Variables	Number	Percent

Gravida (number of pregnancies)	1	78	24.4

2–4	183	57.2

> = 5	59	18.4

Parity (number of deliveries)	0	78	24.4

1	171	31.5

2–4	116	53.4

> = 5	25	7.8

Birth order	1	179	55.9

2–4	116	36.3

> = 5	25	7.8

Pregnancy Trimester during interview	Second trimester	115	35.9

Third trimester	205	64.1

Gestational Age where ANC started	Before 16 weeks	154	48.1

At or After 16 weeks	166	51.9

Number of ANC visits	2–3	232	72.5

≥ 4	88	27.5

Receiving information about the importance of IFA supplementation	No	139	43.4

Yes	181	56.6

Medical illness	No	288	90.0

Yes	32	10.0

Morning sickness	No	255	79.7

Yes	65	20.3

Side effects	No	234	83.1

Yes	86	26.9


System	Complications

Neurologic	Cord compression syndrome

 	Intracranial hypertension/hydrocephalus

Thoracic	Superior vena cava syndrome

 	Pericardial effusion/cardiac tamponade

Pleural effusion

Pulmonary thromboembolism

Massive hemoptysis

Abdominal	Intenstinal obstruction

 	Inflammatory intestinal changes

Biliary obstruction

Urinary tract obstruction

Bleeding complications


Category	No. (%)

Infection	331 (59.1)

 Respiratory tract	166 (51.2)

 Urinary tract	99 (30.6)

 Intra-abdominal	39 (12.1)

 Skin and soft tissue	18 (3.2)

 Primary bacteremia/fungemia	10 (3.1)

 Central nervous system	2 (0.6)

 Bone & joint	2 (0.6)

 Other	2 (0.6)

Non-infection	179 (32.0)

 Drug fever	101 (56.4)

 Post-procedure	24 (13.4)

 Cancer fever	23 (12.8)

 Transfusion related	7 (3.9)

 Dehydration related	3 (1.7)

 ICH related central fevera	2 (1.1)

Other	19 (10.6)

Unknown	50 (8.9)


	Audio	Visual	Sim. dual	Seq. dual

Mean accuracy rate ± s.e.m. (%)	95.2 ± 1.6	97.3 ± 1.2	89.9 ± 1.9	94.9 ± 1.1


Dataset	No.of Training(class1/class2)	No.of Testing(class1/class2)

Leukaemia	50(32 ALL/18 AML)	22 (15 ALL/7 AML)

Prostate	71(35 ALL/36 AML)	31(15 ALL/16 AML)

Colon	42(14 Normal/28 Tumor)	20(8 Normal/12 Tumor)

DLBCL	60(45 DLBCL/15FL)	17(13 DLBCL/4 FL)


Disinfectants	Neutralizing agents

Classification	Active ingredients	Recommended concentration	Recommended contact time	Optimal application	Active ingredients	Concentration

Aldehydes	Glutaraldehyde	4%	20 min	Equipment, goods	Glycine	2%

Halogens	Sodium hypochlorite	2 g/L	20 min	Biological material, smooth surface	Sodium thiosulfate	0.2%

Trichloroisocyanuric acid	4 g/L	30 min	Lab environment, Medical supplies	Sodium thiosulfate	0.4%

Quaternary ammonium compound	Benzalkonium chloride	0.2 g/L	/	Skin, mucous membranes	Tween-80 + Phosphatidylcholine	0.5% + 1%

Phenolic	Lysol	10 g/L	30 min	Object surface	Tween-80	1%

Alkaline	Sodium hydroxide	10 g/L	/	Field, animal housing	Hydrochloric acid	10%


Code	Features	Preparation room use

A	No Intubation	NO

B	General Anesthesia and Intubation	NO

C	B + One Procedure	NO / YES

D	B + More Than One Procedure	NO / YES


Categorical variables	N* (n = 199)	%	Crude	p value**

Continuous variables#	 	Mean(SD)	OR

Home ownership

 Own home (fully owned or mortgaged)	162	4.9%	1	0.027

 Rented, gifted or invaded	37	16.2%	3.726

Electric power supply

 Lacking	22	22.7%	1	0.011 '

 Present	177	5.1%	0.182

Wealth index

 Richer half	104	1.9%	1	0.004 '

 Poorer half	95	12.6%	7.373

Mother schooling (years)

 Did not go to school	8	37.5%	1	< 0.001

 1 to 4 years	27	7.4%	0.013

 Above 4 years	81	1.2%	0.002

 p linear tendency	 	 	 	0.003

Maternal height (cm)#	186	158.5 (5.29)	0.855	0.01

Number of pregnancies#	113	2.63 (2.21)	1.35	0.018

Anaemia diagnosis

 No	69	49.64%	1	0.176

 Yes	70	50.36%	3.09


Country	Maize	Other major crops

Bangladesh	No	Eggplant

India	No	Cotton, soybean

Iran	No	Rice

Myanmar	No	Cotton

Pakistan	No	Cotton

Australia	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, potato, rice, soybean, wheat

China	Yes	Canola, cotton, maize, rice, soybean

Indonesia	Yes	Soybean, sugarcane

Japan	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, potato, soybean

Malaysia	Yes	Soybean

New Zealand	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, potato, rice, soybean, wheat

Philippines	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, potato, rice, soybean

Singapore	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, maize, soybean

South Korea	Yes	Alfalfa, canola, cotton, potato, soybean

Thailand	Yes	Soybean

Turkey	Yes	Soybean

Vietnam	Yes	None


Chromosome (potato)	Tomato	Citation1

2	2 L inversion	a

3	Translocation	b

5	5S inversion	a, c, d, e, f

6	6S inversion	a, g

9	9S inversion	a, c, d, f

10	10 L inversion	a, c, d, f

11	11S inversion	a, c, f

12	12S inversion	a, c, f


		Model I	Model II

Variable	Category	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI

Fixed effects

Rate of change

Agec (Int)	Centred at 67 years	0.93	0.90-0.97	0.98	0.96-1.012

Agec*cohortc		1.017	1.011-1.024	1.009	1.006-1.011

Agec-squared		1.005	1.001-1.010	1.005	1.001-1.010

Initial status

Cohortc	Centred at 1924	0.98	0.95-1.02	1.02	1.00-1.05

Cohortc-squared		1.008	1.005-1.012	1.005	1.003-1.006

Educational level	Low-middle			1

High			1.23	0.96-1.58

BMI (kg/m2)	Centred at 23			0.93	0.91-0.96

Smoking	Never			1

Former			1.01	0.78-1.30

Daily			0.48	0.35-0.65

Self-reported health status	Good			2.57	2.08-3.19

Poor			1

Random effects (unstructured)

Var (constant)	1.51	1.01-2.23	1.05	0.66-1.69


Exon	Mutation	Base change	Amino acid change	Mutated samples	%

BRAF

15	V600E	1799	Val to Glu	347	92.3

T > A

15	V600K	1798-99 GT > AA	Val to Lys	20	5.3

15	V600D	1799-1800	Val to Asp	6	1.6

TG > AT

15	V600R	1798-99	Val to Arg	2	0.5

GT > AG

15	L597R	1790	Leu to Arg	1	0.3

T > G

NRAS

3	Q61R	182	Gln to Arg	47	58.8

A > G

3	Q61L	182	Gln to Leu	23	28.7

A > T

3	Q61K	181	Gln to Lys	10	12.5

C > A


	January	February	March	April	May	June	July	August	September	October	November	December

 Number of sirocco days	0	0	0	3	26	59	111	53	11	0	0	0


Movement of Households	Wealth index (PCA)	Consumption Expenditure

Proportion of households ranked in the same tercile	60.99	42.64

Proportion of households moving by one tercile	32.18	34.93

Proportion of households moving by two terciles	6.83	22.43

Kappa statistic	0.373***	0.122***


InterPro entry	Signatures	Analysis method

IPR000043 (Family)	TIGR00936 (ahcY)	HMMTigr

PF05221 (AdoHcyase)	HMMPfam

PTHR23420 (Ad_hcy_hydrolase)	HMMPanther

PIRSF001109 (Ad_hcy_hydrolase)	HMMPIR

IPR015878 (Domain)	PF00670 (AdoHcyase_NAD)	HMMPfam

IPR020082 (Site)	PS00738 (ADOHCYASE_1)	PatternScan

PS00739 (ADOHCYASE_2)	PatternScan


Exposure	Mean difference in gestational age acceleration (days)

Mean difference	95% CI	p

Female	− 0.8	− 1.4, − 0.1	0.024

High/non-manual parental social class	0.1	− 0.9, 1.0	0.91

Maternal education

 Degree	(Ref)		0.72

 A level	0.8	− 0.1, 1.8

 O level	− 0.1	− 1.0, 0.8

 Less than O level	− 0.3	− 1.4, 0.8

Paternal education

 Degree	(Ref)		0.51

 A level	− 0.8	− 1.6, 0.1

 O level	− 0.2	− 1.2, 0.7

 Less than O level	0.3	− 0.7, 1.2

Housing tenure

 Owned/mortgaged	(Ref)		0.42

 Rented (private)	0.7	− 1.1, 2.5

 Rented (council/HA)	0.2	− 1.1, 1.5

Financial difficulties

 None	(Ref)		0.55

 Some	− 0.1	− 0.8, 0.6

 Many	− 0.4	− 1.3, 0.6


Component Label	Component	Subsystem function	Enjoyment of negative emotion example

1. Appraisal	Cognitive component	Evaluation of objects and events	Context detection/knowledge (music, aesthetic)

2. Bodily symptoms	Neurophysiological component	System regulation	Bodily symptoms of the negative emotion

3. Action tendencies	Motivational component	Preparation and direction of action	Inhibition of aversion/hostility tendencies

4. Facial and vocal expression	Motor expression component	Communication of reaction and behavioral intention	Facial symptoms of the negative emotion

5. Emotional experience	Subjective feeling component	Monitoring or internal state and organism-environment interaction	Subjective feeling of the negative emotion (fully fledged, real negative emotion)


 Domains	 Average (± standard deviation)

 HAT-QoL (n= 201)

	 Overall function	 79.39 (20.9)

	 Life satisfaction	 71.9 (24.4)

	 Health worries	 83.2 (22.9)

	 Financial worries	 55.6 (37.5)

	 Medication worries	 88.7 (17.3)

	 HIV mastery	 77.8 (33.6)

	 Disclosure worries	 39.0 (27.3)

	 Provider trust	 72.2 (30.7)

	 Sexual function	 45.9 (43.5)

 ASKAS

	 Knowledge 	 31.7 (6.7)

	 Attitude	 14.8 (6.8)


Gene	GenBank	Forward primer	Reverse primer	Amplicon

Name	Accession	5′ → 3′	5′ → 3′	Size (bp)

CD25	NM_174358	AGATGTCCTGGCTTGAAC	TGGATATAGACCTGCTAATACC	134

CCNA1	XM_005687507	CGCCACATTTACAGGCTATTCATT	GTACTTCTCCCTGATTGCTTGCTG	112

CCNB1	XM_005694606	TTGATGGAACTGACTATGCTGGACT	CAGGTAATGCTGTAGAGTTGGTGTC	132

CCND1	XM_005700049	AGGAGGTGAGGGTGGAAGTGTG	GAAGTCATCGGTAGCAGCGAATAA	100

GAPDH	DQ152956	CCTGGAGAAACCTGCCAAGT	GCCAAATTCATTGTCGTACCA	200


Software	Normal	Truncated	Solo-LTR	Complex	Nested	Total

LTRtype	59	200	172	7	182	438

REannotate	64	401	115	0	230	580

TEnest	49	281	119	0	427	449


Operational challenge	Description

High workload	- One of the major concerns was that the increased utilisation has put so much pressure on the limited medical staff in the facilities. There is large health worker-patient ratio and this affects the provision of responsive care.

 	- Inadequate numbers of health staff was mentioned as a key cause of long waiting hours.

 	- The absence of people with professional knowledge of claims processing and management.

Logistics/equipment	- Lack of ambulance for referrals especially on emergency cases.

 	- Lack of sophisticated surgical equipments to reduce referrals of cases to the regional hospitals.

 	- Inadequate medical equipments.

 	- The absence of operating theatres in the facilities to cope with new and emerging diseases.

Medication	- Many of the complaints related to the fact that the Essential Drug List (EDL) does not adequately cover a wide range of drugs. It is therefore difficult for patients to comprehend why they are not entitled to unlimited drugs under the scheme.

Networking	- Networking is a problem. As a result, some patients present expired ID cards with valid dates on them for treatment.

 	- The absence of effective networking system makes activities of hospitals more difficult.

 	- Because the system is not properly networked, there were instances when unregistered members scan their passport size pictures on ID cards of active members in order to receive medical care.


Wound dressing material	Mean value ± standard error of the mean

(number of vessels per high-power field)

The 7th postoperative day	The 10th postoperative day

Human amniotic membrane	0.90 ± 0.18	1.05 ± 0.14

Polyurethane foil	1.80 ± 0.16	4.70 ± 0.47


Property	Description	Encoding

TF_Class	Encoded 2–3 top levels of five digit code based on TFClass classification; i.e. superclass followed by class (see text)	A 47-dimensional vector where ith position (superclass) and jth position (class) are 1, other positions are 0

PD	TF has a frequent Pfam domain (yes/no)	1/0

DBD	TF has a DNA-binding domain (DBD) (yes/no)	1/0

N_DBD	Number of DBDs (see text)	11/10/00

PPI	TF has a protein-protein interaction (PPI) (yes/no)	1/0

N_PPI	Number of PPIs (see text)	11/10/00

N_PhS	Number of Phosphorylation sites (see text)	11/10/00

PTM	TF has a post-translational modification (PTM) (yes/no)	1/0

Ind_PTM	TF has a specific PTM (yes/no)	An ordered 6-dimensional vector where position i corresponding to PTM i is 1/0

N_ZFD	Number of the zinc finger domains (see text)	11/10/00


Gender	 	n (%)

 	Female	20 (43.5)

 	Male	26 (56.5)

Age	 	Years (range)

 	Mean	32 (18–37)

HSCT	 	n (%)

 	Allogeneic	31 (67.4)

 	Autologous	15 (32.6)

Underlying disease	 	n (%)

 	Chronic myelogenous leukemia	26 (56.5)

 	Acute myelogenous leukemia	8 (17.4)

 	Multiple myeloma	6 (13.1)

 	Hodgkin’s lymphoma	3 (6.5)

 	Severe aplastic anemia	3 (6.5)

Immunosuppressive conditioning regimen	 	n (%)

 	Busulfan and melphalan	30 (65.2)

 	Busulfan and cyclophosphamide	4 (8.7)

 	Total body irradiation and melphalan	3 (6.5)

 	Total body irradiation and cyclophosphamide	3 (6.5)

 	Other	6 (13.1)


	Modality	Figurativeness

	Motion metaphor/Auditory metaphor	Motion literal/Auditory literal	Motion literal/Motion metaphor	Auditory literal/Auditory metaphor

	t	Sig.	t	Sig.	t	Sig.	t	Sig.

Sentence

Cloze probability		ns		ns		ns		ns

Familiarity		ns		ns	5.66	<0.001	6.91	<0.001

Imageability		ns	4.74	<0.001	10.13	<0.001	5.63	<0.001

Figurativeness		ns		ns	−20.95	<0.001	−21.98	<0.001

Valence		ns	2.4	0.02		ns		ns

Valence RT		ns	3.1	0.003		ns	1.99	0.05

Pilot accuracy	1.95	0.055		ns	2.92	0.004	4.59	<0.001

Pilot RT		ns		ns	−3.14	0.002	−2.81	0.006

# characters		ns		ns		ns		ns

# words		ns		ns		ns		ns

# content words		ns		ns		ns		ns

KF frequency		ns		ns		ns		ns

BN frequency		ns		ns		ns		ns

Concreteness		ns		ns		ns		ns

Target word

#characters		ns		ns		n/a		n/a

KF frequency		ns		ns		n/a		n/a

BN frequency		ns		ns		n/a		n/a

Concreteness		ns		ns		n/a		n/a


	Cluster I	Cluster II	Cluster III

Cluster I	0	1.76	1.72

Cluster II	0.14230	0	2.80

Cluster III	0.14540	0.08917	0


Sample sources	TYLCV positive No./tomato sample No.	TYLCV positive No./whiltefly No.

Henan Province	6,6,6/9a	7,7 /22 b

Shandong Province	30,30,30/56	11,11/20

Zhejiang Province	195,195,197 /422	21,21/68

Total	231, 231,233 /487	39,39/110


 No. of teeth	 Oral impacts	 Sn	Sp	 PPV	NPV

Cutoff	With	Without	Total

≤24	 73	 93	 166	0.69	0.70	 0.87	0.44

≥25	 31	 208	 239

Total	 104	 301	405


Treatment	Superfused bath	Static bath	Significance (Student’s t test)

n	Released ATP*	n	Released ATP*

Control (Ringer’s)	89 puncta, 3 slices	65 ± 1%	80 puncta, 3 slices	66 ± 2%	p = 0.61

PPADS	75 puncta, 2 slices	62 ± 3%	82 puncta, 2 slices	64 ± 1%	p = 0.41

αβMeATP	144 puncta, 4 slices	73 ± 1%	29 puncta, 1 slice	70 ± 1%	p = 0.09


Cluster size	Hemisphere	Brain region	BA	MNI coordinates	Peak T-value

POSITIVE RSFCs: PRE > POST

117	Right	Insula/inferior frontal gyrus	13/45/44	63, 18, 3	6.60

74	Right	Middle frontal gyrus/superior frontal gyrus	6	33, −3, 66	5.14

64	Left	Insula	13	−39, 6, 3	5.74

NEGATIVE RSFCs: POST > PRE

119	Bilateral	Medial frontal gyrus/superior frontal gyrus	8	12, 51, 48	5.38


Aim	Average-measure reliability G(q,k)

Domain	Searching for research	Research obtained	Relevance appraisal	Quality appraisal	Generating new research	Interacting with researchers	Conceptual research use	Instrumental research use	Tactical research use	Imposed research use

(A) Reliability between the two independent coders; q = 0, k = 2	0.85	0.88	0.74	0.88	0.93	0.84	0.76	0.77	0.85	0.87

(B) Reliability between the nine experts; q = 0.23, k = 3	0.77	0.83	0.46	0.74	0.66	0.65	0.58	0.49	0.71	0.89


Question – Recommender’s method	Automation	Fast enough	Accuracy

Which ontologies offer the maximum coverage for my data? – (CR – score)	Yes	Yes	Yes

Which ontologies are reference ontologies for my data? – (CR+M – score)	Yes	No	Yes

Which small ontologies are specialized for my data? – (CR – normalized score)	Yes	Yes	Not enough


Complication	Number of patients (n)	Treatment

Reflux +/− heartburn	21	Medical +/− endoscopy +/− pH 24 h esophageal pH monitoring

Vomiting	5	Diet modifications

Hemorrhage 	7	4 surgical, 3 transfusion

Fistula 	4	2 surgical, 1 prosthesis 1 surgical + endoscopic

Fistula + PE	1	Surgical

Abscess 	3	ATB

Tachycardia	1	CT scan within normal findings

Dysphagia to meat	1	Diet modification

Dehydration	1	Rehospitalisation

LL sensory disorder	1	—

Cholelithiasis	1	Cholecystectomy

Failure to lose weight	2	—

Hypotension ± malaise ± hypoglycemia	2	Rest + NS IV infusion

Swelling of left internal jugular vein	1	—

Total	51


Maternal	Neonatal	Process/intervention

Gestational weight gain	Body composition, anthropometry	Visit attendance

Preeclampsia*	Preterm delivery	Adherence to probiotic/placebo regimen

Induction of labor	Shoulder dystocia

Cesarean delivery	Hypoglycemia

 Elective	Treatment with supplementary fluids/feeds

 Emergency

Change in prevalence of L. rhamnosus and B. lactis in gut microbiome	Nerve palsy

Change in lipids and inflammatory profile	Admission to neonatal intensive care unit

Change in dietary indices and physical activity levels between baseline and 28 weeks gestation	Jaundice requiring phototherapy

 	Bone fracture

 	Death: stillbirth or neonatal death


Sample	Total Polyphenol Contents (μg Gallic Acid/mL)

LJ	2.084 ± 0.01 (1)

HF	3.215 ± 0.08


Variables	All cases	miRNA-506 expression	χ2	p*

High (n = 60)	Low (n = 60)

Age (years)

≥60	88	42	46

<60	32	18	14	0.289	0.409

Gendar

Male	81	36	45

Female	39	24	15	0.010	0.079

Tumor size (cm)

<5	35	23	12

≥5	85	37	48	0.001	0.027

Depth of invasiona

m/sm/mp	49	29	20

ss/se/si	71	31	40	0.014	0.095

Tumor differentiation

Well	21	12	9

Moderate	30	18	12

Poor and others	69	30	39	0.565	0.246

Lymph node invasion

Absent	37	25	12

Present	83	35	48	0.000	0.010

TNM stage

I–II	41	26	15

III–IV	79	34	45	0.002	0.034

Metastasis

Yes	45	16	29

No	75	44	31	0.000	0.014


Participant	Theme	Quote

Female, age 22	Mitigation	“Been getting more hypermobile in the last few days, which shows in the results”

Male, age 41	Response	“Feedback is good, I push harder”

	Mitigation/pain	“I changed how I was bracing myself and used a cushion on the scales for the glute exercise so it hurts less”

Female, age 21	Mitigation	“Get a cold, feeling weak but the exercises are fine”

Male, age 42	Mitigation	“A bit weaker over the last couple of days because of flu”

Male, age 29	Pain	“I had an injury while climbing...it’s painful”


Variable	Dengue Hemorrhagic Fever (n = 280)	Dengue Shock Syndrome (n = 11)

	P-value OR (95% CI)

Presence of bleeding	0.00070.7 (38.4–129.9)	0.000608.2 (33.9–1008.9)

Alanine aminotranferase level	0.0011.9 (0.97–2.99)	0.0041.04 (1.015–1.080)

Aspartate aminotransferase level	NS	0.0101.05 (1.012–1.088)

Urinary Proteins	0.0431.1 (0.191–1.974)	NS

Urinary Red blood cells	0.0271.4 (0.179–1.900)	NS

Platelet count on admsission less than 50,000 × 109/L	NS	0.0140.16 (0.13–0.19)


Study day	Date	Physical examination	Collar	Blood	Skin	Bone marrow

Preliminary Screening	March-April 2012	+	-	+	-	-

Inclusion (D0)	April-May 2012	+	Application	+	+	+

I Follow-up (D90 ± 10)	July-August 2012	+	-	+	-	-

II Follow-up (D180 ± 10)	October-November 2012	+	-	+	-	-

III Follow-up (D210 ± 10)	November-December 2012	+	Removal	+	+	-

IV Follow-up (D300 ± 10)	February-March 2013	+	-	+	+	+


No.	Age (years)	Sex	Employment	Period of Residence (years)	Health Status	Health Effects

1	31	F	unemployed	> 15	A	not declared

2	39	F	commerce	> 5	D	gastrointestinal disease, skin hyperpigmentation

3	40	F	unemployed	> 5	R	gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases

4	41	F	commerce	> 15	R	skin hyperpigmentation

5	41	F	services	> 5	R	gastrointestinal disease

6	47	F	unemployed	< 5	R	gastrointestinal disease

7	49	F	unemployed	> 15	D	gastrointestinal disease, skin hyperpigmentation

8	51	F	unemployed	> 15	R	gastrointestinal and vascular diseases

9	54	F	farming/commerce	> 15	R	gastrointestinal disease

10	56	F	farming	> 15	A	not declared

11	57	F	commerce	> 15	R	gastrointestinal disease

12	62	F	unemployed	> 5	R	nutritionaldisease (obesity)

13	64	F	unemployed	> 15	D	vascular disease

14	73	F	farming	> 15	D	skin hyperpigmentation, tumor

15	76	F	unemployed	> 15	A	not declared

16	46	M	mining	> 15	R	respiratory and vascular diseases

17	52	M	commerce	> 5	A	not declared

18	52	M	commerce	> 5	A	not declared

19	58	M	farming	> 15	D	gastrointestinal disease, skin hyperpigmentation

20	68	M	mining	> 15	A	not declared


Newborn service	Coverage of service (%)

Indonesia	Lao PDR	Philippines

Skilled birth attendance*	83	42	72

Hep B (first dose)	85	37 (given at birth)	87

Hep B (fourth dose)	41	56	67 (third dose)

BCG vaccination	89	78	92

Postpartum care for newborn within two days	48	47	not available

Newborns that have a reported birth weight (based on either a written record or the mother’s recall)	89	43	73

Newborns that received breastfeeding within 1 hour of birth	49	39	54


			Cell Viability

	Compound	Dose	Human Non-small Cell Lung Cancer	Normal Diploid Fibroblasts

X.	Cyc-[AAAGGGPRGPRPGGGAAA]	200 μM	+ + +	+ + +

XI.	Cyc-[GGGGGGPRGPRPGGGGGG]	200 μM	+ + +	+ + +

XII.	Cyc-GGGGGGPRGPRPGGGGGG]	200 μM	+ + +	+ + +

XIII.	Cyc-[AAGPGGPRGPRPGGPGAA]	200 μM	+ + +	+ + +

XIV.	Linear FPPRGPRPVKLALKLALK	200 μM	+ + +	+ + +

XV	Linear PRGPRPVALKLALKLAL	200 μM	+ + +	+ + +


Reference	Primary outcomes	Secondary outcomes

Huang (moderate)1[34]	Higher sales of healthier food options were observed in the intervention group compared to the control group.


Work productivity assessment	No. of patients	Response, n (%) or mean ± SD

Employed at baseline	575	Yes: 262 (45.6)

Employed when CD symptoms began	313	Yes: 161 (51.4)

Stopped working due to CD	161	Yes: 59 (36.6)

Employment status affected by CD	262	 • Different job with less responsibility or pay: 14 (5.3)

		 • Same job, reduced hours or responsibility: 50 (19.1)

		 • No change: 198 (75.6)

Missed work in past month due to CD	261	Yes: 74 (28.4)

Number of missed work days in past month	74	5.7 ± 11.6

Decreased productivity due to CD	261	Yes: 150 (57.5)

Estimated decrease in work productivity (%)	150	72.1 ± 20.5

Have received disability benefits due to CD	262	Yes: 12 (4.6)

Duration of disability benefits (months)	12	33.2 ± 60.8


Species	Riparian area	Forest	Orchards	High fallows	Market gardens	Village

An. braziliensis	2	-	-	-	1	2

An. darlingi	81	-	6	10	78	97

An. ininii	-	1	-	1	-	-

An. intermedius	4	-	-	1	5	-

An. mediopunctatus	1	3	1	3	1	-

An. nuneztovari	14	-	4	15	14	1

An. oswaldoi	-	1	-	-	-	-

An. peryassui	1	-	-	-	-	-

An. strodei	1	-	-	-	1	-

An. triannulatus	25	30	16	404	4	-

Total	129	35	27	434	104	100

Species number	8	4	4	6	7	3


Specimen	Culture	Our Taqman PCR Assay

Positive	Negative	Positive	Negative

Lung (n = 40)	17	23	39	1

Milk(n = 18)	4	14	4	14

Swabs(n = 10)	4	6	6	4

Joint Fluid (n = 3)	0	3	1	2

Total (n = 71)	25	46	50	21


Factor	B	SE	Wald	df	p value	Odds ratio	95% CI

Disturbance to studies: yes	0.740	0.366	4.083	1	0.043	2.1	1.1–4.3

Facilities of the classroom: satisfactory	− 2.151	0.327	43.156	1	< 0.001	0.1	0.1–0.2

Library facilities: satisfactory	− 0.691	0.332	4.338	1	0.037	0.5	0.3–0.9

School health services: satisfactory	− 0.578	0.328	3.080	1	0.079	0.6	0.3–1.1

Scope of subject content: satisfactory	− 1.464	0. 357	16.818	1	< 0.001	0.2	0.1–0.5

Relevance of subject area: satisfactory	− 1.900	0.421	20.333	1	< 0.001	0.2	0.1–0.3

Difficulty in understanding: easily understood	− 1.380	0.340	16.444	1	< 0.001	0.3	0.1–0.5

Duration of study: less than 2 h per day	0.574	0.325	3.127	1	0.077	1.8	0.9–3.4

Support from parents: satisfactory	− 1.800	0.488	13.612	1	< 0.001	0.2	0.1–0.4

Support from teachers: satisfactory	− 1.084	0.449	5.832	1	0.016	0.3	0.1–0.8

Preference of subject stream: own preference	− 1.995	0.486	16.825	1	< 0.001	0.1	0.1–0.4

Personal expectations: encouraging	− 1.251	0.576	4.716	1	0.030	0.3	0.1–0.9

Expectations of parents: encouraging	− 1.002	0.346	8.375	1	0.004	0.4	0.2–0.7

Subjected to bullying at school: yes	0.981	0.302	10.557	1	0.001	2.7	1.5–4.8


Method	Advantages	Disadvantages

Cobb	▪ Simple procedure	▪ No means to quantify rotation from gradation scheme

	▪ Little patient exposure to radiation (one anteroposterior radiograph)	▪ Distortion of spinous process tip in scoliotic vertebrae may decrease accuracy

		▪ Limited visibility of spinous process on radiographs of vertebrae with large rotation

Nash-Moe	▪ Position of pedicles are less affected by intravertebral rotation; more reliable landmark for measuring rotation	▪ Provides over-estimation of rotation (can be adjusted by 10° as suggested by Drerup)

		▪ Pedicles are poorly visible on vertebrae rotated severely or on spines with surgical instrumentation

Perdriolle	▪ Affordable	▪ Difficulty in making precise markings on radiographs – a 2 mm error corresponds to 5° rotation

	▪ Non-invasive

	▪ Simple procedure

	▪ Little patient exposure to radiation (one anteroposterior radiograph)	▪ Reduced accuracy when measuring large degrees of rotation

	▪ General findings report accurate measurements to within ± 5°

Stokes	▪ Accounts for three-dimensionality of vertebra; similar accuracy to stereoradiograph	▪ Greater random error in comparison to methods involving marking of vertebral edges

	▪ Little exposure to radiation

	▪ Simple measuring procedure

Aaro-Dahlborn	▪ Better measurement accuracy even when measuring vertebrae tilted in the coronal and saggital planes	▪ More difficult to use for inexperienced observers due to less obvious landmark definitions

Ho	▪ Clearly defined reference points; simple procedure	▪ Less correlation to actual rotation value when measuring distorted and

	▪ Better interobserver reliability in comparison to Aaro-Dahlborn method when assessing normal vertebrae	tilted vertebrae; less applicable in realistic conditions


	Up-regulated	Down-regulated	Total

Rep1	90	86	176

Rep2	77	89	166

Rep1& Rep2	15	15	30


Group	Habituation	Day 1	Day 2	Day 2 - 4	Day 5 - 8	Day 9	Day 9 - 13	Day 14	Day 14 - 19	Day 20

Stress 1 × 15 min	Decap	Stress 2 × 10 min	Stress 3 × 10 min	Decap	Stress 3 × 10 min	Decap	No stress	Decap

Stress 1	V	V	V

Control 1	V	V	V

Stress 2	V	V		V	V	V

Control 2	V	V		V	V	V

Stress 3	V	V		V	V		V	V

Control 3	V	V		V	V		V	V

Stress 4	V	V		V	V		V		V	V

Control 4	V	V		V	V		V		V	V


Milestone	Date

Review of lower risk drinking guidelines announced	March 2012

Expert group assessment of the need to update the guidelines	2013–2014

Guidelines development group considered the evidence and produced advice on revisions to the guidelines	2014–2015

Publication of proposed revisions	January 2016

Public consultation on the clarity of the guidelines concluded	April 2016

Final guidelines released	August 2016


Drug Name	Drug Function	Reference

Trimetazidine	Cytoprotective, anti-ischemic	[78,79]

Isoflurane	Cytoprotective	[80]

Erythropoietin	Anti-apoptotic	[77]

Deferoxamine:	HIF-1α stabilizer	[81,82]

Dimethyloxalylglycine	HIF-1α stabilizer	[83]

Antimycin	Mitochondrial inhibitor	[75]

Oxytocin	Anti-oxidant	[84]

Celastrol	Anti-oxidant	[85]

Melatonin	Anti-oxidant	[86,87]

Nicorandil	K+ channel activator	[88]

Diazoxide	K+ channel activator	[76]

Lipopolysaccharide	TRL4 agonist	[89]

Pioglitazone	PPAR-γ agonists	[90]

NaHS	H2S donor	[91]


Study*	30-day major complications	30-day minor complications	Pulmonary embolism	Deep venous thrombosis	Readmissions in the first 30 postoperative days

Abdalla [15]	1	5	0	0	NR1

Buchs [16]	24 (not classified)	7	2	2

Hagen [7]	23 (not classified)	NR	NR	NR

Tieu [17]	45	102	2	3	67

Vilallonga [18]	1 case	NR	NR	NR	NR

Ayloo [19]	NR	NR	NR	0

Diamantis [20]	0 (not classified)	0	0	0

Edelson [21]	NR	NR	NR	NR

Park [22]	10 (not classified)	0	0	0

Scozzari [8]	4	14	1	NR	NR

Curet [23]	3 (not classified)	NR	NR	NR

Deng [24]	4	7	NR	NR	3

Hubens [25]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Sudan [26]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Parini [27]	0	0	0	0	0

Mohr [28]	6	7	NR	NR	NR

Yu [29]	NR	NR	1	NR	NR

Ali [30]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Artuso [31]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Galvani [32]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Sanchez [33]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR

Muhlmann [34]	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR


Variable	N(%) = 604(100%)

Gender (male)	417(69%)

Age (yrs)	60.2(± 12.5)

BMI (kg/m2)	26.5(24.3-29.4)

Race (Caucasian)	560(92.7)

Cause of CKD

 Diabetic nephropathy	65(10.8%)

 Renovascular	188(31.1%)

 Glomerular disease	109(18%)

 Interstitial disease	57(9.4%)

 Congenital (incl PKD)	62(10.3%)

 Unknown	123(20.4%)

History of CVD	178(29.5%)

Diabetes Mellitus	144(23.8%)

Hypertension	433(71.7%)

Smoking	145(24%)

Systolic BP (mmHg)	136(± 21)

Diastolic BP (mmHg)	78(± 11)

Creatinine (μmol/l)	184(± 71)

eGFR (MDRD, ml/min/1.73 m2)	36.8(± 13.9)

Total cholesterol (mmol/l)	4.8(± 1.0)

Proteinuria (g/24 hours)	0.3(0.1-0.9)

Phosphate (mmol/l)	1.12(± 0.26)

Calcium (mmol/l)	2.38(± 0.14)

PTH (pmol/l)	8.3(5.6-14.4)

cFGF23 (RU/ml)	116(67-203)

Medication

 Active vitamin D (any)	135(22.4)

 Phosphate binders (any)	56(9.3)


Receptor	Ligand 7	Ligand 11	Ligand 15

CA-II	6	0	5

Cat B	8	1	3

DNA-1	5	2	7

DNA-2	2	2	5

Gyrase	3	1	6

HDAC7	3	0	3

HIS	4	1	4

Kinase	5	0	4

rHA	4	2	2

RNR	6	1	7

Top II	9	4	7

TrxR	6	4	3

TS	7	4	7


	Number of		Number of

Condition	Trials	Patients	Drug treaments	Trial arms	Contributing patients

Arthritis	16	2990	Opioid	24	2173

			Placebo	7	445

			Other comparator	2	447

Musculoskeletal	10	1648	Opioid	18	1561

			Placebo	4	302

			Other comparator	0	0

Neuropathic	5	302	Opioid	5	219

			Placebo	4	178

			Other comparator	1	46

Mixed conditions	3	606	Opioid	6	606

			Placebo	1	49

			Other comparator	0	0


Participants	Gender	Years of implant	Etiology	Implantation site

F.R.	M	9	Neurofibratosis type 2	Brainstem

D.M.	M	13	Trauma with bilateral cochlear fracture	Brainstem

M.A.	F	16	Congenital hearing loss	Cochlea

P.S.	M	15	Congenital hearing loss	Cochlea

M.G.	M	12	Congenital hearing loss	Cochlea

G.A.	F	16	Congenital hearing loss	Cochlea


Gene symbol	Description	Log2FC	Padjusted

FLAI-K-feline	Feline class I antigen-alpha chain-like class I antigen	1.7066	4.95E−06*

LOC101084108	HLA class II histocompatibility antigen, DM alpha chain	0.24295	0.50201

LOC101082906	HLA class II histocompatibility antigen DO beta chain	0.06259	0.8714

LOC101090265	HLA class II histocompatibility antigen, DM beta chain	−0.52204	0.24494

LOC101098301	DLA class II histocompatibility antigen, DR-1 beta chain	−0.61283	0.2607

LOC101088734	HLA class II histocompatibility antigen DR alpha chain-like	−0.63486	0.24216

HMHA1	Minor human histocompatibility protein HA-1	−0.67421	0.0512


Clinicopathological features	N	STK31 methylation	p

+	-

Age	148

<45		49	13	0.741

≥45		66	20

Histology	102

Squamous cell carcinoma		67	13	1.000

Adenocarcinoma		18	4

Differentiation	146

Well + Moderate		75	17	0.584

Poor		42	12

Lymph node metastasis	100

Positive		23	7	0.708

Negative		56	14

FIGO stage	119

IA1 ~ IIA2		50	14	0.617

IIB ~ IIIA		45	10

Tumor size (cm)	148

<1		40	11	0.877

≥1		75	22

HPV16/18	134

No(HPV-negative)		18	0	0.037

Yes		87	29

HPV genotyping	123

HPV16		81	19	0.711

HPV18		20	3

Squamous cell carcinoma-Ag(SCC-Ag)	80

Normal		24	4	1.000

High		45	7

Neoajuvant Chemotherapy	55

No		23	7	0.029

Yes		25	0

Neoajuvant Chemotherapy resistance	55

No		44	9	0.037

Yes		0	2


Recommendation	Quality of evidence	Strength of recommendation	Rationale (Benefits, harms and the preferences of patients and clinicians)

1	Victims with potential spinal injury should have spinal stabilisation.	Very low	Strong	Paucity of literature supporting spinal stabilisation. Very little literature documenting serious harm. Spinal cord injury can have devastating consequences. Potential benefits outweigh harms

2	A minimal handling strategy should be observed.	Very low	Strong	Paucity of literature supporting spinal stabilisation. Very little literature documenting serious harm. Spinal cord injury can have devastating consequences. Potential benefits outweigh possible harms

3	Spinal stabilisation should never delay or preclude life-saving intervention in the critically injured trauma victim.	Very low	Good clinical practice	Literature supporting this recommendation was considered too heterogenous for synthesis. The faculty finds that it is logical that spinal stabilisation in the critically injured patient may cause serious harm

4	Victims of isolated penetrating injury should not be immobilised.	Moderate	Strong	One large study of moderate quality directly supports this recommendation. Spinal injury in patients with isolated penetrating injury is rare

5	Triaging tools based on clinical findings should be implemented.	Moderate	Strong	Consistent evidence supporting triaging tools based on clinical findings rather than mechanism. No harmful effects documented

6	Cervical stabilisation may be achieved using manual in-line stabilisation, head-blocks, a rigid collar or combinations thereof.	Very low	Conditional	Consistent experimental evidence demonstrating how rigid collars can stabilise the cervical spine. However, there is also evidence suggesting harm from rigid collars. No evidence proving superiority of any one method

7	Transfer from the ground or between stretchers should be achieved using a scoop stretcher.	Very low	Conditional	General paucity of evidence. Some evidence for significant spinal motion during log-roll. Some evidence documenting improved stability with scoop stretcher transfers. Safety of scoop stretcher systems is good. No harmful effects documented

8	Patients with potential spinal injury should be transported strapped supine on a vacuum mattress or on an ambulance stretcher system.	Very low	Conditional	Evidence supporting harm from hard surface stretcher systems. No consistent evidence demonstrating increased stability with any one method. Increased comfort associated with soft surface systems. No evidence exploring spinal stability of common stretcher systems

9	Hard surface stretcher systems may be used for transports of shorter duration only.	Very low	Conditional	Evidence supporting harm from hard surface stretcher systems. No consistent evidence demonstrating increased stability with any one method. Increased comfort associated with soft surface systems

10	Patients should under some circumstances be invited to self-extricate from vehicles.	Very low	Conditional	Two experimental studies demonstrating improved stability with self-extrication from vehicles. Reasonable and practical alternative as long as used cautiously


Nutrient	Oxygen (kJ/l)	Carbon dioxide (kJ/l)

Carbohydrate	21.1	21.1

Protein	18.7	23.4

Fat	19.6	27.8


Demographic variable		Pre (N = 88)	Post (N = 69)

		n (%)	n (%)	Test statistics

Gender	Female	63(72)	53(77)	x2 = 0.546, df = 1, p = 0.46

Male	25(28)	16(23)

Scenario version	CT ICU scenario	48(55)	45(65)	x2 = 1.824, df = 1, p = 0.177

Gen ICU scenario	40(45)	24(35)

Age	20 - 29	21(24)	21(30)	x2 = 2.566, df = 4, p = 0.63

30 - 39	43(49)	29(42)

40 - 49	20(23)	18(26)

50 - 59	3(3)	1(1)

60 - 69	1(1)

Current unit*		[n = 76]	[n = 58]	x2 = 3.469, df = 2, p = 0.176

Private ICU	25(33)	17(29)

General ICU	32(42)	18(31)

Cardiothoracic ICU	19(25)	23(40)

Current designation	RN	56(64)	39(567)	x2 = 5.331, df = 6, p = 0.502

CNS	20(23)	19(27)

RMO	3(3)	1(1)

Registrar/Senior Registrar	5(6))	7(10)

Consultant	4(4)	2(3)

Role	Nurse	76(86)	58(84)	x2 = 0.164, df = 1, p = 0.69

Doctor	12(14)	11(16)

Current employment type	Full Time	64(73)	47(69)	x2 = 1.154, df = 3, p = 0.76

Part Time	22(25)	20(29)

Casual/Other	2(2)	1(1)

Highest level of education	Hospital Certificate	3(4)		x2 = 7.35, df = 8, p = 0.499

Associate Diploma/Diploma	8(9)	2(3)

Bachelors Degree	39(44)	28(41)

Graduate Certificate	21(24)	20(29)

Graduate Diploma	6(7)	9(13)

Masters Degree	8(9)	8(12)

PhD	1(1)	1(1)

Other	2(2)	1(1)

Enrolled in higher degree study^	Yes	25(29)	13(20)	x2 = 1.642, df = 1, p = 0.20

Level of higher degree study enrolled in^		[n = 25]	[n = 13]	x2 = 3.562, df = 4, p = 0.47

Graduate Certificate/Diploma	14(56)	6(50)

Masters Degree by coursework	5(20)	4(33)

PhD	2(8)	2(17)

Other	4(16)

	mean(SD)	range	mean(SD)	range

Years employed in current unit^	5.09(6.09)	3 weeks to 38 yrs	4.61(4.57)	1 month to 18 yrs	t = 0.561, df = 151.63, p = 0.576

Years of ICU experience	7.03(6.55)	3 weeks to 38 yrs	6.58(5.70)	1 month to 21 yrs	t = 0.457, df = 153.24, p = 0.649


	NSCLC cases (n = 34)	Controls (n = 30)	P-value

Age	67.56 (SD 11.12)	64.48 (SD 11.25)	0.33

Sex			0.35

 Female	10	9

 Male	24	21

Race			0.39

 White	22	20

 African American	11	10

 Pack-years (median)	34.28	31.36	0.32

Stage

 Stage I	10

 Stage II	9

 Stage III-IV	15

Histological type

 Adenocarcinoma	21

 Squamous cell carcinoma	13


Percentile threshold	Number of ET SNPs	Number of ET genes	Number of diseases appropriately distributed among ET populations	Number of ET genes associated with appropriately distributed diseases	Permutation P value

95th/5th	22	33	6	4	0.0237

90th/10th	168	230	27	15	0.0111

85th/15th	733	971	42	49	0.0023


Characteristic	n = 15

GENDER

Male	14

Female	1

AGE (YEARS)

Mean	60 ± 6.8

Range	52–74

BASELINE MEDICINE USE

Mean duration (years)	2.2 ± 1.4

Mean l-DOPA equivalents (mg/day)	451 ± 304

BASELINE UPDRS SCORE

Mean total	39 ± 14

Mean UPDRS-III	15 ± 8.5


Fear	Attraction

Call	No call	Total

Suspension bridge	9	9	18

Solid bridge	2	14	16

Total	11	23	34


Bacteria spp.	Specimen	Total

Aspirate	Blood	Pus swab	Sputum	Urine

K. pneumoniae 	1	23	28	0	24	76

E. coli 	1	8	31	1	15	56

P. aeruginosa 	1	16	22	0	2	41

C. freundii 	0	1	8	0	6	15

 A. baumannii 	0	2	8	0	0	10

P. vulgaris 	0	0	7	0	0	7

E. cloacae 	0	3	0	0	2	5

M. morganii 	0	0	2	0	1	3

P. mirabilis 	0	0	1	0	1	2

S. marcescens 	0	2	4	0	3	9

Salmonella typhi	0	0	0	0	1	1

Salmonella spp.	0	0	1	0	1	2

Total	3	55	112	1	56	227


Characteristics	Placebo (n = 59)	NAC (n = 55)

Age (years)	78.2 ±11.8	78.1 ± 12.0

Sex (M/F)	29/30	28/27

BMI (kg/m2)	24.4 ± 4.6	25.0 ± 4.8

Diabetes	11 (19%)	15 (27%)

Blood pressure (mmHg)

Diastolic	69.1 ± 11.7	67.0 ± 17.2

Systolic	129.5 ± 20.8	132.9 ± 22.5

Contrast medium (mL)	117.7 ± 3.2	117.4 ± 1.8

Creatinine (μmol/L)	133.5 ± 34.8	132.4 ± 34.8

Cystatin C (mg/L)	1.9 ± 0.5	1.9 ± 0.6

eGFR (MDRD) (ml/min/1.73)	41.7 ± 1.2	42.7 ± 1.2

Antibiotics	16 (27%)	16 (29%)

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACE-1 inhibitor)	28 (48%)	25 (45%)

Non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDS)	1 (2%)	5 (9%)

Diuretics	27 (46%)	25 (45%)


Sample type	Herd A	Herd B

Peat	na	20

Water	1	1

Sawdust	20	20

Faeces from sows	15	17

Faeces at 6 weeks of age	95	146

Faeces at 8 weeks of age	95	164

Mandibular lymph nodes	95	123

Jejunal lymph nodes	nd	127


 	n	%

Prevention of postpartum hemorrhage

Target population: women giving birth in health facilities	132	100.00%

Oxytocin	114	86.36%

Any uterotonic (including oxytocin)	115	87.12%

Treatment of severe postpartum hemorrhage

Target population: women with severe PPH	84	100.00%

Oxytocin	57	67.86%

Ergometrine	52	61.90%

Misoprostol	35	41.67%

Other uterotonics	3.	3.57%

Any of the above uterotonics	57	67.86%

Tranexamic acid	6	7.14%

Removal of retained products	16	19.05%

Balloon or condom tamponade	1.	1.19%

Artery ligation	4	4.76%

Hysterectomy	50	59.52%

Abdominal packing	4	4.76%

Proportion of cases with SMO	80	95.24%

Mortality	6.	7.14%

Anticonvulsants for Eclampsia

Target population: women with eclampsia	43	100.00%

Magnesium sulfate	29	67.44%

Other anticonvulsant	22	51.16%

Any anticonvulsant	40	93.02%

Proportion of cases with SMO	26	60.47%

Mortality	4	9.30%

Prevention of caesarean section related infection

Target population: women undergoing caesarean section	107	100.00%

Prophylactic antibiotic during caesarean section	65	60.75%

Treatment for sepsis

Target population: women with sepsis	10	100.00%

Parenteral therapeutic antibiotics	10	100.00%

Proportion of cases with SMO	6	60.00%

Mortality	2	20.00%

Ruptured uterus

Target population: women with ruptured uterus	29	100.00%

Laparotomy	28	96.55%

Laparotomy after 3 hours of hospital stay	5	17.24%

Proportion of cases with SMO	24	82.76%

Mortality	3	10.34%

Preterm birth

Target population: women having a preterm delivery after 3 hours of hospital stay	18	100.00%

Corticosteroids for fetal lung maturation	10	55.56%


Characteristic	Control mean (SD) or n (%)	Intervention mean (SD) or n (%)	Total mean (SD) or n (%)

Female	128 (76 %)	123 (72 %)	251 (74 %)

Male	41 (24 %)	48 (38 %)	89 (26 %)

Age, years	81 (8)	82 (8)	81 (8)

Weight loss ≥ 5 % body weight	23 (14 %)	16 (9 %)	39 (12 %)

Co-morbidities, number	6.9 (2.7)	7.2 (2.9)	7.1 (2.8)

History of falls	52 (31 %)	48 (28 %)	100 (29 %)

Falls as the presenting problem to hospital	67 (40 %)	76 (44 %)	143 (42 %)

Length of original hospital stay*	9 (12)	11 (15)	10 (13)

Living in low-care residential facility	12 (7 %)	8 (5 %)	20 (6 %)

** MMSE score, mean (SD)/30	28.0 (1.8)	27.9 (2.0)	28.0 (1.9)


Body Point	Body Side	Localization

Foot	bilaterally	Basis Metatarsales V

Ankle	bilaterally	Malleolus lateralis

Knee	bilaterally	Epicondylus lateralis femoris

Hip	bilaterally	Trochanter major

Elbow	bilaterally	Epicondylus lateralis humeri

Shoulder	bilaterally	Acromio-clavicular join

Wrist	bilaterally	Os capitatum


pilE	No. isolates	No. countries	Years	No. ccs	No. alleles

Class I	219	5	1963-2011	21 + n/a	219

Class II	77	29	1937-2011	6	15


Characteristic	Baseline value

Age (years)	48.63 (± 13.5)

Ethnicity

 White	125 (46.99%)

 Hispanic	77 (28.95%)

 African American	54 (20.3%)

 Other	10 (3.76%)

Female sex	221 (83.08%)

Current smoker	49 (18.42%)

Ever smoker	134 (50.38%)

Disease duration (years)a	2.53 (± 1.63)

Limited skin involvement	110 (41.35%)

Autoantibodies

 Antinuclear antibodies	254 (95.49%)

 Anti-centromere antibodies	32 (12.03%)

 Anti-topoisomerase antibodies	49 (18.42%)

 Anti-RNA polymerase III	61 (22.93%)

 Anti-U1-ribonucleoprotein	30 (11.28%)

 Anti-Ro	10 (3.8%)

 Anti-fibrillarin	28 (10.69%)

Percentage predicted forced vital capacity

 > 80%	132 (58.15%)

 50 to 80%	81 (35.68%)

 < 50%	14 (6.17%)


Characteristic	n = 432	(%)

Age group (years)

6–9	93	21.5

10–14	339	78.5

Sex

Female	224	51.9

Male	208	48.1

Location of school

Rural	203	47.0

Urban slums	229	53.0

Ownership of school

Public	217	50.2

Private	215	49.8


	Alternative therapyModerate protein C deficiency24 μg/kg/hr	Standard therapyModerate protein C deficiency24 μg/kg/hr

Duration of study drug infusion	Number of patients	Number of deaths	Percent deaths	Number of patients	Number of deaths	Percent deaths

Total	172	43	25.0	173	20	11.6

≥97 hours*†	71	17a	23.9	70	8b	11.4

< 97 hours†	71	20c	28.2	65	9d	13.8

Patients with shorter infusions of DAA ‡	30	6e	20.0	38	3f	7.9


Type	Description	Example

Change in environment	The Plan structure, that is the totality of means for satisfying basic needs, does not fit to changes in the environment or to a new environment	An individual with first-episode psychosis is not able to satisfy his need for autonomy within the restricted setting of a secure ward with his usual Plan “Decide on appointments for yourself,” due to a predefined weekly schedule

Loss of individual abilities	The means for a purpose (e.g., skills) are no longer available	Neuropsychological deficits accompanying schizophrenia impede studying and block the Plan “graduate”

Rigid Plan structure	An important Plan has only a single (or too few) means for its realization	The Plan “Heighten self-esteem” is exclusively realized with the means “Stick to conviction of being loved by Jodie Foster” (erotomanic delusion)

Conflicting Plans	The means of a Plan endangers another important Plan	The Plan “Conceal hearing voices” endangers the Plan “Seek help when distressed”

Dominance of avoidance Plans	A high number of avoidance Plans reduce the degrees of freedom for realizing approach plans	The Plans “Avoid stress” and “Avoid a new psychotic episode” hinder the approach Plan “Try to make new friends”


	Function	Direct interaction

R2TP complex target	Target complex	R2TP complex	R2TP component	Target complex component

Confirmed

RNA polymerase II	Transcription	Assembly	?	?

snoRNPs	Biogenesis of ribosomes, spliceosomes, and telomerase

boxC/D snoRNPs	2′-O-methylation of preRNA	Assembly	PIH1D1?	NOP58?

H/ACA snoRNPs	Pseudouridylation of prerRNA	Assembly	PIH1D1?	NAP57?

SMG1	Nonsense mediated mRNA decay	Assembly	PIH1D1	TEL2

mTORC1	Central regulator of cell metabolism	Assembly	PIH1D1	TEL2

ATM/ATR/DNA-PK	Kinases involved in DNA damage signaling	Possibly assembly	PIH1D1	TEL2

Potential

ECD/p53	Transcription factor involved in DNA damage response	possibly assembly	PIH1D1	ECD

UBR5	E3 ubiquitin ligase involved in DNA damage signaling	?	PIH1D1	UBR5

INO80	Chromatin remodeling complex, involved in repair of DNA double strand breaks	Possibly loading RUVBL1/2	?	?, RUVBL1/2

TIP 60	Chromatin remodeling complex, acetyl-transferase activity important for DNA damage response	Possibly loading RUVBL1/2	?	?, RUVBL1/2

SWI/SCRAP	Chromatin remodeling complex, DNA damage signaling	Possibly loading RUVBL1/2	?	?, RUVBL1/2

Fanconi anemia core complex	Recognition and repair of DNA crosslinks	Possibly loading RUVBL1/2	?	?, RUVBL1/2


		Albino	Pigmented

		m-dRGCs	m-oRGCs	m-dRGCs	m-oRGCs

A: Total	Melanopsin (n = 6/strain)	54 ± 12	2329 ± 198	212 ± 21	2216 ± 154

	mRGC population (displaced + orthotopic)	2383 ± 178	2428 ± 172

B: Ipsilateral	FG+ and melanopsin+ (n = 3–5/strain)	0.2 ± 0.4	64 ± 14	12 ± 4	89 ± 8

	Total ipsilateral m-RGCs (displaced + orthotopic)	65 ± 14	101 ± 8


Group	Number of mice	Wt/Wt(% of total)	Wt/KO(% of total)	KO/KO(% of total)

Fetus†

 Conventional	28	7 (25)	12 (43)	9 (32)

 Cre-loxP	14	2(14)	8 (57)	4 (29)

Adult§

 Conventional	127	40 (32)	66 (52)	21 (16)**

 Cre-loxP	251	126 (50)§§	97 (39)‡‡	28 (11)§§

Dead§

 Conventional	14	0**	4 (29)‡‡	10 (71)§§


	Intervention received

A	B	C

n	n	n

Formal responsibility for doing or managing research in CCG?	Yes, doing and managing	5	2	2

Yes, managing	3	3	7

Yes, doing	1	2	0

Neither	28	35	17

Highest educational achievement?	School level	2	0	0

Undergraduate	17	27	12

Master’s degree	14	13	8

Higher degree	3	2	6

Clinical qualifications?	No	16	8	6

Yes	21	34	20

Worked as a researcher in an academic context	No	34	42	24

Yes	5	11	13

Commissioned research	No	29	47	32

Yes	10	6	5

Been a co-applicant or advisor on a research project	No	30	44	30

Yes	9	9	7

Been employed as a researcher	No	35	49	32

Yes	4	4	5


Data Source	Total N	Mean # days	Median # days	Max # days	P-value for χ2

Provider	1878	10.5	5	375	Reference

Faxed-LR	1142	3.6	2	367	<0.0001

HIE-ELR	7393	2.0	1	320	<0.0001

Any Laboratorya	8535	2.2	1	367	<0.0001


	RF	MSNODmax	NAR

Training	171	171	171

Evaluation	16 + 2 parents	15 + 2 parents	9 + 2 parents


	MZ	DZ

Age (years)	22.9 ± 2.8	23.7 ± 3.7

Weight(kg)	56.3 ± 6.5	59.2 ± 10.3

Height (cm)	165.5 ± 4.8	167.1 ± 6.1

Instrument playing (h/week)	1.0 ± 0.5	1.5 ± 0.2

Keyboard writing (h/week)	3.9 ± 1.0	4.1 ± 2.3

Oldfield handedness score	0.9 ± 0.0	0.8 ± 0.0

Physical activity score	8.5 ± 2.1	8.3 ± 2.9


	Possible IA	Probable and proven IA

n=12	n=11

Antifungal treatment-n a

Liposomal amphotericin B	6	3

Caspofungin	3	1

Voriconazole	11	10

Duration of treatment (days)-Mean (range)

Liposomal amphotericin B	7 (1;12)	8 (2;20)

Caspofungin	6 (3;9)	11 (3;25)

Voriconazole	100 (2;235)	130 (42;261)

Causes of Voriconazole discontinuation-n b

Complete response	10	5

Failure	0	1

Death	1	4

Clinical Response (days)-Mean (range)

Time to apyrexia	6 (1;14)	11 (1;19)

TDM evaluation-n	7	9

Aggravation	0	2


 	Number of instances	Reasons

Number of ‘potential’ PI instances in the notes (within 500 notes)	89	70.9% due to misspellings; 20.9% due to PIs being un-entered in source

Type of Potential PIs

Patient Nickname	20	Un-entered PI

Patient First Name	18	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Old Address Post Code	14	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Patient Date of Birth	13	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Patient Contact Number	2	Un-entered PI

Patient Last Name	10	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Old Address Line 1	5	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Patient Middle Name	4	Un-entered PI

Old Address Line 2	2	Un-entered PI or misspellings

Old Address Line 3	1	Un-entered PI or misspellings


Operative data:

Operation time min (± SD)	203.96 (±58.51)

Cardiopulmonary bypass times min (± SD)	88.71 (±39.97)

Clamp times min (± SD)	45.95 (±22.63)

Of-pump procedures	1 (1)

Venous bypass grafts (exclusivly)	15 (12)

Total arterial revascularization	66 (52)

Arterial and venous revascularization	43 (34)

Number of performed bypass grafts n (± SD)	2.87 (±0.92)

Concomittant procedures

Mitral valve repair	3

Mitral valve replacement	3

Aortic valve replacement	1

DOR Plasty	3

Carotid TEA	1


	Predicted	Percentage Correct (%)

RRMS	HC

Observed	RRMS	22	3	88.0

HC	5	17	77.3

Overall percentage			83.0


 	TOR120 (n = 43)	EXE (n = 45)

Grade1,2	Grade3,4	Grade1,2	Grade3,4

Nausea	4*	0	1	0

Fatigue	3*	0	1	0

Hot flush	3*	-	1	-

Night sweating	3*	-	0	-

Vaginal bleeding, discharge	2	-	0	-

Joint pain, disorder	1	-	2	-

Liver dysfunction	1	0	1	0

Exanthema	1	0	0	0


 	Normal hearing	Abnormal hearing

n	55	15

Mean age (years)	5.06 (range 3–9)	5.81 (range 3–13)

Duration of tablet assessment (secs)*	109±65	317±113

Number of objects*	23.8±9.45	67.1±19.1

Reliability (%)	90.4±22.4	92.0±10.8


Findings	Eyes/patients (%)

Anterior segment

normal	90/45(96)

corneal opacity	1/1(2)

bleb	1/1(2)

Posterior segment

normal	81/38(76)

tubercles	5/5(10)

scars	3/3(6)

chorioretinitis	1/1(2)

CMV retinitis	1/1(2)

HIV retinopathy	2/1(2)

Secondary open-angle glaucoma	1/1(2)


	False Positive Rate

Target	Mann-Whitney U	Spearman Correlation	Binomial test

		GC Corrected		GC Corrected		GC Corrected

WNV	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%

HCoV-SARS	7%	0%	100%	0%	0%	0%

EV18	63%	15%	100%	12%	14%	0%

LASV	11%	0%	100%	0%	0%	0%

ZEBOV	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%

VSV	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%

HAdV-4	100%	30%	100%	5%	18%	0%

FLUA H1N1	20%	1%	100%	0%	0%	0%

HSV-1	8%	0%	0%	1%	2%	0%

Negative Control (200 ng HuDNA)	100%	0%	1%	0%	1%	0% †

Negative Control (200 ng HuDNA)	100%	0%	100%	1%	1%	0%

Negative Control (200 ng HuDNA)	100%	0%	100%	1%	1%	0%

Negative Control (200 ng HuDNA)	100%	0%	100%	0%	1%	0%

Negative Control (10 ng HuDNA)	100%	0%	88%	0%	2%	0%

Negative Control	100%	0%	100%	0%	0%	0% †

Negative Control	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%

Negative Control	4%	0%	2%	0%	0%	0%

Average	48%	3%	58%	1%	2%	0%


1	2	3	4	5

Euglena	Daisy	Blackberry	Parasite(s)	Sea cucumber	Fish(es)	Frog

Bacterium	Plant(s)	Lotus	Earthworm	Tick	Shark

Amoeba	Tree(s)	Jasmine	Spider	Snail	Stingray

Mushroom	Rose	Mistletoe	Beetle(s)	Hydra

Algae	Flower(s)	Purslane	Butterfly	Invertebrate

Paramecium	Cactus	Daffodil	Bee	Jellyfish

Monera	Grass	Kiwi	Grasshopper	Calamari

Protists	Fern	Snowdrop	Scorpion	Mussel

Plasmodium	Tulip	Willow	Fly	Mantis

Plankton	Chrysanthemum	Geranium	Ant	Sponge

Planaria	Sunflower	Begonia	Caterpillar	Cockroach

 	Hyacinth	Violet	Cancer	Ladybug

 	 	 	Millipede	Octopus

6	7	8	9	10

Snake	Bird(s)	Lion	Squirrel	Dog	Human, human names

Crocodile	Eagle	Bear	Panda	Cat

Lizard	Bat	Tiger	Monk seal	Mouse

Turtle	Penguin	Monkey	Leopard	Rabbit

Reptile	Parrot	Giraffe	Weasel	Cow

Chameleon	Falcon	Elephant	Panther	Horse

Iguana	Pigeon	Whale	Vertebrate	Donkey

Dragon	Duck	Wolf	Tapir	Sheep

 	Cock, Rooster	Fox	Gazelle	Ox

 	Chicken, Chick	Gorilla	Cougar	Camel

 	Owl	Dolphin	Skunk	Goat

 	Partridge	Kangaroo	Cheetah	Mammal(s)

 	Sparrow	Koala	Rhinoceros	Calf

 	Hawk	Hippopotamus	Otter	Lamb

 	Canary	Zebra	Anteater	Buffalo

 	Ostrich	Hedgehog	Hyena	Lama

 	Vulture	Animal(s)	Pork	Mule

 	 	 	Lynx	Bull


	Total visits	No. referred (%)	No. of nonsevere referrals (%)*	No. of severe referrals (%)*

Trial arm

 Control (presumptive arm)	2,404	314 (13.1)	180 (67.7)	86 (32.3)

 Intervention (mRDT arm)	1,097	782 (71.3)	444 (58.3)	317 (41.7)

Within intervention arm

 mRDT negative	1,064	770 (72.4)	439 (58.4)	313 (41.6)

 mRDT positive	34	13 (38.2)	5 (50.0)	5 (50.0)

ACT prescription†

 ACT not prescribed	1,053	782 (74.3)	454 (59.8)	305 (40.2)

 ACT prescribed	2,328	209 (9.0)	138 (79.8)	35 (20.2)

 Rectal artesunate prescribed	59	58 (98.3)	12 (23.5)	39 (76.5)


 	Total	Percentage

Gender

 Male	50	41.5

 Female	70	58.5

Age groups

 21–29	2	1.6

 30–39	8	6

 40–49	22	18.3

 50–59	21	18

 60–69	23	19.1

 70–79	27	22.5

 80–89	17	14.1

Educational attainment

 Illiterate	63	52.5

 Primary	31	25.8

 Middle	16	13.3

 Secondary	7	5.8

 University	3	2.5

Occupation

 Females

Housewives	63	90

Primary teacher	7	10

 Males

Shopkeepers	12	24

Farmers	22	44

Labour	8	16

Primary teachers	8	16


Medicinal plant species	Ailments treated in current study	Previous reports of ethnomedical uses	Country of previous use

Vernonia amygdalina	Malaria	Malaria	Uganda [63, 101], Ghana [98], Cameroon [102], Democratic Republic of Congo(DRC) [103], Rwanda [104]

Wounds	Nigeria [105]

Skin rashes, diarrhoea, herpes zoster, cryptococcal meningitis	Tanzania [106]

Infertility, amenorrhea	South Africa [107]

Tonsolitis	Ethiopia [108]

Ageratum conyzoides	Uterine pains, helminth infections	Splenomegaly, colic pains, wounds	Uganda [1]

Vernonia lasiopus	Malaria, stomachaches	Skin allergy, constipation	Uganda [1]

Cleome gynandra	Prolonged labour	Convulsions, diphtheria, toothaches, peptic ulcers, vomiting	Uganda [1, 19]

Aloe vera	Malaria	Wounds	Kenya [96]

Prunus africana	Enlarged prostate	Prostate and breast cancers, Hypertension	Kenya [96, 109]

Capscum frutescens	Prostate cancer	Throat, breast and squamous cell carcinoma	Kenya [109]

Amaranthus spinosus	Scalp fungal infections	Haemorrhoids	Nigeria [57]

Mangifera indica	Cough, infertility, convulsions	Haemorrhoids	Nigeria [57]


	Sensory disturbance group(N = 26)	Non-sensory disturbance group(N = 94)	p value

Gender	Male	12	49	0.38

Female	14	45

Age (years)	24.7 ± 10.1	24.3 ± 11.9	0.87

BMI	24.6 ± 3.1	23.3 ± 3.7	0.40

Tendon grafta	3 patients (11.5%)	10 patients (10.6%)	0.57


Annotation Category	Male	Female

Behaviour	16	11

Cell Cycle	21	27

Defence Response	29	34

Development	56	87

Metabolism	273	192

Mitochondrial	39	3

Proteolysis	34	25

Response to Toxin	7	8

Signal Transduction	59	66

Structural	32	31

Synaptic Transmission	11	13

Transcription	17	34

Translation	19	14

Transport	110	81

Unknown	203	178

Total No. of Genes	563	481


Primary Breast Tissue	Cases	Promoter Methylation (%)	Statistical Test

RASSF1A	RASSF10

Normal	n = 25	2/25 (8%)	p < 0.005	1/25 (4%)	p < 0.005	Fishers Exact two tailed

Tumours	n = 27	15/27 (56%)	17/27 (63%)


Variable	Patients

(N = 828)

Gender (M/F)*	687 / 141

Age (y)	67 (9)

Pack-years	56 (28)

Active smoking*	29%

BMI (kg/m2)	28.1 (5.5)

FEV1L	1.65 (0.65)

FEV1%	56 (28)

PaO2 (mmHg)	67.4 (9.6)

FVC L	3.130 (0.94)

FVC%	88 (19)

FEV1/FVC	53 (11)

6MWD (m)	438 (104)

Dyspnea (mMRC)†	1 (0-4)

BODE index†	4 (0-6)

IC/TLC	0.35 (0.10)

KCO	74 (24)

Charlson index†	1 (0-5)

Exacerbations ≥2 per patient-years‡	0.15 (0.01)

Hospitalization ≥1 per patient-years‡	0.12 (0.01)

Inhaled anticholinergic*	75%

Inhaled β2-agonist*	74%

Inhaled corticosteroid*	65%

CAT†	11 (2-27)

CCQ†	1,3 (0-3.7)


Map Type	Count

ESTs mapping to the human transcriptome (p ≤ 9 × 10-7)	140,906

ESTs mapping to the human genome and overlapping with a processed transcript	1261

ESTs which map to a transcribed region	8,221

ESTs which map to the human Genome alone	9,482

ESTs not correlating with the human genome (p ≤ 9 × 10-5)	20,981

Total	181,279


Proteins	Functions

Ionized calcium-binding adaptor molecule (Iba)1	Cytoplasmic protein constitutively expressed by microglia, upregulated in inflammation. Iba1 is involved in cytoskeletal reorganization, membrane ruffling of the microglial processes and actin cross-linking needed for cell migration [23], thus reflecting microglial motility and migration properties.

CD68	CD68 labels lysosomal and endosomal transmembrane glycoprotein of microglia, indicating phagocytic activity [33].

Human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DR	HLA-DR is a Major Histocompatibility Class (MHC) II cell surface receptor which presents antigens to cells of the immune system eliciting an immune response, involved in the non-self recognition and upregulated in inflammation [34].

Macrophage scavenger receptor (MSR)-A	MSR-A is a lipoprotein receptor involved in direct ligand recognition and scavenging activity. Its mouse homolog, scavenger receptor A (SR-A), is associated with plaques and release of reactive oxygen species and neurotoxic substances by microglia upon stimulation with fibrillar Aβ [35]. We previously showed a clustering pattern of MSR-A-positive microglia round plaques in Alzheimer's disease [16] suggesting expression of MSR-A may cause immobilization of the microglia when they encounter plaques [16, 26].

CD64 (Fcγ receptor I)	CD64 is a cell surface receptor with high affinity for the Fc portion of immunoglobulin (IgG), triggering a monocyte/macrophage response [30]. Expression of CD64 reflects the presence of immunoglobulins in the brain and thus the involvement of systemic immunity [36]. Overall FcγRs are important for antibody-dependent cytotoxicity, antigen presentation via MHC, clearance of antibodies and phagocytosis [37].


Type	Symbol	Theme	Relevant figure	Supporting cluster(s)

Chemical-gene	A+	Agonism, activation	3a	6+

	A−	Antagonism, blocking		6–

	B	Binding, ligand (esp. receptors)		14–16

	E+	Increases expression/production		8+, 9+

	E−	Decreases expression/production		8–, 9–, 10

	E	Affects expression/production (neutral)		8, 9, 11a

	N	Inhibits		3

Gene-chemical	O	Transport, channels	3a	19, 21

	K	Metabolism, pharmacokinetics		11c

	Z	Enzyme activity		20

Chemical-disease	T	Treatment/therapy (incl. investigatory)	3b	8g, 8h, 9

	C	Inhibits cell growth (esp. cancers)		2, 3

	Sa	Side effect/adverse event		6, 15, 16

	Pr	Prevents, suppresses		1, 9, 21, 24, 28

	Pa	Alleviates, reduces		26, 30

	J	Role in pathogenesis		20

Disease-chemical	Mp	Biomarkers (progression)	3b	18, 19

gene-disease	U	Causal mutations	3c	14

	Ud	Mutations affect disease course		13

	D	Drug targets		10, 12

	J	Role in pathogenesis		2h, 4, 6, 8, 9

	Te	Possible therapeutic effect		2j, 3

	Y	Polymorphisms alter risk		22, 26, 27

	G	Promotes progression		29

Disease-gene	Md	Biomarkers (diagnostic)	3c	5, 7

	X	Overexpression in disease		15, 17, 30

	L	Improper regulation linked to disease		18, 19, 21

Gene–gene	B	Binding, ligand (esp. receptors)	3d	10

	W	Enhances response		13

	V+	Activates, stimulates		14, 16

	E+	Increases expression/production		21, 22

	E	Affects expression/production (neutral)		7, 17

	I	Signaling pathway		24

	H	Same protein or complex		25

	Rg	Regulation		28, 30

	Q	Production by cell population		1, 2, 6


Variables	p values - Left	p values - Right

LPFX LAF	0.995	0.999

LPFX OAF	0.969	0.246

LPFX OPF	0.089	0.104

LAFX OAF	0.996	0.248

LAFX OPF	0.050	0.106

OAFX OPF	0.027*	0.976


Variable	Odds Ratio	95% CI	P value

Cataract surgery

 Before first eye surgery	1.0

 After first eye surgery	0.3	0.1–0.7	0.004

 After second eye surgery	0.1	0.1–0.4	< 0.001

Gender

 Female	1.0

 Male	0.4	0.1–1.3	0.122

Age group (years)

 55–64	1.0

 65–74	0.1	0.1–1.2	0.072

 75+	0.7	0.6–8.0	0.737

Marital status

 Single	1.0

 Married/de facto	0.3	0.1–1.2	0.096

Retirement status

 Not retired	1.0

 Retired	5.6	1.1–27.7	0.036

Number of comorbidities	1.1	0.9–1.4	0.257

MMSE score	1.0	0.9–1.2	0.803


Variable	Measurement Items	Reference

BI	1. If the hospital decides to develop MEMR in the future, I shall frequently use it.	Hu et al. 1999 [9]

2. If the hospital decides to develop MEMR in the future, I will use it to assist my healthcare work.

3. I think I will recommend other physicians (from this hospital or not) to use MEMR.

4. If the hospital decides to develop MEMR in the future, it will become one of my favorite assistance tools for my work.

PU	1. Using MEMR will speed up my work (e.g. going on rounds and consulting medical records).	Davis et al. 1989 [5]; Davis 1989 [52]

2. Using MEMR will improve my work quality (such as enhancing the immediacy of prescribing physician orders).

3. Using MEMR will make it easier to conduct my work.

4. Using MEMR will improve my working performance.

5. Using MEMR will help me to control my work better.

PEOU	1. It is easy to understand the operations of MEMR.]	Davis et al. 1989 [5]; Davis 1989 [52]

2. It is easy to use MEMR to finish my work.

3. On the whole, MEME is easy to use.

PT	1. Using MEMR may decrease my control over clinical decisions.	Walter & Lopez 2008 [15]

2. Using MEMR may decrease my professional discretion over patient care decisions.

3. Using MEMR can decrease my control over each step of the patient care process.

4. Using MEMR may increase the monitoring of my diagnostic and therapeutic decisions by non-providers.

5. Using MEMR may decrease my control over the allocation of scarce resources.

6. I would find MEMR advantageous for the medical profession as a whole.

PM	1. I can access the MEMR at any time for the necessary information or service for my patient care	Lee 2005 [53]

2. I can access the MEMR anywhere for the necessaryzinformation or service for my patient care

3. I can use the MEMR “anywhere,” and “anytime” at the point of patient care.


Parameters	Traditional Technology [35]	Author’s Technology [36]

Wear intensity I∙10−7, mm3/N∙m	8.2	4.9

Breaking strength σb, MPa	18.0	24.0

Ratio of CF and PTFE powder (volume) in filler preparation 	-	1:1


Transcription		Meaning unit	ICF category

Moderator:	If you think about your body, what functional problems do you have?

Patient A:	I used to go to sports very often. Now I can't anymore. I even had to quit swimming	Restriction of sports Quit swimming	d9201 sports d4554 swimming

Patient B:	Exactly! I also had to quit swimming.

Patient C:	I can no longer cycle. (...)	Quit cycling	d4750 driving human-powered transportation

Moderator:	If you think about your body, where are your biggest problems?

Patient C:	Toes, ankle joints, knee joints, fingers	ToesAnkle joints	s7502 structure of ankle & foots75021 ankle joint & joints of foot and toes

		Knee joints	s75011 knee joint

		Fingers	s7302 structure of hand

Patient A:	What bothers me are my wrists. (...)	Wrists	s73021 joints of hand and fingers


	Control	Mild periodontitis	Moderate periodontitis	Severe periodontitis	Implant

	(I)	(II)	(III)	(IV)	(V)

MMP-8 (ng/mL)

 Range	0.21–20.70	0.20–31.50	0.34–54.90	0.20–48.51	0.30–347.00

 Mean ± SD	5.61 ± 6.55	7.40 ± 9.07	12.43 ± 16.01	13.17 ± 16.43	40.46 ± 80.29

I versus II, P = 0.0020I versus III, P = 0.0003I versus IV, P = 0.020I versus V, P = 0.0099	II versus III, P = 0.0313II versus IV, P = 0.13II versus V, P = 0.0321	III versus IV, P = 0.357III versus V, P = 0.0489IV versus V, P = 0.0255


INVERSION	SIZE (Mb)	GENOMIC DISORDER/REARRANGEMENT	REFERENCE

inv(3)(q29)	1.9	3q29 microdeletion syndrome	[29]

inv(5)(q35)	1.3	Sotos syndrome	[30]

inv(7)(q11.23)	1.8	Williams-Beuren syndrome	[31]

inv(8)(p23)	4.7	8p23 microdeletion syndrome	[32]

inv(15)(q11q13)	4	Angelman syndrome	[12]

inv(15)(q13.3)	2	15q13.3 deletion syndrome	[33]

inv(17)(q12)	1.5	RCAD syndrome	[29]

inv(17)(q21.31)	0.9	17q21.21 deletion syndrome	[34]


Type of Nasal-Spray Container (group)	Positive Cultures (No.)	Negative Cultures (No.)	Total

1 (Cap-off)	3	63	66

2 (Cap-on)	1	65	66

3 (Control)	0	66	66

Total	4	194	198


	Test A versus B	Test B versus C

	Medially loaded	Laterally loaded	Medially loaded	Laterally loaded

Proximal migration	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.04

Varus rotation	0.2	0.3	0.04	0.04

Flexion tilt	0.9	0.1	0.04	0.04


Macronutrient	Source	Content at 20 kcal/fl oz (g/L)	Content at 30 kcal/fl oz (g/L)

Protein equivalent	100% free L-amino acids	20.3	30.1

Carbohydrate	100% corn syrup solids	72.3	107.0

Fat	38% high-oleic safflower oil, 33% medium chain triglycerides, 29% soy oil	32.2	47.6


Concordance	Coder 1(YS)	Coder 2 (AV)

0 (non found)	16 (1.7%)		4 (0.4%)

1 (partly concordant)	127 (13%)		114 (11.7%)

 1a. target (SNOMED CT) more specific than source (KSH97-P)		77 (60%)		75 (65%)

 1b. target less specific than source		25 (20%)		20 (18%)

 1c. imprecise but neither more nor less specific'		25 (20%)		19 (17%)

2 (completely concordant)	829 (85.3%)		854 (87.9%)

Total	972 (100%)	127 (100%)	972 (100%)	114 (100%)


The maximum level of non-compliance, with the seasonality adjustment	The maximum level of non-compliance, without the seasonality adjustment	Total (with seasonal adjustments)

Always compliant	At least one first warning	At least one second warning	At least one third warning	Liable for suspension

Calculation method 1

 Always compliant	13426	524	60	0	0	14010

 At least one first warning	0	607	101	13	0	721

 At least one second warning	0	0	496	95	11	602

 At least one third warning	0	0	0	444	103	547

 Liable for suspension	0	0	0	0	860	860

 Total (without seasonal adjustments)	13426	1131	657	552	974	16740

Calculation method 2

 Always compliant	13616	393	48	0	0	14057

 At least one first warning	0	542	87	14	0	643

 At least one second warning	0	0	513	84	9	606

 At least one third warning	0	0	0	479	101	580

 Liable for suspension	0	0	0	0	854	854

 Total (without seasonal adjustments)	13616	935	648	577	964	16740


Subsystem	Instrument	Signal	Task	Measurements

Respiratory	Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS), KAYPentax 	Aerodynamic	/pa/, /pi/	Maximum subglottal pressure

Bamboo passage	Speech duration, pausing pattern (e.g., number of pauses, pause duration, pausing frequency)

Phonatory	Compact flash recorder, professional quality microphone, Countryman E6, Phonatory Aerodynamic System, KAYPentax 	Acoustic, aerodynamic	“Normal” and “high pitch” phonation of /a/	Phonation duration, maximum F0, jitter, shimmer, NHR, SPL, laryngeal airway resistance

Articulatory	Eagle Digital System, Motion Analysis Corp. 	Kinematic	“Buy Bobby a puppy”“Say /aCa/ again” 	Maximum/minimum velocities of lips and jaw

Microphone	Acoustic	Repeat /ba/ as clear and as fast as possible on one breath	Number, duration, and rate of syllable repetitions

Resonatory	Nasometer, Model 6400, KAYPentax 	Acoustic	“Mama made a lemon jam” “Buy Bobby a puppy” 	Nasalance

Phonatory Aerodynamic System, KAYPentax 	Aerodynamic	/pa/, /pi/, /ma/, /mi/, “hamper”	Intraoral air pressure and nasal airflow in syllables, time lag between /m/ and /p/ in “hamper”


Outcomes	Transferred (n = 82)	Non-transferred (n = 288)	Pvalue

Mortality, n (%)	35 (42.7)	150 (52.1)	0.13

Kidney status among survivors, n (%)

Full recovery	6 (12.8)	46 (33.3)	0.02

Partial recovery	20 (42.6)	42 (30.4)

Renal replacement therapy-dependent	21 (44.7)	50 (36.2)


Drowning	No of cases	Testing rates

Alcohol(%)	Medicinal drugs(%)

Unintentional (V90, V92, W65-W74)	1746	100%	91.5%

Boating-related (V90, V92)	303	100%	91.1%

Non-boating (W65-W74)	1443	100%	91.6%


Variable	Mean (SD)

Total energy (kJ)	7709.0 (2320.4)

Total soy product (g)	45.0 (33.8)

Tofu (g)	20.8 (22.0)

Tofu products (g)	3.0 (5.8)

Fermented soybeans (g)	10.2 (13.3)

Boiled soybeans (g)	4.1 (9.4)

Miso (g)	1.7 (5.3)

Miso soup (g)	5.2 (4.6)

Soy protein (g)	4.6 (3.5)

Isoflavone (mg)	26.8 (21.7)

Daidzein (mg)	10.1 (8.2)

Genistein (mg)	16.7 (13.5)


Perceived stress (PS) owing to the following items in Indistinct organisation and conflicts	High stress perception	No/Low stress perception

	% (95% CI)	n	% (95% CI)	n

PS owing to increased work-load	38 (33 – 43)	160	62 (57 – 67)	264

PS owing to unclear goals at workplace	14 (11 – 18)	60	86 (82 – 89)	364

PS owing to unclear work assignments	7 (4 – 9)	28	93 (91 – 95)	396

PS owing to unclear leadership	3 (1 – 5)	12	97 (95 – 99)	412

PS owing to conflicts at work	23 (19 – 27)	98	77 (73 – 81)	326

PS owing to involved in conflicts at work	12 (9 – 15)	49	88 (85 – 91)	375

PS owing to supervisor not solved the conflicts	17 (13 – 21)	71	83 (79 – 87)	353

Perceived stress (PS) owing to the following items in Individual demands and commitment

PS owing to high demands on oneself at work	29 (25 – 34)	125	71 (66 – 75)	299

PS owing to engaged in one's work	17 (14 – 21)	72	83 (79 – 86)	352

PS owing to think about work after working-day	25 (21 – 29)	106	75 (71 – 79)	318

PS owing to hard to set limits	44 (39 – 49)	187	56 (51 – 61)	237

PS owing to high responsibility for one's work	29 (25 – 34)	123	71 (66 – 75)	301

PS owing to work over-time/stress	24 (20 – 28)	102	76 (72 – 80)	322

PS owing to sleep disturbance on account of work	26 (22 – 31)	112	74 (69 – 78)	312


	MHPA	PKU

Number patients	41	100

Gender – Male	20	47

Gender – Female	21	53

Average Age	9y 7 m	17y 10 m

Under 18 years	35	57

zBMI – obese + overweight	3	34

zBMI – normal	33	61

zBMI – underweight	5	5

WC - obese + overweight	7	45

WC - normal	30	50

WC - underweight	4	5

AC - obese + overweight	5	21

AC - normal	21	27

AC - underweight	4	15

Early Diagnostic	40	85

BH4 treatment	0	17

Adequated Diet adherence	40	80

Phe Tol (mg/day)	1889.6 ± 831.9	481.1 ± 376.3

Phe median (μmol/L)	238.6 ± 93.2	397.3 ± 281.9

Total Cholesterol (mg/dL)	164.2 ± 21.9	149.9 ± 31.5

HDL (mg/dL)	55.8 ± 12.6	49.8 ± 11.9

LDL (mg/dL)	92.1 ± 17.2	82.1 ± 24.7

ApoA (mg/dL)	160.7 ± 26.4	144.1 ± 25.9

ApoB (mg/dL)	75.5 ± 17.6	65.9 ± 19.1

LDL/ApoB	1.26 ± 0.16	1.22 ± 0.19

Triglycerids (mg/dL)	79.2 ± 36.2	91.7 ± 45.7

Homocystein (μmol/L)	5.9 ± 2.4	5.9 ± 3.3

Systolic BP (mmHg)	105.5 ± 12	114.9 ± 14.4

Diastolic BP (mmHg)	65.7 ± 10.5	69.3 ± 13.7

B12 (pg/mL)	584.9 ± 205.6	664.5 ± 333.6

Zinc (μg/dL)	82.4 ± 33.1	81.2 ± 21.5

Copper (μg/dL)	86 ± 22.5	78.4 ± 21.3

Zinc/Copper	1.01 ± 0.46	1.11 ± 0.45


	Drug class	Ovarian cancer indication	Black box warnings	Warnings and precautions

Bevacizumab [33]	VEGF inhibitor; anti-angiogenesis	Platinum-resistant recurrent disease• In combination with paclitaxel, PLD, or topotecan with no more than 2 prior lines of chemotherapyPlatinum-sensitive recurrent disease• In combination with carboplatin and paclitaxel, or carboplatin and gemcitabine; followed by single-agent bevacizumab	• Gastrointestinal perforations• Surgery and wound healing complications• Hemorrhage	• Perforation or fistula• Arterial and venous thromboembolic events• Hypertension• Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome• Proteinuria• Infusion reactions• Embryo-fetal toxicity• Ovarian failure

Niraparib [36]	PARP inhibitor	Maintenance treatment of recurrent disease in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapy	None	• Myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia• Bone marrow suppression• Cardiovascular effects (blood pressure and heart rate)• Embryo-fetal toxicity

Olaparib [35]	PARP inhibitor	Maintenance treatment of recurrent disease in complete or partial response to platinum-based chemotherapyTreatment of deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated disease with ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy; requires FDA-approved companion diagnostic test	None	• Myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia• Pneumonitis• Embryo-fetal toxicity

Rucaparib [34]	PARP inhibitor	Monotherapy in patients with deleterious BRCA mutations treated with two or more prior chemotherapies; requires companion diagnostic test	None	• Myelodysplastic syndrome/acute myeloid leukemia• Embryo-fetal toxicity


	Inhibited Temperament	Uninhibited Temperament	p value

	Mean	SD	Mean	SD

Temperament

 Retrospective	3.0	.32	1.5	.22	.0001

 Current	3.1	.55	1.7	.14	.0001

Demographics

 Age	22.20	3.62	21.30	2.45	NS

 Gender (% Male)	40%		40%		NS

 Handedness (% Right)	80%		100%		NS

 Ethnicity					.07

% Caucasian	50%		70%

% African-American	10%		30%

% Asian	40%		0%


Authors	Specimen bone	Yield strength (Re)[MPa]	Ult. tensile strength (σult)[MPa]	Elongation at break (εult)[%]

(Yamada 1970)	Femur		109	1.35

(Reilly and Burstein 1975)	Femur	114	135	3.1

(Vinz 1975)	Femur for adults (avg. 30 years)		106	0.26

(Evans 1976)	Tibia (avg. 41.5 years)		106	1.76

(Evans 1976)	Tibia (avg. 72 years)		84	1.56

(McCalden et al. 1993)(Ott 2007, Ott et al. 2010)	Femur (avg. between [20–102] years)	71	98	2.4

(MatWeb, 2016)	Femur		135	3.1


	Percentile GroupsGlobal Improved (%)

Variable	Lowest tertile	Middle tertile	Highest tertile	Fisher's Exact Test

Patellar Length Ratio (PLR)	3(25)	5(38.5)	4(30.8)	p = 0.907

Bisect Offset (BO)	8(66.7)	1(7.7)	3(23.1)	p = 0.007

Patellar Tilt Angle (PTA)	5(41.7)	5(38.5)	2(15.4)	p = 0.323

Trochlear Inclination (TI) (Lateral)	4(33.3)	3(23.1)	5(38.5)	p = 0.757

Trochlear Inclination (TI) (Medial)	2(16.7)	6(46.2)	4(30.8)	p = 0.383

Trochlear Angle (TA)	3(25)	5(38.5)	4(30.8)	p = 0.907

Sulcus Angle (SA)	4(33.3)	4(30.8)	4(30.8)	p = 1

Lateral Patellofemoral Angle (LPFA)	2(16.7)	6(46.2)	4(30.8)	p = 0.383

Congruence Angle (CA)	5(41.7)	5(38.5)	2(15.4)	p = 0.323

Patellar Lateral Subluxation Distance (PSD)	7(63.6)	4(33.3)	1(8.3)	p = 0.023

Lateral Patellar Displacement (LPD)	3(27.3)	5(41.7)	4(33.3)	p = 0.903


Characteristic	Total (n:12)

Demographic characteristics

Age, median (range)	32 (21–56)

Men, number	9

Epidemiological characteristics and risk factors

Foreigners, numbera	1

MSM/men, ratio	9/9

High-risk sexual behaviourb, number	9

Contact with infected individuals, numberc	3

Travelled in the 2 months before symptom onset, number	0

Cases who used drugsd, number	5

Cases with severe hepatitise, number	2

Cases which were hospitalised, number	4

Sexually transmitted co-infections

HIV, number	5

HBV, number	1

HCV, number	0

Syphilis, number	2

Liver function tests

ALT, median (range)	3,609 (1,615–5,904)

Total bilirubin, median (range)	8.6 (4–21)

INR, median (range)	1.4 (1.2–2.0)


Speciation Mode	Synopsis	References

Point mutation	Speciation whereby each individual in the metacommunity has an equal probability of producing an offspring of a new species. Produces many rare species with lifetimes unrealistically short	Hubbell (2001)

Random fission	Speciation occurs through a population randomly dividing into two distinct species. Produces species with lifetimes unrealistically long	Hubbell and Lake (2003), Hubbell (2005), Etienne and Haegeman (2011)

Peripheral isolate	Divergence follows the isolation of populations. Newly arisen species have abundances drawn from a normal distribution	Hubbell and Lake (2003), Hubbell (2005)

Generalized speciation	A generalized neutral community model incorporating numerous modes	Haegeman and Etienne (2009)

Protracted speciation	Speciation is a gradual, drawn out process. Results in a new predicted metacommunity SAD (termed the “difference logseries”)	Rosindell et al. (2010)


	a) AUC for “highly suspected drugs“	b) AUC for “highly suspected drugs“ or “suspected drugs“

Univariable CLR	0.836	0.871

Multivariable CLR	0.741	0.775

Lasso	0.862	0.861

Elastic net	0.868	0.909

Bolasso	0.804	0.813

Sublasso	0.815	0.823

Random lasso	0.820	0.847

Firth correction	0.852	0.928

Case-controla	0.947	0.809


Category	Previous Methods [12]	Proposed Method

Number of classes	24	64

Number of USD images	15,000	61,240

False recognition rate (%)	0.12	0.114

Reject rate (%)	0.58	0


	Mean (SD) or N	Mean (SD) or N	P value

	Methylphenidate slow release (N = 28)	Placebo (N = 28)

Age (years)	35.6(10.8)	34.7(11.5)	ns

Gender, n	8	7	ns

• Female	20	21

• Male

Marital status, n			ns

• Single	18	19

• Married	6	5

• Divorced	4	4

Level of education, n			ns

• Illiterate	2	1

• Primary school	16	17

• High school diploma	8	9

• University degree	2	1

Smoking, n	25	26	ns

Use of methadone	12	11	ns

Employed, n	5	7	ns

Years of methamphetamine use	13.3(8.5)	12.8(9.1)	ns

Days of methamphetamine use (past month)	10.2(8.7)	10.4(8.8)	ns

Route of methamphetamine use, n			ns

• Smoking	23	22

• Nasal	3	2

• Injection	1	1

• Oral	1	3

Addiction severity index composite score			ns

• Medical	0.25(0.31)	0.28(0.26)

• Employment	0.22(017)	0.24(0.19)

• Alcohol	0.15(0.10)	0.14(0.13)

• Drug	0.28(0.1)	0.29(0.12)

• Legal	0.08(0.17)	0.07(0.16)

• Family/Social	0.22(0.23)	0.19(0.20)

• Psychiatric	0.24(0.25)	0.22(0.23


City	Number of Stations	2008	2009	2010	2011

Kochi	7	43	42	36	38

Kozhikode	2	34	32	42	46

Thrissur	1	–	–	31	33

Mallapuram	1	–	–	39	30

Trivandrum	4	67	61	56	58

Kollam	2	–	–	47	53


Authors	Date	Conditionaand sample size	Exploration-insight gain	Experiential gain	Action gain

Current study		Ullman dream group. (n = 11)	8.17 (0.54)	7.28 (1.94)	5.78 (1.04)

Heaton et al.	1998	Therapist-facilitated, following Hill (1996). (n = 25)	8.03 (0.73)	7.06 (1.50)	6.98 (1.07)**

		Self-guided, following Hill (1996) as adapted by Hill et al. (1996). (n = 25)	6.61 (1.35)**	6.76 (1.74)	5.99 (1.11)

Hill et al.	1998	Participants elaborate on image details in dream, following only the Exploration Stage of the Hill (1996) model. (n = 17)	4.61 (1.71)**	Not reported	Not reported

		Participants provide associations to images, following only the Exploration Stage of the Hill (1996) model. (n = 17)	6.48 (1.35)**	Not reported	Not reported

		Participants elaborate on image details and provide associations. Following only the Exploration Stage of the Hill (1996) model. (n = 17)	5.84 (1.76)**	Not reported	Not reported

Zack and Hill	1998	Used Hill (1996) model. (n = 38)	7.67 (1.10)	7.09 (1.42)	6.34 (1.74)

Rochlen et al.	1999	Pre-study discussion of benefits of dream contemplation. Participants encouraged to use strategies to boost dream recall prior to study following Hill (1996). (n = 14)	7.48 (1.48)	7.00 (1.70)	6.03 (1.41)

		Involved an introduction to Hill model and participation in two sessions of the group procedure prior to study following Hill (1996). (n = 14)	8.04 (0.96)	6.79 (1.97)	7.01 (1.34)*

		Pre-study discussion of theoretical perspectives regarding counseling prior to study following Hill (1996). (n = 14)	7.92 (0.82)	7.32 (1.48)	6.79 (1.22)*

Hill et al.	2000	Dream condition, following Hill (1996). (n = 7)	8.08 (0.52)	7.43 (0.97)	7.54 (0.49)**

		Control condition: Recent loss focussed on, not a dream (n = 7)b	6.63 (0.76)**	6.59 (0.99)	6.12 (0.82)

Wonnell and Hill	2000	Hill (1996) followed, action stage omitted (n = 23)	7.88 (1.06)	Not reported	6.10 (1.24)

		Hill (1996) followed, including Action stage (n = 20)	7.99 (1.00)	Not reported	6.98 (1.45)*

Hill et al.	2001	Followed Hill (1996). (n = 105)	7.77 (1.20)	Not reported	Not reported

Hill et al.	2003	Participants type dream and computer-generated voice asks questions, following Hill (1996). (n = 39)	6.72 (1.27)**	Not reported	6.12 (1.73)

		Therapist empathy: Followed Hill (1996) but therapists did not offer interpretations or provide action suggestions. (n = 26)	7.75 (0.85)	Not reported	6.60 (1.16)

		Therapist empathy + input: Followed Hill (1996), at least one therapist interpretation and one action idea offered to participants. (n = 29)	7.93 (0.93)	Not reported	6.81 (1.05)**

All Hill studies		Weighted mean (SD) of all Hill dream conditionsc	7.40 (1.15)	7.03 (1.56)	6.51 (1.34)


Study intervention	N	Darunavir Ctrough,ss, ng/mL	Elvitegravir Ctrough,ss, ng/mL	Refs.

Median/mean	Range	Median/mean	Range

DRV/rtv, pre-switch	5	981 (median)932 (mean)	667–1150	––	–

E/C/F/TDF + DRV	9	482 (median)490 (mean)	96–848	184 (median)200 (mean)	<80–435

DRV/rtv 800/100 mg	335a	2041 (median)	368–7242	–	–	[22]

119	1820 (mean)	IQR 1470–2460	–	–	[23]

DRV/cobi 800/150 mg	298a	2150 (mean)	SD 1320	–	–	[25]

59	1311 (mean)	SD 969	–	–	[25]

32	1319 (mean)	288–3641	–	–	[24]

E/C/F/TDF (no DRV)	419a	–	–	451 (mean)	58–2341	[26]

32	–	–	250 (mean)	30–762	[24]

E/C/F/TDF + DRV	24	1294 (mean)	163–3641	234 (mean)	92–432	[24]

8	273 (median)b	164–501 (IQR)b	–	–	[12]

E/C/F/TAF + DRV	15	1250 (mean)	NA	464 (mean)	NA	[36]


Uveoscleral outflow (μL min−1)

Bimatoprost	1.37* ± 0.27

Vehicle	0.96 ± 0.20


Immunohistochemistry stains	Esophageal tumor	Liver biopsy (neoplastic cells)	Bladder biopsy (neoplastic cells)	Primary bladder cancer

CK7	+	+	+	+

CK20	+	+	+	+

CDX-2	+	+	+	−

GATA-3	−	−	−	+

Uroplakin	−	−	−	+


Sequence	Dialysate Potassium

	1st tertile	2nd tertile	3th tertile

1	K-1	K	K+1

2	K-1	K+1	K

3	K	K-1	K+1

4	K	K+1	K-1

5	K+1	K	K-1

6	K+1	K-1	K


Comparison groups	averages	df	t	P

TE-genes vs non TE-genes	0.82 vs 0.76	14800	7.4	1.2e-13

TE-exons vs non TE-genes	0.96 vs 0.76	14386	9.4	6.8e-21

Alu-exons vs other TE-exons	1.01 vs 0.95	345	1.9	6.2e-2

Alu-exons vs non TE-genes	1.01 vs 0.76	14106	8.2	3.9e-16


LncRNA	Expression	Mechanism	Target	Reference

AK058003	Upregulation	Hypoxia;Methylation in the CpG islands	SNCG	[59]

AK123072	Upregulation	Hypoxia;Methylation in the CpG islands	EGFR	[60]

HOTTIP	Upregulation	Methylation in the CpG islands;H3K4 methylation	HoxA13	[61, 62]

HOXA11-AS	Upregulation	DNA methylation;Histone modification; miR-1297	E2F1; P21; E-cadherin; EZH2	[63, 64]

HOTAIR	Upregulation	H3K27 trimethylation; miR-34a	C-Met; Snail	[68–70]

MALAT1	Upregulation	H3 histone acetylation	EGFL7	[36, 71]

GClnc1	Upregulation	Histone modification	SOD2	[72]

LINC00673	Upregulation	SP1; Histone modification	KLF2; LATS2	[73]

AGAP2-AS1	Upregulation	SP1; Histone modification	P21; E-cadherin	[74]

ZFAS1	Upregulation	Histone modification	NDK2; KLF2	[75]

PVT1	Upregulation	Histone modification	p15; p16	[70]

LINC00668	Upregulation	E2F1; Histone methylation	p15; p16; p21; p27; p57	[76, 77]

TUG1	Upregulation	Histone methylation	P57	[78]

LINC00152	Upregulation	Histone methylation	p15; p21	[79]

FEZF1-AS1	Upregulation	H3K4 methylation	p21	[80]

ANRIL	Upregulation	Histone modification;miR-99a/miR-449a	p15INK4B; p16INK4A; mTOR; CDK6	[83–85]

SPRY4-IT1	Downregulation	DNA methylation	SPRY4-IT1	[87]

LOC100130476	Downregulation	Methylation in the CpG islands	LOC100130476	[88]

GAS5	Downregulation	Promoter methylation	GAS5	[89, 90]

FENDRR	Downregulation	Histone deacetylation	FENDRR	[90, 91, 92]

MEG3	Downregulation	Promoter methylation; miR-148a	MEG3; RUNX3	[93, 94,95–97]


ROI	hemisphere	x	y	z	t-statistic

HF	left	−30	−36	−6	3.64

right	33	−36	−9	3.73

PHC	left	−21	−42	9	4.87

right	30	−39	6	6.81

Rsp	left	−9	−48	12	3.97

right	9	−51	12	3.89

PCC	left	−12	−54	24	5.12

right	12	−51	24	5.16

AMPFC	left	−9	51	−6	3.24

right	9	48	−3	3.72

pIPL	left	−39	−75	33	3.58


Variable	Spearman’s rho	p

Age	-0.08	<0.05

Hours of self-regulated learning

 	Term time	-0.10	<0.05

Revision period	-0.10	<0.01

Research activity	-0.17	<0.01

Teaching activity	-0.13	<0.01

Employment	0.10	<0.05

Care for family	0.10	<0.05


Disease for which steroids were prescribed	Number of patients	Steroids used	Use of Cyclosporin	Oral or topical therapy	Time period for which the steroid therapy lasted	Prescribed dosage of steroid	Time since PSC developed

Renal transplantation	21	WY/CY	5 mg/day	Oral	>2–4 years	5–10 mg/day	Not recorded

Asthma	08	WY/DE/DP	-	Oral	>2–4 years	10 mg/day	Not recorded

Lung disease	02	WY/DE	-	Oral	>2 years	7–10 mg/day	Not recorded

Arthritis	03	OP/DP	-	Oral	>2–3 years	10 mg/day	Not recorded

Allergy	16	WY/DE/DP/OP	-	Oral/topical	>2–3 years	10 mg/day	Not recorded


Cellular component

GOid	Function	Type	Level

GO:0030176	integral to endoplasmic reticulum membrane	component	7

GO:0001518	voltage-gated sodium channel complex	component	6

GO:0005891	voltage-gated calcium channel complex	component	6

GO:0008023	transcription elongation factor complex	component	6

GO:0005667	transcription factor complex	component	6

Molecular Function

GO:0008332	low voltage-gated calcium channel activity	function	9

GO:0005248	voltage-gated sodium channel activity	function	8

GO:0005245	voltage-gated calcium channel activity	function	8

GO:0005262	calcium channel activity	function	7

GO:0005272	sodium channel activity	function	7

Biological Process

GO:0006814	sodium ion transport	process	9

GO:0006816	calcium ion transport	process	9

GO:0030029	actin filament-based process	process	9


	n	%

Males	19	95

Female	1	5

Stable angina	9	45

Non-STEMI or unstable angina	5	25

STEMI	6	30

Median age	50

Mean age	51

White	12	60

Indian/coloured	7	35

Black	1	5

Family history of CAD	7	35

Diabetes mellitus	4	20

Hypertension	8	40

Dyslipidiamia	7	35

Co-existent obstructive CAD	11	55


ICD-10 Code	Cause	Number	Percentage of deaths

	Natural causes - total	155	80.3

O00-O99	Obstetric death	61	31.6

C00-C97	Cancer	40	20.7

R96-R99	Unknown/ill-defined	18	9.3

I00-I09,I11,I13,I20-I51	Heart disease	5	2.6

I60-I69	Cerebrovascular disease	4	2.1

J00-J99	Respiratory	4	2.1

B20-B24	HIV	2	1.0

Remaining natural causes	Other natural	21	10.9

	External causes - total	38	19.7

V01-V99, Y85	Accidental transport deaths	14	7.3

X85-Y09, Y87.1	Assault	9	4.7

X60-X84, Y87.0	Suicide	7	3.6

Y37	War and terror	3	1.6

W00-W19	Accidental falls	2	1.0

Y10-Y34	Undetermined intent	2	1.0

W20-X59, Y86	Other accidents	1	0.5


Terma	GO Gene Count	GO Slim	GO Slim Gene Count

cellular ion homeostasis	9	cellular process	9

regulation of biological quality	27	regulation of biological quality	27

defense response	22

response to stimulus	48

response to chemical stimulus	22

immune system process	19

response to stress	34

immune response	14

regulation of response to stimulus	12

response to external stimulus	26

response to bacterium	7

response to wounding	20	response to stimulus	49

regulation of immune response	9

regulation of defense response	7

inflammatory response	16

blood coagulation	6

innate immune response	10

positive regulation of defense	5

response	9

humoral immune response	6

complement activation, classical pathway

transition metal ion transport	5	transport	5


	Elderly MD subjects (n = 30)	Younger MD subjects (n = 32)	P value

Years since first vertigo	2.7 ± 2.3	3.4 ± 1.8	0.08

Hearing loss affected ear	64.7 ± 8.1 db	48.2 ± 10.9 db	0.001

Hearing loss unaffected ear	18.2 ± 4.5 db	16.3 ± 3.3 db	0.04

N° of crises in the last 6 months	6.5 ± 3.7	10.4 ± 5.5	0.002


 	Clinical group	Genotype	Pre-S2 S tart codon	Deletions

 	 	 	 	Region	Nucleotides	Amino acids	Region and functions affected

ID	 	 	 	 	Size	Position	Size	position

SDAC024	CR	D	ATG	Pre-S2	21	35-55a	7	16-22a

SDAC048	CR	D	ATG	Pre-S1	72	2998-3069	24	51-74	S promoter, Transactivator domain

SDAC083	CR	D	ATG	Pre-S2	21	35-55	7	16-22

SDAC097	CR	D	GTGb	Pre-S 2	9	45- 53	3	19-21

SDAC098	CH	D	ATG	Pre-S1	18	3129-3146	6	94-99	Hsc70 binding site, CCAAT binding factor (CBF) binding site, Cytosolic anchorage determinant (CAD)

SDAC112	ASC	D	ATG	Pre-S2	6	49-54	2	20-21

SDAC118	CR	D	ATG	Pre-S2	54	4-57	18	5 to 22	pHSA binding site, Viral secretion

SDAC107	CR	D	ATA	-	-	-	-	-	-

SDAC090	CR	D	ATA	-	-	-	-	-	-

SDAC058	CR	E	ATG	Pre-S2	9	58-66c	3	20-22c	Transactivator domain

SDAC059	HCC	E	GTG	Pre-S2	12	52-63	4	18-21	Transactivator domain

SDAC088	HCC	E	ATG	Pre-S2	12	52-63	4	18-21	Transactivator domain

SDAC095	HCC	E	ATG	Pre-S2	15	52-66	5	18-22	Transactivator domain

SDAC067	ASC	E	GTG	-	-	-	-	-	-

SDAC113	ASC	A	ACA	-	-	-	-	-	-


Category	Blue LED	UV LED	White light

Bark, Bract,	Lint has higher	-	Lint has higher red, green,

Brown leaf,	red and green	-	and blue reflectance

Green leaf,	fl. emission	-

Stem		-

Hull	Lint has higher	-	Lint has higher red, green,

	green fl.	-	and blue reflectance

	emission	-

Paper	-	Lint has lower red, green	Lint has lower red, green

	-	and blue fl. emission	and blue reflectance

Plastic bag	-	Lint has higher green and	Lint has higher red and

	-	blue fl. emission	green reflectance

Plastic bale	-	Lint has higher green and	Lint has higher blue

Packaging	-	blue fl. emission	reflectance

Seed coat (Inner),	-	Lint has higher green and	Lint has higher red, green,

Seed coat (Outer),	-	blue fl. emission	and blue reflectance

Seed, Twine	-


Target species	MIC (μg mL−1)

1	2	Polymyxin B	Colistin

Escherichia coli ATCC 25922	2	2	1	2

Colistin-resistant E. colia	2	2	16	16

E. coli ATCC 25922 + 10% serum	2–4	2–4	1–2	2–4

E. coli ATCC 25922 + Mg2+ (21 mM)	>64	>64	>64	>64

E. coli ATCC 25922 + LPS (1.0 mg mL−1)	>64	>64	>64	>64

E. coli TOP10	2	2	2	2

Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1	1	2	1	1

Acinetobacter baumannii	16	4	4

Klebsiella pneumoniae NRRL-B-408	2	4	16

K. pneumoniae NRRL-B-3521	4	4	2

Enterobacter cloacae NRRL-B-413	2	2	8

E. cloacae NRRL-B-425	2	2	64

Bacillus subtilis 168	32	32	4

Candida albicans	>64	>64	>64

Saccharomyces cerevisiae	>64	>64	>64

Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)	>64	>64	32


Studies (Author)	Year	Chemotherapy regimena	Number (T/C)	Type of Assessable Outcomes	Jadad Scoresb

		treatment	control

Hao XL[20]	2008	NP+SFI	NP	60/68	WBC/HB/PLT/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	3

Wang K[21]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	18/18	tumor response, WBC/PLT toxicity, KPS	3

Kang GY[22]	2006	NP+SFI	NP	36/36	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	2

Gong ZM[23]	2008	NP+SFI	NP	33/32	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	2

Wang XY[24]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	35/34	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity,	4

Wang YZ[25]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	28/27	tumor response, KPS, WBC/PLT/HB toxicity	3

Li TW[26]	2009	NP+SFI	NP	36/33	tumor response, the KPS	4

Li Y[27]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	44/43	tumor response, WBC/PLT/nausea and vomiting toxicity,	4

Lv J[28]	2008	NP+SFI	NP	40/40	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	4

Zhao ZY[29]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	35/34	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB nausea and vomiting toxicity,	4

Geng L[30]	2004	NP+SFI	NP	25/15	tumor response, KPS	2

Yu QZ[31]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	30/32	tumor response, KPS	4

Liu CL[32]	2004	NP+SFI	NP	60/60	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB toxicity	2

Liu PH[33]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	30/30	tumor response, KPS	1

Pan YK[34]	2008	NP+SFI	NP	45/45	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB toxicity	2

Zheng JH[35]	2009	NP+SFI	NP	42/42	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity	4

Miao SR[36]	2010	NP+SFI	NP	38/41	tumor response, the KPS, WBC/PLT/nausea and vomiting toxicity	3

Li YQ[37]	2010	NP+SFI	NP	43/42	KPS	5

Geng D[38]	2007	NP+SFI	NP	42/26	tumor response, WBC/the nausea and vomiting toxicity	2

Zou Y[39]	2005	TP+SFI	TP	24/24	tumor response, KPS	3

Luo SZ[40]	2006	TP+SFI	TP	25/25	tumor response, KPS, WBC/PLT/nausea and vomiting toxicity	2

Luo SW[41]	2007	TP+SFI	TP	30/30	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	2

Zhang FL[42]	2008	TP+SFI	TP	30/30	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	3

Zhao YX[43]	2009	TP+SFI	TP	40/40	tumor response, KPS	2

Yu F[44]	2007	DC+SFI	DC	30/30	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB toxicity	4

He WJ[45]	2008	GP+SFI	GP	35/35	tumor response, WBC/PLT/HB/nausea and vomiting toxicity, KPS	3

Liang K[46]	2010	GP+SFI	GP	39/37	tumor response, KPS,	2

Chen J[47]	2007	TP/NP+SFI	TP/NP	41/39	tumor response, KPS	2

Wu L[48]	2004	TP/NP+SFI	TP/NP	30/30	tumor response, WBC toxicity	5


S. No 	Reference 	Gender 	Lip Pits 	Cleft lip (CL) 	Cleft palate (CP) 	CL & CP 	Hypodontia 	Ankyloglossia

1	Arangannal et al., (2002) [3] 	M 	✓	✓	 	 	✓

2	Surasak et al., (2003) [6]	F 	✓	✓	✓	✓

3	Moore and McCord (2004) [23]	M 	✓	✓	✓	✓

4	Souissi et al., (2004) [7]	M 	✓	✓

5	Rizos and Spyropoulos (2004) [5]	F 	✓	✓

6	Stanier and Moore (2004) [24]	F 	✓	✓

7	King et al., (2004) [25]	M	✓	✓

8	Karande and Patil (2005) [16]	M 	✓	✓	 	 	✓

9	Tokat et al., (2005) [14] 	M 	✓	✓

10	Newman et al., (2005) [11] 	F 	✓	✓	 	 	✓

11	Ziai et al., (2005) [26]	M	✓

12	Kirzioglu and Ertürk (2006) [27]	M	✓	✓

13	King et al., (2004) [25]	F 	✓	 	✓	 	✓

14	Klinische Padiatrie (2008) [28]	F 	✓	✓	✓	✓

15	Etöz O. A. and Etöz A. (2009) [29]	M	✓

16	Nakano et al., (2010) [9]	M 	✓ (UL) 	✓

17	Lam et al., (2010) [30] 	M 	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓

18	Baghestani et al., (2010) [31]	M	✓

19	Moghe et al., (2010) [8]	F 	✓	✓	✓	✓

20	Jobling et al., (2011) [15]	M 	✓	✓	✓	✓

21	Manoharan et al., (2013) [10]	M 	✓	✓

22	Shweta et al., (2012) [2]	M 	✓	✓


Species	Origin	N	PCR + blood	Sensitivity of microscopy

M. nemestrina	West Java	4	4 (100 %)	NA

M. fascicularis	Lampung	30	6 (20 %)	3 (50 %)

M. fascicularis	Palembang	30	24 (80 %)	14 (58.3 %)


	Pelvic obliquity (r)	Lumbar Cobb angle (r)	Thoracic curve Cobb angle (r)

Functional LLD	0.69*	0.44*	0.09

Structural LLD	0.51*	0.17	− 0.05


Gene family	Gene	Description	References

MHC class I	ENSGALT00000028239, ENSGALT00000004115	Deletion of MHC class I antigen-presenting proteins in chicken was associated with Marek’s disease resistance	Luo et al. (2012)

MHC class II	CIITA	CIITA, a trans-activator of MHC II, was duplicated in cattle with nematode resistance	Liu et al. (2011)

Antimicrobial peptides	LAP, TAP, BSP30A	Cattle-specific, β-defensin family, antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) with high copy number	Bickhart et al. (2012)

	PGN3, CATHL4	Cathelicidin family AMPs from pig and cattle, respectively, with high degrees of copy number variation	Paudel et al. (2013), Bickhart et al. (2012)

Endogenous retroviruses	enJSRV	A variant of the endogenous Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus that is highly duplicated, protects individuals from the exogenous virus, which causes pulmonary adenocarcinoma	Viginier et al. (2012)

T cell receptors	WC1	CNVs of the cattle-specific WC1 gene have been identified	Liu et al. (2010), Chen et al. (2012)


GeNormPLUS	NormFinder	BestKeeper	Comparative delta-Ct	RefFinder

Gene	Stability Coeff.	Gene	Stability Coeff.	Gene	Stability Coeff.	Gene	Stability Coeff.	Gene	Stability Coeff.

Histone3	1.22	Histone3	0.812	Histone3	1.58	Histone3	1.678	Histone3	12

EF2	1.135	EF2	0.743	RAN	1.085	EF2	1.549	EF2	10.462

Actin	1.061	Tubulin	0.579	Tubulin	1.059	Actin	1.343	Actin	8.409

Cyclo	1.028	Cyclo	0.523	EF2	0.926	GAPDH	1.335	Cyclo	6.701

GAPDH	0.959	Actin	0.518	Clathrin	0.926	Clathrin	1.33	Clathrin	6.447

eTIF4E	0.857	Clathrin	0.504	eTIF4E	0.888	Cyclo	1.319	Tubulin	5.948

TIP41	0.798	TIP41	0.502	F-box	0.885	RAN	1.302	GAPDH	5.635

Tubulin	0.703	GAPDH	0.462	Actin	0.87	Tubulin	1.299	RAN	4.461

CDPK	0.599	RAN	0.453	Cyclo	0.718	TIP41	1.241	eTIF4E	3.742

RAN	0.503	Fbox	0.452	CDPK	0.699	F-box	1.234	TIP41	2.913

Clathrin	0.47	CDPK	0.272	GAPDH	0.681	eTIF4E	1.155	F-box	2.913

F-box	0.45	eTIF4E	0.257	TIP41	0.601	CDPK	1.091	CDPK	1.861


 	SOAPsnp	Atlas-SNP2	SAMtools	GATK-UGT

Quality score	Recalibrated	Raw	Recalibrated	Recalibrated

Machine cycle	Yes	Yes	No	Yes

Allele type	Yes	No	No	Yes

Duplication level	Penalty in quality score	No	No	No

Swap-base	No	Yes	No	No

MNP events	No	Yes	No	No

NQS	No	Yes	No	No

Coverage variation	No	Yes	No	No

Base dependency	Yes	No	Yes	No

Strand independency	No	NO	Yes	No


Characteristic	n = 52

Age, year (mean ± SD)	60 (±14)

Gender, number of patients (%)

 Male	32 (61)

 Female	20 [39]

Cause of benign rupture or leak, number of patients (%)

 Anastomotic	32 (62)

 Iatrogenic	13 [25]

 Boerhaave's syndrome	4 [8]

 Other	3 [5]

Location of benign rupture or leak, number of patients (%)

 Distal esophagus	13 [25]

 Mid-esophagus	24 (45)

 Proximal esophagus	11 [21]

 Unknown	4 [9]

Length of rupture or leak, cm (median (range))	2 (0.2-7)

Time interval between rupture and stent placement, number of patients (%)

 Within 24 hours	5 [10]

 After 24 hours	47 (90)

Prior treatment for benign rupture or leak, number of patients (%)

 Stent placement in another hospital	3 [5]

 Surgery	3 [5]

 Clip placement	1 [2]

 None	45 (88)

Antibiotic treatment, number of patients (%)

 Yes	41.(79)

 No	11 [21]

Concurrent fluid drainage, number of patients (%)

 Yes	24 (46)

 No	28 (54)

Total days of treatment with a stent, median (range)	39 (1-742)


Tumor Grade	%

I	2.1

I B	8.5

II	27.6

II B	2.1

III A	19.2

III B	6.5

IV	34


Lively	Youthful	Exciting

More Sociable	More Spontaneous	More Active

More Natural/Down to earth	More Warm/Caring	More Self Confident

Enjoys the outdoors more	More Feminine	Pushy

More Modern	More Stylish	More Spirited/Fun

Higher income	More Sophisticated	Sensitive/caring

Friendly	Does things on the spur of the moment


Group	Taxon	N	Body mass (kg) range F-Ma	Locomotor behaviours

NWM	Lagothrix lagotricha	7	7.0-9.3	arboreal quadruped, with climbing and orthograde clamberingb

 	Ateles sp.	4	7.3-8.9	torso-orthograde suspensory; semi-brachiatorc

 	Alouatta sp.	13	5.4-7.2	arboreal quadruped, with climbing and orthograde clambering

Hominoids	Pongo pygmaeus	25	35.8-78.5	torso-orthograde suspensoryd

 	Pongo abelii	9	35.6-77.9	torso-orthograde suspensory

 	Pan troglodytes verus	14	41.6-46.3	knuckle-walker (arboreal and terrestrial) and climbinge

 	Pan troglodytes troglodytes	25	45.8-59.7	knuckle-walker (arboreal and terrestrial) and climbing

 	Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii	6	33.7-42.7	knuckle-walker and climbing (proportion of arboreality varies from 33-68%)

 	Pan paniscus	19	33.2-45.0	knuckle-walker (arboreal and terrestrial) and climbing, considered more arboreal than P. troglodytesf

 	Homo sapiens	146	54.4-62.2	terrestrial biped

 	Gorilla gorilla gorilla	40	71.5-170.4	terrestrial knuckle-walker (assumed to be less terrestrial than G.b.beringei)g

 	Gorilla beringei graueri	7	71.0-175.2	terrestrial knuckle-walker (assumed to be less terrestrial than G.b.beringei)

 	Gorilla beringei beringei	9	97.5-162.5	terrestrial knuckle-walker (most terrestrial of all Gorilla, 93-98% terrestrial)

 	Symphalangus syndactylus	5	10.7-11.9	brachiatorh

 	Hylobates lar	27	5.4-5.9	brachiator

OWM	Presbytis sp.	2	5.6-6.8	arboreal quadruped, capable of leaping and forelimb suspensioni

 	Macaca mulatta	16	8.8-11.0	semi-terrestrial quadrupedj

 	Macaca fascicularis	7	3.6-5.4	arboreal quadrupedk

 	Papio Anubis	6	13.3-25.1	terrestrial quadrupedl

 	Theropithecus gelada	5	11.7-19.0	terrestrial quadruped

 	Chlorocebus aethiops	4	3.0-5.5	semi-terrestrial quadruped

 	Erythrocebus patas	3	6.5-12.4	terrestrial quadruped

 	Cercopithecus mitis	12	3.9-5.9	arboreal quadruped


Primer Name	Primer Sequence (5’to 3’)

VHSCDNA	GTATCATAAAAGATGATGAGTTATGTTACAAGGG

VHSPCRF	GTTGAACACAGAGTCATATCTCATAATCG

VHSPCRR	GGTGGAGACACGGTCCTCATCATTGGACGTGAGG

PJETFOR	CGACTCACTATAGGGAGAGCGGC

PJETREV	AAGAACATCGATTTTCCATGGCAG

VHSNF	GATGACGACTACCCCGAGGACTCTGAC

SACPSIF	CTCCACCGCGGTAATACGACTCACTATAGG

SACPSIR	GCTTTGATCAAAGAGAAATTCTTATAATCGTGCCG

PSIMFEF	CGGCACGATTATAAGAATTTCTCTTTG

PSIMFER	GGCCTGCCACAATTGCCTTGACCACC

SPEMUTN	CGTTGAACAAAAGAACTCAGTACTAGTATGGAAGGAGGAATTCGTGCAGCG

SNABIMUTN	CGACTACCCCGAGGACTCTGACTAATACGTACTCCCGTCTCATAACCAACATAG

SPEMUTP	GACAAACACTGAGATACTAGTATGGCTGATATTGAGATGAGCGAGTCC

SNABIMUTP	CGATCAAGGCGGAGCTGGACAAGCTAGAGTAGTACGTACACAACGCATCACAC


Pair	Egg hatch rate	Number of progeny	Sex ratio (proportion male)	Status

PF 12.5.i	0.67	23	0.609	N

PF12.5.ii	0.88	34	0.412	N

PF12.6.i	0.92	56	0.446	N

PF12.6.ii	0.77	18	0.556	N


Sample code	Type	Yield (mg)	Melting point (°C)	Physical state

IA/01/1	C-9154 analogue	90%	195-196	White powdery solid

IA/24/1/B	Methyl ester	160, (0.78 mmol)	74	Bright yellow crystalline solid

IA/21/1/B	Ethyl ester	100, (0.46 mmol)	63	Light brown crystalline solid

IA/22/1/B	n-propyl ester	170, (0.73 mmol)	55	Dark brown crystalline solid

IA/23/1/B	Isopropyl ester	105, (0.45 mmol)	70	Dark brown crystalline solid

IA/19/1/B	n-butyl ester	200, (0.81 mmol)	42	Yellow waxy solid

IA/20/1/B	2-butyl ester	150, (0.61 mmol)	40	Golden brown oil

IA/25/1/B	t-butyl ester	2, (~0.01 mmol)	Not determined


Gene	Primer	Enzyme

GSTM1 	Forward: GAACTCCCTGAAAAGCTAAAGC

Reverse: GTTGGGCTCAAATATACGGTGG

GSTT1 	Forward: TTCCTTACTGGTCCTCACATCTC

Reverse: CAGCTGCATTTGGAAGTGCTC

GSTP1 (Ile105Val, rs1695)	Forward: GTAGTTTGCCCAAGGTCAAG	BsmAI

Reverse: AGCCACCTGAGGGGTAAG

NQO1 (C609T, rs1800566)	Forward: AAGCCCAGACCAACTTCT	HinfI

Reverse: ATTTGAATTCGGGCGTCTGCTG

EPHX1 (Tyr113His, rs1051740)	Forward: CTTGAGCTCTGTCCTTCCCATCCC	Tth111I

Reverse: AATCTTAGTCTTGAAGTGACGGT

EPHX1 (His139Arg, rs2234922)	Forward: ACATCCACTTCATCCACGT	Rsa1

Reverse: ATGCCTCTGAGAAGCCAT

HO-1 (5′-site GT repeats)	Forward: FAM-AGAGCCTGCAGCTTCTCAGA

Reverse: ACAAAGTCTGGCCATAGGAC

XRCC1 (Arg280His, rs25489)	Forward: GGCTGGGACCACCTGTGTT	RsaI

Reverse: TTGACCCCCAGTGGTGCTAA

XRCC1 (Arg399Gln, rs25487)	Forward: TCTCCCTTGGTCTCCAACCT	MspI

Reverse: AGTAGTCTGCTGGCTCTGG

XPD (C156A, rs238406)	Forward: TGGAGTGCTATGGCACGATCTCT	TflI

Reverse: CCATGGGCATCAAATTCCTGGGA

hOGG1 (Ser326Cys, rs1052133)	Forward: ACTGTCACTAGTCTCACCAG	Fnu4HI

Reverse: TGAATTCGGAAGGTGCTTGGGGAAT

ATM (INV48 +238C>G, rs609429)	Forward: CCTGGTTATAAAATGAGAAGG	KpnI

Reverse: GCAGCAACTACCATTCATTGAG


Target	Base URL extension

Homepage	fbcv

Term request tracker	fbcv/tracker

Pre-reasoned OBO version	fbcv/dpo-simple.obo

Full OWL version	fbcv/dpo-non-classified.owl

Full details of all available versions	fbcv/downloads

Individual term details for FBcv_0000423	FBcv_0000423


Assay	Coefficient of variation

Intra-assay (%)	Inter-assay (%)

OPG	3.53	5.78

sRANKL	9.38	12.00

sRAGE	4.00	7.15

esRAGE	5.20	8.50


		Before pregnancy	1st trimester	2nd trimester	3rd trimester	6 months post-partum

Mean sexual frequency for all respondents		1.8	1.2	1.4	1.35	1.36

Circumcised females	Yes	1.8*	1.1*	1.3	1.3	1.2*

No	2.1	1.4	1.5	1.4	1.6

Episiotomy performed at delivery	Yes	—	—	—	—	1.3

No	—	—	—	—	1.2

Mode of delivery	Vaginal	—	—	—	—	1.2**

Caesarean section	—	—	—	—	2.3

Partners said to be engaged in extramarital affairs	Yes	1.5	1.1	1.0*	0.9*	1.2

No	1.9	1.2	1.5	1.4	1.4