15431 results for "1 mil coins fc 26 Visit Buyfc26coins.com for latest FC 26 coins news..buoc"

in 22.43 milliseconds.

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Prehospital Resuscitation on Helicopter Study (PROHS) (ROC-PROHS-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP.Objective: To observe if patients with severe traumatic injuries evacuated to level 1 trauma centers on air ambulances who received prehospital red blood cells and/or plasma had decreased in-hospital mortality compared to patients who received only crystalloids.Background: Injury is the leading cause of death in adults and children between the ages of 1 and 44 years. However, approximately 40% of in-hospital deaths among injured patients involve massive truncal hemorrhage that is considered potentially salvageable. Multiple retrospective military and civilian studies have reported that transfusion involving blood component ratios approaching whole blood are associated with significant decreases in 24-hour and 30-day mortality among injured patients. Furthermore, prehospital transfusion (PHT) studies from military and civilian hospitals have shown that prehospital transfusion of plasma and red blood cells (RBCs) is not only feasible, but associated with improved coagulation status on arrival. Prehospital resuscitation practices in the US differ significantly in approach, with most systems using crystalloids while a few offer RBCs or a combination of plasma and RBCs. No large multicenter civilian studies have evaluated the use of prehospital plasma and RBCs in severely injured patients compared to crystalloids.Participants: A total of 25,118 trauma patients were admitted during the 10 month enrollment period to the nine participating centers, of which 2341 arrived by helicopter, and 1058 met the highest risk criteria. Of the high risk sub-set, 585 arrived on helicopters with blood products available and 473 patients arrived via helicopters without blood available. One hundred forty two patients (24%) of those transported on helicopters with blood products available actually received PHT and 916 patients did not.Design: PROHS was a multicenter, prospective pragmatic, observational study of prehospital resuscitation approaches. There were no study guidelines dictating resuscitation practice (i.e., use of blood products or end of resuscitation). Of the 9 participating Level I trauma centers, 5 had helicopter systems with plasma and/or RBCs while the other 4 had helicopter systems that used only crystalloid resuscitation. All patients arriving to the participating center's trauma emergency department via helicopter directly from the scene were screened and had initial data collected. Of that group, all patients who met the highest risk category or received blood during transport were followed by direct observation during the initial resuscitation period and then indirectly through medical chart review until hospital discharge or 30 days after admission (whichever occurred first).The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality at 3 hours, 24 hours, and 30 days. Other outcome measures included length of hospital stay, number of ICU days, number of ventilator days, blood product usage, GOSE score at discharge, number of patients with complications, and number of patients who required hemostatic devices. Conclusions:Because of the unexpected imbalance in injury severity between systems with and without blood products on helicopters, all analyses were inconclusive. With few units transfused to each patient and small outcome differences between groups, large randomized studies will be required to detect significant survival differences in this important population.

  Study phs003826

• Kids First: Genomic Studies of Orofacial Cleft Birth Defects

  The Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program (Kids First) is a trans-NIH effort initiated in response to the 2014 Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act and supported by the NIH Common Fund. This program focuses on gene discovery in pediatric cancers and structural birth defects and the development of the Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Data Resource (Kids First Data Resource). Both childhood cancers and structural birth defects are critical and costly conditions associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Elucidating the underlying genetic etiology of these diseases has the potential to profoundly improve preventative measures, diagnostics, and therapeutic interventions. WGS and phenotypic data from this study are accessible through dbGaP and kidsfirstdrc.org, where other Kids First datasets can also be accessed. The Kids First study of nonsyndromic orofacial cleft birth defects (OFCs) is a whole genome sequencing study of 415 White parent-case trios drawn from ongoing collaborations led by Dr. Mary L. Marazita of the University of Pittsburgh Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics, including collaborations with Dr. George Wehby of the University of Iowa, Dr. Jacqueline Hecht of the University of Texas, and Dr. Terri Beaty of Johns Hopkins University. Sequencing was done by the Washington University McDonell Genome Institute. The case in each of the Kids First trios has cleft lip (CL, Figure A), cleft palate (CP, Figure B), or both (CL+CP, Figure C): OFCs are genetically complex structural birth defects caused by genetic factors, environmental exposures, and their interactions. OFCs are the most common craniofacial anomalies in humans, affecting approximately 1 in 700 newborns, and are one of the most common structural birth defects worldwide. On average a child with an OFC initially faces feeding difficulties, undergoes 6 surgeries, spends 30 days in hospital, receives 5 years of orthodontic treatment, and participates in ongoing speech therapy, leading to an estimated total lifetime treatment cost of about $200,000. Further, individuals born with an OFC have higher infant mortality, higher mortality rates at all other stages of life, increased incidence of mental health problems, and higher risk for other disorders (notably including breast, brain, and colon cancers). Prior genome-wide linkage and association studies have now identified at least 18 genomic regions likely to contribute to the risk for nonsyndromic OFCs. Despite this substantial progress, the functional/pathogenic variants at OFC-associated regions are mostly still unknown. Because previous OFC genomic studies (genome-wide linkage, genome-wide association studies (GWAS), and targeted sequencing) are based on relatively sparse genotyping data, they cannot distinguish between causal variants and variants in linkage disequilibrium with unobserved causal variants. Moreover, it is unknown whether the association or linkage signals are due to single common variants, haplotypes of multiple common variants, clusters of multiple rare variants, or some combination. Finally, we cannot yet attribute specific genetic risk to individual cases and case families. Therefore, the goal of the current study is to identify specific OFC risk variants in Whites by performing whole genome sequencing of parent-case trios.

  Study phs001168

• BLUE CORAL: Biology and Longitudinal Epidemiology of PETAL COVID-19 Observational Study

  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.Available Data: Long Term Follow-up data has been added with version 2. Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from PETAL BLUE CORAL include: Bronchial Lavage, Plasma, Tracheal Aspirate, Urine, Whole Blood Buffy Coat, DNA, Plasma, Serum, Urine, and Whole Blood. Please note that use of biospecimens is tiered for both non-genetic and genetic research.Objectives: To measure the incidence and changes over time in symptoms, disability, and financial status after COVID-19–related hospitalization.Background: For many individuals, the effects of COVID-19 persist after the acute phase and result in prolonged symptoms and disability. This has led to widespread efforts to characterize the epidemiologic characteristics of such post-COVID-19 sequelae. However, accurate data were limited, hindering the ability to counsel patients, caregivers, and policy makers and to plan relevant recovery-focused clinical research. Thus, the BLUE CORAL study was intended to address the knowledge gaps and provide critical data to help guide clinical care, public health, and scientific efforts.Participants: A total of 1376 COVID-19 patents were enrolled, with 825 (444 male, and 379 female) that completed at least one follow-up survey.A subset of the BLUE CORAL adult participants were enrolled in the extension study, FIRE CORAL. FIRE CORAL was a multicenter prospective cohort study of participants recovering from COVID-19 disease after discharge from the hospital. Design: BLUE CORAL was a prospective cohort study. Participants were enrolled between August 24, 2020, and July 20, 2021, with follow-up occurring through March 30, 2022. Posthospital surveys were administered by trained interviewers in English or Spanish to patients or their proxies at 1, 3, and 6 months after enrollment. Cardiopulmonary symptoms were assessed using the Airways Questionnaire 20, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, and the Seattle Angina Questionnaire. Fatigue was assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. Disability was assessed by self-report of limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). Financial problems were assessed using the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 question and questions regarding job changes, time off work, and insurance coverage developed with the Mi-COVID-19 study using qualitative interviews. Quality of life was measured using the European Quality of Life 5-dimension 5-level instrument.The primary outcomes were new or worsened cardiopulmonary symptoms, financial problems, functional impairments, perceived return to baseline health, and quality of life. Symptoms that were not present before hospitalization or specifically reported as increased in severity were counted as new or worsened. Conclusions: The findings of this cohort study of people discharged after COVID-19 hospitalization suggest that recovery in symptoms, functional status, and fatigue was limited at 6 months, and some participants reported new problems 6 months after hospital discharge.

  Study phs003419

• What is a DAC?

  What is a DAC? Given the complexity, scale, and diversity of global submitters and studies, the EGA operates a distributed data access model in which requests are made to the data controller, not to the EGA. The European Commission defines a data controller, in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as the person that determines the purposes for which and the means by which personal data is processed. A Data Access Committees, commonly referred to as DACs, comprise on or more individuals (or data controllers) that review data access requests and make decisions on who can access personally identifiable genetic, phenotypic, and clinical data deposited at the EGA. Therefore, the members of a DAC should be individuals who have the authority to approve data access requests. The animation describes how you can authorise access to your sensitive data with the help of Data Access Committee and Authorisation tool. Acknowledgement to CSC - IT Center for Finland, Elixir Finland, Elixir Europe. Frequently Asked Questions How can I create a Data Access Committee? How can I create a Data Access Committee? The members of a DAC can come from different areas of expertise, such as data management, data analysis, information technology, legal and compliance, subject matter experts, privacy and security, and representatives from the organisations or individuals that provide data to the DAC. The specific members of a DAC can vary depending on the needs of the organisation and the type of data being managed. The EGA strongly suggests checking with your organisation to align with its regulations How should a DAC be named? The chosen name must be informative to the applicant.  For example, internal identifiers, such as grant numbers, should not be used. Individual PI names should also not be used. DAC's are often named after the organisation or department of the data source.  Browse the full list of DAC names currently in the EGA. How can I become an EGA DAC contact? To register a DAC at the EGA you must create first as an EGA user. Once your EGA user has been approved by the Helpdesk team, you will be able to log in to the DAC Portal. How can I register a DAC? To register a DAC, follow the DAC Portal instructions.  You will be required to provide a DAC name, name of the individual(s) that make up your DAC and contact details for your DAC including your Institutional email(s). Wherever possible, the DAC should make sure that all points of contact are readily available and able to answer any initial data requests/queries in < 2 weeks.  Once your DAC is registered, you will have to wait upon the validation from our Helpdesk team. As soon as all the validations have been completed, your DAC will be activated. Alternatively, you can also establish a DAC at the EGA during a programmatic submission through Webin API. Which are the possible roles of a DAC contact? There are two possible roles for DAC contacts: member and admin. An admin has additional privileges compared to a member: An “admin” can manage data requests, create and edit policies, edit the content of the DAC, add or remove contacts, and decide the role of each contact. A “member” can manage data requests and create policies. However, a member does not have permission to modify DAC details, edit information from policies where they are not admins, or add/remove contacts. There is no limit to the number of admins in a DAC, and each admin is responsible for deciding who should have editing privileges. This allows for a more decentralised and democratic approach to managing the DAC. How can I modify the information of a DAC? To modify a DAC, follow the instructions here. Keep in mind that only DAC contact with an admin role can modify the information of a DAC. If your DAC was registered before the lauch of the DAC Portal, and its ID is EGAC0 (not EGAC5), you must use the programmatic submission to modify it. Please, do not hesitate to contact our Helpdesk team if you need help with this! To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What’s the link between DAC, policy and dataset? A dataset is linked to one single policy. At the same time, one policy has a one to one relationship with a DAC. In this example, you can see that in this dataset page, we are only showing the information of one DAC (1 dataset - 1 DAC). However, the ratio of objects does not work the same in the other direction. One DAC can own multiple policy objects. And each policy object can be reused in several datasets. Thus, one DAC can manage one or more datasets. In this example, you can see that in this DAC page, we are showing all the datasets that are managed by one DAC (1 DAC - >400 datasets). EGA Data Access Committee Best Practices Which are the EGA DAC best practices? Refer to DAC Best Practices What happens if a DAC member changes institutions? EGA is committed to the protection and ownership of the data stored in our systems. We respect the institution's ownership of the data, and as such, if a DAC member changes institutions, the ownership of the data will not be transferred to the new institution. Therefore, before changing institutions, we request that the DAC contact add a new member who will replace them once they no longer work at the institution. This ensures that the data remains protected and is accessible to authorised personnel at the institution. To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What happens if EGA detects an unresponsive DAC? EGA defines an unresponsive DAC as a DAC with one or more contacts who do not respond to data access requests. EGA has procedures in place to identify these types of DACs, escalate the issue, and attempt to reassign the DAC to a responsive contact. This is a crucial step in ensuring that data can be accessed and utilised by researchers. If EGA identifies an unresponsive DAC, the organisation will first try to resolve the issue by escalating it to the appropriate parties. This may involve attempting to reassign the DAC to a more responsive contact. Unfortunately, in situations where we cannot reassign the DAC, the dataset will be withdrawn from the public website and the files will be removed from our system. If an EGA ID is referenced in a publication, the EGA will take extra steps to ensure that the public is made aware of the data's unavailability. I don't want to receive an email notification for pending requests. How can I do that? If you are an EGA DAC with pending requests, you will always receive emails for new data access requests. However, the EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! How can I manage data access requests? What documentation does the DAC need to provide? Each dataset that is submitted to the EGA must be linked to a policy object. The policy is a Data Access Agreement (DAA), which defines the terms and conditions of using the dataset, such as how the data files should be stored once downloaded or details of publication embargoes that should be observed by the approved user. As part of the Data Access Agreement, information regarding the application can be captured to help inform the DAC when making its decision. For example, requestors could be asked to provide a proposed title for their research and a proposal of how the data will be used. By asking for provision of such information the DAC can be assured that the requestor fully understands any consents associated with the data. It is important that accounts created at the EGA, are created solely for those individuals that will be downloading the data from the EGA. As part of the data access request, we strongly encourage you to identify individuals that will need an account at the EGA in order to prevent sharing of login details, which is strictly prohibited under EGA user account policy. Such information can easily be captured in the DAA. NOTICE The data access agreement template below is provided for guidance only and should be adapted as you see fit to suit your own purpose. In the interest of promoting data sharing, we suggest that if an agreement cannot be met around clause 19 in this example that both parties should agree to remain silent, and that the clause should be removed from the agreement. Example DAA How can the DAC provide the DAA? The DAC should provide their own DAA when registering a policy. Data requestors will download this document and should fill it in and send it back to the DAC. Data access decisions should be based on such documentation. The DAA can be downloaded through the request data webpage. Once it has been filled in, the signed copy of the DAA can be uploaded back to the request data webpage and sent to the DAC for review. How can I grant access to the data? Once you receive a data access request, you can login to the DAC Portal. In this portal you will see all your pending requests and will be able to grant or decline access to the requestors. I am a member of the Data Access Committee. Could I approve somebody else to deal with the requests on my behalf? If you want to delegate data access decisions to someone else, make sure that the individual's account is officially registered as a member of the DAC. Remember that a DAC contact with an "admin" role can always add new members to an existing DAC, remove members, and modify contact details through the DAC Portal. Can I automatise the process of managing data access requests? The answer is yes! You can use a programmatic approach using our DAC API! Check out the DAC API specification! Data Breach What should a DAC do if they suspect a breach? If a DAC suspects a data breach of one or more of their datasets, they should immediately contact the EGA Helpdesk team at this link. The DAC must provide the following information when contacting the EGA Helpdesk team: A list of affected datasets An estimated date of the data breach (or interval of dates) A list of unauthorised users who accessed the data (if available). Otherwise, they can provide a list of authorised users for the affected datasets Any observations they would like to raise to the EGA team Once the DAC has contacted the EGA team, we will respond within 48 hours (please allow some leeway during peak times) and activate our data breach protocol. What can I expect from the EGA if they detect a breach? Once the EGA determines that a security incident has occurred, we will notify all DAC members that a data breach has been detected, and take steps to contain the incident. Containment approaches may include: Revoking a data provider's access to the EGA resources, such as by changing passwords. Removing affected EGA datasets from distribution, such as by withdrawing a dataset. Disabling certain functions or services, such as the EGA ingestion pipeline. Shutting down the system or disconnecting it from the network. After the incident has been contained, the EGA will determine whether it is necessary to eradicate components related to the incident. Finally, the EGA will enable recovery of the service to normal operation and confirm that all services are functioning normally.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/what-is-dac

• NHLBI Cleveland Family Study (CFS) Candidate Gene Association Resource (CARe)

  The Cleveland Family Study is the largest family-based study of sleep apnea world-wide, consisting of 2284 individuals (46% African American) from 361 families studied on up to 4 occasions over a period of 16 years. The study was begun in 1990 with the initial aims of quantifying the familial aggregation of sleep apnea. NIH renewals provided expansion of the original cohort (including increased minority recruitment) and longitudinal follow-up, with the last exam occurring in February 2006. Index probands (n=275) were recruited from 3 area hospital sleep labs if they had a confirmed diagnosis of sleep apnea and at least 2 first-degree relatives available to be studied. In the first 5 years of the study, neighborhood control probands (n=87) with at least 2 living relatives available for study were selected at random from a list provided by the index family and also studied. All available first degree relatives and spouses of the case and control probands also were recruited. Second-degree relatives, including half-sibs, aunts, uncles and grandparents, were also included if they lived near the first degree relatives (cases or controls), or if the family had been found to have two or more relatives with sleep apnea. Blood was sampled and DNA isolated for participants seen in the last two exam cycles (n=1447). The sample, which is enriched with individuals with sleep apnea, also contains a high prevalence of individuals with sleep apnea-related traits, including: obesity, impaired glucose tolerance, and HTN. Phenotyping data have been collected over 4 exam cycles, each occurring ~every 4 years. The last three exams targeted all subjects who had been studied at earlier exams, as well as new minority families and family members of previously studied probands who had been unavailable at prior exams. Data from one, two, three and four visits are available for 412, 630, 329 and 67, participants, respectively. In the first 3 exams, participants underwent overnight in-home sleep studies, allowing determination of the number and duration of hypopneas and apneas, sleep period, heart rate, and oxygen saturation levels; anthropometry (weight, height, and waist, hip, and neck circumferences); resting blood pressure; spirometry; standardized questionnaire evaluation of symptoms, medications, sleep patterns, quality of life, daytime sleepiness measures and health history; venipuncture and measurement of total and HDL cholesterol. The 4th exam (2001-2006) was designed to collect more detailed measurements of sleep, metabolic and CVD phenotypes and included measurement of state-of-the-art polysomnography, with both collection of blood and measurement of blood pressure before and after sleep, and anthropometry, upper airway assessments, spirometry, exhaled nitric oxide, and ECG performed the morning after the sleep study. Data have been collected by trained research assistants or GCRC nurses following written Manuals of Procedures who were certified following standard approaches for each study procedure. Ongoing data quality, with assessment of within or between individual drift, has been monitored on an ongoing basis, using statistical techniques as well as regular re-certification procedures. Between and within scorer reliabilities for key sleep apnea indices have been excellent, with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) exceeding 0.92 for the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). Sleep staging, assessed with epoch specific comparisons, also demonstrate excellent reliability for stage identification (kappas&gt;0.82). There has been no evidence of significant time trends-between or within scorers- for the AHI variables. We also have evaluated the night-to-night variability of the AHI and other sleep variables in 91 subjects, with each measurement made 1-3 months apart. There is high night to night consistency for the AHI (ICC: 0.80), the arousal index (0.76), and the % sleep time in slow-wave sleep (0.73). We have demonstrated the comparability of the apnea estimates (AHI) determined from limited channel studies obtained at in-home settings with in full in-laboratory polysomnography. In addition to our published validation study, we more recently compared the AHI in 169 Cleveland Family Study participants undergoing both assessments (in-home and in-laboratory) within one week apart. These showed excellent levels of agreement (ICC=0.83), demonstrating the feasibility of examining data from either in-home or in-laboratory studies for apnea phenotyping. Data collected in the GCRC were obtained, when possible, with comparable, if not identical techniques, as were the same measures collected at prior exams performed in the participants&#39; homes. To address the comparability of data collected over different exams, we calculated the crude age-adjusted correlations ~3 year within individual correlations between measures made in the most recent GCRC exam with measures made in a prior exam and demonstrated excellent levels of agreement for BMI (r=.91); waist circumference (0.91); FVC (0.88); and FEV1 (0.86). As expected due to higher biological and measurement variability, 149 somewhat lower 3-year correlations were demonstrated for SBP (0.56); Diastolic BP (0.48); AHI (0.62); and nocturnal oxygen desaturation (0.60). NHLBI Candidate-gene Association Resource. The NHLBI initiated the Candidate gene Association Resource (CARe) to create a shared genotype/phenotype resource for analyses of the association of genotypes with phenotypes relevant to the mission of the NHLBI. The resource comprises nine cohort studies funded by the NHLBI: Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC), Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS), Cleveland Family Study (CFS), Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA), Cooperative Study of Sickle Cell Disease (CSSCD), Framingham Heart Study (FHS), Jackson Heart Study (JHS), Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), and the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS). A database of genotype and phenotype data will be created that includes records for approximately 50,000 study participants with approximately 50,000 SNPs from more than 1,200 selected candidate genes. In addition, a genome wide association study using a 1,000K SNP Chip will be conducted on approximately 9,500 African American participants drawn from the 50,000 participants in the nine cohorts. Some relevant CARe publications CARe Study: PMID 20400780 CVD Chip Design: PMID 18974833

  Study phs000284

• Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics - Underserved Populations (RADx-UP): COVID-19 Testing and Vaccination Social Network Diffusion for Diverse Criminal Legal Involved Communities

  This RADx-UP Phase II proposal, "Social network diffusion of COVID-19 prevention for diverse Criminal Legal Involved Communities", will implement a situation appropriate COVID-19 testing and vaccination social network diffusion intervention - C3 - building upon RADx-UP Phase I lessons and successful social network prevention interventions developed previously by the research team. C3 Criminal Legal Involved (CLI) populations encompass those non-incarcerated who have experienced recent arrest, incarceration, probation, parole or diversion programs such as drug courts. While increases in COVID-19 testing have been observed among this group, there remain members with limited testing history as well as individuals who are vaccine hesitant. COVID-19 prevention messaging can no longer be simplified to "everyone test and/or everyone vaccinate" as testing and vaccination decisions among community members are sensitive to personal histories (i.e., prior infection), local infection rates (i.e., low rates) and testing/vaccination availability. As COVID-19 prevention efforts have become more complicated (i.e., test if exposed), people tend to focus on the messenger, and particularly those that are close to them. Personal connections and communications within existing personal network structures, such as families, friends and other trusted acquaintances represent the cornerstone to increase situation appropriate testing and overcoming COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. C3 builds upon RADx-UP I, by using a network diffusion approach facilitated through motivational interviewing purposefully geared to mobilize one's own organic social network to increase context appropriate testing and vaccine uptake. Through this process we will maximize the primary benefit and impact of this type of intervention which also has the intended effect of increasing likelihood that the messenger themselves will undergo the same behavior change that they have been trained to promote. We will leverage infrastructure developed in RADx-UP Phase I, which includes 4 high-impact sites across the Central US from Phase I: Baton Rouge LA, Little Rock AR, Indianapolis IN, and Chicago IL. We will utilize established engagement efforts already in place and continue to fully integrate communities in the strategic application of the intervention. We will use the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to guide implementation. C3 aims to: Aim 1a. Test the efficacy (3-month situation appropriate testing or vaccination) of a network diffusion intervention (C3) versus an existing COVID-19 testing and vaccine linkage to care intervention among: 1) primary study participants (primary outcome); and 2) secondary study participants connected to primary participants (secondary outcome) using a RCT design. Aim 1b. Explore the mechanisms for differential intervention effects at the individual and network-level that may increase situation appropriate testing and/or vaccination uptake. Aim 2. Examine key RE-AIM components in real time tied to the implementation of the network diffusion intervention (C3).

  Study phs003234

• CIDR: The Role of Rare Coding Variation in Prostate Cancer in Men of African Ancestry - RESPOND Project 2

  In RESPOND Project 2, we seek to identify rare genetic factors that are associated with prostate cancer (PCa) risk and aggressiveness in men of African ancestry (AA). We will conduct exome sequencing of 15,000 prostate cancer cases and 5,000 controls from the RESPOND cohort and the African Ancestry Prostate Cancer Consortium (AAPC) with cases selected based on risk categories: high-risk (stage T3/T4 or Gleason 8+ or PSA&gt;20 ng/ml), intermediate-risk (stage T2b/T2c or Gleason 7 or PSA 10-20 ng/ml) and low-risk disease (stage T1/T2a and Gleason &#8804; 6 and PSA&lt;10 ng/ml). We expect the findings from this Project to significantly advance knowledge of susceptibility to aggressive PCa and racial/ethnic disparities in PCa risk, and to guide the development of future preventive, early detection and prognostic measures for AA men. The first phase of the study will include exome sequence data for approximately 7,500 cases and 5,000 controls from AAPC. The second phase of the study will include exome data for 5,000 cases from RESPOND and AAPC.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS and CONTRIBUTING SITES Multiethnic Cohort (MEC): The MEC and the genotyping in this study were supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants CA63464, CA54281, CA1326792, CA148085, and HG004726. Cancer incidence data for the MEC and Los Angeles Study of Aggressive Prostate Cancer (LAAPC) studies have been collected by the Los Angeles Cancer Surveillance Program of the University of Southern California with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute (NCI)/NIH/Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) under Contract No. N01-PC-35139, and the California Department of Health Services as part of the state-wide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885, and grant 1U58DP000807-3 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Ghana Prostate Study (GPS): The Ghana Prostate Study was funded by the Intramural Program of the NCI/NIH/DHHS under Contract No. HHSN261200800001E. Men of African Descent and Carcinoma of the Prostate (MADCaP): We thank all MADCaP study participants. This work is a product of the MADCaP network. This work was supported by NCI/NIH grant U01CA184374 to Timothy Rebbeck and National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) MIRA grant R35GM133727 to Joseph Lachance. Additional funding includes a seed grant from the Integrated Cancer Research Center at Georgia Institute of Technology. UGANDA: The UGANDA study was supported by NIH grant R01CA165862. Southern Community Cohort (SCCS) is funded by NIH grant CA092447. SCCS sample preparation was conducted at the Epidemiology Biospecimen Core Lab that is supported in part by the Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center (CA68485). Data on SCCS cancer cases were provided by Alabama Statewide Cancer Registry, Kentucky Cancer Registry, Office of Cancer Surveillance at Tennessee Department of Health, Florida Cancer Data System, Central Cancer Registry at North Carolina Division of Public Health, Georgia Comprehensive Cancer Registry, Louisiana Tumor Registry, Mississippi Cancer Registry, South Carolina Central Cancer Registry, Virginia Cancer Registry at Virginia Department of Health, and Cancer Registry at Arkansas Department of Health. The Arkansas Central Cancer Registry is fully funded by a grant from National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR)/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Data on SCCS cancer cases from Mississippi were collected by the Mississippi Cancer Registry which participates in the NPCR/CDC. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC or the Mississippi Cancer Registry. Karuprostate: The Karuprostate study was supported by the French National Health Directorate and by the Association pour la Recherche sur les Tumeurs de la Prostate. S&#233;verine Ferdinand, Marc Romana. The North Carolina - Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP) is carried out as a collaborative study supported by the Department of Defense contract DAMD 17-03-2-0052. The authors thank the staff, advisory committees and research subjects participating in the PCaP study for their important contributions. We would also like to acknowledge the UNC BioSpecimen Facility and the LSUHSC Pathology Lab for our DNA extractions, blood processing, storage and sample disbursement (https://genome.unc.edu/bsp). Gene-Environment Interaction in Prostate Study (GECAP) was supported by NIH grant ES011126. King County Prostate Cancer Study (KCPCS) was supported by NIH grants CA056678, CA082664, and CA092579, with additional support from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. We thank the participants in these studies, and Ms. Suzanne Kolb for help with study management. The Los Angeles Study of Aggressive Prostate Cancer (LAAPC) was funded by grant 99-00524V-10258 from the Cancer Research Fund, under Interagency Agreement #97-12013 (University of California contract #98-00924V) with the Department of Health Services Cancer Research Program. Cancer incidence data for the MEC and LAAPC studies have been collected by the Los Angeles Cancer Surveillance Program of the University of Southern California with Federal funds from the NCI/NIH/DHHS under Contract No. N01-PC-35139, and the California Department of Health Services as part of the state-wide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885, and grant 1U58DP000807-3 from the CDC. Prostate Cancer Studies at MD Anderson (MDA) was supported by grants CA68578, ES007784, DAMD W81XWH-07-1-0645, and CA140388.

  Study phs002637

• Peter Van Loo MPNST phase 1

  We comprehensively profile a primary malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumour (MPNST) and its recurrence with a multi-omic and spatial approach at single-cell resolution. Leveraging the extensive heterogeneity in copy number aberrations (CNAs) as a native barcoding system, we fully resolve the evolutionary tree of this tumour revealing multi-furcations suggestive of ongoing chromosomal instability. We show gene dosage effects contribute to phenotypic diversity and are predominantly linear. Using laser capture microdissection, we performed spatial lineage tracing in a human tumour, elucidating the relationship between local expansions and interactions between tumour cells and the microenvironment.

  Dac EGAC50000000904

• Transcriptomic analyisis of 54 samples of AC16 cells exposed to trastuzumab

  Data of 54 samples with their 54 paired fastaq files that were sequenced in a Novaseq 6000 platform. Samples correspond to the three biological replicates of AC16 cells (i.e. AC16, C1, C2). Each biological replicate was edited to carry either of the three different genotypes of the rs1136201 variant (i.e. AA, AG, GG) and each genotype was enriched to express HER2 protein in three levels (i.e. low, medium and high expression) as selected by FACS. Additionally, treatment of each sample was performed and sequenced in duplicates (i.e. 1 and 2)

  Dataset EGAD50000001705

• CITEseq data of Reactive Lymph Nodes

  Mononuclear cells were isolated as cell suspensions by dissociation in a BD Horizon™ Dri Tumor & Tissue Dissociation Reagent (BD Biosciences) using a gentleMACS dissociator (Miltenyi Biotec). A totalseq-C antibody cocktail (Biolegend) was used, and the cell suspensions were diluted to a concentration of 1,000 cells/μL. Library sequencing was performed using the NovaSeq6000 System (Illumina). The FASTQ files were aligned to the 10x provided reference genome using 10x Genomics Cell Ranger software v7.1.0 to create unique molecular identifier count tables of gene expression of the samples.

  Dataset EGAD50000000538