14465 results for "PLOS+ONE+Pennsylvania+German+ACS+language+code+pdc+open+access+study"

in 13.72 milliseconds.

• NEC

  This multi-centre, non-randomized, open-label, phase II trial (NCT03016338), assessed niraparib monotherapy (cohort 1, C1), or niraparib and dostarlimab (cohort 2, C2) in patients with recurrent serous or endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR). Secondary outcomes were safety and objective response rate (ORR). Translational research was an exploratory outcome. Potential biomarkers were evaluated in archival tissue by immunohistochemistry and next generation sequencing panel. Feasibility of liquid biopsy by ctDNA was assessed.

  Study EGAS00001007013

• Bulk RNA-sequencing datasets from Caco-2 cells under normal or inflamed conditions treated with 4HTBZ or vehicle.

  This dataset contains 4 bulk RNA sequencing files (.fastq.gz) and a metadata file (.csv) from Caco-2/TC7 intestinal epithelial cells under normal or inflamed conditions, followed by treatment with 4HTBZ or vehicle. The cDNA libraries were prepared with the QuantSeq 3′ mRNA-Seq Kit (Lexogen, Inc.) and sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq4000 system. The metadata file provides sample information (experimental condition and code identifier). Raw sequencing reads were quality-checked with FastQC, trimmed with Trimmomatic, and aligned to the human reference genome (GRCh38) using HISAT2.

  Dataset EGAD50000001759

• Genotype data for The admixture histories of Cabo Verde - genotype data

  Datasets used in the article "The genetic and linguistic admixture histories of the islands of Cabo Verde" by Laurent R et al. eLife 2023 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.79827 - URL: https://elifesciences.org/articles/79827) As per Materials and Methods herein, the genotype data corresponds to 2,118,722 autosomal SNPs genotyped from the IlluminaOmni 2.5 Million BeadChip for 233 Cabo Verdean volunteer participants, family unrelated at the 2nd degree based on population genetics analyses (see Material and Methods). SNP rsID, Chromosome position and genetic position in (bp) are in Build GRCh38. Cabo Verdean individuals are designated with an alphanumeric unique code

  Dataset EGAD00001008979

• Investigating low frequency variants in CAD/MI cases, controls and pedigrees using whole exome sequencing and custom pulldowns

  The Cardiogenics re-sequencing study will consist of three parts: Eight pools of 25 individuals will be sequenced using a Nimblegen hybrid-capture solution specific to miRNA sequences, 80 pools of 25 individuals will be sequenced using a custom Agilent SureSelect array covering genes associated with coronary artery disease (CAD) and myocardial infarction (MI), 10 individuals from families with a history of CAD/MI will be exome sequenced using the Sanger exome array. The experiment will use the early onset patients from the German MI cohort and the UK BHF CAD/MI cohort both of which have strong family history. For controls we will consider individuals from the UKBS and KORA cohorts.

  Dataset EGAD00001000400

• National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA): Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR) Genome-Wide Genotyping

  The Sjögren's International Collaborative Clinical Alliance (SICCA) is a multisite observational cohort study that recruited a large cohort of geographically diverse participants. Enrollment of participants began in late 2004 at five (one domestic and four international) sites, in which all groups used the same protocol-directed methods to provide uniform evaluations; collect oral, ocular, and rheumatologic data; and collect specimens. The sites were located at the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina; Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China; Rigshopitalet (formerly at Glostrup Hospital), Copenhagen, Denmark; Kanazawa Medical University, Ishikawa, Japan; King's College, London, UK (joined in 2007); and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). In 2009, Aravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, India; Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA were added as additional SICCA sites. UCSF is the coordinating center for SICCA. All specimens and data collected for SICCA are housed at UCSF. To facilitate the research focused on understanding the genetics of Sjögren'sSjögren's syndrome, high-density SNP genotype data and SICCA clinical information are being made available to the research community. This includes participants recruited from all SICCA research groups (RG). These participants (3,382), blood relatives (439), and unrelated healthy controls (25) had their whole blood or saliva sample (Oragene) extracted for DNA for the GWAS at the UCSF DNA Bank. Eighty eight percent of the participants are women, most are of European or Asian ancestry and the median age is 55. To assess potential batch effects when doing case-control comparisons using planned external controls, 30 DNA samples from each of three studies were genotyped with SICCA DNA samples: The Genetic Architecture of Smoking and Smoking Cessation - Collaborative Genetic Study of Nicotine Dependence (COGEND) - PI: Laura Bierut. NEI-Age-related disease study (AREDS) - Genetic Variation in Refractive Error Substudy - PI: Dwight Stambolian. Controls from the National Institute of Mental Health's (NIMH's) Human Genetics Initiative. Genome-Wide Association Study of Schizophrenia - PI: Pablo V. Gejman. Molecular Genetics of Schizophrenia - nonGAIN Sample (MGS_nonGAIN) - PI: Pablo V. Gejman. Genotyping was performed at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). Data quality control, dbGaP preparation and posting, and imputation to 1000 Genomes to increase SNP density was performed by the Center for Biomedical Statistics at the University of Washington. Data analysis was performed at UCSF using software PLINK, EIGENSOFT, and SNPTEST.

  Study phs000672

• Prematurity and Respiratory Outcomes Program (PROP) Core Database Protocol (PROP-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 Prematurity and Respiratory Outcomes Program (PROP) was performed to identify suitable predictors of respiratory outcomes that may serve as surrogate endpoints in future trials of prevention and therapy of respiratory diseases in preterm infants.Background: Acute and chronic respiratory morbidities are common in premature births, and can pose significant risk to the infant's health, particularly during the first two years of life. One such condition is bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) where infants require oxygen therapy due to abnormal repair and impaired lung development after acute lung injury. BPD poses a high mortality risk, even in infants that survive the initial hospitalization. Regardless of BPD diagnosis, preterm infants frequently return for medical care due to symptoms of post-prematurity respiratory disease (PRD), which includes intermittent or chronic wheezing, cough without cold, poor growth, apnea and cyanosis, and lower respiratory tract infections. Impaired lung function can persist into adulthood, contributing to chronic respiratory diseases including asthma and emphysema.However, at the time of the PROP study, there were no objective measures to predict which preterm infants would have persistent respiratory problems after discharge from the hospital. Furthermore, improved survival rates of premature infants and the high prevalence of lasting respiratory morbidities highlight the need for more comprehensive strategies to address both short-term and long-term respiratory complications. Thus, the Prematurity and Respiratory Outcomes Program (PROP) was formed to investigate multiple research hypotheses on the molecular mechanisms that contribute to respiratory disease risk of premature neonates over the first year of life. Specifically, PROP investigators hypothesized that in survivors of extreme prematurity to 36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA), specific biologic, physiologic and clinical data obtained during the initial hospitalization will predict respiratory morbidity between discharge and 1 year corrected age. Participants: A total of 835 infants were enrolled.Design: PROP was a collaboratively developed multicenter prospective cohort study of very preterm infants from birth through the time of discharge from the NICU and up to one year corrected age.Clinical data included maternal and infant demographics, co-morbidities, and daily infant respiratory, nutritional, and medication data until discharge. These were prospectively collected from birth using medical record review and family interviews. After discharge, phone interviews were conducted with the infant's main caregiver at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months corrected age to assess domains of respiratory morbidity. At 6 and 12 months corrected age, a survey of environmental respiratory irritant exposures and an assessment for gastroesophageal reflux disease were also completed. A standardized physical exam was performed at 36-40 weeks PMA and again at one year corrected age. The exam focused on anthropometrics, vital signs, and respiratory system signs. At 34-41 weeks PMA and within one week of anticipated discharge based on physiologic stability, a set of non-invasive respiratory assessments were performed to assess physiologic biomarkers in infants that were not mechanically ventilated or receiving non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. Respiratory inductance plethysmography (RIP) was performed before and after inhaled albuterol to assess potential airway reactivity. During the RIP study, continuous pulse oximetry was performed during quiet sleep in order to analyze oxygen desaturations and apneas. Standardized oxygen requirement challenge tests were performed at about 36 weeks PMA, and at about 40 weeks PMA if the infant was still hospitalized and was not eligible for, or failed, the previous challenge. Failure was defined as SpO2 20 seconds at any point in the testing. Infants breathing ambient air or that passed the 36 week challenge test underwent a hypoxia challenge consisting of a 15-minute trial of FiO2 of 0.15. Failure was defined as SpO2 The primary outcome was respiratory morbidity, as measured by the presence or absence of substantial post-prematurity respiratory disease (PRD) up to one year corrected age. PRD was classified as a positive response in at least one of four morbidity domains during at least two separate parental interviews. The domains were respiratory medications, hospitalizations for cardiopulmonary cause, respiratory symptoms, and home technology dependence (oxygen, ventilator, or CPAP/BiPAP). Mortality from a respiratory cause was also incorporated.

  Study phs004117

• How to request data

  Request Data Access If you're looking to access data from the EGA for your research, you are in the right documentation page! In this page you will find a step by step guide on how to request data archived at the EGA, as well as some frequently asked questions you might find useful. When requesting data, you'll need to provide information about your research project and intended use of the data. Keep in mind that your data access request may require additional approvals or agreements depending on the datasets and data providers involved. Step by step guide Register yourself as an EGA user. Validate your account. A validation link will be sent to your email to activate your EGA user account. Log into the EGA page. Search the dataset of interest from the dataset catalogue or search bar. Click on “Request access” Add a comment requesting these files and send your request Your request is successfully registered, and the DAC will receive a notification about your request In addition to submitting your request, you should also contact the DAC directly via e-mail. You can access the DAC's contact information from the relevant dataset page. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Which is the role of the EGA in the data access process? The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) facilitates the secure distribution under controlled access of personally identifiable genetic and phenotypic data. Data Access Committee (DAC) is a body of one or more individuals who are responsible for data release to external requestors, based on participant consent and/or National Research Ethics terms. How do I request access to multiple datasets? To request access for multiple datasets managed by the same Data Access Committee (DAC), please start by visiting the DAC catalogue to locate the DAC of your choice. Once you've found the relevant DAC, proceed to its dedicated page where you'll find a "Request access" button. After logging in to the EGA website, you'll be presented with a comprehensive list of datasets under the chosen DAC. Select the datasets you're interested in, and then compose a message indicating your access request. Click the "Send" button to submit your request, which will include the chosen datasets. Please be sure to review the data usage policies for the requested datasets, as policies can vary among datasets managed by the same DAC. I am a co-applicant. Will I be given a joint access account? Each applicant needs to create an EGA account themselves, with unique login details. User log-in details are for individual use only and should never be shared, under any circumstances. EGA services are only provided to EGA account holders. Therefore, the co-applicant will send a formal request to the DAC. What happens if a co-applicant leaves or a new member needs to be added to an existing DAC application? The appropriate Data Access Committee (DAC) should be contacted and informed about the required changes so that the application can be updated. I have changed my place of work since my EGA account was created. Can I still have access to data? You must contact the relevant Data Access Committee (DAC). The DAC did not reply to my data access request. How should I proceed? There is no estimated time for DAC response. Please allow up to four weeks for a response. In the meantime, please send them a weekly reminder of the status of your request by emailing them directly.If the DAC becomes unresponsive, meaning that they fail to communicate with a requestor within the specified time frame, please contact the EGA Helpdesk team. I have an account with the EGA and would like access to further datasets. How should I proceed? You need to reapply to the relevant Data Access Committee (DAC). Once the DAC has approved your application your account will be updated and an email will be sent to notify you of a change made to your account. How do I download files of the datasets I have been granted access to? The preferred method for data download and decryption is the EGA Secure Download Client. Please carefully review the provided documentation. How do I download metadata? Metadata is retrieved from the EGA webpage; you will not need to use any download client. Be informed that you will only be able to download metadata of your approved datasets. For such download, you should first log in the EGA webpage with your credentials. Then browse the metadata's dataset you have gained access and you will find a metadata download button. You may also want to have a look our metadata schema. I have forgotten or misplaced my user account password; how do I get a new one? Click on “Log in”, located in the top right corner of the EGA homepage. Then click “Forgot password”, type in your registered institutional email address, and instructions for resetting your password will be sent to you. Please check both regular and junk/spam folders. I was sent a link to set a password for my download account, but it seems like the link has expired. What should I do? The procedure is the same as the one for a forgotten password, explained in the previous question.

  Documentation access/request-data/how-to-request-data

• Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network (CCTRN): A Phase II, RCT of Mesenchymal Stem Cells & Cardiac Stem Cells in Subjects With Ischemic HF (CONCERT HF-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. ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of autologous mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and c-kit positive cardiac cells (CPCs), alone or in combination, in participants with ischemic heart failure.Background The prognosis of heart failure (HF) caused by chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy (coronary artery disease and prior myocardial infarction), hereby referred to as “ischemic HF”, remains poor. Many studies have explored the use of various types of stem or progenitor cells in participants with chronic ischemic HF, with encouraging results. Several clinical trials have suggested that MSCs and CPCs are both safe and beneficial in participants with ischemic HF. At the time of this study, no information was available on the efficacy of MSCs and CPCs in humans, however, both cell types have been shown to attenuate left ventricle (LV) dysfunction in animal models. Preclinical models indicate that combining MSCs and CPCs increases the therapeutic effects, but this had not yet been tested in humans. The CONCERT-HF study was initiated to assess whether autologous MSCs and CPCs, alone or in combination, can be manufactured and delivered to participants with ischemic HF; are well-tolerated; and improve LV function, quality of life, and functional capacity, and/or reduce scar size. Participants A total of 125 participants were randomized with 33 participants randomized to the MSCs and CPCs group, 29 participants to the MSCs alone group, 31 participants to the CPCs alone group, and 32 participants to the placebo group. Design The CONCERT-HF study was a multi-center Phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of MSCs alone, CPCs alone, and their combination compared with placebo as well as each other in patients with ischemic HF. In Stage 1 (open label, lead-in study) participants were randomized 1:1 to either a standard-of-care control group (i.e., they did not undergo harvest, mapping, or injection procedures) or combination therapy (MSCs + CPCs, as described for Stage 2) to complete safety assessments. Once approval was granted for Stage 2, participants were randomized (1:1:1:1) to one of four treatments: placebo, autologous MSCs (target dose, 150 × 106 cells), autologous CPCs (target dose, 5 × 106 cells), or a combination of autologous MSCs and CPCs. At the harvest visit, right ventricular endocardial biopsy (EMB) was performed in participants randomized to receive CPCs alone or a combination of MSCs and CPCs. Participants randomized to receive MSCs alone or placebo had a sham procedure (right heart catheterization without EMB). All participants underwent a bone marrow aspiration and approximately 14 weeks later had transendocardial, electromechanically-guided injections of study product. Visits occurred at 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after study product injection. A telephone contact took place at 24 months to assess the participant's current medications, as well as morbidity and mortality. Study endpoints included measures of safety, feasibility, and efficacy. Safety outcomes included all adverse events grade 2 and higher, including major adverse cardiac events (MACE) related to HF (death, hospitalization for worsening HF, and HF exacerbation not requiring hospitalization). Efficacy endpoints included quality of life, MRI measures of LV function and structure, functional capacity, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. Conclusions In patients with ischemic HF, autologous MSCs and CPCs, alone or in combination, are safe and feasible; CPCs were associated with a reduction in the incidence of MACE related to HF compared to placebo; MSCs, either alone or in combination with CPCs, were associated with improved quality of life; these seemingly beneficial effects of CPCs and MSCs on clinical outcome were not associated with changes in LV function or structure; and combination therapy with MSCs and CPCs was associated with the best clinical outcomes with respect to both MACE related to HF and quality of life.

  Study phs004055

• RNA sequencing data of 142 samples from 142 patients with HER2+ breast cancer treated with letrozole or tamoxifen (SOLTI PAMELA trial)

  PAMELA (NCT01973660) is a non-randomized, open-label, multicentric, prospective translational research study in stage I-IIIA HER2+ breast cancer designed to evaluate the ability of the PAM50 intrinsic subtypes to predict pCR in the breast (pCRB) following 18 weeks of neoadjuvant lapatinib and trastuzumab (+/- hormonal therapy if hormone receptor [HR] positive). Patients with HR+ disease received letrozole (if postmenopausal) or tamoxifen (if pre-menopausal). The primary objective was to compare the pCRB rates of the HER2-E versus the non-HER2-E subtypes in the intent-to-treat population.

  Study EGAS00001006410

• PEVOsq

  The PEVOData PEVOsq basket trial is an open-label, multi-center, phase II trial investigating the combination of pembrolizumab (an immune checkpoint inhibitor) with vorinostat (a histone deacetylase inhibitor). This trial focuses on treating patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous carcinomas, including cancers of the cervix, head and neck, anus, vulva/vagina, penis, and lung. The aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this combination, with pembrolizumab administered every 3 weeks and vorinostat daily. Outcomes include overall response rate and progression-free survival.

  Study EGAS50000000731