Investigators	Year	n	Study design	Stent type	AVF or AVG	Primary patency (%)	(months)

3 M	6 M	12 M

Vogel and Parise [12]	2004	53	Retrospective	SMART	AVG	77 (61–93)	51 (34–67)	20 (12–27)	mean 8.9

Vogel and Parise [14]	2005	25	Prospective, Non-randomized	SMART	AVG	88 (75–100)	67 (48–86)	41 (21–61)	mean 8.2

Pan et al. [21]	2005	12	Retrospective	Wallstent, Jostent	AVF	92 ± 8	81 ± 12	31 ± 17	n/a

Liang et al. [22]	2006	23	Observational	Wallstent, nitinol	AVG	69 ± 9	41 ± 10	30 ± 10	n/a

Maya and Allon [23]	2006	14	Prospective, Non-randomized	Wallstent, SMART, Protégé, Fluency	AVG	48	19	n/a	median 2.8

Chan, M.R. et al. [24]	2008	211	Retrospective	SMART	AVG	69	25	n/a	median 4.4

Current study	2011	50	Prospective, Observational	SMART	Both	79 ± 9	51 ± 15	27 ± 16	median 3.8

		25			AVF	80 ± 10	65 ± 16	32 ± 21	median 5.2

		25			AVG	76 ± 15	28 ± 22	19 ± 17	median 2.9


Component (g/kg)	Group

NFD	HFD	GR	SV0.5	SV2

Casein	210	265	265	265	265

L-cystine	3	4	4	4	4

Corn starch	280	–	–	–	–

Maltodextrin	50	160	150	155	140

Sucrose	325	90	90	90	90

Lard	20	310	310	310	310

Soybean oil	20	30	30	30	30

Cellulose	37.15	65.5	65.5	65.5	65.5

Mineral mixture1	35	48	48	48	48

Vitamin mixture2	15	21	21	21	21

Calcium phosphate, dibasic	2	3.4	3.4	3.4	3.4

Choline bitartrate	2.75	3	3	3	3

Yellow food color	0.1	–	–	–	–

Blue food color	–	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1

Garcinia cambogia extract of 60% (–)-hydroxycitric acid	–	–	10	–	–

Solidago virgaurea var. gigantea 10% ethanol extract	–	–	–	5	20

Total (g)	1000	1000	1000	1000	1000

Energy (kcal/g)	3.7	5.1	5.1	5.1	5.1

Protein (% of kcal)	20.1	18.3	18.3	18.3	18.3

Carbohydrate (% of kcal)	69.8	21.4	21.4	21.4	21.4

Fat (% of kcal)	10.2	60.3	60.3	60.3	60.3


Well	Biochemical test	Result

2	D-amygdalin (AMY)	−

4	Phosphatidylinositol phospholipase C (PIPLC)	−

5	D-xylose (dXYL)	−

8	Arginine dihydrolase 1 (ADH1)	+

9	Beta-galactosidase (BGAL)	−

11	Alpha-glucosidase (AGLU)	−

13	Ala-Phe-Pro arylamidase (APPA)	−

14	Cyclodextrin (CDEX)	−

15	L-aspartate arylamidase (AspA)	−

16	Beta galactopyranosidase (BGAR)	−

17	Alha-mannosidase (AMAN)	−

19	Phosphatase (PHOS)	+

20	Leucine arylamidase (LeuA)	+

23	L-proline arylamidase (ProA)	−

24	Beta glucuronidase (BGURr)	−

25	Alpha-galactosidase (AGAL)	−

26	L-pyrrolidonyl-arylamidase (PyrA)	−

27	Betaglucuronidase (BGUR)	−

28	Alanine arylamidase (AlaA)	−

29	Tyrosine arylamidase (TyrA)	−

30	D-sorbitol (dSOR)	−

31	Urease (URE)	−

32	Polymixin b resistance (POLYB)	+

37	D-galactose (dGAL)	+

38	D-ribose (dRIB)	+

39	L-lactate alkalinization (ILATk)	−

42	L-actose (LAC)	−

44	N-acetyl-d-glucosamine (NAG)	+

45	D-maltose (dMAL)	+

46	Bacitracin resistance (BACI)	+

47	Novobiocin resistance (NOVO)	+

50	Growth in 6.5% NaCl (NC 6.5)	+

52	D-mannitol (dMAN)	−

53	D-mannose (dMNE)	+

54	Methyl-B-D-glucopyranoside (MBdG)	+

56	Pullulan (PUL)	−

57	D-raffinose (dRAF)	−

58	O/129 resistance (comp. vibrio) (O129R)	−

59	Salicin (SAL)	−

60	Saccharose/sucrose (SAC)	+

62	D-trehalose (dTRE)	+

63	Arginine dihydrolase 2 (ADH2s)	+

64	Optochin resistance (OPTO)	+


Treatment	Number of pregnant females	Number of implantation sites	Number of viable fetuses	Total number of resorption sites

Group A	19/20	9.96 ± 1.83∗	9.85 ± 1.67∗∗	4∗

Group B	18/20	9.19 ± 1.05∗	8.73 ± 1.12∗∗	5

Group C (control)	17/10	7.17 ± 0.60	6.23 ± 1.05	6


Gene	Nucleotide (%) a	Amino acid (%) b

Pol 1a	92.5	93.2

Pol 1ab	92.9	95.0

Spike	94.2	94.2

Envelope	87.2	91.0

Membrane	89.0	91.2

Nucleocapsid	86.7	87.1


Gene	ORFs

	A. nidulans	A. niger

palA	AN4351	119792

palB	AN0256	171058

palC	AN7560	48740

palF	AN1844	Not found*

palH	AN6886	120044

palI	AN4853	52449

vps32/snf7	AN4240	136905

pacC	AN2855	47049


Variable	Category	Frequency	Percent

Distance of health institution	< 1 h	100	13.9

≥ 1 h	622	86.2

Accessibility of pharmacy	Yes	198	27.4

No	524	72.6

Presence of health profession in the family	Yes	56	7.2

No	666	92.8

Presence of medication at home	Yes	105	14.5

No	617	85.5

Previous experience of SMP	Yes	402	55.7

No	320	44.3

Peer/family pressure	Yes	226	31.3

No	496	68.7

Member of health insurance	Yes	448	62.0

No	274	38.0


Name	Oligonucleotide (5′ to 3′)

C286A Forward	GCT TTG ATT CTT GCA GTT GCC ATT GCA GTC AAC AGT CG

C286A Reverse	CGA CTG TTG ACT GCA ATG GCA ACT GCA AGA ATC AAA GC

C286S Forward	GCT TTG ATT CTT GCA GTT TCC ATT GCA GTC AAC AGT CG

C286S Reverse	CGA CTG TTG ACT GCA ATG GAA ACT GCA AGA ATC AAA GC

C295A Forward	CAG TCG AAG AAG GGC TGG GCA GAA GAA AAA GC

C295A Reverse	GCT TTT TCT TCT GCC CAG CCC TTC TTC GAC TG


Domain 1: Skills for Chronic Condition Self-Management	Domain 2: Skills for Self-Advocacy and Health Care Utilization

Do you fill a prescription if you need to?	Do you fill out the medical history form, including a list of your allergies?

Do you know what to do if you are having a bad reaction to your medications?	Do you keep a calendar or list of medical and other appointments?

Do you pay or arrange payments for your medications?	Do you tell the doctor or nurse what you are feeling?

Do you take medications correctly and on your own?	Do you ask questions of the doctor, nurse or clinic staff?

Do you reorder medications before they run out?	Do you make a list of questions before the doctor’s visit?

Do you call the suppliers when there is a problem with the equipment?	Do you request the accommodations & support you need at school or work?

Do you order medical equipment before they run out?	Do you apply for a job or work or vocational services?

Do you arrange payment for the medical equipment and supplies?	Do you get financial help with school or work?

Do you call the doctor’s office to make an appointment?	Do you help plan or prepare meals/food?

Do you call the doctor about unusual changes in your health?	Do you help keep home/room clean or clean up after meals?

Do you apply for health insurance if you lose your current coverage?	Do you use neighborhood stores and services?

Do you know what your health insurance covers?	Do you use community support services or advocacy services when you need them?

Do you manage your money and budget household expenses?

Do you reorder medications before they run out?


Simulation set up	Time	Memory

Genome Simulationa	One subclone with 100 SVs	0.98 h	9.1 Gb

	One subclone with 200 SVs	1.34 h	9.9 Gb

	One subclone with 300 SVs	1.73 h	11.6 Gb

	Two subclones with 100 SVs	1.03 h	9.5 Gb

	Three subclones with 100 SVs	1.28 h	10.2 Gb

Read generationb	Mixing reads from 2 subclones and 1 normal genome (392 M reads)	2.76 h	6.2 Gb

	GC-bias Introduction (130 M reads)	4.10 h	2.5 GB


Self-report risk assessment	Positive ADHD screen % (n)	Negative ADHD screen % (n)	Χ2 (df = 1)	Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)

Any illness or injury, or any other medical condition?	51.3 (20)	31.7 (45)	5.10*	2.27 (1.10 to 4.66)

Taking, supposed to be taking, or need any tablets/medication?	19.5 (8)	15.6 (22)	0.35	1.31 (0.54 to 3.21)

Consumed alcohol in the last 24 hours?	28.2 (11)	26.8 (38)	0.03	1.08 (0.49 to 2.37)

Dependent on drugs or any other substances?	25.6 (10)	9.2 (13)	7.50**	3.42 (1.37 to 8.57)

Ever tried to harm yourself?	23.1 (9)	7.7 (11)	7.32**	3.57 (1.36 to 9.39)

Experiencing any mental health problems or depression?	23.1 (9)	6.4 (9)	9.35**	4.37 (1.60 to 11.94)

Require any help with reading/writing?	10.3 (4)	2.8 (4)	3.96	3.91 (0.93 to 16.44)

Custody officer risk assessment

Detainee appears to be injured or unwell?	20.5 (8)	11.3 (16)	2.22	2.02 (0.79 to 5.14)

Detainee is in need of a Doctor or other Health Care Professional?	20.0 (6)	11.3 (13)	1.58	1.96 (0.68 to 5.69)

Appears to have taken/be under the influence of alcohol/drugs/any other substance?	23.1 (9)	12.8 (18)	2.55	2.05 (0.84 to 5.01)

Detainee has indications of self harm?	17.9 (7)	5.7 (8)	6.03*	3.64 (1.23 to 10.77)


Trait	Region	SNP	Closest gene	P value	Alleles ancestral>derived

Hair shape	1q21	rs11803731	<underline>TCHH</underline>	3 × 10−12	A>T

Hair shape	2q12	rs3827760	<underline>EDAR</underline>	3 × 10−119	A>G

Hair shape	10p14	rs17143387	GATA3	4 × 10−8	T>G

Hair shape	16p11	rs11150606	<underline>PRSS53</underline>	7 × 10−9	T>C

Beard thickness	2q12	rs365060	EDAR	1 × 10−15	G>C

Beard thickness	4q12	rs4864809	LNX1	1 × 10−8	A>G

Beard thickness	6q21	rs6901317	PREP	4 × 10−8	G>T

Beard thickness	7q31	rs117717824	FOXP2	1 × 10−8	G>T

Eyebrow thickness	3q22	rs112458845	FOXL2	4 × 10−10	G>A

Monobrow	2q36	rs2218065	PAX3	5 × 10−8	A>G

Hair greying	6p25	rs12203592	IRF4	3 × 10−13	C>T

Hair colour	5p13	rs183671	SLC45A2	2 × 10−59	T>G

Hair colour	6p25	rs12203592	IRF4	1 × 10−13	C>T

Hair colour	11q14	rs598952	TYR	2 × 10−8	T>A

Hair colour	15q13	rs12913832	HERC2/OCA2	5 × 10−104	A>G

Hair colour	15q21	rs1426654	SLC24A5	1 × 10−18	G>A

Balding	10q22	rs2814331	GRID1	4 × 10−9	C>T

Balding	Xq12	rs4258142	AR/EDA2R	2 × 10−8	C>T


Flexion angle and side	Involved	95% Confidence intervals	Uninvolved	95% Confidence intervals	P value

Torque at 30 degrees	1.09	0.87–1.31	1.17	0.98–1.36	P = 0.45

Torque at 60 degrees	1.75	1.4–2.1	2.09	1.77–2.41	P = 0.08


Intra-nuclear body	GO Term	Description	E-Value

Nucleolus	GO:0042254	Ribosome biogenesis and assembly	1.80E-19

	GO:0022613	Ribonucleoprotein complex biogenesis and assembly	3.30E-15

	GO:0016072	rRNA metabolic process	3.30E-14

	GO:0006364	rRNA processing	3.30E-14

	GO:0009059	Macromolecule biosynthetic process	2.90E-08

	GO:0043228	Non-membrane-bound organelle	3.30E-08

	GO:0043232	Intracellular non-membrane-bound organelle	3.30E-08

	GO:0006412	Translation	5.70E-08

	GO:0009058	Biosynthetic process	1.20E-06

PML nuclear body	GO:0006950	Response to stress	6.10E-09

	GO:0006974	Response to DNA damage stimulus	1.70E-08

	GO:0009719	Response to endogenous stimulus	2.30E-08

	GO:0050896	Response to stimulus	4.00E-07

	GO:0006281	DNA repair	4.40E-05

	GO:0042770	DNA damage response, signal transduction	5.90E-05

	GO:0007049	Cell cycle	1.40E-03

	GO:0006464	Protein modification process	1.60E-03

	GO:0022402	Cell cycle process	2.70E-03

Nuclear Speckle	GO:0016071	mRNA metabolic process	1.20E-61

	GO:0006397	mRNA processing	4.80E-61

	GO:0008380	RNA splicing	1.20E-58

	GO:0005681	Spliceosome	1.90E-38

	GO:0006396	RNA processing	5.80E-34

	GO:0030529	Ribonucleoprotein complex	1.90E-26

	GO:0003723	RNA binding	2.00E-25

	GO:0016070	RNA metabolic process	1.70E-06

	GO:0000377	RNA splicing, via transesterification reactions with bulged adenosine as nucleophile	4.10E-06

	GO:0000398	Nuclear mRNA splicing, via spliceosome	4.10E-06


Level of Confidence	Low	Medium 	High

Studies	Gessner et al. (1997-b)	Akaeda et al. (1998)	Gessner et al. (1997-a)

Prakash et al. (1971)	Bond and Medcoff (1958)	Knaack et al. (2016)

Rodrigue et al. (1990)	Garcia et al. (2004)	-

Sharifzadeh et al. (1991)	Garcia et al. (2005)	-

Tennant et al. (1955)	Gessner and Middaugh (1995)	-

Turnbull et al. (2013)	Langeland et al. (1984)	-

-	Popkiss et al. (1979)	-


Source	Allograft	Time from transplant	Risk factors	Presentation	Diagnostic test	Treatment	Outcome

Schaeffer et al. [9]	Heart	2 months	Travel to southeastern US	Perforated colon	BAL examination	Thiabendazole × 15 daysIvermectin × 15 days	Death

El Masry and O'Donnell [10]	Heart	41 days	From Kentucky	Respiratory distress	Alveolar tissue onautopsy	None	Death

Mizuno et al. [11]	Heart/kidney	28 days	From Florida	Respiratory distress	Autopsy findings	None	Death

Roxby et al. [8]	Heart	2 months	Immigrantfrom Ethiopia	DyspneaAbdominal painNausea	Sputumexamination	Oralivermectin	Death

Brügemann et al. [12]	Heart	6 weeks	 	AbdominalpainAnorexiaNausea	Skin biopsy	Oral ivermectin × 15 daysAlbendazole oral × 10 days	Successfultreatment

Grover et al. [13]	Heart	4 weeks	From SoutheasternUS	Nauseavomiting	Duodenalbiopsy	Ivermectin	Death


Before	8 hours	24 hours	48 hours	5 days

23 ± 4	401 ± 27	383 ± 1	272 ± 9	130 ± 14


	Predicting from Overt Victimization	Predicting from Relational Victimization

	CBCL Externalizing	CBCL Internalizing	CBCL Externalizing	CBCL Internalizing

	∆R2	β	∆R2	β	∆R2	β	∆R2	β

Step 1	0.02		0.03		0.02		0.03

 	Age		−0.12		 0.18		−0.12		 0.18

Step 2	0.11		0.13		0.11		0.13

 	Child Fearful Bias		 0.21		 0.07		 0.21		 0.07

 	Parent Fearful Bias		−0.02		−0.10		−0.02		−0.10

 	Parent TAS DIF		 0.32 *		 0.36 **		 0.32 *		 0.36 **

Step 3	0.00		0.04		0.01		0.10 *

 	Perceived Impairment		 0.02		−0.22		−0.14		−0.37 *

Step 4	0.13 *		0.10 *		0.08		0.09

 	Child-reported Victimization		−0.09		−0.10		−0.01		−0.12

 	Parent-reported Victimization		0.40 **		 0.34 *		 0.31*		 0.35 *


Symbola	Protein	Process	Alteration/disease

ADCYAP1R1	Adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide receptor (PAC1)	Signaling pathway	Decreased second messenger

CASP3	Caspase 3	Protease	Apoptosis. Alzheimer’s disease

CCND1	G1/S-specific cyclin-D1	Interact with tumor suppressor protein Rb	Abnormal cell cycle G1/S transition

CNN1	Calporin (actin binding protein; fimbrin type)	Actin associated protein	Abnormal cohesion between parental centrioles

CREB1	cAMP-responsive element binding protein 1	Transcription factor	Altered development. ASD

CREM	cAMP-responsive element modulator	Transcription factor modulating CREB	Altered development. ASD

CTNNB1	β-catenin	Regulates the coordination of cell–cell adhesion and gene transcription	Altered asymmetric cell division, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. ASD

DYRK1A	Dual specificity tyrosine-phosphorylation- regulated kinase 1A	Nuclear signaling	Abnormal cell proliferation and may be involved in brain development. ASD

GNB1L	Guanine nucleotide-binding protein subunit β-like protein 1	Six WD40 repeat-containing protein	Abnormal cell cycle progression. Schizophrenia. ASD

FLT1	Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1	Protein kinase	Abnormal control of cell proliferation and differentiation. ASD

HIST1H1T	Histone H1t	Compaction of chromatin	Abnormal cell cycle and differentiation

HSD11B2	Corticosteroid 11-β-dehydrogenase isozyme 2	Hydrolysis of cortisol	Cortisol induction of growth-inhibition and/or pro-apoptosis embryonic development

MAPK1	Mitogen-activated protein kinase 1 (ERK2)	CREB1 phosphorylation signaling pathway	ASD

RGS3	Regulator of G-protein signaling 3	Ephrin-B signaling pathway	Early cell cycle exit and precocious differentiation


	Harmonic (n = 39)	Control (n = 40)	p-value

Total volume (ml)

 Univariate	2908 ± 2453	3898 ± 5791	0.382

 Multivariate-adjusted	2864 ± 715	3941 ± 706	0.293

Duration of draining (days)

 Univariate	23 ± 14	28 ± 15	0.195

 Multivariate-adjusted	24 ± 2	27 ± 2	0.290


KEGG pathway	p value	Number of DEGs found in the KEGG pathway	Ratio (%)

Pathways in cancer	2.1e-4	9	10.1

Cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction	2.1e-3	7	7.9

Basal cell carcinoma	2.9e-3	4	4.5

Retinol metabolism	3.3e-2	3	3.4

Hedgehog signaling pathway	3.5e-2	3	3.4


Indices and Its Statements a	Total Sample n = 1107	Bottom Tertile n = 355/339	Middle Tertile n = 424/417	Upper Tertile n = 328/351	p-Value

Perceived health concerns

Health Concern Index b	6.9 (3.7)	3.0 (0.7)	6.6 (0.9)	11.6 (2.3)	<0.0001

I am concerned about gaining weight	3.1 (1.9)	1.0 (0.5)	3.6 (1.5)	4.6 (1.2)	<0.0001

I am concerned about the risk of high blood pressure	2.0 (1.4)	1.0 (0.3)	1.5 (0.7)	3.7 (1.3)	<0.0001

I am concerned about the risk of coronary heart disease	1.8 (1.3)	1.0 (0.3)	1.4 (0.8)	3.3 (1.4)	<0.0001

Perceived nutrition concerns

Nutrition Concern Index c	17.1 (6.6)	10.0 (1.7)	16.1 (1.9)	25.1 (4.2)	<0.0001

I am not concerned about getting a lot of salt in my food (re-coded)	3.7 (1.5)	3.4 (1.8)	3.8 (1.4)	3.7 (1.4)	0.1617

I am concerned about food additives in my food	2.6 (1.5)	1.4 (0.9)	2.7 (1.4)	3.5 (1.4)	<0.0001

I am concerned about getting a lot of sugar in my food	2.4 (1.6)	1.1 (0.7)	2.1 (1.2)	4.2 (1.2)	<0.0001

I am concerned about getting a lot of fat in my food	2.3 (1.6)	1.0 (0.4)	2.0 (1.3)	4.0 (1.3)	<0.0001

I am concerned about getting sufficient energy in my food	2.2 (1.5)	1.1 (0.5)	2.2 (1.3)	3.2 (1.5)	<0.0001

I am concerned about getting a lot of cholesterol in my food	2.1 (1.5)	1.0 (0.3)	1.7 (1.0)	3.6 (1.3)	<0.0001

I am concerned about getting many calories	1.9 (1.3)	1.0 (0.5)	1.7 (1.0)	2.9 (1.5)	<0.0001


Pathways	Genes	Descriptions	TPM	NOISeq	RT-qPCR

P. humilis	P. major	Log2FC	P-adj	Log2FC	P

Wnt	WNT5A	Protein Wnt-5a	48.06	148.61	−1.63	0.00E+00	–	–

PRICKLE1	Prickle-like protein 1	14.86	55.20	−1.89	2.75E-06	−0.17	1.10E-01

WIF1*†	Wnt inhibitory factor 1	7.28	57.05	−2.97	8.87E-06	−3.28	5.30E-06

NFATC3	Nuclear factor of activated T-cells, cytoplasmic 3	8.98	39.30	−2.13	9.47E-05	–	–

FZD4	Frizzled-4	16.67	89.95	−2.43	1.54E-04	–	–

LEF1	Lymphoid enhancer-binding factor 1	60.50	143.01	−1.24	1.77E-04	–	–

FRZB*	Secreted frizzled-related protein 3	71.32	150.58	−1.08	3.47E-04	−3.23	4.12E-05

DAAM2	Disheveled-associated activator of morphogenesis 2	2.48	15.04	−2.60	3.47E-04	–	–

CCND1	G1/S-specific cyclin-D1	24.35	69.13	−1.51	4.18E-04	–	–

PRKACB	cAMP-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit beta	34.22	73.42	−1.10	4.97E-04	–	–

MAPK/FGF	FGF17	Fibroblast growth factor 17	45.91	0.38	6.91	0.00E + 00	0.50	4.18E-01

FGF13*†	Fibroblast growth factor 13	11.33	3.71	1.61	4.21E-04	7.37	1.23E-08

STK3	Serine/threonine-protein kinase 38	11.70	40.72	−1.80	4.64E-04	–	–

OCD	NFATC1*	Nuclear factor of activated T-cells, cytoplasmic 1	5.82	39.32	−2.76	1.60E-08	−3.21	2.16E-05

ITGB3*†	Integrin beta-3	0.76	6.43	−3.08	8.57E-05	−5.49	1.21E-06

Notch	HES5	Transcription factor HES-5	117.76	17.23	2.77	3.11E-04	0.22	6.83E-01

Calcium	CACNA1G	Voltage-dependent T-type calcium channel subunit alpha-1G	4.28	14.60	−1.77	5.79E-04	–	–


Variable	Mean (range) or no. (%)

Total operative time (mins)	204.94 (180–300)

Docking time (mins)	9.06 (5–30)

Undocking time (mins)	5 (2–10)

Time for esophageal mobilization (mins)	104.08 (80–170)

Estimated blood loss (ml)	86.75 (50–200)

Lymphnode yield (no.)	18.36 (13–24)

ICU stay (days)	1 (1–3)

Hospital stay (days)	10.37 (10–13)

Nil by mouth (days)	9.40 (8–12)

Conversion (no.)	Nil

Margin positivity (no.)	2 (2.41)

Adjuvant chemotherapy (no.)	15 (18.07)

Complications (no.)

Dysphagia for solids	6 (7.23)

Pleural effusion	3 (3.61)

Aspiration pneumonia	1 (1.20)

Recurrent palsy	2 (2.41)

Anastomotic leak	3 (3.61)

Chyle leak	1 (1.20)

Port site metastasis	1 (1.20)

Surgical site infection	1 (1.20)

Sepsis	1 (1.20)


Background characteristics		Frequency	Percentage

Sex	Female	298	73.2

Male	109	26.8

Age	18-24	75	18.4

25-34	178	43.8

35-44	87	21.4

45-54	36	8.8

55+	31	7.6

Marital status	Married	335	82.3

Single	48	11.8

Divorced	16	3.9

Widowed	8	2.0

Educational level	Illiterate	45	11.0

Grade 1-8	111	27.3

Grade 9.12	120	29.5

College and above	131	32.2

Religion	Protestant	268	65.8

Orthodox	88	21.6

Muslim	27	6.6

Catholic	24	5.9

Occupation	Gov’t employee	139	34.2

House wife	137	33.7

Merchant	59	7.6

Daily laborer	31	14.5

Others*	41	10.1


	Pearson correlation	Secondary structure and interactions

		Target	Guide strand (intra-)	Guide strand (inter-)

Complete database	R	0.16	0.13	0.12

	Significance	<10−100	1.1 × 10−72	2.89 × 10−56

Dataset with duplex stability −35 ≤ ΔG ≤ −25 kcal/mol	R	–	0.045	–

	Significance	n.s.	0.0018	n.s.


 Method 	 ASEF 	 nu-SVR 	 Deep CNN 	 Our method

 fps 	 66.7 	 0.82 	 8.3 	 10.5


	Odds ratio	95% CI

Age	1.04	1.01 to 1.07

Site of infection:

 Lung	1

 Abdomen	1.55	0.66 to 3.70

 Catheter	0.72	0.15 to 3.43

 Urinary tract	0.10	0.01 to 0.78

 Others	0.70	0.25 to 1.94

 Chronic alcohol abuse	3.20	0.90 to 11.42

 Acquisition in hospital	2.03	0.98 to 4.36

SOFA score day 1 (failure):

 Haematological	3.20	0.92 to 9.92

 Cardiovascular	2.78	1.37 to 5.64

 Neurological	2.39	0.76 to 7.48

 Renal	1.97	0.73 to 5.27

 Liver	1.67	0.46 to 6.08

 Lung	1.65	0.81 to 3.36

 ΔSOFA (3-1)	1.32	1.13 to 1.34

 APACHE II Score	1.02	0.97 to 1.08

 Pre ICU stay (days)	0.99	0.97 to 1.02


 	€	Reference/data source

Visit practice nurse (€/minute)	0.85	Vektis, information centre on costs and quality of health care in the Netherlands, established by health care insurers.

Mean salary costs men (€/hour)	32.49	Manual Hakkaart-van Roijen et al. [18]

Mean salary costs women (€/hour)	25.94	Manual Hakkaart-van Roijen et al. [18]

Transportation costs per visit	3.44	1.1 km * €0.20/km (back and forth: €0.44) + €3 parking costs, based on the manual of Hakkaart-van Roijen et al. [18]

Weighing scale	45	Mean price according to the “Consumentenbond” (Dutch consumers organisation)

Pedometer	40	Mean price according to “thuisvergelijken.nl” (website with reviews on web shops)

Blood pressure device	120	Mean price according to “bloeddrukmetershop.nl”

Food diary and step diary	5	Price according to “weightwatchers.nl”

Medication	variable	2012 prices according to “medicijnkosten.nl”, site of the College of Health Insurances


Characteristics	Patientsn = 85

Age	66 (range 43-87)

Hypertension	34 (39%)

Hormone replacement therapy	21 (24%)

Obesity (BMI ≥ 30)	19 (22.3%)

Histology:

 Endometrioid adenocarcinoma	73 (86%)

 Adenosquamous adenocarcinoma	1 (1%)

 Serous papillary adenocarcinoma	5 (6%)

 Clear cell adenocarcinoma	5 (6%)

 Carcinosarcoma	1 (1%)

Preoperative histological grade on biopsy

 1	41 (48.2%)

 2	22 (25.8%)

 3	11 (12.9%)

 NP	11 (12.9%)


Model – Variables	Odds Ratios for eGFR < 75(95% Confidence Interval)n = 51 events	P interaction (APOL1x SES measure)	Odds Ratios for Elevated ACR(95% Confidence Interval) n = 21 events	P interaction (APOL1x SES measure)

	High-risk versus Low-riskAPOL1variants	Low SES versus Higher SES Group		High-risk versus Low-riskAPOL1variants	Low SES versus Higher SES Group

Additive Models

APOL1, Education	1.60 (1.00, 2.57)	1.95 (1.50, 2.54)	0.4	3.89 (2.28, 6.63)	1.68 (0.34, 8.23)	0.823

APOL1, Employment	2.06 (1.53, 2.78)	4.64 (3.40, 6.33)	0.017*	3.12 (1.73, 5.63)	1.32 (0.83, 2.08)	0.894

APOL1, Health Insurance	1.92 (1.27, 2.90)	1.00 (0.53, 1.89)	0.662	3.04 (1.65, 5.60)	0.56 (0.14, 2.28)	**could not be determined

APOL1, Regular Health Care Source	1.91 (1.15, 3.17)	0.54 (0.31, 0.94)	0.871	3.09 (1.56, 6.13)	0.64 (0.14, 2.86)	**could not be determined


Exposure (exposure contrast)	n	ABI < 0.9		ABI > 1.3

NO2 (25 μg/m3)

Model 1a	2,698	0.65	(0.28, 1.52)	1.91	(1.09, 3.33)

Model 2b (possible intermediates)	2,600	0.72	(0.29, 1.75)	1.98	(1.09, 3.6)

Traffic load in a 100 m bufferc (7,200,000 veh-m/day)

Model 1	2,698	0.92	(0.37, 2.3)	1.89	(1.1, 3.26)

Model 2 (possible intermediates)	2,600	1.02	(0.4, 2.61)	1.89	(1.07, 3.34)

Traffic intensity in nearest street (15,000 veh/day)

Model 1	2,698	0.47	(0.16, 1.41)	1.6	(1.08, 2.38)

Model 2 (possible intermediates)	2,600	0.48	(0.16, 1.46)	1.7	(1.13, 2.57)

veh, vehicle. aEstimates adjusted by model 1: sex, age,sex–age interaction, smoking status, education, and marital status.bEstimates adjusted by model 2: sex, age, sex–age interaction, smokingstatus, education, marital status, BMI, HDL, waist circumference,systolic and diastolic blood pressure, weekly energy expenditure inphysical activity during leisure time (tertiles), adherence toMediterranean diet, plausibility of reported diet, medication treatment,and percentage of persons with low education at the census-tract level.cModels for traffic load were additionally adjusted for occupationalstatus.


Section	Award 1 point if

Selection bias (3 pts.)

 Goal and inclusion	Goal of the study is stated and study explicitly states the inclusion criteria

 Selection of patients	Selective recruitment of patients can be ruled out

 Patient characteristics	Study reports the age range and mean age and states the distribution of men and women

Outcome bias (3 pts.)

 Definition of subsidence	Definition of subsidence, classification, and radiological tools to measure subsidence were stated

 Clinical outcome	Clinical outcome was systematically evaluated in correlation to subsidence

 Preoperative status	Preoperative status was stated for comparison with postoperative status

Follow-up bias (2 pts.)

 Follow-up period	Follow-up range, period, and mean were given:

 • If yes and prospective study: 2 points

 • If yes and retrospective study: 1 point

 • If no, but loss to follow-up < 20%: 1 point

 • If too little information: 0 points

Other bias (3 pts.)

 Clinical evaluation	Evaluation was done independently from treating physician

 Radiologic evaluation	Evaluation was done by an independent party, blinded to clinical results

 Independence	Independence is explicitly stated, conflict of interest can be ruled out

Total (11 points)


	Students, N = 65	Mothers, N = 63

Pre	Post	Pre	Post

Cervical cancer is caused by HPV infection?	46%	100%	86%	97%

Cervical cancer is genetic?	51%	63%	71%	81%

All HPV infections lead to cervical cancer?	75%	49%	89%	76%

Cervical cancer is decreasing in recent years?	83%	92%	100%	98%

Cervical cancer is preventable?	72%	97%	70%	78%

Cervical cancer is asymptomatic usually in early stage?	65%	97%	98%	98%

Early detection of cervical cancer might save one’s life?	85%	92%	95%	97%

HPV is sexually transmitted?	NA	NA	91%	97%

If vaccinated, you don’t need to be screened?	NA	NA	98%	97%

Screening test should be done regularly?	NA	NA	92%	95%

HPV vaccination can prevent cervical cancer	NA	NA	95%	95%

Safe sex (steady partner, use of condoms) can prevent cervical cancer	NA	NA	75%	89%

Pap test can prevent cervical cancer	NA	NA	94%	95%

Healthy lifestyle (ie., regular exercise, disciplined lifestyle, healthy diet) can prevent cervical cancer	NA	NA	11%	11%


 	AS	Rett	MWS	FOXG1	KS	PMS	PHS	CS	CDKL5	MEF2C 	ARTX

Microcephaly	+	+	+	+	+	 	+	+	+	+	+

Seizure	+	+	+	+	+	 	+	+	+	+

Speech impairment	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	 	+	+

Ataxia	+	+	 	 	 	 	+	+	 	+

Stereotypical hand movements	+/−	+	 	+	 	 	+	 	+	+

Tremulous/jerky limb movements 	+

Happy predisposition	+	+	+	 	 	 	+	 	 	 	+

Abnormal MRI	 	 	+	+	 	+	+	+

Hyperventilation/apnea episode	 	+	 	 	 	 	+

Sleep disturbances	+	+	 	+	+	+

Hirschsprung disease	 	 	+

Lack of purposeful hand use	 	+

Prominent jaw/chin	+	 	+

Wide mouth 	+	 	+	 	 	 	+

Upturned ear lobes	 	 	+

Genital anomalies	 	 	 	 	+	 	 	 	 	 	+

Congenital heart disease 	 	 	+	 	+	 	 	 	 	 	+

Developmental regression 	 	+	 	 	 	+	 	+

Others 	 	In female only	 	 	 	Mild overgrowth 	Persistent finger pad Constipation	In male only 	 	 	In male only HbH in blood smear


Variable	Response options	Total motorcycle riders	Non-helmet user

Number	%	Number	%

Helmet use experiences and attitudes

Been in accident before 	No	12,649	66.6	5,479	43.5

Yes	6,349	33.4	2,890	45.7

Rider status when in accident 	Rider	4,557	75.7	2,146	47.2

Passenger	1,370	22.8	601	44.1

Pedestrian	93	1.5	37	39.8

Have you ever used a helmet before	No	7,600	40.2	5,925	52.6

Yes	11,290	59.8	2,395	31.7

Perceived danger of not using a helmet	No	4,720	25.0	2,008	42.7

Yes	14,175	75.0	6,316	44.7

Aware of danger of not using a helmet 	Low	840	4.4	425	50.7

Moderate	7,525	39.8	3,328	44.4

High	10,544	55.8	4,580	43.6

Perceived risk about being caught by the police because of not using a helmet	High risk	7,788	41.3	3,602	46.4

Moderate risk	7,411	39.3	3,271	44.3

Low risk	2,078	11.0	855	41.3

No risk	1,595	8.5	584	36.7

Ever been caught by police because of not using a helmet	No	8,918	52.8	3,839	38.6

Yes	9,983	47.2	4,483	50.4

Exposure to road safety awareness (RSA) campaign

Heard advertising campaign on RSA 	No	3,066	16.1	1,428	46.9

Yes	15,926	83.9	6,938	43.7

RTI campaign on radio or TV 	Never	2,476	13.2	1,198	48.5

Not often	10,253	54.5	4,391	43.0

Frequently	5,493	29.2	2,409	44.0

Not sure	587	3.1	272	46.4

Talking to others about RSA in the media 	Never	7,729	40.8	3,789	49.2

Ever	7,600	40.1	3,031	40.0

Not sure	3,620	19.1	1,533	42.6

How feel about RSA media 	Not like	1,119	5.9	560	50.0

Like a little bit	11,676	61.7	5,148	44.3

Like very 	5,173	27.3	2,205	42.7

much	955	5.0	433	45.4

Not sure

Follows the TV news report on RSA statistics 	Never	2,614	13.8	1,256	48.2

Not often	9,841	52.0	4,415	45.0

Frequently	5,552	29.3	2,244	40.6

Not sure	912	4.8	436	48.2


	Conventional CPB	Mini-CPB	P value

Patients (no.)	22		22

Women/men (no.)	4/18		2/20		0.66

Age (years)	68	(63–71)	69	(66–74)	0.57

Body mass index	28.5	(25.3–32)	26.5	(25–31.3)	0.38

Acetylsalicylic acid (no.)	21		21

Beta blockers (no.)	21		20

ACE inhibitors (no.)	16		18		0.72

Statins (no.)	21		20

Diabetes mellitus (no.)	4		6		0.72

COPD (no.)	3		4

Prior myocardial infarction (no.)	12		9		0.37

Leukocytes (cells ×109/L)	7.5	(6.8–8.5)	7.1	(6.3–8.8)	0.8

Ejection fraction (%)	64.5	(51.3–69.8)	60	(48.5–69.5)	0.35


Cluster ID	#sequences	#non-redundant sequences	Description

CAM_CL_2057	20,508	24	Reverse transcriptase (HIV)

CAM_CL_1132	18,882	1,406	Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I

CAM_CL_2568	15,405	6,091	ABC transporter

CAM_CL_4367	15,228	771	Cytochrome b

CAM_CL_49	14,751	7,389	Short-chain dehydrogenase

CAM_CL_3510	13,255	5,173	Immunoglobulin

CAM_CL_2630	13,140	3,297	Envelope glycoprotein

CAM_CL_160	13,054	3,897	Kinases

CAM_CL_4556	12,403	6,345	Response regulator

CAM_CL_481	12,078	5,477	Transcription regulator


Dependant Variable	Worse-than-Dead	Euthanasia

Coefficient	Standard Error	Coefficient	Standard Error

Third Level Education	−0.155	(0.167)	−0.077	(0.255)

Age Group (Base: 18–35)

 36–45	0.304	(0.207)	0.328	(0.32)

 46–60	0.471*	(0.228)	0.318	(0.42)

 61+	1.168***	(0.274)	0.585	(0.489)

Male	−0.298	(0.17)	−0.113	(0.251)

Married/Living as Married	−0.158	(0.204)	−0.07	(0.303)

Dependants Under 18 (Y/N)	−0.098	(0.208)	0.412	(0.359)

Visual Analogue Scale	0.004	(0.006)	−0.012	(0.008)

Experienced a serious illness	−0.287	(0.264)	−0.765*	(0.3)

In favour of Legalisation of Euthanasia (see scenario in Fig. 1)	1.003*	(0.394)	–	–

Religiosity (Base: A few times a year or less)

 Monthly	–	–	−0.454	(0.318)

 Weekly	–	–	−1.369***	(0.328)

Mobility (Base: No Problems)

 Slight problems	0.194	(0.114)	–	–

 Moderate problems	0.326**	(0.109)	–	–

 Severe problems	0.476***	(0.12)	–	–

 Unable	0.419***	(0.112)	–	–

Self-care (Base: No Problems)

 Slight problems	0.263*	(0.128)	–	–

 Moderate problems	0.34*	(0.131)	–	–

 Severe problems	0.528***	(0.143)	–	–

 Unable	0.444***	(0.102)	–	–

Usual Activities (Base: No Problems)

 Slight problems	0.304*	(0.134)	–	–

 Moderate problems	0.477**	(0.156)	–	–

 Severe problems	0.443***	(0.118)	–	–

 Unable	0.335***	(0.091)	–	–

Paid/Discomfort (Base: No Problems)

 Slight problems	0.253*	(0.116)	–	–

 Moderate problems	0.182	(0.116)	–	–

 Severe problems	0.614***	(0.111)	–	–

 Extreme problems	0.852***	(0.138)	–	–

Anxiety/Depression (Base: No Problems)

 Slight problems	0.221	(0.128)	–	–

 Moderate problems	0.313*	(0.14)	–	–

 Severe problems	0.867***	(0.159)	–	–

 Extreme problems	0.858***	(0.133)	–	–

Constant	−3.331***	(0.626)	2.05**	(0.748)

Rhoa			−0.801*	(0.402)

Number of observationsa				1600

Number of clustersa				160


Clinical trial	Number of patients	Experimental arm	Control arm	Overall/annual fracture incidence	References

ATAC	9366	Anastrozole	Tamoxifen	Overall: 11 vs. 7.7%Annual: 2.93 vs. 1.90%	[57, 58]

IBIS II bone sub-study	1410	Anastrozole	Placebo	Annual: 1.37 vs. 1.26%	[100]

BIG 1.98	4895	Letrozole	Tamoxifen	Overall: 9.3 vs. 6.5%Annual: 2.71 vs. 1.872%	[59]

MA-17	5187	Letrozole	Placebo	Overall: 3.6 vs. 2.9%	[60]

IES	4274	Exemestane	Tamoxifen	Overall: 7 vs. 5%Annual: 2.01 vs. 1.60%	[61]

ABCSG-18	3420	AI + denosumab	AI + placebo	Overall: 5 vs. 9.6%	[107]


Instrument	Baseline	Follow-up

SCAN [38]	x

PANSS [41]	x	x

Insight Scale [39]	x	x

Early Signs Scale [40]	x	x

DUP [42]		x

PAS [44]		x

Encounter Form [45]		x


How detected	% of total

Test recommended by general practitioners	27.1

Sexual partner tracing	21.7

Voluntary testing	12.1

Blood donors	9.7

HIV test done in hospitals	8.9

Persons with other sexually transmitted infections	8.3

Pregnant women	1.6

Other	10.6

Total	100% (n = 4276)


Gender	NO. examined	NO. positive	Prevalence (%)

Male	52	9	17.31

Female	140	11	7.86

Total	192	20	10.42


Objective	Activity

Training To understand the nutrient content and ingredients in processed and fast food and make a homemade burger	‘Ready, steady, cook’. Demonstration used a fast food burger recipe to illustrate poor quality of ‘fast food’. Peer supporters then made their own burger for lunch (meat or vegetarian) to demonstrate the difference in ingredients

 To taste different fruit and vegetables	‘Taste trial’. Fresh fruit and vegetables were plated. Peer supporter volunteers were blindfolded and asked to guess the name of the fruit or vegetable they had tried, and describe the taste and texture

 To emphasize the range of physical activity options	‘A-Z’. Peer supporters were asked to think of a physical activity beginning with each letter of the alphabet

 To understand what sedentary behaviour is and its health implications	‘Before and after’ role plays. Sedentary behaviour (before) changed to active behaviour (after), e.g. taking the lift changed to walking the stairs

 To consider barriers to physical activity and think of solutions	‘Barrier wall’. A wall of cardboard box ‘bricks’ was constructed. Peer supporters were asked to think of barriers to physical activity, which were written onto the bricks. Peer supporters who thought of solutions to barriers were allowed to remove the relevant brick until the wall was demolished

 To develop communication skills for their role	‘Role play’. Peer supporters improvised conversations with their peers based on key messages about physical activity or healthy eating

 To use goal setting to change health behaviour	‘Goal setting’. Peer supporters set themselves a small challenge in relation to physical activity or healthy eating. This was revisited at the follow-up sessions

Support ‘follow-up sessions’

 To understand the salt, sugar, fat and fibre content of various foods	A game of top trump cards. Cards display different food products. The winning card has the ‘healthiest’ level of a selected ingredient, e.g. salt, sugar, fat or fibre

 To remind peer supporters of the importance of breakfast	A morning session with a discussion about how to make healthy choices at breakfast during which volunteers serve breakfast to their peers

 To evaluate health promotion posters	Peer supporters complete jigsaws of current health promotion posters relating to physical activity and healthy eating, and discuss which they consider would have the greatest impact on their peers

 To experience physical activity	Physical activity sessions including skipping, circus skills and Frisbee


	RA	AS	HC	P

HAT (ng/h/mg)

(mean ± SEM)	126.8 ± 16.4	68.2 ± 8.1	111.3 ± 15.5	RA vs HC:NS*

				AS vs HC: p=0.05*

HDAC (pmol/min/mg)

(mean ± SEM)	3915.9 ±790.3	1984.6 ± 249.0	4778.9 ± 752.3	RA vs HC:NS*

				AS vs HC: p=0.01*

Ratio HDAC/HAT

(mean ± SEM)	49.1 ± 16.7	35.6 ± 6.9	65.4 ± 16.7	NS*

HAT + TSA (ng/h/mg)

(mean ± SEM)	153.2 ± 30.3	81.2 ± 9.9	112.6 ± 21	HAT vs HAT + TSA**:HC:NS

				RA: NS AS: NS

HAT + Sirt (ng/h/mg)

(mean ± SEM)	113.1 ± 14.0	71.9 ± 6.2	107.9 ± 15.9	HAT vs HAT+ Sirt** HC:NS

				RA: p = 0.01

				AS: NS

HDAC + TSA (pmol/min/mg)

(mean ± SEM)	2457.1± 316.4	2134.2 ± 426.3	3450.6 ± 709.1	HDAC vs HDAC + TSA** HC:NS

				RA: NS AS: NS

HDAC + Sirt (pmol/min/mg)

(mean ± SEM)	2440.6 ± 446.4	1975.4 ± 313.2	2341.6 ± 242.7	HDAC vs HDAC + Sirt**

				HC: p = 0.07

				RA: NS AS: NS


Path	Mediator	Coeff.	SE	t	p

Interaction variable to mediators	Identity Compatibility	0.12	0.04	2.93	0.00

	Identity Expression	0.08	0.04	2.29	0.02

Mediators to outcome variable	Identity Compatibility	0.24	0.12	1.96	0.05

	Identity Expression	0.26	0.10	2.49	0.01


Psychological and other health measures (Denominatora)	n = 609

HADs anxiety subscale (607)

 Normal	316 (52.1)

 Mild/possible case	120 (19.8)

 Probable/moderate/severe case	171 (28.2)

HADs depression subscale (609)

 Normal	392 (64.4)

 Mild/possible case	119 (19.5)

 Probable/moderate/severe case	98 (16.1)

Pain self-efficacy score (593), mean (SD)	34.1 (14.6)

Illness perceptions questionnaire-short form (IPQ-R)

 Timeline-‘back/leg pain will last for a long time (agree or strongly agree) (609)	345 (56.7)

 Personal control-‘what I do can determine whether back/leg pain gets better (agree or strongly agree) (605)	367 (60.7)

 Identity score (0–7) (584), mean (SD)	5.9 (1.3)

General Health (608)

 Excellent/very good	146 (24.0)

 Good	241 (39.5)

 Fair	172 (28.3)

 Poor	50 (8.2)

Co-morbiditiesb(609)

 None	371 (60.9)

 One other health problem	158 (25.9)

 Two or more other health problems	80 (13.1)

EQ—5D—3L summary index (590)	0.44 (0.32)


	The Akershus Birth Cohort Study	All woman who gave birth in Norway in 2010

Mean maternal age	31.3 years	30.2 years

First time mothers	48.9 %	42.6 %

Smoking during pregnancy	6.6 %	7.2 %

Single women	1.1 %	9.1 %

Elective caesarean section	5.0 %	6.5 %


Patellar dislocation N = 51	Group ANonoperatively treated patientsn = 33	Group BPatients treated operatively during acute phasen = 7	Group CPatients treated operatively due to recurrence n = 11

Girls : boys	16 : 17	4 : 3	9 : 2

Age at injury (years)a	13.5 ± 1.3	12.6 ± 2.3	13.3 ± 1.5

Follow-up time (years)a	7.7 ± 1.5	7.0 ± 1.4	7.3 ± 1.5

Trochlear dysplasia	67% (22 of 33)	83% (5 of 6)	64% (7 of 11)

Patella alta	33% (11 of 33)	33% (2 of 6)	38% (3 of 8)

Subjective knee functiona

 KOOS subscales at follow-upb

(i) Pain (M = 92, F = 92)	90 ± 14	92 ± 8	86 ± 9

(ii) Symptoms (M = 87, F = 89)	82 ± 14	82 ± 11	78 ± 12

(iii) Function in daily living (M = 94, F = 95)	94 ± 12	97 ± 4	93 ± 6

(iv) Sports and recreation (M = 85, F = 86)	77 ± 24	79 ± 15	66 ± 17

(v) Quality of life (M = 85, F = 84)	69 ± 20	76 ± 19	60 ± 14

 Kujala score at follow-upc	84 ± 10	84 ± 7	75 ± 15

Objective knee functiona

 Peak torque/body weight

(i) Extension (90 degr/s)	187.2 ± 59.5	195.6 ± 57.4	157.9 ± 63.2

 	M: 220 ± 43	M: 242 ± 50	M: 231 ± 30

 	F: 152 ± 56	F: 161 ± 34	F: 142 ± 57

(ii) Flexion (90 degr/s)	106.3 ± 34.4	103.6 ± 31.7	113.8 ± 57.6

 	M: 128 ± 26	M: 124 ± 36	M: 208 ± 77

 	F: 83 ± 27	F: 88 ± 20	F: 93 ± 26

(iii) H/Q ratioe	0.58 ± 0.16	0.54 ± 0.12	1.03 ± 1.30

 LSI, peak torque in extensionf	86 ± 17%	89 ± 15%	81 ± 32%

 30 s mini squat test injured sideg	35 ± 15	36 ± 18	34 ± 13

 LSI, 30 s mini-squat testf	93 ± 21%	97 ± 8%	99 ± 32%

Redislocation after latest treatmenth	67% (22 of 33) 	43% (3 of 7)	18% (2 of 11)


	Aspira-aA	Tecnis ZCB00	p value

UDVA (logMAR)	0.14 ± 0.13	0.12 ± 0.15	0.25

CDVA (logMAR)	0.07 ± 0.09	0.04 ± 0.09	0.22

Sphere ∆ (D)	−0.22 ± 0.67	−0.50 ± 0.52	0.29

Depth of focus (D)	0.61 ± 0.33	0.65 ± 0.29	0.74

Corneal asphericity with a pupil size of 4 mm	0.19 ± 0.24	0.26 ± 0.16	0.19


	Number of persons	Mean age (range) in years	Males/females	Smokers (non-/NA/current /ex)a	Steroid treatment (no/NA/yes)a	Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (no/NA/yes)a	Mean duration of symptoms (range) in monthsb

Group I	6	71 (65–78)	3/3	4/1/0/1	5/1/0	6/0/0	11 (1–24)

Group II	12	68 (42–85)	5/7	5/1/1/5	5/1/6	2/2/8	62 (12–150)

Group III	11	56 (40–73)	5/6	4/0/1/6	7/3/1	4/5/2	9 (2–18)

Controls	10	42 (20–59)	5/5	6/0/4/0

Radiation accident victims	3	38 (27–48)	2/1	Estimated protracted dose [10]: 2.7; 0.5; 1.0 Gy


Primary outcome measures	Generic quality of life	SF-36

	Functional health status	FIM

Secondary outcome measures	Anxiety and depression	HADS

	Cognitive functioning	MMSE

	Extent to which individual ADL treatment goals are met	COPM

Note: Costs will be assessed using the PRODISQ, a cost questionnaire and hospital database data


Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria

Age ≥ 18 years	History of previous major hepatic surgery (i.e. more than three liver segments) or biliary major surgery (except gall-bladder surgery by laparoscopy if more than 6 months previously)

Patients with liver metastases requiring a hepatectomy of ≥ 2 segments	Patients with cirrhosis or sinusoidal obstruction syndrome with portal hypertension

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1	Pregnant women

Adequate bone marrow and liver function at baseline (defined by platelet count ≥ 100 × 109/L, and haemoglobin of ≥ 9 g/dL, and total bilirubin ≤ 1.5 × upper limit of normal, and transaminases ≤ 5× upper limit of normal)

Recovered from prior anti-neoplasic treatment-related toxicity (grade <2 persistent treatment-related toxicity as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4 are accepted

Willingness for follow-up visits

Covered by a medical insurance

Signed and dated informed consent indicating that the patient has been informed of all aspects of the trial prior to enrolment


	First comprehension test(n = 30)	Second comprehension test(n = 35)

Items	Patients reporting difficulties in understanding items (%)	Patients reporting difficulties in understanding items (%)

4	6.7	0

9	6.7	0

15	0	5.7

	Patients reporting difficulties in understanding questions (%)	Patients reporting difficulties in understanding questions (%)

Demographic 1	30.0	0

Demographic 3	13.3	0

Demographic 4	6.7	0


1	F 5′-TATAGGTACCAATTTATGGCAGTCATTA-3′	Amplification

2	R 5′-ATATGAGCTCGCTGGCCCGTGGCTGGAT-3′

3	S 5′-GTCCTTTTCTAGTGTATTGTGTTTGTTAATATTTG-3′	A→G

4	Compl 5′-CAAATATTAACAAACACAATACACTAGAAAAGGAC-3′

5	S 5′-GCTCCCACTAATGTGGTATTTAACTTTTGAAAGATCTTTAG-3′	NFκB (−1537)

6	Compl 5′-CTAAAGATCTTTCAAAAGTTAAATACCACATTAGTGGGAGC-3′

7	S 5′-GCTTTAAATAATTCTACAATATTTTGTGTATTTTGC-3′	HNF-3

8	Compl 5′-GCAAAATACACAAAATATTGTAGAATTATTTAAAGC-3′

9	S 5′-CAGAAAATATCGGTAATAAAAAAAGTTAAAGATCTTC-3′	Pou-IV

10	Compl 5′-GAAGATCTTTAACTTTTTTTATTACCGATATTTTCTG-3′

11	S 5′-GGAGGCTCCCTCCCCCCCCTCCAGCGC-3′	Sp1 (−236)

12	Compl 5′-GCGCTGGAGGGGAGGGAGGGAGCCTCC-3′

13	S 5′-GACCCGGCGCAGCACACCAACCGCGAGCAGAAC-3′	Ets

14	Compl - 5′-GTTCTGCTCGCGGTTGGTGTGCTGCGCCGGGTC-3′

15	S 5′-CGCTGCGGGCGCTTGCTGCCAGAACCTTG-3′	Sp1 (−124)

16	Compl 5′-CAAGGTTCTGGCAGCAAGCGCCCGCAGCG-3′

17	S 5′-CTTAAAGCACAGCCCATCACAGTTTTCATCCAGC-3′	NFκB (−40)

18	Compl 5′-GCTGGATGAAAACTGTGATGGGCTGTGCTTTAA-3′


 	Kappa	% Agreement	Interpretation (Landis and Koch [21])

DSM-IV

 BN	0.66	99%	Substantial

 BED	0.46	92%	Moderate

 EDNOS	0.55	86%	Moderate

DSM-5

 BN	0.66	99%	Substantial

 BED	0.42	91%	Moderate

OSFED

 Sub-BED	0.48	96%	Moderate

 PD	−0.01	97%	Poor

 NES 	0.14	91%	Poor

 Other	0.59	94%	Moderate


Home	Number of Occupant	Baby Age	Shared Room	Average Temp. of the Environment

Home 1	3	8 months	No	21°

Home 2	5	10 months	Yes	22.5°

Home 3	4	14 months	No	19°

Home 4	3	3 months	No	20.5°

Home 5	6	9 months	Yes	24.5°


Sl no. P.I.	year	State/UT	Setting	Age group	N	Prev. (%)

1. Jiloha [72]	1981	Haryana	rural	5-12	715	20.7

Used questionnaire (t) and reporting questionnaire for children (p), clinical interview. Diagnosis was made as per ICD-9.

2. Devsigamani [22]	1990	TN	urban	8-12	755	33.7

Rutter B scale was used as a screening instrument and diagnosis was made as per ICD- 9 after clinical interview.

3. Mehta [74]	1997	WB	rural	8-10	8-10	460

Rutter B scale (Hindi adaptation), Malin’s test of verbal intelligence, VSMS, Gessell’s drawing test were used. Diagnosis was made as per DSM-III-R.

4. Banerjee [75]	1997	WB	rural	8-10	460	33.33

Rutter’s B scale was used as screening instrument and ICD-9 was used to make the diagnosis

5. Gupta [73]	2001	Punjab	urban	9-11	957	45.6

Rutter’s B scale was used as screening instrument and ICD-10 was used to make the diagnosis

6. Malhotra [76]	2002	Chandigarh	urban	4-11	963	6.33

Rutter B scale, pre-school behaviour checklist, Childhood Psychopathology Measurement Schedule was used. Diagnosis was made as per ICD-10.

7. Bansal [77]	2011	Punjab	urban	10-15	982	20.2

Childhood Psychopathology Measurement Schedule was used and Diagnosis was made as per ICD-10.


Cognitive domain	Age group	Standardised mean difference (95% CI)	Number of participants/studies	Heterogeneity - I2 test

Attention & concentration	Children aged 6-18	0.62 (0.26 to 0.98)*	132/2 (4 arms)**	0%

	Pre-menopausal women	0.53 (-0.06 to 1.12)	47/1	Not relevant

Intelligence	Children aged 6-18	0.02 (-0.22 to 0.27)	2289/4 (9 arms)**	82%

	Pre-menopausal women	0.62 (0.15 to 1.10)*	76/2	0%

Memory	Children aged 6-18	0.33 (-0.19 to 0.85)	132/2 (4 arms)**	35%

	Pre-menopausal women	0.09 (-0.31 to 0.50)	123/3	18%

Psychomotor	Children aged 6-18	0.19 (-0.17 to 0.54)	132/2 (4 arms)**	0%

	Pre-menopausal women	0.09 (-0.32 to 0.50)	123/3	21%

Scholastic aptitude	Children aged 6-18	0.03 (-0.63 to 0.69)	1799/3 (6 arms)**	96%

	Pre-menopausal women	0.77 (-0.08 to 1.62)	25/1	Not relevant


Marshall score	 n (%)

1 No visible intracranial pathology	14 (13)

2 Cisterns present with midline shift 0-5 mm; no high or mixed density lesion > 25 ml.	36 (32)

3 Cisterns compressed or absent with midline shift 0-5 mm.	43 (39)

4 Midline shift > 5 mm;or surgically evacuated lesion;and non-evacuated high or mixed density lesion >25 ml	18 (16)


Study site	Latitude	Longitude

Aimi (Ai)	35°20.9′ N	133°24.2′ E

Nawa (Nw)	35°30.0′ N	133°30.5′ E

Nakayama (Nk)	35°30.7′ N	133°33.9′ E

Akasaki (Ak)	35°27.8′ N	133°38.3′ E

Tohaku (Th)	35°29.3′ N	133°39.2′ E

Kurayoshi (Ku)	35°23.4′ N	133°44.7′ E

Togo (Tg)	35°28.0′ N	133°55.1′ E

Yura (YuA, YuB)*	35°28.5′ N	133°44.5′ E

Otsuka (Ot)	35°29.0′ N	134°09.1′ E

Kawahara (Ka)	35°23.5′ N	134°11.2′ E

Koge (Ko)	35°24.5′ N	134°19.9′ E

Fukube (Fu)	35°32.4′ N	134°15.4′ E


		n(%)

Frontal	Left	4 (15%)

Right	4 (15%)

Temporal	Left	3 (11%)

Right	0 (0%)

Parieto‐occipital	Left	1 (3.8%)

Right	2 (7.7%)

Cerebellar	Left	3 (12%)

Right	5 (19%)

Vermis		3 (12%)

Brain stem		1 (3.8%)


	n Pla a 2	nPhl p 4	nJugr2

nPla a 2	nPla a 2 + rPla a 1	nPhl p 4	nPhl p 4 +Phl p1/Phl p 5/Phl p 6/Phl p 11	nJugr2	nJug r2 + rJugr1

Mean sIgE levels (ISU)	1.94	4.6	0.75	1.49	0.19	1.10

U Mann–Whitney sig.	0.00		0.00		0.00


TRa	Pathway name	Known pathway genes	Genes clustered with the TRb	TRE	Ref

betI (B1590)	glycine betaine synthesis	betABTI	betABTI	choline	[21]

catR (A2107)	benzoate degradation	catABCR	catABCR	cis, cis-muconate	[22]

cymR (A3550)	p-cumate catabolism	cymAaAbAcAdBCDEFHG	cymAaAbAcAd─CDE─ ─ ─	p-cumate	[23]

cysB (A2466)	sulfur metabolism	cysABPTWA	cysABPTW	N-acetyl-serine	[24]

glpR (A0643)	glycerol metabolism	glpABCDKFR	glp─ ─ ─DKFR	glycerol-3-phosphate	[25]

hpaR (B2027)	hydroxyphenylacetate catabolism	hpaGEDFHIR	hpaGEDFHIR	4-hydroxy-phenylacetate	[26]

kynR (A0736)	oxidative tryptophan degradation	kynABU	kynABU	L-kynurenine	[27]

hutC (A2946)	histidine degradation	hutHUIFGC	hutHUIFGC	urocanate	[28, 29]

rcoM (A2142)	carbon monoxide oxidation	coxBCMSLDEFGHIK	cox ─ ─SMLDE ─G ─ ─ ─	carbon monoxide	[30]

modEB2851)	molybdate transport	modABCDE	modABC─E	molybdenum	[31]


Variables	Tertiles of plasma manganese concentrations (μg/L)

1 (Lowest) ≤ 4.21 μg/L	2 4.21–6.84	3 (Highest) ≥ 6.84 μg/L

n(NGT/T2D)	538/780	541/377	535/457

Crude	2.08 (1.75, 2.47)	1	1.23 (1.02, 1.47)

Model 1	2.08 (1.73, 2.49)	1	1.28 (1.05, 1.55)

Model 2	2.15 (1.75, 2.63)	1	1.54 (1.23, 1.92)

Model 3	1.89 (1.53, 2.33)	1	1.56 (1.23, 1.97)

Model 1, adjusted for age, sex, and body mass index. Model 2, adjusted for Model 1, current smoking status, current alcohol drinking status, physical activity, family history of diabetes, and hypertension. Model 3, adjusted for Model 2, plasma iron, plasma copper, and plasma selenium.


Outcome	Improved	Deteriorated	No change	N

Caregiver burden (ZBI)	0	4	13	17

Hopefulness (HHI)	3	8	6	17

Anxiety (HADS)	2	0	15	17

Depression (HADS)	1	1	15	17


Items	MS1 T1	M2 T1	p	Ms1 T2	MS2 T2	p	MS3 T3	MS4 T3	p

How important are the following factors in considering your career in medicine?

Opportunities to make a difference in people’s lives	4.89	4.83	NS	4.88	4.83	NS	4.71	4.66	NS

Intellectual climate	4.41	4.52	NS	4.41	4.47	NS	4.23	4.13	NS

Desire to do primary care	3.04	2.74	.062	3.03	2.75	.074	3.04	2.88	NS

Availability of jobs	3.55	3.86	.032*	3.54	3.84	.44*	4.26	3.90	.025*

Job security	3.80	4.03	.099	3.80	4.00	NS	4.40	4.30	NS

Opportunity to help patients who are socially disadvantaged	4.71	3.89	.034*	4.15	3.90	.051*	3.84	3.51	.060

Desire to serve my community	4.42	4.32	NS	4.39	4.33	NS	4.23	3.66	<.001*

High income potential	2.82	3.36	<.001**	2.82	3.32	<.001**	3.45	3.25	NS

Job satisfaction	4.76	4.75	NS	4.77	4.77	NS	4.84	4.78	NS

Status of physicians	2.69	2.97	.088	2.65	2.86	NS	2.84	2.80	NS

How important are the following factors in considering your choice for a specialty?

Income expectations for the specialty	2.81	3.27	.002**	2.76	3.23	.001**	3.43	3.15	NS

Amount of education debt I have	2.81	3.04	NS	2.83	2.99	NS	3.30	3.09	NS

Ability to balance my work life with my family responsibilities	4.37	4.62	.013*	4.38	4.60	.026*	4.53	4.44	NS

Content of the specialty	4.69	4.70	NS	4.71	4.69	NS	4.59	4.70	NS

Competitiveness of the specialty	3.13	3.07	NS	3.11	3.06	NS	2.91	2.74	NS

Options for fellowship training associated with the specialty	3.25	3.47	NS	3.24	3.40	NS	3.51	3.58	NS

Length of residency training associated with the specialty	3.18	3.44	.080	3.17	3.48	.040*	3.48	2.98	.008**

The lifestyle of the specialty I am considering	4.20	4.42	.066	4.20	4.38	NS	4.36	4.16	NS

Prestige of the specialty I am considering	2.20	2.49	.042*	2.17	2.42	.072	2.41	2.59	NS

Career workshops and courses	2.66	2.53	NS	2.63	5.47	NS	2.71	2.36	.054*

Opportunities to do research in this specialty	2.58	2.42	NS	2.57	2.38	NS	3.37	3.10	NS

Opportunities to provide care to underserved populations	3.43	3.28	NS	3.41	3.28	NS	3.37	3.10	NS

Attitudes toward primary care

I would like to become a primary care doctor in the future.	3.12	2.97	NS	3.11	3.13	NS	3.13	2.62	.024*

I am more interested in learning the skills required for my chosen specialty rather than a general set	2.79	2.82	NS	2.75	2.69	NS	2.69	3.45	<.001*

Primary care knowledge is useful for all medical students.	4.75	4.68	NS	4.75	4.70	NS	4.70	4.75	NS

Primary care should be a patient’s first contact with the health care system.	4.39	4.36	NS	4.38	4.68	NS	4.68	4.47	.060

Medical interviewing is a fundamental tool for all medical students to learn.	4.89	4.83	NS	4.92	4.87	.062	4.87	4.88	NS

Preventative care knowledge is essential for all medical students to learn.	4.83	4.53	<.000**	4.85	4.70	<.001**	4.70	4.67	NS

It is essential that medical students learn how to best communicate with patients	4.89	4.86	NS	4.91	4.89	NS	4.89	4.87	NS

Primary care doctors mostly manage chronic health problems.	3.26	3.79	<.001**	3.25	3.89	<.001**	3.89	3.81	NS

It is impossible to be an expert in such a wide field as primary care	2.69	3.0	.035*	2.69	2.97	.016*	2.97	3.31	0.76

Primary care is not very intellectually stimulating	1.90	2.22	.010*	1.91	2.47	.014*	2.47	2.58	NS

Primary care doctors have a large work overload.	3.63	3.95	.006**	3.63	4.15	.005**	4.15	4.05	NS

Primary care doctors are poorly valued by the rest of the medical profession.	3.48	3.76	0.22*	3.49	3.78	.033*	3.78	3.77	NS

A primary care doctor is clinically competent to provide most of the health care an individual may	3.96	3.99	NS	3.94	4.36	NS	4.36	4.36	NS


Stigma	Medication adherence	Total	Statistics

	Non adherent	Adherent

	f	%	f	%

No perceived stigma	8	9.2	79	90.8	87	χ2 = 0.497

Experienced stigma	7	13.0	47	87.0	54	p = 0.481

Total	15	10.6	126	89.4	141	-


Model	Parameters	True value	Mean estimation	Estimated error

Three-way model

Case I	G-C/M-C/M-G	0.2	0.23	0.04

Case II	G-C/M-C/M-G	0.3	0.31	0.05

Case III	G-C/M-C/M-G	0.4	0.40	0.05

Independent model

Case I	G-C/M-C	0.2	0.22	0.04

Case II	G-C/M-C	0.3	0.31	0.05

Case III	G-C/M-C	0.4	0.43	0.04

Causal model

Case I	G-C/M-G	0.2	0.23	0.04

Case II	G-C/M-G	0.3	0.31	0.05

Case III	G-C/M-G	0.4	0.41	0.04

microRNA model

Case I	M-C	0.2	0.22	0.04

Case II	M-C	0.3	0.30	0.04

Case III	M-C	0.4	0.39	0.05


Participant	TTD (Months)	FIGO stage	First attributions of illness symptoms

Retained condom	Intestinal worms	Genital infections (syphilis, gonorrhoea and Candida)	Menstrual problems (Menopause and other menstrual abnormalities)	Uterine swelling	No clue on cause	HIV and/or its complications	Cervical cancer	Other serious illness

P10	2	3B						X

P11	2	1A				X

P7	3	1A	X

P8	3	1B				X

P4	4	1B								X

P3	7	4A			X

P15	10	3B			X

P18	10	2A									X

P9	19	2A				X

P16	21	3B			X

P13	24	3A					X

P12	26	2A							X

P2	30	1B			X

P5	39	2B							X

P6	72	3B				X

P14	72	2B			X

P17	72	3B		X						x

P1	Missing	140			X


GeneID	Product Name	Locus	AMX*	CTC*	ENR*

1244239	ImpA	impA	-0.52	-0.53	4.55

1244433	DNA-binding protein Fis	fis	ns	ns	1.41

1244528	LexA repressor	lexA	ns	1.60	9.87

1244611	Hypothetical protein PM1264	-	-0.78	-0.57	ns

1244637	Transcriptional repressor protein MetJ	metJ	-0.53	-0.74	-0.80

1244659	Hypothetical protein PM1312	-	-0.56	-0.68	-0.31

1244737	DNA-directed RNA polymerase subunit alpha	rpoA	ns	-0.77	1.27

1244795	Hypothetical protein PM1448	-	-0.81	-0.70	1.29

1244828	Hypothetical protein PM1481	-	-0.53	-0.51	-0.51

1244993	Hypothetical protein PM1646	-	-0.62	ns	-0.70

1245061	Hypothetical protein PM1714	-	-0.74	-0.91	ns

1245083	DNA-directed RNA polymerase subunit beta'	rpoC	ns	-0.76	-0.87

1245184	ATP-dependent helicase HepA	hepA	-0.77	-0.77	1.69

1245314	DNA-binding transcriptional activator GutM	gutM	-0.55	-0.69	-0.62

1243539	Hypothetical protein PM0192	recJ	-0.77	-0.79	1.24

1243679	Hypothetical protein PM0332	recN	ns	ns	11.54

1243758	DNA-dependent helicase II	uvrD	ns	ns	4.26

1243814	DNA polymerase IV	dinP	-0.76	-0.83	1.83

1244020	Hypothetical protein PM0673	-	-0.63	-0.81	-0.47

1244323	Holliday junction DNA helicase B	ruvB	ns	-0.78	2.37

1244324	Holliday junction DNA helicase motor protein	ruvA	ns	ns	3.39

1244459	DeaD	deaD	-0.78	-0.72	-0.67

1244499	DNA repair protein RadC	radC	-0.52	-0.60	-0.65

1244507	DNA polymerase III subunit beta	dnaN	ns	ns	1.41

1244526	Primosomal replication protein N	priB	ns	ns	1.67

1244563	DNA polymerase III subunit delta	holA	ns	-0.88	1.38

1244666	MutY	mutY	-0.68	-0.86	1.17

1244774	RecQ	recQ	-0.86	-0.84	1.11

1244823	DNA gyrase subunit B	gyrB	ns	1.36	1.45

1245063	NAD-dependent DNA ligase LigA	ligA	-0.84	1.08	1.56

1245164	Recombinase A	recA	ns	ns	9.96

1245177	DNA mismatch repair protein	mutS	-0.87	-0.78	1.50

1245268	ATP-dependent RNA helicase RhlB	rhlB	-0.73	-0.83	1.07

1245298	Excinuclease ABC subunit A	uvrA	-0.78	ns	2.57

1243785	Hypothetical protein PM0438	ftsH	-0.94	-0.80	1.13

1244083	Hypothetical protein PM0736	DnaK	ns	-0.74	1.50

1244087	Hypothetical protein PM0740	dnaJ	-0.74	-0.79	1.29

1245051	ClpB	clpB	-0.66	ns	2.14

1245095	ATP-dependent protease ATP-binding subunit	hslU	-0.70	ns	2.58

1245163	Recombination regulator RecX	recX	-0.54	-0.78	6.44


Variable	Average interitem covariance	Number of items in the scale	Scale reliability coefficient

Distance	0.448	6	0.748

Positive	0.309	3	0.563

Demands	1.024	4	0.852


Fragment	Size (bp)	Primer sequences (5'-3')

NC1	2573	FP: GATCCTGGGCCCCACATCCATCCTC

		RP: GATCGAATTCGCCCGGGAGGCCAGGGTCG

NC2	524	FP: GATCGAATTCGGCGAGAAGGGAGAAGCTGC

		RP: GATCAAGCTTTCAGTCCTGGGCAGTACCTGT


Heavy Metal	Arsenic (47)	Cadmium (34)	Mercury (30)	Lead (29)

Year	2012 (16), 2011 (16)	2009 (4), 2013 (4), 2014 (4)	2016 (9), 2013 (5), 2015 (5)	2016 (5), 2002 (4), 2006 (3), 2013 (3)

Product category	feed materials (18), pet food (12)	feed additives (10), feed materials (9), animal nutrition (obsolete) (7)	feed materials (13), pet food (9)	animal nutrition (obsolete) (8), feed materials (7), feed additives (6), feed for food-producing animals (obsolete) (5)

Notifying country	Italy (10), Germany (8), Belgium (7), Austria (5), United Kingdom (5)	Belgium (8), Germany (4), Norway (4)	Italy (14), Spain (5), Germany (4)	Netherlands (6), Germany (5), Belgium (4)

Origin country	Thailand (11), Poland (5)	China (8), Spain (4)	Thailand (10), Russia (5), Spain (4)	Netherlands (5), Spain (4), Turkey (3)

Notification basis	official control on the market (21), border control—consignment detained (12), company’s own check (11)	company’s own check (14), official control on the market (14)	official control on the market (14), border control—consignment detained (12)	company’s own check (12), official control on the market (10)

Notification type	alert (13), border rejection (12), information for follow-up (11)	information (12), information for follow-up (11)	border rejection (12), information for follow-up (10)	alert (9), information for follow-up (9), information (8)

Distribution status	no distribution (11), distribution restricted to notifying country (8), distribution to other member countries (8), information on distribution not (yet) available (7)	distribution on the market (possible) (10), distribution to other member countries (10), distribution restricted to notifying country (8)	product not (yet) placed on the market (11), distribution restricted to notifying country (7), no distribution from notifying country (6)	(not specified) (7), distribution on the market (possible) (6), distribution to other member countries (6), distribution restricted to notifying country (5)

Risk decision	undecided (37)	undecided (25)	not serious (18)	undecided (21)

Action taken	re-dispatch (8), withdrawal from the market (7), destruction (4), informing recipients (4), official detention (4)	withdrawal from the market (7), (not specified) (4), official detention (4), seizure (3)	re-dispatch (6), import not authorized (5), official detention (5), withdrawal from the market (5)	(not specified) (7), return to consignor (4), withdrawal from the market (4)


Location		Annual average hourly NO2 (μg/m3) based on the LUR estimate

	percent	min	max	mean	sd

Residences	100	6	56	28	8

 freeway/highway/arterial/ramp	17	15	56	34	9

 Collector	17	2	56	26	8

 local/strata/lane	66	2	56	26	8

 Rural	0.2	11	39	19	5


Name	First protein	Second protein	Sequence of the fusion helix

3,305	Protein A	mbp3–16	266*	QCAREAAREAAACD	13*

3,306	mbp3–16	Protein A	133	QCAREAAAREAACN	217

3,307	Protein A	mbp3–16	263	NCAQEAAAREAACD	13

3,308	mbp3–16	Protein A	129	ACILQAAAREAACN	217

3,309	Protein A	mbp3–16	266	QCAREAAARDLGCK	17

3,310	mbp3–16	Protein A	133	QCAREAAAREANCE	219

3,311	mbp3–16	Protein A	132	LCKNKAQQAAFYCI	227

3,312	mbp3–16	Protein A	125	NCRLAAILAKNKCQ	220

3,313	Protein A	mbp3–16	259	ACKLNAAQALGRCL	18

3,315	Protein A	mbp3–16	260	ACLNAAQAALGRCL	18

4,254	Protein A	mbp3–16	260	KCLNDALGAKLLCA	21

4,256	Protein A	mbp3–16	260	KCLNDAQAAKLLCA	21

4,257	Protein A	mbp3–16	259	ACKLNAAQALGRCL	18

4,258	Protein A	mbp3–16	259	ACKLNAAQAAGRCL	18

4,260	Protein A	mbp3–16	261	KCNDAAARALLECA	22

4,261	Protein A	mbp3–16	261	KCNDAALGAKLLCA	21

4,262	Protein A	mbp3–16	261	KCNDAAAGAKLLCA	21

6,758	Protein A	Calmodulin	260	KCLNDAEQIAEFCE	15

6,759	Protein A	Calmodulin	260	KCLNDEQIAEFKCA	16

6,760	Protein A	Calmodulin	259	ACKLNAQIAEFKCA	16

6,761	Protein A	Calmodulin	260	KCLNDAQAAAEECI	10


	Number of filled prescriptions	Switching between different statins

	≥ 2 filled statin prescriptions	No switches	1-3 switches

	N	Mean (%)	95% CI	N	Mean (%)	95% CI	N	Mean (%)	95% CI

Entire study population

Simvastatin users with generic substitution	94525	90.1	89.9-90.3	93572	86.9	86.0-87.8	7423	83.1	82.0-84.1

Simvastatin users with active decline of generic substitution	697	79.8	84.7-86.8	533	68.1	56.4-79.9	268	80.2	74.6-85.7

Simvastatin users not exposed to generic substitution	2911	52.5	76.6-83.0	5651	49.3	45.7-52.9	1292	75.9	73.4-78.5

Atorvastatin users	6616	85.8	50.9-54.0	6172	79.6	76.2-83.1	1359	67.0	64.6-69.5

Those with generic substitution

Generic substitution at first purchase	57844	88.7	88.4-89.1	59175	83.7	83.0-84.4	5139	80.7	79.6-81.8

Generic substitution later on	36681	92.2	91.8-92.5	34297	92.4	91.4-93.4	2284	88.4	86.8-90.1


Methylation probe	Distance from MEG3 TSS	Correlation with 14q32 prognostic miRNAs	Number of miRNAs	Overlap with CTCF binding site

cg1656	1326	None	None	Near site (in promoter)

cg0928	775	0.466 (0.596 to 0.404)	7	In site (in promoter)

cg2583	156	0.459 (0.528 to 0.396)	3	Near site (in promoter)

cg05711	−218	−0.561	1	Near site (within gene body)

cg1537	−628	−0.443 (−0.408 to −0.631)	13	Near site (within gene body)

cg1510	−1264	0.546 (0.621 to 0.428)	2	Near site (within gene body)

cg0429	−1968	−0.283 (−0.554 to −0.552)	10	Not in site (within gene body)


	Patient 1	Patient 2	Patient 3	Patient 4

First time TB diagnosis	1995	1992	1985	2001

Immigration Date	August-97	July-97	March-92	March-03

Duration between TB and MDR TB diagnosis	2 years	5 years	12 years	2 years

Duration between MDR TB and XDR TB diagnosis	2 years	5 years	1.3 years	concurrent

Duration between XDR TB diagnosis and end of antituberculous drug therapy in Germany	2.4 years	1.9 years	2 years	2.5 years

Overall length of inhospital treatment in Germany	4.5 years	6 years	6 years	11 months

Outcome	treatment failure	cure	death	cure

Last sputum cultures	positive	negative	positive	negative

Radiologic signs of activity	present	not present	present	not present

Known transmission of XDR strain to contacts	no	no	no	no


DHA source	Frequency, n

Salmon	6

Herring	5

Tuna	4

Cod	3

Brook trout	3

Trout	2

Carp	1

Sardines	1

Haddock	1

Grouper	1

Pike	1

White fish	1

Fish sticks (contains minced pollock)	3

Crustaceans	3

Caviar	1


Site	MPM	AF	BU	HE	HY	LE	RA	XE	Unk

Djorse	Pos	12	10				4

Otuaplem	Pos	4		10		1	2	12

Sarpeiman	Pos	1	13		8

Seduase	Pos	9

Achiaman	Pos				18		1

Kwashikuma	Pos	16			48		3		1

Weija	Pos


Cigarette	Erg %	LPS %

Newport Menthol	4.45	3.36

Camel Turkish Royal	9.90	6.18

Pall Mall	13.3	6.01

Kool	9.30	4.26

Parliament Lights	10.00	3.00

Liggett Select Full Flavor	8.57	3.99

University of Kentucky	10.86	6.30


Trait	Reference

Agronomic traits

Yield and yield parameters	Nath and Alam (2002)

Pod characters	Swamy et al. (2006)

Seed dormancy	Wang et al. (2012)

Early maturity	Upadhyaya et al. (2006)

Resistance to diseases and insect pests

Early leaf spot (Cercospora arachidicola Hori)	Singh et al. (1997), Holbrook and Isleib (2001)

Late leaf spot [Phaeoisariopsis personata (Berk. & Curt.) Van Arx]	Singh et al. (1997, 2003), Holbrook and Isleib (2001), Li et al. (2012)

Leaf rust (Puccinia arachidis Spegazzini)	Singh et al. (1997, 2003)

Aflatoxin contamination (Aspergillus spp.)	Singh et al. (1997), Whitaker et al. (2004)

Stem and pod rot (Sclerotium rolfsii)	Singh et al. (1997), Gorbet et al. (2004)

Bacterial wilt resistance (Ralstonia solanacearum)	Singh et al. (1997)

Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.)	Holbrook and Isleib (2001)

Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV)	Li et al. (2012)

Groundnut rosette disease (GRD)	Subrahmanyam et al. (1998)

Kalahasty malady (Tylenchorhynchus brevilineatus)	Mehan et al. (1993)

Insect pests	Amin et al. (1985), Harish et al. (2012)

Abiotic stress tolerance

Drought tolerance	Upadhyaya (2005), Jogloy et al. (2009), Balota et al. (2012)

Heat	Ntare et al. (2001)

Cold	Upadhyaya et al. (2009)

Salinity	Singh et al. (2008)

Aluminum toxicity	Boshou et al. (2000)

Nitrogen fixation tolerant to soil drying	Devi et al. (2010)

Quality parameters and others

Nutritional quality	Wang et al. (2010), Upadhyaya et al. (2012)

Traits for confectionary uses	Dwivedi et al. (1994), Dwivedi and Nigam (2005)

Root hairs on roots and gynophores that enhance phosphorus uptake	Wissuwa and Ae (2001)

Phosphorus (P) uptake	Wissuwa and Ae (1998)


	Number	Age at diagnosis	Disease duration	Anti-CCP-positive	RF-positive

		(years)	(years)	(%)	(%)

RA <1 year	144	54	0.8	70	68

RA >5 years	59	48	11	87	75

AS	88	34	10	1	nd

PsA	30	41	6	3	nd

SLE	21	37	8	5	nd

SSC	20	51	0.5	5	nd

Healthy	50	nd	nd	0	nd


Pathology	Human FXTAS	CGG knock-in mouse

CGG trinucleotide repeat length	55 to 199 CGG repeat length, repeat instability	70 to 300 CGG repeats, modest repeat instability

Elevated FMR1 mRNA expression	Increased 2- to 8-fold	Increased 1.5- to 3-fold

Fragile X mental retardation protein levels	Reduced in several brain regions	Reduced in several brain regions

Motor impairments	Tremor/ataxia, postural sway, parkinsonism	Impaired on rotarod and ladder rung task

Cognitive Impairments	Poor working memory, anxiety, depression, social phobia	Spatial memory deficits, altered anxiety-like behaviors

Intranuclear inclusions	Neurons and astrocytes, highly correlated with CGG repeat length, frequency increases with age	Neurons and astrocytes, related to length of CGG repeat, frequency increases with age


	Any quantity fills	Single bottle gills of 2.5 mL

Method of imputing days supply	Sensitivity	Specificity	Sensitivity	Specificity

Medication possession

Unadjusted days supply	56%	63%	47%	79%

2.0-2.1 Variable Factor*	60%	60%	53%	77%

2.0 Constant Factor/45

 Minimum†	61%	60%	54%	77%

Days covered

Unadjusted days supply	53%	68%	43%	99%

2.0-2.1 Variable Factor*	67%	69%	61%	90%

2.0 Constant Factor/45

 Minimum†	70%	70%	65%	90%


Stage dose and route	Patients, n (active:placebo)

SAD stage dose, route (cohort)

 0.3 IV (A)	4:1

 1.0 IV (B)	4:1

 1.0 SC (C)	4:1

 3.0 IV (D)	4:1

 3.0 SC (E)	4:1

 5.0 IV (F)	4:1

MAD stage dose, route (cohort)

 1.0 SC (G)	8:2

 3.0 SC (H)	16:4

 5.0 IV (I)	4:1


Adsorption Concentration (mol/L)	10−3	10−2	10−1

Absorbance	1.004	0.860	0.377

Drug concentration	0.125 × 10−3	0.106 × 10−2	0.045 × 10−1

The remaining amount of R6G in 20 mL solution (mg)	1.198	10.189	42.589

The amount of added magnetic particles (g)	0.001	0.01	0.1

The amount of the adsorbed drug (mg)	0.239	4.085	101.114

The amount of the adsorbed drug by 1.0 g particles (mg)	239.0	408.5	1011.1


	M	SD	Range

Townsend disability score	2.4	1.38	0–4

Social resources (LSNS-6)	15.4	5.90	0–30

Cognitive impairment (MMSE)	26.9	3.02	8–30

Loneliness	1.0	1.18	0–6


	Overall	Monotherapy	Part of double combination therapy	Part of triple combination therapy

Amikacin	17.3	15.7	19.4	9.5

Meropenem	11.8	7.2	10.8	26.2

Piperacillin-tazobactam	11.2	27.7	6.3	4.8

Ampicillin	10.1	1.2	14.0	7.1

Gentamicin	9.2	3.6	13.1	0

Cefotaxime	5.8	15.7	3.2	0

Fluconazole	4.9	2.4	4.1	14.3

Ciprofloxacin	3.8	4.8	4.1	0

Vancomycin	3.5	1.2	4.1	4.8

Ceftriaxone	2.6	4.8	2.3	0

Colistin	2.3	0	2.7	4.8

Levofloxacin	2.0	2.4	2.3	0

Cefoperazone Sulbactam	3.2	0	4.5	2.4

Amphotericin B/Amphotericin B liposomal	1.7	2.4	1.4	2.4

Cefoperazone	1.4	1.2	1.4	2.4


Section	Number of infants with indicators for OPD	Frequency distribution (%)

A. Functioning of physiological subsystems?	2	10

B. State of alertness during feeding†	-	-

C. Stress cues during feeding	15	75

D. Movement and muscle tone screening	4	20

E. Oral peripheral examination	8	40

F. Clinical feeding and swallowing evaluation	14	70

Diagnosis of OPD	9	45


Variables	Total n (%)	Boys n (%)	Girls n (%)

Alcohol use & bullying others	15 (2.2)	13 (4.0)	2 (0.6)

Alcohol use & sexual activity	12 (1.8)	11 (3.4)	1 (0.3)

Early sexual intercourse & sexual activity	10 (1.5)	6 (1.8)	4 (1.1)

Alcohol use & cigarette use	9 (1.3)	4 (1.2)	5 (1.4)

Sexual activity & bullying others	4 (0.6)	3 (0.9)	1 (0.3)

Tablets use & bullying others	3 (0.4)	3 (0.9)	0 (0.0)

Cigarette use & sexual activity	5 (0.7)	2 (0.6)	3 (0.8)

Cigarette use & bullying others	4 (0.6)	3 (0.9)	1 (0.3)

Alcohol use & tablets use	2 (0.3)	2 (0.6)	0 (0.0)

Alcohol use & cigarette use & sexual activity	12 (1.8)	5 (1.5)	7 (2.0)

Alcohol use & sexual activity & bullying others	10 (1.5)	8 (2.4)	2 (0.6)

Alcohol use & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity	9 (1.3)	6 (1.8)	3 (0.8)

Alcohol use & cigarette use & bullying others	6 (0.9)	4 (1.2)	2 (0.6)

Early sexual intercourse & sexual activity & bullying others	5 (0.7)	4 (1.2)	1 (0.3)

Alcohol use & tablets use & bullying others	2 (0.3)	0 (0.0)	2 (0.6)

Cigarette use & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity	3 (0.4)	1 (0.3)	2 (0.6)

Cigarette use & sexual activity & bullying others	1 (0.1)	1 (0.3)	0 (0.0)

Cigarette use & tablets use & bullying others	2 (0.3)	0 (0.0)	2 (0.6)

Cigarette & alcohol & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity	5 (0.7)	5 (1.5)	0 (0.0)

Cigarette & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity & bullying	2 (0.3)	2 (0.6)	0 (0.0)

Cigarette & Alcohol & early sexual intercourse & bullying others	1 (0.1)	1 (0.3)	0 (0.0)

Alcohol use & early sexual intercourse & sexual activity & bullying	1 (0.1)	1 (0.3)	0 (0.0)

Cigarette & alcohol & early sex & sexual activity & bullying others	5 (0.7)	4 (1.2)	1 (0.3)

Cigarette & alcohol & tablets & early sex & sexual activity	1 (0.1)	0 (0.0)	1 (0.3)

Cigarette & alcohol & tablets & early sex & sexual activity & bullying	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)


	All	Age 35-59 years	Age 60-74 years

	eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) 	eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) 		eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2)

	Coeff.	HR at more adverse level*	p-value	Coeff.	HR at more adverse level*	p-value		Coeff.	HR at more adverse level*	p-value

Allcausemortality

Classicalriskfactorsadjusted	-0.0025	0.97	0.6829	0.0181	1.18	0.3290		-0.0178	0.81	0.0020

Incident cardiovascular disease

Classicalriskfactorsadjusted	-0.0020	0.98	0.8030	0.0262	1.28	0.2063		-0.0162	0.83	0.0451


Gene symbol	Gene full name	Fold regulation	p-value

TLR2	Toll-like receptor 2	−30.20	0.02

IL1A	Interleukin 1, alpha	−7.85	0.01

LTB	Lymphotoxin beta (TNF superfamily, member 3)	−5.80	0.02

IL23A	Interleukin 23, alpha subunit p19	−5.67	0.01

TLR4	Toll-like receptor 4	−4.03	0.01

CCL7	Chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 7	−3.78	0.00

CXCL3	Chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 3	−3.66	0.02

CXCR2	Chemokine (C-X-C motif) receptor 2	−3.55	0.02

TLR1	Toll-like receptor 1	−3.31	0.01

IL15	Interleukin 15	−3.23	0.00

CCR1	Chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 1	−2.91	0.03

IL18	Interleukin 18	−2.49	0.00

IL10	Interleukin 10	−2.20	0.05

IL1R1	Interleukin 1 receptor, type I	−2.02	0.01

LY96*	Lymphocyte antigen 96 (MD-2)	2.49	0.01


	Intervention N = 392	Comparison N = 394

Birth interval (months)

Mead (SD)	40.0 (30)	38.1 (26)	F 0.89, p 0.35; unequal variance in birth interval

Missing	(2)	(1)

Birth weight

Mean (SD)	3403 (509)	3500 (504)	Difference -97 g

Missing data	(3)	(2)

Low birth weight (<2500 g)	25/393	14/394	OR (exact) 1.85 [0.91, 3.91]

Birth weight <10thpercentile*	40/378 (11%)	31/382(8%)	OR (exact) 1.14 [0.55, 2.38]

Low birth weight

<1000 g	6	0

1000–1499	3	0

1500–1999	7	2

2000–2499	9	12

All with birth weight (≥ 2,500 g	367	380

Missing data	(3)	(2)

All births	395	396

Gestation

Mean (SD)	39.3 (2.2)	39.5 (1.5)

Preterm birth (<37 weeks)	24 (6%)	17 (4%)	OR (exact) 1.44 (0.73, 2.91)

Preterm birth

20–27 weeks	4	0

28–31 weeks	6	1

32–36 weeks	14	16

All with gestations ≥ 37 weeks	366	374

Missing data	(2)	(3)

All gestations	392	394


Plasmid	Description	Source

pRL446		Elhai and Wolk, 1988

pMD18T	TA cloning vector	TaKaRa clonetech

pMD18Tslr1670		This study

pMD18Tslr1670KmR	Construction Δslr1670	This study

pXT323	Construction ΔglpK	This study


 	Number of patients (%)

Histology

Non-small cell lung cancer	56 (88%)

Other	6 (9%)

No pathology	2 (3%)

Dose schedule

6 Gy × 5 fractions	2 (3%)

8 Gy × 5 fractions	7 (11%)

9 Gy × 5 fractions	1 (1.5%)

10 Gy × 5 fractions	10 (16%)

10.5 Gy × 5 fractions	7 (11%)

12 Gy × 4 fractions	17 (27%)

18 Gy* × 3 fractions	19 (29%)

Other	1 (1.5%)

Tumor size

≤ 3 cm	36 (56%)

>3 cm	28 (44%)

SBRT indication

Refused surgery	7 (11%)

Medically inoperable	47 (73%)

Surgically incurable	10 (16%)

Location

Central	23 (36%

Peripheral	41 (64%)


	Prospective cohort	Fixed effects (all)	Fixed effects (worked > 41 h)	Fixed effects (worked >48 h)

N	5910	18,221	5889	1631

Long working hours (>48 h)	1%	9%	28%	100%

Semi-long hours (41–48 h)	6%	31%	96%	86%

Short sickness absence	73%	64%	64%	52%

Long sickness absence	23%	14%	14%	13%

Extra-long sickness absence	12%	6%	6%	5%

Age	45 (SD 12)	42 (SD 12)	43 (SD 12)	44 (SD 11)

Salary	506,685 (SD 160094)	649,470 (SD 369401)	746,052 (SD 438982)	887,558 (SD 479854)

Female	67%	71%	58%	43%

Temporary contract	16%	32%	38%	45%

Multiple jobholders	3%	5%	5%	6%

Norwegian	92%	92%	92%	91%

Other Nordic	3%	4%	4%	4%

Other western	2%	2%	2%	3%

Non Western	2%	2%	2%	2%

Physician	11%	16%	37%	67%

Nurse	30%	32%	27%	12%

Other patient-related	20%	22%	14%	10%

Administration/management	23%	17%	10%	6%

Kitchen/cleaning/orderly	6%	4%	5%	0%

Other operations	6%	4%	4%	2%

Other	6%	5%	3%	2%


	Dawn	Michelle

State PCL-5 TRASC*	Pre	Post	Pre	Post

#1: Flashbacks of traumatic events	3	3	0	2

#2: Altered sense of time	3	3	0	0

#3: Marked loss of emotional feeling	2	4	0	0

#4: Feeling what you are experiencing is not real	3	3	0	0

#5: Out of body experience	2	2	0	0

#6: Feeling like a part of your body is not your own	2	2	0	0

#7: Identity confusion	1	2	1	0

#8: Divided or multiple senses of self	3	2	3	1

#9: Loss of time	3	2	0	0

#10: Hearing voices	0	0	0	0


Antinuclear antibodies	P1	P2

Anti-nRNP/SM	3+, 2+, 2+	3+, 2+, 1+

Anti-SM	N, N, N	2+, 1+, N

Anti-SSA	3+, 3+, 3+	3+, 3+, 3+

Anti-RO-52	N, N, N	3+, 3+, 3+

Anti-SSB	N, N, N	1+, N, N

Anti-SCOL-70	N, N, N	N, N, N

Anti-JO-1	N, N, N	N, N, N

Anti-CENP B	N, N, N	N, N, N

Anti-dsDNA	3+, 2+, 2+	1+, N, N

Anti-nucleosome	3+, 3+, 3+	N, N, N

Anti-histone	3+, 1+, 1+	N, N, N

Anti-ribosomal P	N, N, N	3+, 3+, 2+

ACA	N, N, N	N, N, N


Question	Number	%

Blood on your tooth brush during brushing may be a sign of:

1. Gum disease	57	95.0

2. Tooth decay	2	3.3

3. I don’t know	1	1.7

What should you do when you see blood on your toothbrush?

1. Stop brushing	1	1.7

2. Stop brushing the area that is bleeding 	4	6.7

3. Continue brushing	22	36.7

4. See a dentist 	33	55.0

5. I don’t know what to do	0	0


Group	Biopsy	Reaction

		0	I	II	III

Dercum	Painful abdomen (n = 41)	11 (27)	14 (34)	16 (39)	-

	Painful knee (n = 47)	11 (23)	21 (45)	14 (30)	1 (2)

	Non-painful area (n = 28)	8 (29)	14 (50)	6 (21)	-

Obese controls	Abdomen (n = 41)	12 (29)	15 (37)	12 (29)	2 (5)

	Knee (n = 41)	10 (24)	13 (32)	16 (39)	2 (5)

Normal weight controls	Knee (n = 11)	6 (55)	5 (45)	-	-

Differences between groups (p-value)

Dercum vs. Obese controls - abdomen	0.022

Dercum vs. Obese controls - knee	0.33

Dercum vs. Normal weight controls - knee	0.81

Obese vs. Normal weight controls - knee	< 0.001

Dercum - painful abdomen vs. Dercum - non-painful abdomen1	0.4

Dercum - painful knee vs. Dercum - non-painful knee2	0.5


Patient	Tumor site	T stage	N stage	M stage

1	Oral cavity	1	0	0

2	Oral cavity	4a	2b	0

3	Oral cavity	4a	2c	0

4	Oropharynx	2	0	0

5	Oropharynx	2	2b	0

6	Oropharynx	3	2b	0

7	Oropharynx	4a	0	0

8	Oropharynx	4a	2c	0

9	Oropharynx	4a	2c	1

10	Hypopharynx	3	2b	0


 	BMI	Associated UK 1990 centile2

 	 	Boys	Girls

(a) Classify their children as currently overweight

 7 yearsb	23.1	99	99

 12 years	24.4	99	97

 15 years	29.1	99	99

(b) Express concern that their children will become overweight in the future

 7 yearsb	17.1	81	75

 12 years	20.3	88	79

 15 years	24.1	94	91


	All groups (average)	≥ 9 years (average)	< 9 years (average)	P value (t test)

Resource consumption

Hospitalized	158 (12.4%)	96 (10.7%)	62 (16.4%)

 Length of stay (hospitalization days)	4.1	4.0	4.3	0.003

 Consultations (N)	3.2	3.0	3.5	0.0006

 Workdays lost	2.1	2.2	1.9	0.0036

 School days missed	4.9	4.9	4.9	0.078

Nonhospitalized	1,121 (87.6%)	805 (89.3%)	316 (83.6%)

 Consultations (N)	2.4	2.4	2.4

 Workdays lost	0.4	0.3	0.6

 School days missed	1.7	1.7	1.7

All episodes*	1,279	901	378

 Length of stay(hospitalization days)	0.5	0.4	0.7

 Consultations (N)	2.5	2.5	2.6

 Workdays lost	0.6	0.5	0.8

 School days missed	2.1	2.0	2.3


Plasma characteristics	β coefficient (S.E.)	Pvalue

Neurocognitive impairment	−0.03 (0.16)	0.859

Gender, male	−0.48 (0.23)	0.042

Current CD4+ count, per 50 copies	−0.04 (0.02)	0.021

Detectable HIV VL	0.37 (0.16)	0.021

IL-10, per 10 units	0.18 (0.10)	0.061


Characteristics	n (%)

Symptom occurrence (%)

 Mean (range)	61 (21-100)

Incubation time (hr)

 Mean (range)	2 (1-15)

Clinical symptoms2

 Diarrhea	78 (82.9)

 Vomiting	78 (82.9)

 Abdominal pain	60 (63.8)

 Nausea	56 (59.5)

 Chillness	55 (58.5)

 Fever	35 (37.2)

 Headache	6 (6.0)


Final clinical outcome	Number (%) of patients

Favorable (44 hips)

Excellent	19 (32.8)

Good	25 (43.1)

Unfavorable (14 hips)

Fair	4 (6.9)

Poor	10 (17.2)

Total	58 (100)


Variable	Value	Effect	S.E.	CI	95%

Mother's BMI	4 points increment	0.85	0.12	0.62	1.08

Age (Mother)	5 years increment	0.73	0.17	0.41	1.06

Time studying per day (hours)	6 hrs increment	0.83	0.15	0.53	1.13

Time in sport activities per day (hours)	3 hrs increment	-0.43	0.18	-0.77	-0.08

Time in front of TV per day	≤ 1 h vs. 1-2 hrs	-2.09	0.36	-2.8	-1.38

	>2 hrs vs. 1-2 hrs	-0.26	0.29	-0.83	0.3

Municipality income (low vs. high)		1.82	0.28	1.26	2.37


Items	n (%)	Male (n = 32)	Female (n = 35)

Knowledge about worm infection:

Heard about liver fluke “san tap” or “pha yat bai mai nai tap”	34 (50.7)	34.4	65.7

How to get infection with O. viverrini:

Eating raw vegetables	3 (4.5)	3.1	5.7

Not maintaining good personal hygiene: hand washing, nail clipping, unclean environment	8 (11.9)	15.6	11.4

Eating any raw food: meat, snail, shrimp	29 (43.3)	34.4	51.4

Eating raw fish dishes (Koi Pa, Lap Pa Nuew)	8 (11.9)	12.5	11.4

Heard about roundworm	52 (77.6)	84.4	71.4

How to get infection with roundworm:

It just occurs in our body	2 (2.9)	0	5.7

Eat any raw: meat, fish, shrimp, vegetables	7 (10.4)	15.6	5.7

Not maintaining good personal hygiene: not hand washing before eating, not clipping nails, flies touching our food, drinking dirty water	16 (23.9)	18.7	28.6

Heard about hookworm	3 (4.5)	6.2	2.8

Do not know	3 (4.5)	6.2	2.8

Heard about whipworm	2 (2.9)	6.2	0

Do not know	2 (2.9)	6.2	0

Heard about tapeworm	33 (49.3)	46.9	51.4

Eating raw food	8 (11.9)	21.9	2.8

Eating raw fish dishes	33 (49.3)	53.1	45.7

Perceptions of latrine use:

Village will not be dirty	15 (22.4)	34.4	11.4

Flies do not touch our food anymore	4 (5.9)	12.5	0

Prevention of diseases/no transmission of diseases	10 (14.9)	18.8	11.4

Animals will not eat human faeces	6 (8.9)	0	17.1

Convenience (not getting wet from rain, convenience during the night and when sick)	13 (19.4)	6.2	31.4

Perceived liver fluke as health problem in community	6 (8.9)	12.5	5.7

Practices personal hygiene:

Hand washing before eating	31 (46.3)	31.2	60.0

Saying that most of people in village do not wash hands with soap	10 (14.9)	0	28.6

Perceptions of personal hygiene:

Hands will be clean if we wash hands before eating	10 (14.9)	0	28.6

We will be healthy if we wash hands before eating	3 (4.5)	9.4	0

We can not get any worm infections or diseases if we wash our hands before eating	20 (29.9)	28.1	31.4

Deworming in community:

Getting dewormed	37 (55.2)	75.0	37.1

Treatment of tapeworm with traditional medicine	19 (28.3)	43.7	14.3

Treatment with modern medicine	18 (26.9)	31.2	22.8

Treatment of roundworm using modern medicine	2 (2.9)	2.9	0


	Intervention Mean(SE)	Control Mean(SE)	Estimated Intervention Effect Mean (95%CI)	p-value from GEE model

Pre-intervention mean score	7.71 (0.11)	7.48 (0.09)

Post-intervention mean score	3.63 (0.26)	4.24 (0.27)

Pre-post difference	4.08 (0.23)	3.24 (0.30)	0.84 (0.10; 1.58)	0.03

Pre-post difference adjusted for number of physician visits	4.10 (0.18)	3.25(0.27)	0.85 (0.21 ;1.48)	0.01


Reference	Author	Article 	Published in journal	Year published	nsubjects	nteeth	Study design

[6]	Pogrel et al.	“Coronectomy: a technique to protect the inferior alveolar nerve” 	J Oral Maxillofac Surg 	2004	41	50	Prospective cohort

[7]	Renton et al. 	“A randomised controlled clinical trial to compare the incidence of injury to the inferior alveolar nerve as a result of coronectomy and removal of mandibular third molars” 	Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg	2005	128	94	Randomized controlled trial

[8]	Pogrel 	“An update on coronectomy” 	J Oral Maxillofac Surg 	2009	Not available	450	Prospective cohort

[9]	Leung and Cheung	“Safety of coronectomy versus excision of wisdom teeth: a randomized controlled trial” 	Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod	2009	231	171	Randomized controlled trial

[10]	Hatano et al.	“Clinical evaluations of coronectomy (intentional partial odontectomy) for mandibular third molars using dental computed tomography: a case-control study” 	J Oral Maxillofac Surg 	2009	220	102	Case control study

[11]	Dolanmaz et al.	“A preferable technique for protecting the inferior alveolar nerve: coronectomy” 	J Oral Maxillofac Surg 	2009	43	47	Prospective cohort

[12]	Cilasun et al. 	“Coronectomy in patients with high risk of inferior alveolar nerve injury diagnosed by computed tomography” 	J Oral Maxillofac Surg 	2011	120	175	Prospective cohort

[13]	Leung and Cheung 	“Coronectomy of the lower third molar is safe within the first 3 years”	J Oral Maxillofac Surg 	2012	98	135	Prospective cohort


Tear location	Autograft	Allograft

Near femoral attachment	14	2

Near tibial attachment	1	2

Mid-substance	1	4

Stretched	2	2

No graft seen	1	1


	Possible answers

How often do you use wikipedia as an information source in general?

	Never

	1-5x/week

	Daily

	1-5x/month

How often do you use Wikipedia as an information source in your medical studies?

	Never

	1-5x/week

	Daily

	1-5x/month

Given that you read a medical article on Wikipedia, do you draw any criteria to evaluate its quality? (Multiple answer possible)

	I compare it to my knowledge

	Number of references

	Authors are well-known

	High number of revisions

	Date of latest revision

	I compare it to specific literature

	I discuss the content with my colleagues/teachers

	I do not draw any criteria

	I trust my gut feeling

Given that you find incorrect information, what do you do?

	I correct the error

	I am not familiar how to correct articles

	I know how to correct articles but leave the entry unaltered

	I draw attention to the false information in any other way


Variable	Odds ratio	95%confidence interval

Guideline-recommended vancomycin dosing	0.91	0.53-1.56

Vancomycin duration > 15 days	3.65	2.16-6.17

Weight greater than 100 kilograms	2.08	1.18-3.67

Pitt Bacteremia Score of four or greater	3.80	2.17-6.63

Vancomycin trough greater than 20 mcg/ml	2.51	1.28-4.92

Age greater than 52 years	2.40	1.38-4.15

Intensive care unit resident	3.64	2.15-6.18

Concomitant nephrotoxin	2.08	1.24-3.49

Male gender	1.04	0.56-1.57

Charlson comorbidity index 5 or greater	1.14	0.57-2.27

Baseline serum creatinine greater than 1.0 mg/dL	0.94	0.56-1.57


GEO ID	Sample count (case:control)	Platform	Sample source	Tissue

GSE14359	18: 2	GPL96 [HG-U133A] Affymetrix Human Genome U133A Array	in vivo	Bone, lung

GSE16102	48: 6	GPL96 [HG-U133A] Affymetrix Human Genome U133A Array	in vivo	Bone

GSE12865	12: 2	GPL6244 [HuGene-1_0-st] Affymetrix Human Gene 1.0 ST Array	in vivo	Bone

GSE11414	4: 2	GPL6244 [HuGene-1_0-st] Affymetrix Human Gene 1.0 ST Array	in vitro	Bone

GSE42352	103:15	GPL10295 Illumina human-6 v2.0 expression beadchip (using nuIDs as identifier)	in vivo/in vitro	Bone

GSE36001	19: 6	GPL6102 Illumina human-6 v2.0 expression beadchip	in vitro	Bone

GSE32964	35: 1	GPL6947 Illumina HumanHT-12 V3.0 expression beadchip	in vivo	Bone

GSE30807	1: 1	GPL570 [HG-U133_Plus_2] Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Array	in vitro	Bone


Gene	Primer sequences	Amplicon length	Annealing temperature

MBD-1	5' TCTGGTTGCCAAGGTCCAAA 3'5' ACATCCATCTTCCCTTCCCGA 3'	122bp	61°C

vimentin	5' TGGAAGAGAACTTTGCCGTTG 3'5' AAGGTGACGAGCCATTTCCTC 3'	101bp	60°C

GRP78	5' CACCAATGACCAGAATCGCCT 3'5' CAATGCGCTCCTTGAGCTTT 3'	101bp	60°C


AE or laboratory abnormality	n (%)

Grade 1/2	Grade 3	Grade 4	Any grade

Non-hematologic AEs of any cause occurring in ≥ 15% of patients

 Fatigue/asthenia	33 (55)	12 (20)	0	45 (75)

 Diarrhea	33 (55)	3 (5)	0	36 (60)

 Stomatitis, oral discomfort, and related oral syndromes	29 (48)	3 (5)	0	32 (53)

 Dysgeusia	27 (45)	0	0	27 (45)

 Hypertension	18 (30)	8 (13)	0	26 (43)

 Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders	25 (42)	0	0	25 (42)

 Vomiting	19 (32)	2 (3)	0	21 (35)

 Dyspepsia	20 (33)	0	0	20 (33)

 Epistaxis	18 (30)	2 (3)	0	20 (33)

 Nausea	20 (33)	0	0	20 (33)

 Headache	17 (28)	2 (3)	0	19 (32)

 Decreased appetite	14 (23)	4 (7)	0	18 (30)

 Dry skin	14 (23)	1 (2)	0	15 (25)

 Ejection fraction decreased	10 (17)	3 (5)	1 (2)	14 (23)

 Abdominal pain	11 (18)	0	0	11 (18)

 Hand–foot syndrome and related disorders	8 (13)	3 (5)	0	11 (18)

 Pyrexia	11 (18)	0	0	11 (18)

 Weight decreased	11 (18)	0	0	11 (18)

 Constipation	10 (17)	0	0	10 (17)

 Left ventricular dysfunction	8 (13)	2 (3)	0	10 (17)

 Insomnia	8 (13)	1 (2)	0	9 (15)

 Dyspnea	8 (13)	1 (2)	0	9 (15)

Hematologic laboratory abnormalities

 Leukopenia	46 (77)	4 (7)	1 (2)	51 (85)

 Anemia	46 (77)	2 (3)	0	48 (80)

 Neutropenia	36 (60)	9 (15)	1 (2)	46 (77)

 Lymphopenia	36 (60)	6 (10)	1 (2)	43 (72)

 Thrombocytopenia	34 (57)	6 (10)	3 (5)	43 (72)


Topic	Sub-Topic	Positive Feedback

Usability 	Utilization	“Both the motor and cognitive tasks were easy.”

Learning	“There was no problem in learning the use of the system.”

Pleasantness	“The 3D glass was not uncomfortable.”“The environment was beautiful.”“The cycle-ergometer was manageable.”

Sense of Presence	Spatial Presence	“The feeling was to be in the real park.”“I had the feeling of being suspended.” “The environment was relaxing.”

Engagement	“I was focused on the task.”“I think I’ve been pedaling for 5 min.”“I forget you (the examiners) were here too.”

Realism	“The environment was realistic.”

Cyber Sickness	Physical side-effects	None present side effect like cyber-sickness or nausea

Expectations		“This system could be useful for several types of patients.”“I think it’s easier to train with this tool.”


Synthesis feature	Traditional systematic review	Critical interpretive synthesis

Research question	• A research question is developed a priori and is not changed during the course of the research study.	• A compass question is developed, which can evolve over the course of the research study, in a transparent manner.

Literature search	• Exhaustive literature search	• Exhaustive literature search but can purposively sample literature outside of original search parameters

Article selection	• Static inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied to search results;	• Inclusion and exclusion criteria are iteratively refined to reflect the evolving compass questions (often through successive pilot testing of the criteria using small batches of references with the final criteria applied to all search results);

• Included articles are empirical studies and often consist only of a small number of specific methodological designs (e.g., RCT, CCT, observational studies); and	• Included articles can consist of both empirical and non-empirical (e.g., editorials, essays) analyses that offer insight into the topic under investigation (i.e., articles are not limited to those that meet certain design or quality criteria); and

• All relevant articles meeting inclusion criteria and minimum quality standard are included in the analysis.	• A purposive sample of eligible articles is typically selected based on the unique insights they can provide to the topic under investigation.

Quality rating of articles	• Quality ratings are usually applied to all articles included in a systematic review and used to help interpret the findings.	• Relevance ratings are applied to articles, not quality ratings (i.e., articles are rated on their ability to answer the compass question).

Synthesis	• Data is extracted from all studies meeting the inclusion criteria using an a priori approach; and	• Data is extracted from a purposive sample of studies using an analytic framework where the constructs are iteratively revised and reapplied to the included papers to ensure the constructs are grounded in the data; and

• Findings are synthesized either quantitatively (i.e., in a meta-analysis) or qualitatively, which typically involves reporting findings from studies according to the pre-defined outcomes of interest.	• The analytical constructs that emerged from the iterative analysis are used to derive an explanatory framework.


Model for total tibial cartilage volume	r2	p Value for Δ r2 compared with the specified model	ΔF with addition to the model (p value for ΔF is the same as for Δr2)

Bone area only (+)	0.14	< 0.001	N/A

Bone area (+) age (-)	0.21	< 0.001 compared with bone area only	14.84

Bone area (+) age (-) smoking, alcohol	0.22	0.43 compared with bone area and age	0.86

Bone area (+) age (-) smoking, alcohol, BMI	0.22	0.53 compared with bone area, age, smoking and alcohol	0.39

Bone area (+) age (-) smoking, alcohol, ln hsCRP (-)	0.28	< 0.001 compared with bone area, age, smoking, alcohol	13.15

Bone area (+) age (-) smoking, alcohol, BMI ln hsCRP(-)	0.28	< 0.001 compared with bone area age smoking alcohol	7.23 (both variables added together); if BMI added first, ΔF = 0.43 (p for ΔF = 0.51) followed by lnCRP ΔF = 13.99, (p for ΔF < 0.001); if ln CRP added first, ΔF = 13.15, (p for ΔF < 0.001) followed by BMI ΔF = 1.28, (p for ΔF = 0.26)


	No COPD		COPD		COPD/CHF

Number of beneficiaries	1,319,680		245,958		118,617

 As % of all beneficiaries	84.30%		15.70%		7.60%

Personal Characteristics

Females, %	59.70%		54.50%		55.10%

Age (yrs), mean (sd)	75.8 (7.3)		77.4 (7.2)		78.9 (7.4)

Medicare-Disabled/ESRD, %	7%		14%		16%

Bottom quartile household income,%	24%		30%		31%

Comorbidities

Diabetes	21.00%		33.60%		44.70%

CHF	17.80%		48.20%		100.00%

Ischemic heart disease	35.50%		65.40%		84.60%

 Atrial fibrillation	9.60%		20.60%		36.00%


Author	Cell line name	Species	Location

Hishikawa et al. [61]	SP cells	Mouse	Renal interstitial space

Challen et al. [62]	SP cells	Mouse	Proximal tubules

Inowa et al. [30]	SP cells	Human	Not identified

Dekel et al. [33]	Sca1+ cells	Mouse	Nontubular

Gupta et al. [34]	MRPCs	Rat	Renal tubules

Maeshima et al. [4, 35]	LRC cells	Rat	Renal tubular cells

Oliver et al. [63]	Slow-cycling cells	Mouse, rat	Renal papilla

Bussolati et al. [36, 39]	CD133+ CD24+ cells	Human	Bowman's capsule, inner medullary papilla, S3 segment of proximal tubules, interstitium

Sallustio et al. [37, 38]	CD133+ CD24+ cells	Human	Tubules, glomerulus

Sagrinati et al. [64]	CD133+ CD24+ cells	Human	Bowman's capsule

Lindgren et al. [65]	CD133+ CD24+ cells	Human	Renal proximal tubules

Kitamura et al. [41]	KS cells	Rat	S3 segment of proximal tubules


Classification	Co-biased as At	Biased as At and Aa	Co-biased as Aa

Occurrence	219	302	325

Expected	173.1	419.2	253.7


P300	N400 & N100

Amplitude (X)/Latency (L)	BVS Score	Amplitude (X)/Latency (L)	BVS Score

X > μ −σ	5	X < μ + σ	5

L < μ + σ		L < μ + σ

μ − 1.5σ < X < μ −σ	4	μ + 1.5σ > X > μ + σ	4

μ + 1.5σ > L > μ + σ		μ + 1.5σ > L > μ + σ

μ − 2σ < X < μ − 1.5σ	3	μ + 2σ > X > μ + 1.5σ	3

μ + 2σ > L > μ + 1.5σ		μ + 2σ > L > μ + 1.5σ

μ − 2.5σ < X < μ − 2σ	2	μ + 2.5σ > X > μ + 2σ	2

μ + 2.5σ > L > μ + 2σ

		μ + 2.5σ > L > μ + 2σ

X < μ − 2.5σ	1	X > μ + 2.5σ	1

L > μ + 2.5σ

		L > μ + 2.5σ


Formulation	n

Drug type

 Caffeine	0.60

 Acetaminophen	0.66

 Theophylline	0.71

 Salicylic acid	0.73

 Indomethacin	0.98

Cross-linker

 1:2	1.24

 1:4	1.25


Electrochemical Aptasensors Applied for Food Safeguard

Analyte	Matrix	Method details	Linear range and LOD	Reference

Salmonella Typhimurium	Pork	EIS based on AuNPs and GO	2.4–2.4 × 103 CFU/mL, 3 CFU/mL	[17]

Staphylococcus aureus	Pig Skin	Potentiometry using SWCNT	800 CFU/mL	[18]

Lysozyme	wine	Aptamer–antibody diazonium coupling, DPV	5 fM–5 nM, 4.3 fM	[21]

Ochratoxin A	cocoa beans	Anti-OTA-aptamer on SPCE, EIS	0.15–2.5 ng/mL, 0.15 ng/mL	[22]

Aflatoxin M1	Milk	Hexaethyleneglycol modified aptamers on SPE, EIS	2–150 ng/L, 1.15 ng/mL	[23]

Aflatoxin B1	Alcoholic beverage	MB-tagged aptamer on SPCE, hexamethylenediamine and carbodiimide, DPV	0.05–6.0 ng/mL, 0.05 ng/mL	[6]

Kanamycin	Milk	Aptamer on SPCE, EIS	1.2–75 ng/mL, 0.11 ng/mL	[25]


Demographic variables	N*	%	Demographic variables	N*	%

Sex	Male	110	24.6	Age in years	21-30	92	20.6

Female	338	75.4	31-40	152	33.9

Marital status	Married	386	86.2	41-50	161	35.9

Others	62	13.8	>50	43	9.6

Occupation	Administrative staff	43	9.6	Years worked	≤5	84	18.8

General practitioner	138	30.9	6-10	55	12.3

Public health physician	105	23.4	11-15	57	12.7

Nurse	122	27.2	16-20	66	14.7

Other	40	8.9	≥21	186	41.5

Working hours (per week)	≤40	212	47.3	Monthly income (RMB)	<2000	186	41.5

41-48	140	31.3	2000-2999	194	43.3

49-56	62	13.8	3000- 3999	58	12.9

>56	34	7.6	≥4000	10	2.3

Title	Senior	88	19.6	Educational background	High school or below	92	20.5

Middle	190	42.4	Junior college	185	41.3

Junior	144	32.1	College and above	171	38.2

No title	26	5.9


	Open abdominal wall hernia repair	Laparoscopic abdominal wall hernia repair

Hematoma	6 %	1 %

Seroma	4 %	3 %

Visceral lesions	0	0

Sub-occlusion	0	0

Respiratory infections	1 %	0

Infections of prosthesis	0	0

Fascial necrosis	0	0

Postop. Pain (6 mesi)	3 %	1 %

Recurrence	7 %	4 %

Mortality	0	0


	Pearson Correlation (r) with Sleep Quality Scale (-)

	Study 1056	Study 1077

	r	p-value	r	p-value

Average Daily Diary Pain Numeric Rating Scale (-)	0.64	<0.001	0.58	<0.001

MOS Sleep Scales

 Sleep Disturbance (-)	0.45	<0.001	0.42	<0.001

 Snoring (-)	0.01	0.884	0.00	0.993

 Awaken Short of Breath or with Headache (-)	0.21	<0.001	0.14	<0.001

 Quantity of Sleep (+)	-0.31	<0.001	-0.34	<0.001

 Sleep Adequacy (+)	-0.21	<0.001	-0.32	<0.001

 Somnolence (-)	0.11	0.004	0.15	<0.001


Isolate ID	Laccase (4thday)	Lipase (3rdday)	Cellulase (3rdday)	Source of isolation	Depth (m)

PKU F1	-	+	+	Seawater	0

PKU F2	+	-	+	Seawater	0

PKU F3	+	++	++	Seawater	0

PKU F4	++	+	+	Seawater	0

PKU F5	-	++	-	Sediment	0

PKU F6	-	-	+	Seawater	0

PKU F7	++	+	++	Sediment	0

PKU F8	-	+	++	Sediment	0

PKU F9	-	++	++	Sediment	0

PKU F10	+	-	-	Sediment	0

PKU F11	+	++	+++	Seawater	10

PKU F12	-	++	++	Seawater	10

PKU F13	-	++	+++	Seawater	0

PKU F14	++	+++	++	Seawater	0

PKU F15	+	-	-	Seawater	10

PKU F16	+++	+++	++	Seawater	5

PKU F17	-	++	+	Seawater	10

PKU F18	+++	+	+++	Seawater	0

PKU F19	-	+	-	Seawater	0

PKU F20	++	++	++	Seawater	0

PKU F21	+	++	-	Seawater	0

PKU F22	-	+++	++	Seawater	0

PKU Y1	-	++	+	Seawater	0

PKU Y2	-	+	++	Seawater	0

PKU Y3	-	++	+	Seawater	10

PKU Y4	-	+	++	Seawater	0

PKU Y5	-	++	++	Seawater	10

PKU Y6	-	++	++	Seawater	5

PKU Y7	-	-	++	Seawater	0

PKU Y8	-	+++	+++	Seawater	0

PKU Y9	-	++	++	Seawater	10


Patient 	Age	Clinical stage	Histologic type	Tumor size 	Estrogen receptor (ER)	Progesterone receptor (PR)	Her2 status	Molecular classification

A	50 yr	T2N1M0 (grading: IIB)	Ductal infiltrating	3 cm	(−)	(−)	(+)	Her2+

B	59 yr	T3N0M0 (grading: IIB)	Ductal infiltrating	5 cm	(+)	(+)	(+)	Luminal B

C	41 yr	T2N1M0 (grading: IIB)	Ductal infiltrating	4 cm	(+)	(+)	(−)	Luminal A


MiRs	Expression levels	mRNA targets	Cell types	Refs	miR classification

Diabetic retinopathy

miR-146a	Down	Fibronectin	HUVECs	[103]	I, A, O

miR-146b-3p	Down	ADA2	Vitreous of diabetes patients, macrophages	[79]	O

miR-200b	Down	VEGF	HUVEC	[104]	O, A

miR-195	Up	SIRT1	HRECs, HMECs	[105]	A, O

Diabetic nephropathy

miR-192	Up	ZEB 1/2	Glomeruli from renal biopsies	[106]	O

miR-377	Up	Pak1, Sod1/2	NHMCs	[107]	O, A

miR-29a/b/c	Down	Col1, Col4	h. conditionally immortalized podocyte	[108]	O

miR-21	Up	PTEN, RAS40	hMCs	[91]	O, I, A

	Up	TIMP3	human kidney biopsy	[92]

miR-155	Up		h. kidney biopsy, HRGECs	[109]	I, O, A

miR-146a	Up		h. kidney biopsy, HRGECs	[109]	I, A, O

miR-215	Down	SIP1/ZEB2	h. conditionally immortalized podocytes	[110]	O

miR-135a	Up	TRPC1	kidney tissues, HMC	[111]	O

Macrovascular diabetic complications

miR-16	Down	Cox-2	THP-1 monocytes	[112]	O

miR-503	Up	Ccne1-Cdc25A	HUVEC, HMVEC	[102]	O, A

miR-133	Down	Rho-A, Cdc42	h. embryos/fetuses cardiac cells	[113]	I, A

miR-223	Up	Glut4	Left ventricular biopsies	[114]	I, O, A

miR-221	Up	C-kit	HUVEC	[115]	O, A

miR-492	Down	Resistin	HUVEC	[116]	O, A


I. Site 1 (n = 4 writers with 10 letters each)

Item	GP	Specialist	p

History	4.04 ± 1.0	4.16 ± 0.95	NS

Physical Examination	4.34 ± 0.90	4.23 ± 0.98	NS

Impression	4.12 ± 0.90	4.14 ± 1.0	NS

Plan	4.21 ± 0.85	4.21 ± 0.99	NS

Brevity	3.87 ± 0.94	4.25 ± 0.87	0.003

Clarity	4.00 ± 1.1	4.14 ± 1.0	NS

Format	3.98 ± 1.1	4.01 ± 1.0	NS

Educational Value	4.02 ± 0.95	3.90 ± 0.90	NS

Global rating	4.04 ± 0.96	3.92 ± 0.97	NS

Overall score	36.45 ± 7.36	36.97 ± 7.85	NS

II Site 2 (n = 5 writers with 10 letters each)

Item	GP	Specialist	p

History	3.88 ± 1.1	4.40 ± 0.72	0.0001

Physical Examination	3.90 ± 0.97	4.45 ± 0.71	<0.0001

Impression	4.00 ± 1.0	4.08 ± 0.96	NS

Plan	4.14 ± 0.90	4.18 ± 0.87	NS

Brevity	3.64 ± 1.2	3.83 ± 0.90	NS

Clarity	3.931 ± .0	4.03 ± 0.91	NS

Format	3.63 ± 1.1	3.68 ± 0.67	NS

Educational Value	4.00 ± 1.0	3.38 ± 1.1	<0.0001

Global rating	3.88 ± 0.93	3.74 ± 0.91	NS

Overall score	34.97 ± 7.70	35.79 ± 5.19	NS


Putative gene	SNP (bp)	Nucleotides	AA residual

Lp1-SST	871	TCA→GCA	Y/D

	1,087	GCC→TCC	A/S

	1,091	GTC→GCC	V/A

	1,116	GAC→GAG	D/E

	1,124	CTG→CCG	L/P

Lp6G-FFT	835	GTC→ATC	V/I

	938	TAC→TTC	Y/F

LpCAT	1,093	GTG→ATG	V/M

LpACO1	469	CCG→TCG	P/S


	CRC	CRC (interaction)	BC	BC (interaction)

	coeff	pval	coeff	pval	coeff	pval	coeff	pval

Person level

Age < 50 (reference 50–64)	0.306	0.000	0.306	0.000	0.040	0.000	0.040	0.000

Age 65–74	−0.105	0.000	−0.105	0.000	−0.255	0.000	−0.255	0.000

Age 75+	−0.051	0.000	−0.051	0.000	−0.139	0.000	−0.139	0.000

Female (reference male)	0.040	0.000	0.040	0.000	.	.	.	.

Black (reference white)	0.079	0.000	0.079	0.000	0.386	0.000	0.386	0.000

Race all other (reference white)	0.008	0.363	0.008	0.399	0.136	0.000	0.136	0.000

County level

Percentage of population < age 65, with no health insurance	0.005	0.000	0.007	0.016	0.003	0.002	0.005	0.031

Average distance traveled by Medicare beneficiary to cancer screening provider	0.002	0.037	0.002	0.041	0.000	0.532	0.000	0.519

Screening rate (percent of area FFS Medicare population utilizing screening)	−0.036	0.000	−0.037	0.000	−0.027	0.000	−0.027	0.000

Managed care penetration (percentage of area insured population in managed care plans)	0.101	0.033	0.103	0.039	−0.284	0.000	−0.285	0.000

State level

State Policy (1 = yes, 0 = no) `Direct Access Specialist'	−0.055	0.004	−0.271	0.000	−0.053	0.001	−0.009	0.841

Cross level interaction

< 65 Pop uninsured * state policy interaction	.	.	0.013	0.000	.	.	−0.003	0.288

Variance Components

Level 1 * (individual)	3.2899	3.2899	3.2899	3.2899

Level 2 (county)	0.02497	0.02484	0.01450	0.01447

Level 3 (state)	0.00074	0.00065	0.00018	0.00017


Variable	n (%)

Quality of provider (n = 285)

 Licensed pharmacist	16 (5.6)

 Pharmacist assistant	36 (12.6)

 Auxiliary	233 (81.8)

Sex (n = 285)

 Females	216 (75.8)

 Males	69 (24.2)

Years of experience (n = 285)

 ≤2	66 (23.2)

 2–5	115 (40.4)

 5–10	58 (20.3)

 >10	46 (16.1)


Variable	Total	N	%

Mode of spread of HIV/AIDS*

 Sexual intercourse	206	203	98.5

 Blood transfusion	206	188	91.3

 Unsterile instrument	206	199	96.6

 MTCT	206	179	87.7

 Other (spiritual)	206	33	15.0

Mother to child transmission

 Possible	206	190	92.2

 Not possible	206	1	0.5

 Don’t know	206	15	7.3

Mode of mother –to-child transmission*

 In the womb (intrauterine)	190	179	94.2

 During delivery	190	154	81.1

 Through breastfeeding	190	187	98.4

MTCT preventable?

 Preventable	206	182	88.3

 Not preventable	206	8	3.8

 Don’t know	206	15	7.2

Means of PMTCT*

 Giving ART	182	176	96.7

 Avoiding breastfeeding	182	162	89.0

 C/S delivery	182	69	37.9

Antiretrovials*

 Drug to prevent transmission to baby	206	58	28.2

 Drug to cure HIV	206	78	37.9

 Drug to prevent death from HIV/AIDS	206	147	71.4

 Drug to prolong lives	206	184	89.3

 Works effectively with optimal adherence	206	200	97.6


	Non-syndromic Robin sequence (ns-RS)	Non-syndromic cleft palate (ns-CP)	Chi-square Test (two-sided)

N	%	N	%	P

Total number of patients	115	100	191	100

 Males/females	49/66	42.6/57.4	86/105	45.0/55.0

Tooth agenesis (excl. 3rd molars)	55	47.8	57	29.8	< 0.001

 Maxilla	28	24.3	31	16.2	0.082

 Mandibulaa	45	39.1	39	20.4	< 0.001

 Right dental quadrants (q1, q4)	42	36.5	43	22.5	0.008

 Left dental quadrants (q2, q3)	50	43.4	42	22.0	< 0.001

 In males	18/49	36.7	28/86	32.6	0.622

 In femalesb	37/66	56.0	30/105	28.6	< 0.001