	6.80	43.50

Percentage of German children with poor language skills	11.85	9.30	8.48	71.61

Percentage of non-German children with poor language skills	20.80	20.70	13.14	63.18

Percentage of children attending Kindergarten	89.82	90.20	5.21	5.80

Environmental variables and urban characteristics

Percentage of area with vegetation	0.22	0.17	0.16	71.25

Area of parks per km2	7.1 × 10−2	5.5 × 10−2	5.2 × 10−2	73.23

Number of parks per km2	2.2 × 10−3	2.2 × 10−3	1.2 × 10−2	55.39

Area of parks per 1000 inhabitants	15.7 × 103	11.6 × 103	13.9 × 10−3	89.21

Number of parks per 1000 inhabitants	0.00	0.00	0.00	67.86

Euclidean distance to parks	429.16	330.27	326.13	75.99

Area of playgrounds per km2	6.5 × 10−3	4.6 × 10−3	5.9 × 10−3	90.82

Number of playgrounds per km2	3.7 × 10−3	2.2 × 10−3	3.5 × 10−3	95.53

Area of playgrounds per 1000 inhabitants	9.1 × 102	8.7 × 102	3.7 × 102	40.43

Number of playgrounds per 1000 inhabitants	5.1 × 10−1	4.9 × 10−1	1.8 × 10−1	34.60

Euclidean distance to playgrounds	488.96	359.74	403.17	82.45

Number of fast food restaurants per km2	3.8 × 10−6	1.5 × 10−6	5.0 × 10−6	132.29

Number of fast food restaurants per 1000 inhabitants	4.3 × 10−1	3.6 × 10−1	2.8 × 10−1	65.05

Availability of public transport	1134.74	868.42	914.95	80.63

Walkability

Connectivity	−0.04	−0.09	1.00	−2377.29

Entropy	−0.10	0.03	1.00	−1012.31

Population density	−0.03	−0.34	1.00	−3948.53


Device	Number of Bits	Sampling Rate (GSPS)

Texas Instruments ADC12DJ3200	12	6.4

Texas Instruments ADC32RF45	14	3.0

Texas Instruments ADS54J60	16	1.0

Texas Instruments ADS1675	24	0.004


	Value

Number of patients	71

Pathologic lesion, n (%)

 Yes	42 (59.2)

 No	29 (40.8)

Indication, n (%)

 Primary staging	16 (22.5)

 Follow-up/re-staging	53 (74.6)

 Non-oncological (FUO and aortic aneurysm graft)	2 (2.8)

Tumour type, n

 Lymphoma (NHL/HD)	18 (11/7)

 Lung cancer (proved/suspicious/incidental)	13 (10/2/1)

 Breast cancer	9

 Melanoma	7

 Renal cell	3

 Oesophagus, larynx, stomach	2

 Adrenal, anal, colon, fibrosarcoma, follicular thyroid, hypopharynx, nasopharynx, oropharynx, ovarian, paraganglioma, myeloid sarcoma, mesothelioma, rectal, SCC right upper arm	1

Under therapy, n (%)

 Yes	13 (18.3)

 No	56 (78.9)

 N/A	2 (2.8)


Lipase	Porcine pancreatic lipase (PPL)	Pseudomonas sp. (PSL)	Pseudomonas fluorescens lipase (Lipase AK, AKL)	Candida cylindracea A.Y. lipase (AYL)	Candida rugosa lipase (CRL)	Novozyme 435

Activity (μmol/h/g)	2.25	0.67	1.32	0.54	0.27	1.47


Confusion Matrix	Expert Classification

Positive	Negative

Classifier classification	Positive	TP = 19,050	FP = 3772

Negative	FN = 950	TN = 76,228


Associated risk factors	BAB	PAB	VAB

<underline>Individual factors</underline>

Age (years) 85 and over		+

Male gender	+	+	+

Functionally independent			+

Mild-moderate or severe cognitive impairment	+	+	+

Sleep disturbance	+	+	+

Psychologically distressed	+	+

<underline>Environmental factors</underline>

Use of benzodiazepine drugs			+

Use of neuroleptic drugs	+	+	+

Use of physical restraints	+


	N	Yes (%)

“Access to his/her diabetes EMR via a web portal ...”	128

 stimulates the self-management and self-correcting behaviour of the patient		75.8

 improves communication during consultation with a well prepared patient		44.5

 results in saving time		21.9

 results in deceased workload		10.9

“I write the medical information...”	128

 as I always did		63.3

 in an easier language than before		37.5

 with less information than before		7.8

“I think that patients who use the patient portal...”	122

 have an increased frequency of visits		2.5

 have an unchanged frequency of visits		80.3

 have a decreased frequency of visits		17.2

“How do you feel about patients sending you an e-message?”	128

 (very) positive		65.6

 neutral		28.1

 (very) negative		6.3

“How many e-messages do you receive per week?”	124

 0 messages		33.1

 1–10 messages		59.7

 ≥ 11messages		7.3

“Who usually answers the e-message of patients?”	80a

 the health care provider answers only the messages of his/her own patients		31.3

 the physician (GP or internist) answers all messages		2.5

 the nurse (nurse practitioner or diabetes nurse) answers all messages		66.3


Socio-demographic characteristics	Frequency	Percentage

LGA

 Idemili South	70	46.4

 Onitsha South	81	53.6

Groups

 Mothers of women who delivered 6 months before study	79	52

 Husbands of women who delivered 6 months before study	72	48

Marital status

 Married	147	97.4

 Widowed	4	2.6

Educational level

 No formal education	6	4

 Primary	55	36.4

 Secondary	75	49.7

 Post-secondary	15	9.9

Occupation

 Unemployed	42	28

 Civil servant	44	29

 Trader	45	30

 Artisan	20	13

Age group

 35-39	24	15.9

 40-44	29	19.2

 45-49	36	23.8

 50-54	26	17.2

 55+	36	23.8


Compound	Catechol	Phenol	Total

Yield [% w/w]	5.7 ± 0.1	3.9 ± 0.1	9.6 ± 0.3

Content (mM)	101	25	126


Item	Points	Definition

Pain	25	No pain

	20	Mild, occasional

	15	Moderate (tolerable)

	0	Severe, intolerable

Return to sport (work) at 6 months	25	Return without protection

	20	Return with protection

	15	Restricted return to sport, only exercises

	0	Unable to return to sport

Range of motion	25	90-100% (normal)

	20	80-89%

	15	70-70%

	0	50-69%

Grip strength	25	90-100% (normal)

	15	80-89%

	10	70-70%

	0	50-69%


 	Infants (younger than or equal to 1-year old)	Older patients (older than 1-year old)	P value

Number of cases	18	108

Gender (M/F)	10/8	72/36

Age range (median)	0.66 	4.8

Histology (%)	 	 	0.45

 Embryonal	88.9	75.9

 Alveolar	11.1	24.1

Site of origin (%)	 	 	0.28

 Head and neck (%)

Parameningeal	11.1	30.6

Orbit	11.1	7.4

Head and neck (nonpara nonorbit)	5.6	13

GU

 Bladder/prostate	11.1	12

 Nonbladder/nonprostate	11.1	7.4

 Extremities	11.1	11.1

 Others	38.9	18.5

TNM stage (%)

 N1	5.6	38.9

 M1	11.1	19.4

Size (%)	 	 	0.928

 >5	55.6	57.4

 ≤5	38.9	33.3

 Unknown	5.5	9.3

IRS stage (%)	 	 	0.34

 I	27.8	24.6

 II	27.8	15.1

 III	33.3	42.1

 IV	11.1	18.3

Clinical group (%)	 	 	0.74

 I	11	9

 II	6	4

 III	72	68

 IV	11	19

Risk (%)	 	 	0.64

 Low	22.2	15.7

 Intermediate	66.7	65.7

 High	11.1	18.6


Reexposure Test Result	Hepatocellular Injury	Cholestatic or Mixed Liver Injury

ALTb	ALTr	ALPb	ALPr

●Positive	<5N	≥2ALTb	<2N	≥2ALPb

●Negative	<5N	<2ALTb	<2N	<2ALPb

●Negative	≥5N	≥2ALTb	≥2N	≥2ALPb

●Negative	≥5N	<2ALTb	≥2N	<2ALPb

●Uninterpretable	<5N	n.a.	<2N	n.a.

●Uninterpretable	n.a.	≥2ALTb	n.a.	≥2ALPb

●Uninterpretable	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.


Decades	# cites	Paper	Domain	Institution	Country

1945 to 1954	-	All cited articles only cited once	-	-	-

1955 to 1964	9	Wilkening, E. A. (1952, May). 'Acceptance of improved farm practices in three coastal plains countries.' Technical Bulletin 98. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.	Diffusion of innovation	University of Chicago	USA

1965 to 1974	36	Rogers, E.M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. First Edition. New York: The Free Press.	Diffusion of innovation	Ohio State University, United States	USA

1975 to 1984	70	Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of Innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach.* New York: The Free Press	Diffusion of innovation	Stanford University/University of Denver	USA

1985 to 1994	89	Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. Third Edition. New York: The Free Press.	Diffusion of innovation	University of Southern California	USA

1995 to 2004	229	Evidence-based Medicine Working Group (1992). 'Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine.' JAMA, 268(17), 2420–2425.	EBM	McMaster University	Canada


Characteristics	Death during treatmentN (%)	Alive throughout treatmentN (%)	p value

N	37	528

Mean age at diagnosis ± SD	45.0 ± 16.2	40.7 ± 13.5	0.03

 Median (Min-Max)	41 (22-88)	38 (18-94)

Male Gender	29 (78.4)	423 (80.1)	0.95

Race	American Indian	0	9 (1.7)	0.99

	African American/Black	13 (35.1)	187 (35.4)	0.97

	Asian/Pacific Islander	1 (2.7)	10 (1.9)	0.73

	White	23 (62.2)	322 (61.0)	Ref

Hispanic ethnicity	7 (18.9)	159 (30.1)	0.16

US born	31 (83.8)	364 (68.9)	0.03

HIV positive	24 (64.9)	180 (34.1)	0.02

 HAART during tuberculosis therapy	1/24 (4.2)	27/180 (15.0)	0.10

 History of opportunistic infection	21/24 (87.5)	101/180 (56.1)	0.01

 CD4 count

≤ 200 cells/μL1	17/19 (89.5)	108/156 (69.2)	0.14

Median CD4 count at diagnosis (IQR)1	68 (34-104)	105 (47-269)	0.06

Received directly observed therapy2	Yes	28 (75.7)	251 (47.7)	0.02

	Partial*	4 (10.8)	90 (17.1)	0.67

	No	5 (13.5)	185 (35.2)	Ref

Episode of inadequate therapeutic regimen	25 (67.6)	161 (30.5)	0.01

During intensive phase3	24 (64.9)	129/525 (24.6)	0.001

Median duration of inadequate treatment (days) (IQR) (n = 153)	23 (6-35)	18 (9-34)	0.18

During continuation phase4	10/33 (30.3)	116/523 (22.2)	0.44

Median duration of inadequate treatment (days) (IQR) (n = 126)	37 (24-50)	29 (13-50)	0.24

 Due to non-adherence	22 (59.5)	142 (26.9)	0.01

During intensive phase3	21 (56.8)	109/525 (20.8)	0.001

Median duration of inadequate treatment (days) (IQR) (n = 130)	8 (5-28)	15 (7-24)	0.13

During continuation phase4	10/33 (30.3)	108/523 (20.7)	0.64

Median duration of inadequate treatment (days) (IQR) (n = 118)	30 (16-50)	29 (14-53)	0.11

 Due to adverse reaction5	10 (27.0)	49/527 (9.3)	0.10

During intensive phase5	7 (18.9)	39/527 (7.4)	0.21

Median duration of inadequate treatment (days) (IQR) (n = 46)	29 (8-39)	14 (6-38)	0.75

During continuation phase5	3 (8.1)	18/527 (3.4)	0.98

Median duration of inadequate treatment (days) (IQR) (n = 21)	25 (1-31)	14 (7-20)	0.40

Hospitalized for tuberculosis6	29 (78.4)	253/526 (48.1)	0.003

Homeless within 1 year of diagnosis7	16/27 (59.3)	138/356 (38.8)	0.04

Substance abuse at diagnosis	23 (62.2)	228 (43.2)	0.13

Sputum smear positive	27 (73.0)	233 (44.1)	0.004

Sputum culture positive	34 (91.9)	471 (89.2)	0.62

Extrapulmonary disease in addition to pulmonary disease	18 (48.7)	143 (27.1)	0.13

Cavitary disease	4 (10.8)	129 (24.4)	0.12

Any prior medical condition	25 (67.6)	288 (54.6)	0.13


AQP4 Isoforms	Cell Type	Intracellular Localization	Reference

AQP4a (M1)	Astrocytes	PM	[85,90,95]

AQP4c (M23)	Astrocytes, skeletal muscle, kidney	PM	[85,90,95]

AQP4e (Mz)	Astrocytes (rat), organ of Corti (rat)	PM, intracellular vesicles, GA, EC	[72,89,96]

AQP4b	Astrocytes (rat)	GA	[89]

AQP4d	Astrocytes (rat)	GA, EC	[72,89]

AQP4f	Astrocytes (rat)	GA	[89]

AQP4-Δ	Skeletal muscle	ER, faintly in the PM	[91]


	Prakasam district	Azamgarh district

	Sex worker	Casual unpaid partner	Any partner#	Sex worker	Casual unpaid partner	Any partner#

	%	%	%	%	%	%

Total sample size	633	633	633	639	639	639

Migrants who never had sex	75.0	44.9	42.0	75.9	54.1	48.8

Migrants who initiated sex in place of origin	9.8	42.5	43.4	7.5	42.7	43.7

Migrants who initiated sex in place of destination	15.2	12.6	14.5	16.6	3.1	7.5

p-value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

Number who initiated sex in place of origin	62	269	275	48	273	279

Had sex in destination after initiating at place of origin [total]	59.7	39.4	46.9	49.0	23.5	47.7

Had sex in destination only	19.4	6.7	6.9	29.2	2.6	9.0

Had sex both in destination and in origin during their migration	40.3	32.7	40.0	18.8	20.9	38.7

Had sex in only origin areas during their migration	16.1	39.4	32.7	43.8	53.1	35.5

Did not have sex in any area during migration after they first had sex before migration	24.2	21.2	20.4	8.3	23.4	16.9

Number who initiated sex in place of destination	96	80	92	106	20	48

Had sex in destination areas only but not in origin	45.8	56.3	54.4	85.9	75.0	79.2

Had sex in both destination and origin areas	54.2	43.8	45.7	14.2	25.0	20.8


	E.coli	S.typhimurium	Y.pestis	Y.enterocolitica	P.luminescens

E.coli	***	66.7	28.6	33.3	52.4


AE	Lacidipine (n = 162)	Amlodipine (n = 153)

Nervous system

 Headache	3 (1.9)	6 (3.9)

 Dizziness	2 (1.2)	1 (0.7)

 Drowsiness	0	1 (0.7)

 Hoarseness	0	0

 Tremor	0	0

Cardiovascular system

 Chest discomfort	0	0

 Dyspnea	1 (0.6)	0

 Palpitation	1 (0.6)	1 (0.7)

 Syncope	0	0

General

 Fatigue	0	1 (0.7)

 Facial flushing	2 (1.2)	5 (3.3)

 Edema, low extremity	1 (0.6)	5 (3.3)

 Dry mouth	0	0

Skin

 Rash	1 (0.6)	0

Laboratory

 AST/ALT elevation	0	1 (0.7)

 Dyslipidemia	1 (0.6)	2 (1.3)

 Anemia	0	0

Total patients

 With at least 1 AE	12 (7.4)	17 (11.1)

 With no AEs	150 (92.6)	136 (88.9)

 Withdrawn due to AEs	3 (1.9)	3 (2.0)


Species	Number of Retrocopies	Number of Parental Genes

Human	7,831	2,570

Chimpanzee	7,478	2,560

Gorilla	7,706	2,669

Orangutan	6,873	2,439

Rhesus	7,502	2,453

Marmoset	10,465	3,067

Squirrel monkey	9,320	2,864

Mouse	7,109	2,205

Rat	7,364	2,114


Composition	Concentration

Sodium chloride (NaCl)	140 mM

HEPES	10 mM

Glucose	10 mM

Potassium chloride (KCl)	5 mM

Magnesium chloride (MgCl2)	1 mM

Calcium chloride (CaCl2)	1 mM

pH 7.4

300 mOsm (310 for SMG)


	Child normal weight	Child overweight*†	Child obese†

	(n = 7349; 85%)	(n = 1272; 15%)	(n = 264; 3%)

Sociodemographic factors

 Male sex (%)	51.2	44.8‡	46.2‡

 Both parents born outside Sweden (%)	28.7	28.8	34.2‡

 Mother low education (%)	13.2	13.8	19.9‡

 Father low education (%)	14.3	15.6	22.1‡

 Firstborn (%)	46.1	44.8	41.9

 No day care (%)	4.6	4.1	7.5

 Crowded living (%)	10.8	11.1	15.5‡

 Not taken part of parental education (%)	47.4	49.7	54.4‡

Parental overweight

 Mother overweight (%)	27.3	37.6‡	49.3‡

 Father overweight (%)	52.1	69.3‡	73.7‡

 Both parents overweight (%)	17.0	29.1‡	40.0‡

Life style factors

 Child's intake of sweetened beverages (%)	10.5	12.0	12.7

 Secondhand tobacco smoke at 4 years of age (%)	22.6	26.4‡	32.6‡

Early life factors

 Mother smoking during pregnancy (%)	9.6	13.6‡	20.0‡

 Secondhand tobacco smoke at 0-4 weeks (%)	22.3	26.1‡	33.6‡

 Secondhand tobacco smoke at 8 months (%)	24.8	28.2‡	37.0‡

 High birth weight (>4000 g) (%)	15.8	24.0‡	25.6‡

 Not breastfed (%)	3.9	5.0	6.5‡

Economic and psychosocial factors (%)

 Parental low emotional support (%)	21.1	22.3	26.3

 Parental low practical support (%)	29.8	29.5	28.9

 Parental economic stress (%)	6.1	8.0‡	9.6‡


Season	Similarity (%)	Nseqs	Sobs

amoA D∗	90	87	7

amoA T∗∗	90	82	3


Pathway name	# input genes in the pathway	P value

Long adhesion	13	1.02E − 06

Long-term depression	6	3.85E − 04

ECM-receptor interaction	6	6.59E − 04

Small cell lung cancer	5	0.004769

Regulation of actin cytoskeleton	8	0.005003

Prostate cancer	5	0.005006

Tight junction	6	0.007175

Melanoma	4	0.012134

Bladder cancer	3	0.015551

MAPK signaling pathway	8	0.016136

Axon guidance	5	0.022646

Endometrial cancer	3	0.027335

mTOR signaling pathway	3	0.027335

Gap junction	4	0.02851

Insulin signaling pathway	5	0.029243

Non-small cell lung cancer	3	0.030129

GnRH signaling pathway	4	0.031564

Alzheimer's disease	2	0.033214

Wnt signaling pathway	5	0.03603

p53 signaling pathway	3	0.048047

Glioma	3	0.048047

Cell cycle	4	0.048272

B cell receptor signaling pathway	3	0.049885

Long-term potentiation	2	0.049885

Neurodegenerative diseases	2	0.050764

Wnt signaling pathway	7	0.001962

B cell receptor signaling pathway	4	0.00836

VEGF signaling pathway	4	0.011283

Natural killer cell mediated cytotoxicity	5	0.01976

Hedgehog signaling pathway	3	0.026203

Neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction	7	0.036606

T cell receptor signaling pathway	4	0.037492

Dorsoventral axis formation	2	0.039028


Experimental Model/Method	Exposure	Mechanism of Resveratrol	Dosage of Resveratrol	Duration of Resveratrol Treatment	Reference

PC12 cells	Aβ25–35 induced	attenuated Aβ-induced cytotoxicity, apoptotic features, and intracellular ROI accumulation.	25 μM	24 h	[13]

PC12 cells	Aβ25–35 induced	inhibited the cell apoptosis	12.5–100 μM	24–48 h	[14]

prevented the LDH leakage

maintained the intracellular Ca2+ homeostasis

Purified baculovirus-expressed BACE-1	-	inhibition of BACE-1	11.9 μM (IC50)	-	[30]

TRF assay	-	inhibition of BACE-1	28 μM (IC50)	30 min	[31]

Neuro2a cells HEK293	transfected with a plasmid containing APPsw	reduced γ-secretase activity	2.5–20 μM	24 h	[32]

induced MMP-9 activation

autophagy-related 5 knockdown HEK293	-	induced conversion of LC3-I to LC3-II	60 μM	24 h	[33]

suppression of Presenilin-1 induction

suppressed Aβ production

SK-N-SH cells	-	induction of NEP and ACE activity	10 μM	4 days	[34]

Hippocampal samples from AD patients	AD	binds to both fibril and monomer Aβ	1.56–100 μM	-	[35]


Variable	Significance (p)	Relative risk	95% CI

Diabetes mellitus	0.009	4.0232	1.417–11.424

Duration of dialysis (years)	0.008	1.2499	1.059–1.475


	"Successful" States	"Unsuccessful" States

Political arrangement	Varied: democracy (Senegal, multiparty), authoritarian (Uganda)	Varied: democracy (multiparty, Zambia), others including authoritarian (Namibia, Ethiopia)

Institutional structures	Centralised (now decentralising)	Varied (decentralised and centralised)

Technology achieved	STIs, some ARV through centralised institution	Some behaviour/education, centralised STIs, sparse centralised ARVs


Autoimmune disease	Autoimmune target	Mean age of onset (range) years	Female:male ratio	Reference

Mid-adult onset

Multiple sclerosis	Myelin sheath	37 (25–45)	1.8:1	(205)

Myasthenia gravis	Neuromuscular junction	40	2.7:1	(205)

Systemic lupus erythematosus	Nuclear contents (systemic)	40 (30–50)	9:1	(205, 206)

Neuromyelitis optica	Optic nerve/spinal cord	32.6–45.7	2.4:1ratio highest after age 65	(207, 208)

Graves’ disease	Thyroid	48	7.3:1	(205)

Systemic sclerosis	Connective tissue (systemic)	50 (35–65)	11.5:1	(209)

Late-adult onset

Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) (formerly Wegener’s granulomatosis)	Cytoplasmic contents of neutrophils (systemic, vascular)	55 (40–70)	1:1M > F after age 70	(205)

Rheumatoid arthritis	Joints	58 (42–74)	3:1	(210)

Polymyalgia rheumatica	Selected muscle groups	70–80	2.3:1	(211)

Giant cell arteritis	Vascular system	70–80	2.3:1	(211)


	ARC	WHOQOL-BREF	Social Network

Variable	Personal	Social	Physical	Psych	Social	Enviro	Group substance use	Non-using groups identification	Heavy using groups identification	Non-using groups importance

ARC

 Personal	–

 Social	.87***	–

WHOQOL-BREF

 Physical	.74***	.54**	–

 Psychological	.62**	.52*	.61**	–

 Social	.39†	.52*	.24	.68***	–

 Environmental	.58**	.72***	.49*	.46*	.41†	–

Social Network

 Groups substance use status	-.50*	-.47*	-.39	-.10	.02	-.44†	–

 Non-using groups identification	.37	.44†	.24	.03	.05	.53*	-.81***	–

 Heavy-using groups identification	-.32	-.29	-.25	-.08	-.14	-.38	.66**	-.41	–

 Non-using groups importance	.33	.38†	.26	-.07	-.08	.48*	-.88***	.94***	-.44†	–

 Heavy-using groups importance	-.43†	-.39†	-.38†	-.10	-.08	-.47*	.67**	-.42†	.90***	-.47*


Genome Effect

Changes in ploidy (mostly WGD)

Alteration of epigenetic modifications to the genome

Alterations in expression patterns across the genome

Activation and spread of mobile DNA elements

Genome restructuring involving mobile DNA elements

Changes in chromosome structure and karyotype

Alteration of tandem repetitive DNA arrays and centromeres


All subjects (N=30)	6.25-12.5 Hz	12.5-25 Hz	25-50 Hz

Global Efficiency	-0.13	-0.25	0.15

Local Efficiency	-0.21	-0.33	0.08

Interdensity	-0.15	-0.13	0.02

Intradensity Unaffected Hemi	-0.26	* -0.46	-0.07

Intradensity Affected Hemi	-0.07	-0.14	0.23

Cortex Subjects (N=17)

Global Efficiency	-0.05	* -0.60	0.08

Local Efficiency	-0.26	* -0.66	-0.20

Interdensity	0.08	-0.21	0.01

Intradensity Unaffected Hemi	-0.24	* -0.75	-0.40

Intradensity Affected Hemi	0.04	-0.39	0.49


Significant consensus genes from continuous and extreme data, excluding children data	No. of overlap	No. not overlapping	% Overlap

Single-probe analysis	232	9085	2.49

Region analysis	39	364	9.70


P-values for small group

Genes in small group	Known genes	Known genes in data set	Genes in data set	P-value

6	2	7	129	0.0342

50	6	7	129	0.0136


 	B	SE B	OR	[95% CI]	p-value

Child’s BMI, kg/ m2	.63	.06	1.88	[1.66, 2.13]	.000

Migration background(child), yes	.47	.20	1.60	[1.07, 2.37]	.020

Self-efficacy to influencechild’s physical activity,high	-.54	.19	0.58	[0.40, 0.85]	.005


Comparison and protein	Entrez gene name	P value	Fold change

LMP1 vs pBabe: no inhibitors (P = 1.92E−05)

DNAJC7	DnaJ (Hsp40) homologue, subfamily C, member 7	3.90E−02	−1.852

HSPA14	Heat shock 70-kDa protein 14	1.98E−02	−1.667

HSPB1	Heat shock 27-kDa protein 1	1.20E−02	3.427

PSMD2	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, non-ATPase, 2	5.38E−03	1.171

PSMD8	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, non-ATPase, 8	1.92E−02	−1.728

THOP1	Thimet oligopeptidase 1	3.73E−02	−1.982

UBE2V1	Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2 variant 1	1.10E−03	1.739

USP5	Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 5	2.61E−02	−1.490

USP14	Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 14	2.57E−02	−2.353

LMP2 vs pBabe: no inhibitors (P = 1)

None

LMP1 vs pBabe: with inhibitors (P = 2.35E−06)

BAG1	BCL2-associated athanogene	2.96E−03	2.613

BIRC3	Baculoviral IAP repeat-containing 3	1.58E−02	−1.760

CUL1	Cullin-1	3.57E−03	−1.414

DNAJC5	DnaJ (Hsp40) homologue, subfamily C, member 5	2.41E−02	−2.692

HLA-B	Major histocompatibility complex, class I, B	2.06E−02	4.993

HSP90AA1	Heat shock protein 90-kDa alpha (cytosolic), class A member 1	3.43E−02	−1.335

HSPA6	Heat shock 70-kDa protein 6 (HSP70B′)	5.54E−03	−1.492

HSPA8	Heat shock 70-kDa protein 8	4.62E−02	−2.934

HSPA1A	Heat shock 70-kDa protein 1A	2.34E−03	−1.242

PSMB1	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) subunit, beta type, 1	1.08E−03	2.223

PSMB8	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) subunit, beta type, 8	9.89E−03	2.207

PSMB10	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) subunit, beta type, 10	1.03E−02	2.319

PSMC2	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, ATPase, 2	1.89E−02	1.127

PSMD14	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, non-ATPase, 14	4.95E−02	−1.390

RBX1	Ring box 1, E3 ubiquitin protein ligase	2.30E−02	−1.494

TCEB1	Transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 1	4.49E−02	−1.414

TCEB2	Transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 2	1.33E−03	−1.690

UBE2I	Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2I	1.19E−02	−1.485

UBE2L3	Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2L 3	1.42E−02	4.031

UBE3B	Ubiquitin protein ligase E3B	6.61E−03	1.659

UBE4A	Ubiquitination factor E4A	1.94E−02	−2.941

USP38	Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 38	3.60E−02	−3.717

LMP2 vs pBabe: with inhibitors (P = 4.26E−05)

CDC34	Cell division cycle 34	3.99E−02	−2.274

DNAJA1	DnaJ (Hsp40) homologue, subfamily A, member 1	5.00E−02	−1.763

HSCB	HscB mitochondrial iron-sulfur cluster cochaperone	4.67E−02	−2.333

PSMB1	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) subunit, beta type, 1	1.73E−02	1.456

PSMC2	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, ATPase, 2	2.62E−03	1.287

PSMD2	Proteasome (prosome, macropain) 26S subunit, non-ATPase, 2	2.70E−02	−1.227

TAP2	Transporter 2, ATP-binding cassette, subfamily B	3.16E−02	−2.098

TCEB2	Transcription elongation factor B (SIII), polypeptide 2	1.27E−02	−1.275

TRAF6	TNF receptor-associated factor 6, E3 ubiquitin protein ligase	5.71E−03	−1.943

UBA1	Ubiquitin-like modifier activating enzyme 1	2.85E−03	−1.117

UBE2C	Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2C	1.21E−02	−5.242

UBE2L6	Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2L 6	2.87E−02	−2.430

UBE3B	Ubiquitin protein ligase E3B	4.58E−02	1.134

UBE4A	Ubiquitination factor E4A	9.86E−03	−7.551

USP38	Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 38	2.81E−02	−5.336

USP48	Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 48	8.21E−03	−1.919


CRHR1 antagonist	Studies	Dosage	Outcome	Comments

Antalarmin	Rissman et al. (2012) [59], Dong et al. (2014) [43], Park et al. (2015) [44],	20 mg/kg	Rissman (2012) - Able to block acute stress induced tau phosphorylation but not that induced by chronic stress [59]. Dong (2014) - Able to decrease Aβ levels and plaque load in a chronic stress paradigm [43]. Park (2015) - Unable to block rises in Aβ in response to acute stress [44].	Dong (2014) measured PBS soluble Aβ, which represents roughly 5% of total Aβ.

A-helical CRH	Park et al. (2015) [44]	5 & 10 μM	Unable to block CRH induced Aβ increases in vitro.

Astressin	Park et al. (2015) [44]	5 & 10 μM	Unable to block CRH induced Aβ increases in vitro.

NBI 30775/R121919	Rissman et al. (2012) [59], Campbell et al. (2015) [51], Dong et al. (2014) [43], Zhang et al. (2016) [64]	20 mg/kg. Zhang (2016) utilized osmotic mini pump	Campbell (2015) [51] – able to decrease AT8 and PHF-1 phosphorylation in CRH overexpressing mice but not at S262 and S422. Rissman (2012) [59] – Able to decrease stress induced AT8 and PHF-1 increases in phosphorylation

NBI27914	Park et al. (2015) [44], Lee et al. (2009) [83], Carroll et al. (2011) [54]	10 mg/kg	Carroll (2011) [54] - NBI27914 rescued freezing and decreased AT8 phosphorylation and decreased neurodegeneration in PS1 tau transgenic mice.Lee (2009) [83] – NBI27914 reduced stress induced increases in Aβ levels and plaque load.Park (2015) [44] – NBI27914 increased secreted Aβ42/ Aβ40 ratio in vitro


d— difference between G values	Selection rate2.5 %	5.0 %	10.0 %	Effect of divergent selection (χ2 test)

3 %	1.8-2.0	1.6-1.9	1.6-2.0	Not significant at any of the tested selection rates

5 %	2.7-4.2*	2.1-3.2	1.9-2.2	Significant at 2.5 % selection rate

7.5 %	3.5-5.5*	2.5-3.1	2.3-2.5	Significant at 2.5 % selection rate

10 %	7.6-10.5*	4.7-5.7*	3.5-4.0*	Significant at each assessed selection rate

Population size	1200	600	300	30 extreme RILs from each tail


Variable	Descriptive statistic

Age	27.1 ± 5.8 years

Age group

15–24	37.8%

25–34	48.3%

35–44	13.5%

< 15 and > 44	0.4%

Marital status

Married	86.9%

Single	12.0%

Widow or separated or divorced	1.2%

Years of formal education	10.3 ± 3.3 years

None	0.4%

Primary (1–8)	35.9%

Secondary (9–12)	42.9%

Tertiary (> 12)	20.8%

Total number of pregnancies	2.6 ± 1.7 pregnancies

1–4	86.1%

> 4	13.9%

Living children	2.5 ± 1.6 children

Male	1.2 ± 1.1

Female	1.3 ± 1.2


Gene Name	Primer Sequence	Length of Product (bp)

Reverse Transcription Quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR)

CmCHS1	F: CTGGAACAGCAACGGAAACT	190

R: TCCGTTGTTGATGAGCCAGA

CmCHT1	F: TGCTGGCAACAACAACTACAATC	231

R: ATCTCCACGCTCTTAGGGTCTT

CmCDA1	F: AAGAAATGGCGGGTATGAGGGTG	142

R: AGTGGTGGATTAGACAAAGGTGCG

CmActin	F: GAGCGTGGTTACTCATTCA	283

R: TGTCAACATCGCACTTCA

CmCYPA792	F: TTGATGCGGATGTTGACG	164

R: ATGCCCTTTGGAGTTGGA

CmGST	F: AACTGTATTCGGCTTTATCC	234

R: ACACACTTGCTGCCTTTTCC

PCR for cDNA Sequencing

CmCDA1	F1: GTCTACGGTTGCGTTGCTCC	911

R1: GAGCAACGCAACCGTAGACGACTGG

F2: CATCATCGTTGTGCGTGACAGAGTG	970

R2: ACGACAGCACAATCACCGCACCTT

F3: GCCGTCCTCGGAGCAGAAACAGTCA	830

R3: CCAACAACGA CGAATATCTTCCAGG

CmCHT1	F1: TGTCCTCGATGCCGTACCTGCCCAC	1300

R1: AAGGGGTGCTGACCGCTGCTGTGCCGCT

F2: CACGCCGGGGCGGTACACCGCC	300

R2: TGGGAAGACAAGGGCTGTCCAACCAACA

CmCHSA	F1: ACTATGTGGCACGAAACGAA	354

R1: TAGTACATGTACAT

F2: CATTTGAAAGATAAGGC	580

R2: ACCAACATRAGRAADAT

F3: CGCCTTACATCGCTTACC	1258

R3: ACBARACCRATNGGYTCC


Oligonucleotide designation	Oligonucleotide (5′→3′)	Genome position

p1167	ACCCTACTGACTGACGAACAGATTGCTTC	6816−6847

p1168	TGTTGTTGAGCGTAATGAGTCCGTCCT	6230–6256

p1303	GTCTTGTCAAACGTTTATAATCTATGGCAAATACGTGA	6549–6586

p1305	TCAGCTCCACAAACATGTCATGAAAATTCGCATAGG	6503–6538

p1321	GTTATAAACAGTTTCCATGGTGCATCACACTTATC	3466–3500

p1322	ACGGGACTTGACAAATATTCCATAATTAACTGCCT	4502–4536

p1338	ATTGCTCACCCTTGTTGGGAACGTTACCCTT	1303–1333

p1343	AACTTAAACCTTTCGACACTTGGGAAGAAGTA	7001–7032

p1362	AACGGCACAATAGTCATCGTCCCG	6469–6492

p1363T	TGGCCGTCATGGTGGCGAATAATGTCAACCTAATCT-ACGGTAAGATGAGTCT	6051–6080

p1438	AGATGCAAAGGAACTGACAATGACGAACTT	1011–1040

p1439	TTCATTTGAGCAAGATATAATGAGCGTCTATAGTGGGT	1150–1187


Condition	Brain region	MNI coordinate	BA	T-value

		x	y	z

Resting-state	PCC	−6	−60	28	31	18.17

	Left IPC (lIPC)	−42	−66	44	40	15.45

	MPFC	1	50	24	9, 10	10.97

	Right IPC (rIPC)	48	−57	36	39, 40	9.25

	Right ITC (rITC)	63	−27	−20	20	7.43

	Left ITC (lITC)	−59	−21	−20	20, 21	6.43

	Left HC (lHC)	−24	−12	−28	35	5.82

	Right HC (rHC)	24	−30	−16	36	6.77

Task-state	PCC	−1	−63	24	7, 31	15.81

	Left IPC (lIPC)	−45	−69	39	39, 40	9.38

	MPFC	−6	54	28	9	15.18

	Right IPC (rIPC)	52	−66	28	39	5.12

	Right ITC (rITC)	54	6	−36	21	9.43

	Left ITC (lITC)	−51	−9	−28	20, 21	10.39

	Left HC (lHC)*	−24	−12	−28	35	5.82

	Right HC (rHC)*	24	−30	−16	36	6.77


	Informant	Area of expertise	Recruitment	Interview setting	Informant characteristics

STEP 1 EXPERTS (N = 4) (key informant interviews)	Professor Peter Krustrup (PK)	Extensive knowledge and experience in human physiology and soccer research	Personal contact at a meeting	The informant’s office	Professor of Team Sport and Health; main research areas include muscle physiology, prevention and treatment of lifestyle diseases through physical activity, and training and testing in elite sport.

Professor Klaus Brasso (KB)	Extensive experience with clinical research and medical treatment of prostate cancer patients	Personal email	Meeting room, Department of Urology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet	Professor, senior consultant/resident, M.D., Ph.D.; previously involved in research on the efficacy of recreational soccer in men with prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy and a member of the FCPC Steering Committee

Dr. Svend Aage Madsen (SM)	Extensive knowledge and clinical experience in male psychology and gender-sensitive health promotion	Personal email	Telephone interview	Licensed specialist in psychotherapy, Ph.D.; co-founder and board member of the Danish Network on Research in Men and Masculinities and co-founder and president of the Danish Men’s Health Society

Professor Michael Borre (MB)	Extensive experience with clinical research and medical treatment of prostate cancer patients	Personal email	Office, Health Research Department, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet	Professor, senior consultant/resident, D.M.Sc., M.D., Ph.D.; chair of the executive board of the Danish Multidisciplinary Cancer Group (DMCG) and the Danish Prostate Cancer Group (DaProCa)


2008 Criteria for PMF	2016 Criteria for pre-PMF	2016 Criteria for overt PMF

Major criteria

 MK proliferiferation and atypia with fibrosis (reticulin and/or collagen) or increased marrow cellularity, granulocytic proliferation and decreased erythropoesis in the absence of fibrosis	MK proliferation and atypia without reticulin fibrosis with increased marrow cellularity, granulocytic proliferation and often decreased erythropoesis	MK proliferiferation and atypia with fibrosis (reticulin and/or collagen)

 Does not meet WHO criteria for other myeloid neoplasms	Does not meet WHO criteria for other myeloid neoplasms	Does not meet WHO criteria for other myeloid neoplasms

 Presence of JAK2V617F or other clonal marker or no evidence of reactive fibrosis.	Presence of JAK2, CALR or MPL mutation or other clonal marker with no evidence of reactive fibrosis	Presence of JAK2, CALR or MPL mutation or other clonal marker with no evidence of reactive fibrosis

Minor criteria

 Leukoerythroblastosis	Leukocytosis (⩾11 × 109/L)	Leukoerythroblastosis

 Increased serum lactate dehydrogenase	Increased serum lactate dehydrogenase	Increased serum lactate dehydrogenase

 Anemia	Anemia (not due to comorbidities)	Anemia (not due to comorbidities)

 Palpable splenomegaly	Palpable splenomegaly	Palpable splenomegaly

 	 	Leukocytosis (⩾11 × 109/L)


Question	Responses	Frequency	%	Total/350	Recoding/Routing

A1. In which of the following is the property situated?	Centre of a large city	0	0.0	336

Suburbs/Outskirts of a large city	257	73.4

Large town or small city	76	21.7

Small town	3	0.9

Village	0	0.0

Countryside	0	0.0

Other	0	0.0

Missing	14	4.0

B4. Looking at this card [show card 1], overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you personally with living in this neighbourhood? Would you say that you are very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?	Very satisfied	112	32.0	350

Satisfied	160	45.7

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	25	7.1

Dissatisfied	27	7.7

Very dissatisfied	26	7.4

Missing	0	0.0

C2. Looking at this card [show card 1], overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you personally with living in this home? Would you say that you are very satisfied, satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?	Very satisfied	138	39.4	350

Satisfied	163	46.6

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	21	6.0

Dissatisfied	16	4.6

Very dissatisfied	12	3.4

Missing	0	0.0

C9. Looking at this list [show card 3], which best describes your current situation with this home? Do you or your family:	Own outright or with a mortgage	228	65.1	348	Responses to this questions were recoded as to whether they had some stake in the property or not, i.e., A: (Own/Mortgage/Part mortgage), B: (Private Rent/Association Rent).

Part-rent and part-own with a mortgage	9	2.6

Rent from a private landlord/letting agency	53	15.1

Rent from a Housing Association or Council	53	15.1

Other	5	1.4

Missing	2	0.6

C12. From any room in this home, can you see:Construction Activity	No	202	57.7	345

Yes	143	40.9

Missing	5	1.4


Adverse event	Estimated incidence

a) death	20%*

b) necrotising enterocolitis or focal intestinal perforation diagnosed on clinical grounds, or at surgery	15%*

c) intracranial abnormality (parenchymal haemorrhage or focal white matter damage) on cranial ultrasound	15%*

d) requirement for supplementary oxygen 28 days after birth	55%*

e) patent ductus arteriosus requiring medical or surgical management	25%*

f) retinal surgery for retinopathy of prematurity	5%*

g) sustained tachycardia (greater than 220 beats per minute for more than 30 minutes in a 60 minute period)	20%**

h) pulmonary haemorrhage	5%**

i) persistent weight loss after 14 days after birth in the absence of infection.	10%**


Strain	Growth rate	masses	terminal phenotype

w1118	+++	-	viable

da-Gal4	+++	-	viable

tub-Gal4	+++	-	homozygous lethal

act5c-Gal4	+++	-	homozygous lethal

UAS-Dis3 (35090)	+++	-	viable

UAS-Dis3 (35091)	+++	-	homozygous lethal

da-Gal4/UAS-Dis3 (35090)	+	+	2nd instar larva lethal

da-Gal4/UAS-Dis3 (35091)	+	+	2nd instar larva lethal

tub-Gal4/UAS-Dis3 (35090)	+	+	2nd instar larva lethal

act5c-Gal4/UAS-Dis3 (35090)	+	+	2nd instar larva lethal


Number	Mixtures Composition (wt %)

Stellite 6	WS2	NbC

Coating 1	100	-	-

Coating 2	85	15	-

Coating 3	70	-	30

Coating 4	60	10	30

Coating 5	55	15	30

Coating 6	50	20	30


Region	R/L/M	BA	MNI coordinate	Stats

x	y	z	T	Sizea

Group difference

IGO < Control

 rACC/vmPFC	L	32	−6	50	12	18.8	29

IGO > Control

 NS

Group × reward-type interaction

IP region	L	39	−46	−56	20	20.5	26

mOFC/vmPFC	M	11	−2	44	−10	19.8	24


	All synolog pairs	≥90% protein sequence identity between synolog pairs

	Median ± MAD	Min	Max	Median ± MAD	Min	Max

Number of carbohydrate metabolism synologs	49.0 ± 35.0	0	394	0.0 ± 0.0	0	47

Number of carbohydrate metabolism synolog groups	20.0 ± 13.0	0	128	0.0 ± 0.0	0	16

Average protein sequence identity between synolog pairs2 [%]	36.8 ± 4.2	13.4	100.0	97.3 ± 1.8	90.0	100.0

Synolog fraction of carbohydrate metabolism genes [%]	30.0 ± 9.7	0.0	85.7	0.0 ± 0.0	0.0	34.6


Source	Variable	# Items	Response options	Cronbach’s α	Pearson’s r	Potential Range	Actual Range	Mean (SD)

	Social Support for Healthy Eating

Child	Family Food Culture	4	0 (Never or almost never) to 2 (almost always or always)	.64	NA	0–8	0–8	5.36 (1.80)

Parent	Instrumental support for healthy eating	7	0 (No) to 1 (Yes)	.76	NA	0–7	0–7	4.38 (2.04)

Parent	Home availability and accessibility of FV	6	0 (Never) to 3 (All of the time)	.72	NA	0–18	1–18	10.75 (3.57)

Parent	Home availability of SSB	1	0 (Never) to 3 (All of the time)	NA	NA	0–3	0–3	1.59 (.87)

Parent	Emotional support for healthy eating	6	0 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree)	.71	NA	0–24	0–24	17.66 (3.82)

Parent	Rules for healthy eating	3	0 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree)	.77	NA	0–12	0–12	8.96 (2.46)

Parent	Modeling vegetable intake	1	0 (Never) to 4 (About once a day)	NA	NA	0–4	0–4	3.48 (.84)

Parent	Modeling SSB	1	0 (Never) to 4 (About once a day)	NA	NA	0–4	0–4	2.79 (1.18)

	Social Support for Physical Activity

Parent	Instrumental support for PA	2	0 (Never) to 7 (7 days)	NA	.46	0–14	0–14	3.96 (3.38)

Parent	Emotional support for PA	4	0 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree)	.74	NA	0–16	0–16	12.73 (2.52)

Parent	Modeling PA	1	0 (Never) to 4 (About once a day)	NA	NA	0–4	0–4	3.55 (.82)


FACTOR1

GO ID	GO Term	Size	Count	Pvalue

GO.0007051	spindle organization	6	2	8.20E-03

GO.0050931	pigment cell differentiation	7	2	0.011

GO.0000279	M phase of meiotic cell cycle	79	6	0.012

GO.0000079	regulation of cyclin dependent protein kinase activity	9	2	0.019

GO.0016570	histone modification	13	2	0.038

GO.0015698	inorganic anion transport	53	4	0.039

GO.0007156	homophilic cell adhesion	32	3	0.041

Kegg ID	Kegg pathway	Size	Count	Pvalue

map05216	Thyroid cancer	11	2	0.020

map05130	Pathogenic Escherichia coli infection	12	2	0.024

map04520	Adherens junction	31	3	0.024

FACTOR2

GO ID	GO Term	Size	Count	Pvalue

GO.0006195	purine nucleotide catabolic process	5	3	2.23E-05

GO.0030168	platelet activation	7	3	7.65E-05

GO.0007051	spindle organization	6	2	2.55E-03

GO.0007596	blood coagulation	24	3	3.76E-03

GO.0030336	negative regulation of cell migration	12	2	0.011

GO.0032879	regulation of localization	103	5	0.012

GO.0001775	cell activation	74	4	0.016

GO.0001890	placenta development	18	2	0.023

GO.0017038	protein import	49	3	0.027

GO.0006403	RNA localization	22	2	0.034

GO.0006816	calcium ion transport	56	3	0.038

Kegg ID	Kegg pathway	Size	Count	Pvalue

map00230	Purine metabolism	64	4	0.013


Complication	Incidence [25]	Cost for treatment

Re-operation (any reason) (including infection)	0.30% (3 out of 1,000)	- CPT 29871 (surgical, for infection, lavage and drainage); $521.91

- APC 0041(knee arthroscopy/drainage); $2,111.62

Venous thromboembolism (VTE)	0.19% (1.9 out of 1,000)	Costs over a 12 month timeframe for treating VTE; $14,865

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT)	0.12% (1.2 out of 1,000)	Costs over a 12 month timeframe for treating DVT [43]; $14,865

Pulmonary embolism (PE)	0.08% (0.8 out of 1,000)	Costs over a 12 month timeframe for treating PE [43]; $22,900


Location	PT-INR tests	Range stated	Cause stated

PHCC Östergötland	499	480	495

PHCC Eksjö	65	65	65

PHCC total (men/women)	564 (289/275)	545 (282/263)	560 (289/271)

ACC Östergötland	470	470	464

ACC Eksjö	58	58	58

ACC Värnamo	399	399	393

ACC Total (men/women)	927 (540/387)	927 (540/387)	915 (531/384)


Parameters	Cases ± SD	Controls ± SD	p value

Total SOD Activity (U/ml)	285.44 ± 114.36	319.79 ± 126.12	0.144

SOD Activity (U/ml) of cases on Metformin onlya	274.81 ± 122.73	-	a*b*c =0.771

SOD Activity (U/ml) of cases on Metformin and other drugsb	281.75 ± 111.91	-	Post hoc:

SOD Activity (U/ml) of cases on other drugs aside Metforminc	307.98 ± 133.40		a*b =0.824 ;

a*c =0.499;

b*c =0.5265


	Derivation set (N = 38)	P-value (Wilcoxon)

	No response (N = 21)	Response (N = 16)

miR375

Mean ± STD	5.2 ± 2.2	7.1 ± 1.8	0.01

Median (min–max)	5.8 (−0.5–7.9)	7.3 (4.2–9.8)

miR149

Mean ± STD	7.2 ± 1.4	4.8 ± 1.8	<0.001

Median (min–max)	6.5 (5.0–9.5)	4.8 (1.8–7.8)

	Validation set (N = 22)	P-value (Wilcoxon)

	No response (N = 13)	Response (N = 9)

miR375

Mean ± STD	3.8 ± 1.7	2.3 ± 2.3	0.07

Median (min–max)	2.8 (2.0–6.6)	1.7 (−0.2–7.6)

miR149

Mean ± STD	5.4 ± 1.7	4.2 ± 1.2	0.11

Median (min–max)	5.3 (1.8–7.2)	4.3 (2.4–5.8)


Type of analysis	HR	SE	95% CI	P-value

VTE risk

Crude analysis	0.66	0.29	(0.28-1.54)	0.33

PS stratified analysis*	0.63	0.29	(0.25-1.57)	0.33

Hospital Mortality

Crude analysis	1.26	0.18	(0.95-1.68)	0.10

PS stratified analysis*	0.98	0.16	(0.72-1.36)	0.94


	Mating systems	Promiscuity

Humans included in the model

Relative brain size	F = 6.59	p = 0.002	p = 0.570

Relative testis size	F = 26.93	p<0.0001	p<0.0001

Sexual dimorphism	F = 3.83	p = 0.021	p = 0.721

Humans excluded from the model

Relative brain size	F = 3.93	p = 0.019	p = 0.341

Relative testis size	F = 26.52	p<0.0001	p<0.0001

Sexual dimorphism	F = 3.83	p = 0.023	p = 0.818


 	First-born children born in 2008	The 2008 birth cohort	The 2006 birth cohort*

 	Total n	%	Total n	%	Total n	%

MS score negative (=0)	617	91	1525	89**	955	85**

 F group (oral hygiene and fluoride)	242	91	686	87	419	83

 X group (diet and xylitol)	176	89	390	88	231	89

 Control group	199	92	449	93	305	86

 P	 	0.658	 	0.011	 	0.129


Primer	Sequence

miR-182	F: 5′-GGCAATGGTAGAACTCACACT-3′

R: 5′-AACATGTACAGTCCATGGATG-3′

HOXA9	F: 5′-TGCCCTCCAGCCGGCCTTAT-3′

R: 5′-CCGCTTTGTGCGGGGATGGT-3

Wnt	F: 5′-GCTAGCGAAAGTCATTGGC -3′

R: 5′-CATTGCATCGAAGTCGTG-3′

CTNNB1	F: 5′-ACAAACTGTTTTGAAAATCCA-3′

R: 5′-CGAGTCATTGCATACTGTCC-3′

WIF-1	F: 5′-CCGAAATGGAGGCTTTTGTA-3′

R: 5′-TGGTTGAGCAGTTTGCTTTG-3′

Survivin	F: 5′-CCGAGGGACTGTGTGGGGGTC-3′

R: 5′-CCAGGCACAGACCAAGGACGC-3′

CCND1	F: 5′-AATGGGCCTTAGAATGACTGC-3′

R: 5′-ATGCCAACACAGATGGCTTT-3′

C-myc	F: 5′-CTACCAGCAGCAGCAGCAGAGC-3′

R: 5′-CGTCCGGGTCGCACATGAA-3′

BIM	F: 5′-CGTAGCGCATGCGATA-3′

R: 5′-CATGCCGTATAAGCTAGTT-3′

Bax	F: 5′-GGCCCACCAGCTCTGAGCAGA-3′

R: 5′-GCCACGTGGGGGTCCCAAAGT-3′

Mcl-1	F: 5′-AGAAAGCTGCATCGAACCATTA-3′

R: 5′-GGAAGAACAACTCCACAAACCCATC-3′

Bcl-xl	F: 5′-TTGGACAATGGACTGGTTGA-3′

R: 5′-GTAGAGTGGATGGTCAGTG-3′

Snail	F: 5′-CTCCTCTACTTCAGCCTCTT-3′

R: 5′-CTTCATCAACGTCCTGTGGG-3′

GAPDH	F: 5′-CCACCCATGGCAAATTCCATGGCA-3′

R: 5′-TCTAGACGGCAGGTCAGGTCCAC-3′

U6	F: 5′-CTCGGCTTCGGCAGCACA-3′

R: 5′-AACGCTTCACGAATTTGCGT-3′


Nanoparticle (NP)	Size of NP (nm)	Ligand/receptor	Drug/agent	Method to trace NP/drug/agent	Ref.

Polymer	70	Protein/TfR	siRNA	PCR	[236]

Liposome	ns	Ab/TfR	p53	p53 via PCR	[271]


No of patients	61

No of CTCs	1262

Age

Median (range)	62 (23–82)

	N (%)

Menopausal status

Pre	17 (27.9)

Post	41 (67.2)

UN	3 (4.9)

ER

Positive	38 (62.3)

Negative	20 (32.8)

UN	3 (4.9)

PR

Positive	30 (49.2)

Negative	28 (45.9)

UN	3 (4.9)

HER 2

Positive	14 (22.9)

Negative	44 (72.1)

UN	3 (4.9)

Triple negative	11 (18.0)

Histology grade

1	1 (1.6)

2	16 (26.2)

3	26 (42.6)

UN	18 (29.5)

No of CTCs/patients

Median (range)	2- 162

2-4	21 (34.4)

≥5	40 (65.6)


V. albo-atrum	V. longisporum	V. dahliae	V. tricorpus

234	Bob-7	2341	2933

CBS-8	Vd-1	330	2901 A

CBS-7	43-3	G12-1	CBS-12

2934	Vd-11	Vd-7	1901

		G12-2


Essential public health operation	Climate change and foodborne pathogens example

1: Food and foodborne disease surveillance	Enhanced cross country surveillance through the establishment of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. This is tasked with collecting, examining and disseminating surveillance data on over 50 infectious diseases from EU and European Economic Area

2: Monitoring and response to food and health hazards and emergencies	Bodies such as INFOSAN, through which the WHO, enable countries to rapidly share information during food safety emergencies to limit the spread of food hazards

3: Health protection including food safety and others	Regulations including EU General Food Law which specifies the general principles that food producers and retailers should adhere to in order to provide safe food. It also ensures the traceability of food and outlines measures detailing how unsafe food should be withdrawn or recalled

4: Health promotion including action to address social determinants and health inequity	Health promotion campaigns to inform, educate and empower people about health issues that may be associated with climate change

5: Food and foodborne disease prevention, including early detection of illness	Enhance use of rapid diagnostic techniques, such as real-time PCR for rapid and hence early detection of foodborne pathogens

6: Assuring governance for health and wellbeing	Organisations such as the Med-Vet-Net Association for Zoonoses Research which promote cross national and multidisciplinary approaches bringing together veterinary, medical and food scientists

7: Assuring a sufficient and competent public health workforce	Support by organisations such as the WHO and ECDC for materials and activities which increase awareness and build capacity within countries to understand and prevent the negative impacts of climate change on health

8: Assuring sustainable organisational structures and financing	Long-term and sustainable funding for measures to prevent climate-sensitive foodborne diseases

9: Advocacy communication and social mobilisation for health	The European Strategy for the control of non-communicable diseases which highlights the importance of patient empowerment and patient’s rights

10: Advancing public health research to inform policy and practice	UK funding for a series of Health Protection Research Units (HPRUs); partnerships between academics and public health practitioners. The Environmental Change and Health HPRU is tasked with the joint development of knowledge, foresight and tools to mitigate against and adapt to environmental change


Parental Dietary Pattern	Children’s Dietary Pattern

Sweet & Fat 	Ref. Cereals	Animal Products

N	OR	95%CI	N	OR	95%CI	N	OR	95%CI

Maternal dietary pattern (N = 1607)

Different & soft drink not available (reference)	742	1.00		1017	1.00		767	1.00

Different & soft drink is available	138	1.97	1.20; 3.25	294	0.46	0.25; 0.84	256	0.95	0.65; 1.38

Identical & soft drink not available	521	2.04	1.49; 2.80	246	2.48	1.43; 4.27	496	2.16	1.59; 2.92

Identical & soft drink is available	206	2.78	1.80; 4.28	50	1.67	0.66; 4.22	88	1.42	0.82; 2.47

Paternal dietary pattern (N = 763)

Different & soft drink not available (reference)	465	1.00		407	1.00		360	1.00

Different & soft drink is available	92	1.55	0.90; 2.68	122	0.43	0.18; 1.04	80	0.83	0.45; 1.52

Identical & soft drink not available	151	2.48	1.58; 3.87	209	2.05	1.22; 3.45	256	2.48	1.62; 3.79

Identical & soft drink is available	55	4.26	2.16; 8.41	25	1.97	0.61; 6.39	67	1.80	0.96; 3.36


Variables	Quintiles of household income per capita (mean values)	Brazil

1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th

Area (%)

 Rural	31.1	18.5	14.6	9.0	4.7	15.6

 Urban	68.9	81.5	85.4	91.0	95.3	84.4

Region (%)

 North and Northeast	61.4	40.2	28.3	19.0	15.8	33.0

 Mid-South	38.6	59.8	71.7	81.0	84.2	67.1

Number of dwellers in households	4.5	3.7	3.0	2.8	2.5	3.3

Proportion of children under 2 years of age in family unit (%)	6.4	4.0	2.5	1.9	1.4	3.2

Proportion of children 2–9 years of age in family unit (%)	17.2	11.2	6.9	5.6	3.7	8.9

Proportion of adolescents (10–19 years) in family unit (%)	23.0	18.1	12.3	9.7	7.5	14.1

Proportion of elderly (65 years or older) in family unit (%)	2.6	7.1	16.8	15.9	15.7	11.6

Proportion of women in family unit (%)	50.7	51.3	51.6	52.7	52.6	51.8

Monthly household income per capita (US$)	97.22	213.22	353.00	591.38	1968.82	644.70

Proportion of monthly household income per capita dedicated to monthly medicine expenses per capita (out-of-pocket expenditure) (%)	5.1	3.6	3.3	2.9	2.0	3.4


Additional inclusion criteria

Pain intensity of 20 mm or more by VAS in the previous 48 hours when walking on a flat surface;At least grade II to III on the Kellgren-Lawrence scale by an X-ray taken within 6 months;	And reluctant to continue on previous drug but willing to change drug treatment.

Exclusion criteria

Patients presenting with any of the following will be excluded from the study.

Grade I or Grade IV severity of the index knee based on the Kellgren and Lawrence radiographic criteria as applicable;Use of intra-articular injections or arthroscopy of the index knee within 3 months prior to screening;Evidence of crystalline-induced synovitis in the index knee;History, physical examination, or radiographic results suggestive of acute inflammatory arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, septic arthritis, gout, pseudogout, fibromyalgia, systemic lupus erythematosus, or other types of inflammatory arthritis of the index knee;Pain in either knee of neurologic origin;	Signs of clinically important active inflammation in the index knee joint including redness, warmth, and/or a large, bulging effusion with the loss of normal contour at the screening and/or baseline visits;History of acute inflammatory arthritis or pseudogout of the study joint;Cancer/metastatic disease;Systemic or intra-articular corticosteroid use within 60 days of the Screening visit;Known sensitivity to any of the ingredients listed in the treatments under investigation;Significant medical and skin conditions which, in the opinion of the investigator, will interfere with study participation and patch adherence;Replacement of the knee joint.


Pathway name	No. genes*	ES	NES	FDRq value

PHONG_TNF_RESPONSE_VIA_P38_COMPLETE	13	0.583	1.743	0.580

DELYS_THYROID_CANCER_DN	11	0.612	1.748	0.599

CORRE_MULTIPLE_MYELOMA_DN	3	0.897	1.733	0.603

SHEPARD_BMYB_MORPHOLINO_UP	10	0.609	1.712	0.617

LI_INDUCED_T_TO_NATURAL_KILLER_UP	17	0.537	1.724	0.617

WILCOX_PRESPONSE_TO_ROGESTERONE_UP	6	0.705	1.700	0.621

WAMUNYOKOLI_OVARIAN_CANCER_LMP_DN	13	0.562	1.674	0.632

KEGG_RENIN_ANGIOTENSIN_SYSTEM	3	0.932	1.761	0.632

OSWALD_HEMATOPOIETIC_STEM_CELL_IN_COLLAGEN_GEL_DN	11	0.605	1.751	0.633

REACTOME_POST_TRANSLATIONAL_PROTEIN_MODIFICATION	16	0.535	1.685	0.644


Scoring used in the study

The patient has resumed work-related and other activities with slight or no symptoms.	3: Excellent

The patient has resumed work-related and other activities but occasionally feels pain in the back or lower limbs after strenuous work.	2: Good

The patient has reduced work-related and other activities because of residual pain in the back or lower limbs.	1: Fair

The patient cannot work or carry out activities of daily living and is considered to be disabled.	0: Poor


Exocyclic M1dG and 8-oxodG Adducts

	N	M1dG ± SE	p-Value	8-oxodG ± SE	p-Value

Adduct background in presence or absence of AMF exposures

Control cells

Nonexposed to AMF

Incubation times

24 h a	10	0.4 ± 0.1		3.2 ± 0.2

48 a	10	0.4 ± 0.1		3.1 ± 0.2

Exposed to AMF (20 min)

Incubation times

24 h a	10	0.5 ± 0.1		3.2 ± 0.2

48 a	10	0.5 ± 0.1		3.3 ± 0.3

Exposed to AMF (40 min)

Incubation times

24 h a	10	0.5 ± 0.1		3.4 ± 0.2

48 a	10	0.5 ± 0.1		3.9 ± 0.3

Adduct levels of treated cells in presence or absence of AMF exposures

NP treated cells

Nonexposed to AMF

Incubation times

24 h a	10	0.7 ± 0.1	<0.05 b	16.7 ± 1.7	<0.05 b

48 a	10	0.8 ± 0.1	<0.05 b	21.2 ± 1.9	<0.05 b

Exposed to AMF (20 min)

Incubation times

24 h a	10	4.6 ± 0.5	<0.05 b	40.3 ± 3.3	<0.05 b

48 a	10	6.9 ± 0.6	<0.05 b	69.3 ± 1.4	<0.05 b

Exposed to AMF (40 min)

Incubation times

24 h a	10	6.4 ± 1.4	<0.05 b	36.5 ± 4.0	<0.05 b

48 a	10	15.9 ± 6.7	<0.05 b	79.3 ± 1.1	<0.05 b


Time (days)	Treatment	Calcium (mg/dl)

21	Control	9.468 ± 0.275

Osteoinduced	13.496 ± 0.892**


 	Pre-injury	5-months post-injury	12-months post-injury	NZ general population survey

Total	2842	1470	2262	1250

Age:

18-24	14.4%	13.1%	12.1%	7.0%

25-34	20.8%	19.5%	19.5%	13.3%

35-44	22.5%	23.5%	22.5%	20.4%

45-54	24.5%	26.5%	26.3%	20.2%

55-64	17.8%	17.4%	19.6%	16.4%

65+	–	–	–	21.0%

Not reported	–	–	–	1.8%

Sex:

Male	61.4%	60.8%	58.9%	42.7%

Female	38.6%	39.2%	41.1%	56.0%

Not reported	–	–	–	1.3%

Recovery Status:	 	n = 1248	n = 1937

Recovered	 	23.0%	36.4%

Not recovered	 	77.0%	63.6%

Injury Type:

Intracranial	3.7%	3.7%	3.8%

Head/neck superficial	3.6%	3.2%	3.6%

Spine dislocation, sprain, or strain	16.1%	15.3%	15.9%

Upper extremity fracture	17.7%	20.5%	17.6%

Upper extremity dislocation, sprain, or strain	14.3%	15.1%	13.7%

Upper extremity open wound	6.0%	6.1%	5.8%

Upper extremity superficial	5.0%	4.8%	4.9%

Lower extremity fracture	17.2%	18.0%	18.1%

Lower extremity dislocation, sprain, or strain	24.6%	21.9%	25.2%

Lower extremity open wound	4.0%	3.9%	3.9%

Lower extremity superficial	6.6%	6.3%	6.5%

Other injury region/nature	17.1%	19.3%	17.4%

UnadjustedEQ-5D social tariff	0.94	0.75	0.78	0.82


The Tested Compounds 	Side Effects of Rats Treated with Artesunate and Artemisinin, Respectively

The Loss of Body Weight	Vomiting	Diarrhea

Artesunate	−	−	−

Artemisinin	−	−	−


Characteristics	Frequencies (n=271)	Percentage (%)

Household Members Ever Suffer Jigger Infestation:

Yes	239	88.2

Households reported with jiggers infested persons:

Yes	64	23.6

Number of household members infested

1 Member	40	14.8

2 Members	19	7.0

3 Members	4	1.5

5 Members	1	0.3

Number of households with jiggers infested persons seen during the study:

Yes	51	18.8

Number of infested household members

1Person	32	11.8

2 Persons	15	5.5

3 Persons	4	1.5


Cut-off	Maxillary	Anterior ethmoid	Posterior ethmoid	Frontal	Sphenoid

>3 mm*	26	4	4	2	3.5

>4 mm*	25	3	2.8	1.4	3.2


Center

Parameter	R2*	P*	Correlation

 p120-catenin membrane vs. β-catenin membrane	0.15	<0.01	positive

 vs. β-catenin cytoplasm	0.07	0.03	inverse

 p120-catenin cytoplasm vs. β-catenin membrane	0.13	<0.01	inverse

 vs. β-catenin cytoplasm	0.15	<0.01	positive

Invasive front

Parameter	R2*	P*	Correlation

 p120-catenin membrane vs. β-catenin membrane	0.33	<0.01	positive

 vs. E-cadherin membrane	0.60	<0.01	positive

 β-catenin membrane vs. E-cadherin membrane	0.29	<0.01	positive


Operation Mode	Operation Current	Power Consumption

Idle	2 mA	2 mAh

Data sampling	80 mA	0.178 mAh

Data transmitting	60 mA	0.067 mAh


Categories emerged	Positive valued	Negative valued

The degree of difficulty/demand of the studies	The degree of difficulty/demand was experienced as stimulating	The degree of difficulty/demand was experienced as too heavy

The teachers engagement	Very engaged teachers	Not engaged teachers

The organisation of the program	A stimulating organisation of the program was noticed	No stimulating organisation of the program was noticed

Contents in the studies associated to the profession	The certificate to be a nurse is attractive – long for working as a nurse	The certificate and the profession frightened the student

The attitude towards the studies	Having a positive attitude towards the studies	Having a negative attitude towards the studies

The study result achieved	Achieving a good study result	Not achieving a good study results

The life situation surrounding the studies	Having a good life situation	Having a bad life situation

Friendship during the studies	A good friendship is experienced	A bad or no friendship is experienced