11315 results for "fc 26 best way to get coins Visit Buyfc26coins.com Gyors és hatékony szolgáltatás. Hamarosan visszatérek több FC 26 érmeért..4w1a"

in 13.47 milliseconds.

• WTCCC2 Pharmacogenomic Response to Statins study

  A WTCCC2 project genome-wide study for pharmacogenomic response to statins (PR) in individuals from Scotland.

  Study EGAS00000000121

• Macrophage polarisation to M1 and M2 phenotypes

  iPSC-derived macrophages were polarised with LPS/IFN-gamma or IL4 to M1 and M2 phenotypes, respectively.

  Study EGAS50000000820

• Integration of Clinical and Molecular Biomarkers for Melanoma Survival (Berwick)

  The long-term goal of the InterMEL Program Project: Integration of Clinical and Molecular Biomarkers for Melanoma Survival is to identify molecular and clinical factors that predict survival of melanoma patients. Our overarching hypothesis is that we can identify factors in the primary melanoma tumor that will lead to more aggressive disease. Melanoma patients diagnosed at American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumor, lymph nodes, and metastases (TNM) stages IIA/IIB/IIC/IIIA/IIIB/IIIC/IIID display highly variable clinical outcomes and responses to therapy. We wish to identify robust and reproducible biomarkers or sets of classifiers that distinguish patients likely to have poor prognosis. These biomarkers will help establish targets for adjuvant therapies for this set of patients before the tumors metastasize. Aim 1. Classify actionable somatic mutations, and copy number variations (CNVs) in relationship to melanoma survival. In Project 1, Targeted Sequencing and Clinicopathology to Evaluate Primary Melanoma Molecular Subtypes and Outcomes, we will profile 468 genes using the MSKIMPACT ™ assay and identify somatic mutations and CNVs associated with melanoma-specific survival, as well as their co-occurrence with other mutations, in 1,000 tumors from patients at AJCC TNM stages IIA-IIID: approximately 500 from patients who died with melanoma within five years and approximately 500 from individuals who have lived at least five years. We will also evaluate the joint effects of somatic mutations, CNVs and pathologic characteristics associated with good and poor outcomes. Aim 2. Identify primary melanoma DNA methylation profiles to evaluate subtypes and survival. Although it has been established that melanomas frequently have aberrant DNA methylation, it is unknown if DNA methylation in primary melanomas predicts outcome. In Project 2, Primary Melanoma DNA Methylation Profiling for Evaluating Subtypes and Survival, we will profile the same primary melanomas as in Project 1 with Illumina Infinium 850K methylation arrays. We expect to: identify and characterize DNA methylation-based melanoma subclasses; train, test and validate a CpG signature prognostic for survival from melanoma; determine whether this profile adds information to outcome prediction beyond AJCC TNM staging. This project is based on the hypothesis that DNA methylation in primary melanoma will define subgroups (including a poor-prognosis CIMP – ‘CpG island methylator phenotype' subtype) and that a CpG signature will be prognostic for melanoma survival. Aim 3. Define microRNA expression changes in relation to melanoma survival. MicroRNAs have been associated with poor prognosis in melanoma, as well as in other cancers. In Project 3, Prognostic and Functional Role of a Gene Expression Signature in Melanoma Patients, we hypothesize that altered miRNA expression, captured at the time of diagnosis, may contribute to the aggressive behavior of a subset of early stage primary melanomas. We will profile the same primary melanomas as in Projects 1 and 2 with a Nanostring assay. This project will define and validate a tissue-based microRNA signature in conducted to determine whether the prognostic miRNA signature, as well as other candidate genes emerging from other projects, contribute to melanoma survival. Aim 4. Integrate data from multiple platforms to identify melanoma subtypes and survival. Despite substantial literature on gene tumor mutation-, methylation- and gene expression-based prognostic and predictive signatures for melanoma, few such signatures are used in clinical practice. Project 4, Multiplatform Analysis of Melanoma Molecular Subtypes and Patient Survival Outcome, will use novel integrative clustering methods to identify molecular subtypes of melanoma jointly defined across these platforms.

  Study phs003099

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry (Cardiac Epistry) Version 3 (ROC-Cardiac Epistry 3-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. Available Data The ROC Cardiac Epistry version 3 include all cardiac arrest cases entered into the ROC database from April 1, 2011 to June 30, 2015. This is separate from versions 1 and 2 because of the major changes in how and which data were collected. Version 3 represents the following major changes to the structure and data collection: separate ED Arrival and Hospital Admits forms, mandatory ED and Hospital elements and a revamped CPR Process form. For ROC traumatic injury Epistry data please see: ROC-Trauma Epistry Objectives To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims included: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of participants that experience cardiac arrest; to more fully establish the burden of cardiac arrest; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes. Background Cardiac arrest is a common, serious, debilitating and costly public health problem. Although there has been a steady decline in morbidity and mortality from most cardiovascular diseases, high mortality rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests continue to pose a challenge for healthcare providers and a significant public health burden. The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Participant and care characteristics can predict favorable outcomes in cardiac arrests, but there is still a wide variation in outcomes that is not well understood. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region. Variations in geographic, socioeconomic and periodic factors may also be associated with differences in outcomes. Prior to ROC Cardiac Epistry, there were no North American population-based registries for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants There were 120,306 participants. Design ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the ROC regions. Each ROC site had to ensure capture of all eligible cases within the EMS service areas. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Alternative methods included linkage to death registries and obituaries if the death occurred within 30 days. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads. Participants were not contacted directly.

  Study phs003726

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry (Cardiac Epistry) Versions 1 and 2 (ROC-Cardiac Epistry 1 and 2-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. Available Data: The ROC Cardiac Epistry versions 1 and 2 include all cardiac arrest cases entered into the ROC database from December 1, 2005 to April 1, 2011. ROC Cardiac Epistry 3 includes cardiac arrest cases captured between 2011 and 2015, and introduced significant changes in how and which data were collected.For ROC traumatic injury Epistry data, please see: ROC-Trauma Epistry Objectives: To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of participants that experience cardiac arrest;to more fully establish the burden of cardiac arrest; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes.Background: Cardiac arrest is a common, serious, debilitating and costly public health problem. Although there has been a steady decline in morbidity and mortality from most cardiovascular diseases, high mortality rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests continue to pose a challenge for healthcare providers and a significant public health burden. The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Participant and care characteristics can predict favorable outcomes in cardiac arrests, but there is still a wide variation in outcomes that is not well understood. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region. Variations in geographic, socioeconomic and periodic factors may also be associated with differences in outcomes.Prior to ROC Cardiac Epistry, there were no North American population-based registries for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants: The registry included 109,326 cardiac arrest events from 264 EMS agencies transporting to 287 acute care hospitals from the following regional centers: Birmingham, Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Iowa City, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Diego, California; Seattle/King County, Washington; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; and Vancouver, British Columbia.Design: ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the ROC regions. Each ROC site had to ensure capture of all eligible cases within the EMS service areas. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Alternative methods included linkage to death registries and obituaries if the death occurred within 30 days. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads. Participants were not contacted directly.

  Study phs003803

• Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network - Reevaluation of Systemic Early Neuromuscular Blockade (PETAL ROSE-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: 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. Available Data: The data available for request now include Long Term Outcome data.Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from PETAL ROSE include Plasma, DNA, Whole Blood, and Urine. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent.Objectives: To determine the efficacy and safety of early neuromuscular blockade with concomitant heavy sedation as compared with a strategy of usual care with lighter sedation targets in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS.Background: It has been well established that the approaches used for the application of mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can affect survival and outcomes after discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU). A large, multicenter trial conducted a decade before this study reported that the early administration of a 48-hour infusion of neuromuscular blockade in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS (defined by a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen [Pao2] to the fraction of inspired oxygen [Fio2] of Participants: There were 1006 participants.Design: PETAL-ROSE was a multicenter, unblinded, randomized trial of patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive 48 hours of continuous neuromuscular blockade with concomitant deep sedation (intervention group) or to receive usual care without routine neuromuscular blockade and with lighter sedation targets (control group).Patients in the intervention group who were not under deep sedation at baseline were deeply sedated within 4 hours after randomization. Subsequently, patients in this group received an intravenous bolus of 15 mg of cisatracurium, followed by a continuous infusion of 37.5 mg per hour for 48 hours. After the 48-hour trial intervention period, decisions regarding further use of neuromuscular blockade, including the choice of agent, were left to the discretion of the treating clinician. Neuromuscular blockade could be stopped early if the patient met the criteria for freedom from mechanical ventilation (Fio2 ≤0.40 and PEEP ≤8 cm of water) for at least 12 hours. All patients were treated with a strategy of low tidal volume ventilation within 2 hours after randomization and a high PEEP strategy for up to 5 days after randomization. Assessors who were unaware of the group assignment interviewed surviving patients or their proxies at 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. The primary end point was in-hospital death from any cause at 90 days (in-hospital was defined as the time in the trial hospital plus transfer to another hospital, including the time in long-term acute care facilities). Conclusions: After the second interim analysis, the decision to stop the trial for futility was made independently by the data and safety monitoring board.In critically ill patients identified shortly after the diagnosis of moderate-to-severe ARDS, the addition of early continuous neuromuscular blockade with concomitant deep sedation did not result in lower mortality than a usual-care approach to mechanical ventilation that included lighter sedation targets.

  Study phs003878

• FEGA and European GDI: working together to improve human health

  The Federated EGA is a global resource for discovery of and access to sensitive human omics and associated data consented for secondary use, through a network of human data repositories to accelerate biomedical research and improve human health. The Federated EGA network was launched in September 2022 with five inaugural nodes, and since 2023 seven operational nodes can share data across national borders in adherence to European and national laws. A few weeks after FEGA's official launch, in November 2022, the European Genomic Data Infrastructure (GDI) project was kicked-off . This European Commission co-funded project, coordinated by ELIXIR, is aimed to deliver federated, sustainable and secure data infrastructure to access genomic and related phenotypic and clinical data across Europe. This project supports the aim of the 1+MG initiative (25 EU countries, Norway and UK) to enable personalised medicine and health through a shared framework and infrastructure for securely accessing and integrating high quality genomic data and other health data across borders.1+MG will be an integral component of the European Health Data Space (EHDS) for secondary use (Healthdata@EU) as an authorised participant. How are Federated EGA and GDI similar? Given their shared visions, the Federated EGA and European GDI networks have a lot in common. To begin, they share the same overall goal of establishing networks of “nodes” that host sensitive human data within a jurisdiction and connecting these nodes in a global network to support data discovery and promote human genome data access for research and healthcare. FEGA and GDI are both initially focused on enabling access to human genomic data, while FEGA ambition is to expand the scope to clinical research data and other omics data in the future. FEGA and GDI are both built on open and interoperable software solutions, a subset of which are based on the LocalEGA components. FEGA and GDI implementation solutions are based on international community standards, for example those developed by the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health, which contributes to making them interoperable. Both FEGA and GDI allow for the nodes to make use of any solution that is fully compatible. As illustrated in Figure 1, a final key point is the significant overlap of institutions involved in envisioning and operating FEGA and GDI nodes, with the clear wish to keep them interoperable in the future. What distinguishes Federated EGA from GDI? Despite being largely similar, there are some differences between the FEGA and GDI networks, which we aim to clarify in this post. The first difference is the governance model that the nodes will operate to comply with national laws and GDPR. In the FEGA network, nodes have taken inspiration from the EGA data access model, where the infrastructure is a data processor of the hosted data and data controllership remains with the originating Data Access Committees (i.e. Data controllers) for each dataset. On the other hand, in the GDI network the controllership of datasets will be transferred to a 1+MG European Digital Infrastructure Consortium (EDIC) legal entity created by the Member States (MS), who will make data access decisions, with data holders having veto powers for their datasets. Importantly, FEGA nodes have the flexibility to choose another model to fit with their data protection framework, including becoming data controllers for their datasets. The second difference is the inclusion criteria for data. While FEGA nodes are designed to accept almost any type of omics data in need of control access (e.g. genomics, transcriptomics, genotyping, single cells sequencing, patient-tracked metagenomics), GDI nodes are initially, but not only, focused on accepting whole genome and exome sequencing data and affiliated data from sources such as (i) the Genome of Europe use case of the 1+MG initiative which specifically aims to fulfil the mission of building “a European network of national genomic reference cohorts of at least 500,000 citizens”) (ii) data collection of other types of genomic data identified by countries through the 1+MG dashboard and (iii) genomic data coming from data holders which would need to fulfil EHDS requirements. The third difference is the maturity of the software stacks. The FEGA network provides a set of software for data and metadata submission, storage, permissions management, and file distribution (the LocalEGA package). GDI is building a complete set of open source reference for the five functionalities covering the full data life cycle (a few more compared to the LocalEGA) including federated processing (analytics, AI/ML), which is still under active development. Notably, one of the GDI functionalities - storage and interfaces - can be satisfied by using the LocalEGA storage solution, highlighting the ability of FEGA and GDI to be interoperable. In both FEGA and GDI, nodes are allowed to use alternative solutions as long as they are fully interoperable with the networks. Figure 1 provides a simple overview of these described commonalities and differences. Figure1: schematic overview of the main commonalities and difference among a FEGA and a GDI node Can the same institute run a FEGA and a GDI node at the same time? The answer is Yes! We believe this is entirely possible and encouraged. As long as 1+MG requirements are continuously fulfilled in the implementation. The same trained personnel could operate the infrastructure and leverage the same national funding to run a FEGA and a GDI node. Several European nodes, especially GDI vanguard nodes like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Spain are following this model. The idea is that a lot of the work can be reused, given the overlapping scope and the interoperable technology. Thus, the hosted datasets can be discovered via the two catalogues, perhaps accessible under the same or different governance models. From a FEGA node perspective, the GDI datasets could simply be a subset of the datasets hosted in the FEGA node, which have their specific governance as any other. What's next? So, the amazing teams of people building the Federated EGA network and the European GDI network are working together to create infrastructures able to provide secure access to human genomic and associated data around Europe. Because we all know how much human genomics can improve healthcare and precision medicine. And we all want to collaborate to make it happen. This article has been reviewed collectively by members of the EGA and the GDI coordination team.

  Blog fega-and-gdi

• Privacy Notice for the Account User

  Privacy Notice for EGA User Account This Privacy Notice explains what personal data is collected by the specific service you are requesting, for what purposes, how it is processed, and how we keep it secure. Note that this service collects personal data directly provided by the user, and also collects personal data from users that is provided by other organisations. 1. Who controls your personal data and how to contact us? European Genome- Phenome Archive - EGA offers a service for permanent archiving and sharing of all types of personally identifiable genetic and phenotypic data resulting from biomedical research projects, jointly managed by European Molecular Biology Laboratory – European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI) and Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG). EMBL-EBI and CRG represent joint Data Controllers’ of processing of your personal data. They and their Data protection officers may be contacted for data protection queries and for exercising your rights under Section 8. You may contact EMBL-EBI, represented by dr. Thomas Keane, by: email at: tk2@ebi.ac.uk or post at EMBL-EBI, Wellcome Genome Campus, CB10 1SD Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, UK. EMBL’s Data Protection Officer may be contacted by: telephone at +49 6221 387-8590, email at dpo@embl.org, or post at EMBL Heidelberg, Data protection officer, Meyerhofstraße 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany. You may contact CRG, whose EGA team is represented by dr. Jordi Rambla de Argila, by: email at jordi.rambla@crg.eu, or post at Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Dr.Aiguader 88, PRBB Building, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. CRG Data protection officer may be contacted by: email at dpo@crg.eu post at Fundació Centre de Regulació Genòmica - Centre for Genomic Regulation (CRG), C/ Dr. Aiguader, 88, PRBB Building, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. 2. Which is the lawful basis for processing personal data? We process your personal data on the grounds of important public interest. For monitoring your activities on the website, we process your personal data on the grounds of important public interest. Such legal basis is found in Article 5(1)(a) of EMBL Internal Policy No 68 on General Data Protection (hereinafter IP 68), which is equivalent to Article 6 (1)(e) of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter GDPR) and upon which personal data are processed for the achievement of the aims laid down in 1973 agreement establishing EMBL, such as the promotion of the cooperation in the fundamental research, in the development of advanced instrumentation and in advanced teaching in molecular biology and dissemination of information. 3. What personal data is collected from users of the service? How do we use this personal data? We collect the following personal data from you: Name Email address Title/Position Organisation Organisational affiliation Username and password (to authenticate access to the system) IP Address (for anonymous usage statistics) We process your personal data: to provide you with the authenticated access to the EGA service (opening and managing submission and distribution account), to publicly publish some aggregate data to facilitate scientific research (e.g. number of accounts, geographic distribution), to better understand the needs of the users and to guide future improvements of the service, to create anonymous usage statistics. If you do not provide us with your personal data we will not be able to open the user account and offer you our services or we will only provide you a subset of functionalities available within the service. 4. Who will have access to your personal data? The personal data will be disclosed to: Authorised staff in the data controller’s institutions acting on data controller`s behalf and instructions (for all user account data), Requested dataset Data access committee – DAC will have access to the name, email, organization, affiliation, title/position of the distribution user account, using it for their own purpose of granting access to their datasets. 5. Will your personal data be transferred to third countries (i.e. countries not part of EU/EEA) and/or international organisations? Distribution user account data are in the process of granting access disclosed to dataset(s) DAC, which might be a recipient in countries outside of the European Economic Area. Insofar as the second joint controller may be subject to GDPR, data transfer to and from the first joint controller (EMBL-EBI) is necessary for important reasons of public interest embedded in the aims of the EMBL and justified in the Article 9(4) of IP 68 (equivalent to Article 49(1)(d) of GDPR) read in conjunction with EMBL`s 1973 establishing agreement and Article 179(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 6. How long do we keep your personal data? All data are stored for as long as you have the account open. Thereafter the storage is prolonged for as long as our service is live, even if you stop using our services. This prolongation is necessary for further scientific research, to ensure legal compliance and security and to facilitate internal and external audits it they arise. By contrast, the log files for the data categories related to anonymous usage statistics (raw web service logs) are processed only for 30 days and thereafter erased. 7. The joint Data Controllers provide these rights regarding your personal data You have the right to: Not be subject to decisions based solely on an automated processing of data (i.e. without human intervention) without you having your views taken into consideration. Request at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense, information about the personal data processed about you. Under your request we will inform you in writing about, for example, the origin of the personal data or the preservation period. Request information to understand data processing activities when the results of these activities are applied to you. It must be clarified that rights under points 4 and 5 are only available whenever you need support whilst using our website. For other processing based on the grounds of important public interest you cannot exercise your rights to object, rectify or erase your personal data according to the Article 13(2)(a)(b) of IP 68 (equivalent to Article 17(3)(b)(d) and Article 21(6) of the GDPR). 8. Supervisory authority If you wish to complain against the processing of your personal data, you may do so by post at: EMBL Heidelberg, Data Protection Committee, Meyerhofstraße 1, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany, or Autoritat Catalana de Protecció de Dades (Catalan Data Protection Authority), C/Rosselló 214, Esc A, 1r 1a, Barcelona 08008, Spain. Published at: February 6, 2019

  Documentation data-protection/privacy-notice/ega-user-account

• The Immunogenetics of Measles Immunity - Measles (MMR) vaccination (NIAID/NIH)

  To examine the role of gene polymorphisms (including functional studies of SNPs) on variations in vaccine-induced immune responses, in approximately 3,000 healthy school-age children, adolescents and young adults/adults, who were vaccinated with measles-containing vaccine (MMR). To achieve greatest power to detect SNPs associated with measles-specific immune response phenotypes, we pooled our data across three genotyping platforms and three cohorts (US cohort, San Diego cohort and Rochester cohort).

  Study phs001630

• ZRSR2 Mutant Myelodysplastic Syndromes

  Mutations in splicing factor genes are common in myelodysplastic syndromes but the reason for selection of these mutations remains incompletely understood. This study aimed to identify the effect of minor intron retention due to ZRSR2 mutations in myelodysplastic syndromes. Nine samples from patients with myelodysplastic syndromes bearing ZRSR2 mutations and ten samples from patients with myelodysplastic syndromes not bearing any splicing factor mutations were subjected to transcriptomic analysis for mis-splicing events after RNA-sequencing. 

  Study phs002212