14347 results for ""Pennsylvania+German"+ACS+study+'Socius'+open+access"

in 22.93 milliseconds.

• Data access Commitee for anti-PD1 in HCC data

  Dac EGAC00001002404

• Data Access Committee for Niigata-NIG collaborative work

  Dac EGAC00001002429

• Hematology Research Unit Helsinki Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001002444

• Data Access Committee for Niigata-NIG collaborative work

  Dac EGAC00001002469

• B cells in Multiple Sclerosis Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001002476

• TNBC (COH_TNBC_RNAseq) - Data Access Committee at The Jackson laboratory

  Dac EGAC00001002518

• TNBC (UW_OvCa_RNASeq) - Data Access Committee at The Jackson laboratory

  Dac EGAC00001002524

• TNBC (UW_OvCa_WGS) - Data Access Committee at The Jackson laboratory

  Dac EGAC00001002544

• NPC genome-wide human SNP array data access commitee

  Dac EGAC00001002560

• Single-cell Multiomics Clonal Hematopoiesis Team Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001002735

• Institute of Pathology LMU Munich Data Access Commitee

  Dac EGAC00001002931

• Institute of Pathology LMU Munich Data Access Commitee

  Dac EGAC00001002932

• Multiple myeloma long-term survivor data access commitee

  Dac EGAC00001003078

• Hospital del Mar Research Insitute Data Access Comitte

  Dac EGAC00001002512

• Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine Data Access Commitee

  Dac EGAC00001003411

• TNBC (COH_WGS) - Data Access Committee at The Jackson laboratory

  Dac EGAC00001002574

• Experimental Therapeutics in Lymphoid Malignancies Data Access Commitee

  Dac EGAC00001003210

• HPV Virome Consortium Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001000141

• Data access commitee at the Molecular Exercise Physiology group

  Dac EGAC00001002606

• APOBEC Breast Data Access Committee

  Sarat Chandarlapaty chandars@mskcc.org

  Dac EGAC50000000554

• UQCCR/QCMG brain metastasis sequence analysis Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001000180

• Data Access Committee for Triple Negative Breast Cancer dataset

  Dac EGAC00001003584

• CINECA synthetic data.Please note: This study contains synthetic data (with cohort “participants” / ”subjects” marked with FAKE) has no identifiable data and cannot be used to make any inference about cohort data or results.

  Please note: This study contains synthetic data (with cohort “participants” / ”subjects” marked with FAKE) has no identifiable data and cannot be used to make any inference about cohort data or results. The purpose of this dataset is to aid development of technical implementations for cohort data discovery, harmonization, access, and federated analysis. In support of FAIRness in data sharing, this dataset is made freely available under the Creative Commons Licence (CC-BY). Please ensure this preamble is included with this dataset and that the CINECA project (funding: EC H2020 grant 825775) is acknowledged. For any questions please contact isuru@ebi.ac.uk or cthomas@ebi.ac.uk

  Study EGAS00001002472

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Amiodarone, Lidocaine or Neither for Out-Of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Due to Ventricular Fibrillation or Ventricular Tachycardia (ALPS)(ROC-ALPS-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data Please refer to “Authorized Access” below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP. Objective To compare the effects of amiodarone, lidocaine, and placebo on survival to hospital discharge after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Background Ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT) are common causes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but are considered the most responsive to shock and therefore the most treatable. Nonetheless, most defibrillation attempts do not result in sustained return of spontaneous circulation, and VF or VT may persist or recur after shock. There is also evidence that longer durations of VF or VT are associated with decreases in the likelihood of resuscitation. Amiodarone and lidocaine are commonly used to promote successful defibrillation of shock-refractory VF or VT and prevent recurrences. Previous trials have shown amiodarone to be more effective than placebo or lidocaine for return of spontaneous circulation and survival at hospital admittance. This study sought to further extend the research and examine whether amiodarone would improve survival to hospital discharge and neurologic outcomes, as compared to placebo or lidocaine. Participants 3,026 eligible participants were enrolled, with 974 assigned to amiodarone, 993 assigned to lidocaine, and 1,059 assigned to placebo. An additional 1,627 participants that received a study intervention, but did not meet eligibility criteria, were included in analysis of the intention-to-treat population. Design The study interventions (amiodarone, lidocaine, and saline) were packaged in indistinguishable sealed kits and randomly distributed in to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers in a 1:1:1 ratio, stratified by participating site and agency. Each kit contained three syringes, and each syringe held 3 ml of colorless fluid containing 150 mg of amiodarone, 60 mg of lidocaine, or normal saline. Participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were treated in accordance with local EMS protocols, in compliance with American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines. If VF or VT persisted or recurred after one or more shocks, eligible participants received a vasopressor and the masked kit containing amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo. Approximating current clinical practice, the initial dose consisted of two syringes administered by rapid bolus. If the estimated body weight of the patient was less than 100 lbs., then one syringe was used. If VF or VT persisted, standard resuscitation measures, additional shocks, and an additional syringe of the study drug were administered. At that point the trial interventions were completed and standard interventions for advanced life support were employed. Upon arrival at the hospital, providers were notified of the patient's enrollment in the trial and encouraged to provide usual care in accordance with AHA guidelines, including open-label amiodarone or lidocaine if necessary. Components of hospital care were monitored but not standardized by the trial protocol. Participants, providers, and trial personnel were blinded to the trial drug assignments, with the exception of treating physicians if emergency un-blinding was required for care. Data from pre-hospital patient care records, CPR process measures, and hospital medical records were collected. The primary outcome of the trial was survival to hospital discharge, and the secondary outcome was survival with favorable neurologic status at discharge, defined as a score on the modified Rankin scale of 3 or less. Conclusions Neither amiodarone nor lidocaine resulted in a significantly higher rate of survival to hospital discharge or favorable neurologic outcome, as compared to placebo, among participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to initial shock-refractory ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia.

  Study phs003784

• Public Access Defibrillation Community Trial (PAD)(PAD-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Community Trial sought to evaluate broad implementation of Public Access Defibrillators (PAD) in urban community units. Survival to hospital discharge of participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was the main outcome measure. Survival was compared in community units (e.g., apartment or office buildings, gated communities, sports venues, senior centers, shopping malls) served by non-medical responders trained in CPR and use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), to units receiving the traditional optimum community standard of care (i.e., rescuers trained to recognize a cardiac emergency, call 911, and initiate CPR). Background Sudden out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) remains a significant cause of death, in spite of recent declines in overall mortality from cardiovascular disease. Existing methods of emergency resuscitation are inadequate due to time delays inherent in transporting trained responders with defibrillation capabilities to the side of the OOH-CA victim. Existing Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems typically combine paramedic Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) services with some level of community involvement, such as bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training. Some communities include automated external defibrillators (AEDs) at isolated sites or in mobile police or fire vehicles. Such an approach typically varies in effectiveness, with an incremental improvement in effectiveness seen in communities that organize and integrate services with the existing EMS system. However, optimal improvement in survival from sudden OOH-CA may require a program that utilizes volunteer non-medical responders (who may not have a traditional duty to respond to an emergency) trained to use AEDs. Participants The PAD trial was a prospective, randomized community based trial. More than 19,000 volunteer responders from 993 community units in 24 North American regions participated. The two study arms had similar unit and volunteer characteristics. Participants with treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the two groups were similar in age (mean: 69.8 years), proportion of men (67 perecnt), rate of cardiac arrest in a public location (70 percent), and rate of witnessed cardiac arrest (72 percent). Conclusions Community units with volunteers trained in CPR and AEDs had significantly more participants surviving to hospital discharge than units with volunteers trained to use CPR only. There were 30 survivors among 128 definite cardiac arrests in the CPR+AED units and 15 survivors among 107 definite cardiac arrests in the CPR only units (p = 0.03). Serious adverse effects were rarely reported. No volunteers received inadvertent shocks, and no participants were shocked unnecessarily. AED maintenance problems were infrequent. A few participating volunteers reported severe stress related to responding to emergency situations. Although residential complexes represented 16% of the units and 29% of the treatable cardiac arrests, only 5% of the survivors were from residential complexes. Such information should be helpful for individual facilities that are considering implementing PAD programs. (NEJM 2004; 351:637-46).

  Study phs003858

• Data Access Commitee for schizophrenia and control cases sequencing data

  Dac EGAC00001002810

• The data access committee for TIGIT in MCL with CART

  Dac EGAC00001003167

• Thirant, Peltier et al Data Access Commitee

  Dac EGAC00001001789

• Walter and Eliza Hall Institute Research Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001003372

• Gencord Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001000105

• Cancer Genomics Project RCC Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001000109

• Data access committee for the head and neck project

  Dac EGAC00001000374

• Data Access Committee of National Institute of Genetics of Japan

  Dac EGAC00001000448

• North American Brain Expression Consortium (NABEC) Data Access Committee (DAC)

  Dac EGAC00001000560

• The NOWAC blood-breast cancer commitee data access agreement

  Dac EGAC00001000684

• Ovarian Granulosa Cell Tumor Sequencing Project Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001000841

• Peking University BIOPIC Data Access Committee (PUBDAC)

  Dac EGAC00001000902

• Data Access Committee members for NETWork! project

  Dac EGAC00001000930

• Children's Cancer Therapy Development Institute Data Access Commitee

  Dac EGAC00001001160

• South Asia Rheumatic Heart Disease Genetics Network Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001001161

• MTLE small RNA-sequencing and RNA-sequencing Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001001427

• SEGA RNA-sequencing and small RNA-sequencing Data Access Commitee

  Dac EGAC00001001467

• StemNet Project Data Access Commitee

  Dac EGAC00001001472

• Tytgat Institute for Liver and Intestinal Research Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001001483

• Tytgat Institute for Liver and Intestinal Research Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001001485

• Egyptref Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001001525

• Tytgat Institute for Liver and Intestinal Research Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001001615

• Charite Berlin Paediatric Oncology Data Access Committee

  Dac EGAC00001001766

• Neutrophils infected with Leishmania donovani - Data Access Commitee

  Dac EGAC00001001874

• Phase Ib of olaparib and capivasertib data access committee

  Dac EGAC00001001887