6261 results for "fc 26 ultimate team coins buy Buyfc26coins.com is FC 26 coins official site..E4Pd"

in 22.34 milliseconds.

• Acute Respiratory Distress Network Early Versus Delayed Enteral Feeding to Treat People with Acute Lung Injury or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDSNet EDEN-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. Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from ARDSNet-EDEN include bronchial lavage, plasma, DNA, and urine. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic and non-genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Objectives: To determine if initial lower-volume trophic enteral feeding would increase ventilator-free days (VFDs) and decrease gastrointestinal intolerances compared with initial full enteral feeding. Background: Mechanically ventilated patients cannot eat normally and if not fed for long periods become malnourished. Because malnutrition is associated with poor outcomes in critically ill patients, artificial nutrition is often provided, especially in those with acute lung injury (ALI) and with expected longer duration of mechanical ventilation. When feasible, enteral nutrition targeting full caloric needs has been advocated over parenteral nutrition. However, feeding intolerance and common care practices often serve as practical barriers to reaching recommended goals. Although confounded by indication and severity of illness, several observational studies have shown improved clinical outcomes, including fewer infections, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, and lower mortality for patients receiving a higher percentage of calculated caloric needs. Nonetheless, the best timing, formulation, and amount of enteral nutrition remain unknown. Participants: A total of 1,000 participants were enrolled. Design: Participants were randomized, stratified by site and presence of shock at enrollment, to receive either trophic or full enteral feeding for the first 6 days of mechanical ventilation. The initial 272 patients were also simultaneously randomized to a separate trial (the OMEGA study) comparing a nutritional supplement containing omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants with an isocaloric, isovolemic control in a 2 × 2 factorial design.The designated feeding strategy was initiated within 6 hours of randomization and continued until death, extubation, or day 6. The care of mechanically ventilated patients still receiving enteral feedings after day 6 was managed according to the full feeding strategy in both groups. In extubated patients who then required reintubation, enteral nutrition was restarted and managed according to the study protocol.In the full-feeding group, enteral nutrition was initiated at 25 mL/h and advanced to goal rates as quickly as possible. Gastric residual volumes were checked every 6 hours while enteral feeding was increased. Patients randomized to the initial trophic-feeding group had enteral nutrition initiated at 10 mL/h (10-20 kcal/h) for the first 272 patients who also received the omega-3 or control supplement (240 mL volume per day). After the data and safety monitoring board stopped the OMEGA portion of the factorial design, the initial trophic feeding rate was changed to 20 kcal/h to approximate the calories that had been delivered in the OMEGA study. Gastric Residual Volumes (GRVs) were checked every 12 hours during trophic feeding. In patients randomized to trophic feeding, enteral nutrition was advanced to full-energy feeding rates following the same protocol used for the full-feeding group if they were still receiving mechanical ventilation at 144 hours. Conclusions: There was no difference between groups with regard to the primary end point, VFDs to day 28. There also were no differences in 60-day mortality, organ failure−free days, ICU-free days, or the incidence of infection between groups. Similarly, there were no differences between groups in VFDs or survival when analyzed by body mass index category or when subsets of patients with shock or more severe lung injury (acute respiratory distress syndrome) were examined.JAMA. 2012 Feb 22;307(8):795-803

  Study phs004168

• A panel of reference haplotypes for imputing complement component 4 (C4) gene structural variation

  Neuropsychiatric and autoimmune disorders have substantial epidemiological correlations (Benros et al., JAMA Psychiatry 2013, PMID: 23760347) and broad, genome-wide patterns of shared genetic risk (Pouget et al., Hum Mol Genet, PMID: 31211845; Tylee et al., Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 2018, PMID: 30325587). Some cases of psychosis involve autoantibodies against the NMDA receptor, AMPA receptor, or other synaptic proteins (reviewed in Dalmau et al, Lancet Neurol 2011, PMID: 21163445). The related autoimmune conditions lupus and Sjogren's Syndrome also involve the development of autoantibodies. The possibility that neuropsychiatric disorders can have molecular mechanisms in common with autoimmune disorders - for example, that psychosis involves an inflammatory or autoimmune component in some patients, or that immune molecules are re-used in the brain to underlie other important biological activities (Stevens et al., Cell 2007, PMID: 18083105) - could open novel therapeutic possibilities for neuropsychiatric disorders. At a genetic level, the strongest genetic associations of schizophrenia, lupus, and Sjogren's Syndrome to common genetic variation involve associations to genetic markers in the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) locus. Bipolar disorder in some studies also associates with variation in or near the MHC locus, though less strongly than schizophrenia does. Intriguingly, the same specific SNPs appear to associate strongly with schizophrenia, lupus, and Sjogren's; these strongly associating SNPs span a genomic segment that includes the HLA class II genes (which have an important role in antibody production) and the complement component 4 (C4) genes. The specific genes and alleles responsible for these associations need to be completely defined, and the extent to which they represent shared or distinct genetic influences in neuropsychiatric and autoimmune illnesses needs to be clarified. The complement component 4 (C4A and C4B) genes are present in the MHC locus, between the class I and class II HLA genes. C4A and C4B commonly vary in genomic copy number and encode complement proteins with distinct affinities for molecular targets. The complex genetic variation at C4 - arising from many alleles with different numbers of C4A and C4B genes - has been challenging to analyze in large cohorts. We recently developed an approach to this problem based on imputation: people share long haplotypes with the same combinations of SNP and C4 alleles, such that C4A and C4B gene copy numbers can be imputed from SNP data (Sekar et al., Nature 2016, PMID: 26814963). In the current work, to analyze C4 in large cohorts, we developed a way to identify C4 alleles from whole-genome sequence (WGS) data, then analyzed WGS data from 1,234 individuals to create a large multi-ancestry panel of 2,530 reference haplotypes of MHC SNPs and C4 alleles that can then be imputed into still-larger cohorts for which SNP data are available. With this dbGaP submission, we make this reference panel available for other studies. Protocols and software for imputing C4 alleles into genome-wide SNP data, and for performing molecular analyses on the C4 genes (such as direct measurement of copy number from genomic DNA), can be found on the McCarroll Lab web site (http://mccarrolllab.org/resources). We are also working to create additional reference panels for imputation of C4 alleles that will be based on still-larger and more diverse population samples; links to these will also be available on the McCarroll Lab web site as we create and validate them.

  Study phs001992

• Single Cell and Spatial Transcriptomic Profiling of Haemophilus ducreyi Infection

  We investigated the immune response in end-point pustules formed by Haemophilus ducreyi in volunteers using an experimental infection model. Six volunteers were infected in the skin of the upper arm at three sites with 41-85 CFU of H. ducreyi loaded on an allergy testing device; a sham-inoculated (e.g., wound) site was also performed. Five volunteers (4 men and 1 woman; 2 Asians and 3 Whites; aged 27-46 years) formed pustules 6-8 days post infection; 1 volunteer spontaneously resolved all sites. If a volunteer formed pustules, biopsies were performed to collect their pustule and wound sites. Biopsy pairs for all 5 pustule formers were subjected to single cell (sc) RNA-seq. Sequencing libraries were prepared using the 10X Genomics Single-cell 3' RNA-seq kit. Spatial transcriptomics was performed on biopsy pairs from 4 of the 5 pustule formers. Ten micron sections were placed on 10X Genomics Visium slides for fresh-frozen tissue, and libraries were prepared with the 10X Genomics Visium spatial 3' gene expression kit. All samples were sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000. Count tables were produced with CellRanger and SpaceRanger, respectively, and Seurat was used to analyze the data. We identified 13 major cell types by scRNA-seq; the proportion of some immune cell subsets was increased in pustules compared to wound sites. We also localized the major cell types within the tissue by using the scRNA-seq data to deconvolve the spatial transcriptomic data. The FASTQ files and count tables from CellRanger and SpaceRanger are provided.

  Study phs003754

• Frequent post-treatment monitoring of colorectal cancer using individualized ctDNA validated by multi-regional molecular profiling

  Purpose: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis has been proposed as an approach for prediction of post-treatment patient outcomes. However, whether a single platform will provide optimal information in all patients or alternatively a patient-specific monitoring approach based on assessment of mutations in the primary tumor from that patient remains an urgent question. Experimental Design: We conducted multiregional sequencing of 42 specimens of 14 colorectal tumors (Stage III and more) from 12 patients, including two double cancer cases, to identify the full spectrum of mutational heterogeneity and identify aberrations that could be used to develop personalized ctDNA assays. Results: ?Founder? mutations that occur in all regions of the sample were identified in 12/14 (85.7%) tumors. Subsequent phylogenetic analysis of each tumor showed that 12/14 tumors (85.7%) carried at least one ?truncal? mutation. Most founder and truncal mutations exhibited higher variant allele frequency (VAF) than ?non-founder? and ?branch? mutations. In addition, both founder and truncal mutations were more likely to be detected as ctDNA than non-founder and branch mutations. Synchronized ctDNA dynamics of multiple mutations suggested those mutations from the same clonal origin. For 10/12 patients (83.3%) with nearly 1,000 days of post-operative observation, the validity of frequent personalized ctDNA monitoring was confirmed in terms of early relapse prediction, treatment efficacy, and non-relapse corroboration. Conclusions: Personalized ctDNA monitoring based on aberrations with a high VAF in the primary tumor site should be explored in larger prospective clinical trials to determine the full clinical validity.

  Study JGAS000243

• eMERGE Network Study of the Genetic Determinants of Resistant Hypertension

  The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a consortium of five participating sites (Group Health Seattle, Marshfield Clinic, Mayo Clinic, Northwestern University, and Vanderbilt University) funded by the NHGRI to investigate the use of electronic medical record systems for genomic research. The goal of eMERGE is to conduct genome-wide association studies in approximately 19,000 individuals using EMR-derived phenotypes and DNA from linked Biorepositories. Using electronic phenotyping methods, the consortium used DNA samples from all participating sites to explore the genetic determinants of resistant hypertension. Treatment resistant hypertension is a common health problem in the clinical setting. A basic definition of resistant hypertension included subjects with uncontrolled blood pressure despite use of three antihypertensive medications or subjects requiring four or more medications to maintain control. Other conditions, such as secondary causes of hypertension, were exclusions. Site and participants include: Vanderbilt University: BioVU, Vanderbilt's DNA databank, is an enabling resource for exploration of the relationships among genetic variation, disease susceptibility, and variable drug responses, and represents a key first step in moving the emerging sciences of genomics and pharmacogenomics from research tools to clinical practice. BioVU acquires DNA from discarded blood samples collected from routine patient care. The biobank is linked to de-identified clinical data extracted from Vanderbilt's EMR, which forms the basis for phenotype definitions used in genotype-phenotype correlations. Marshfield Clinic: The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project is a population-based biobank in central Wisconsin with more than 20,000 adult subjects who provided written, informed consent to access their medical records and provided a blood sample from which DNA was extracted and plasma and serum stored. In addition to an average of 30 years of medical history data, a questionnaire about environmental exposures, including a detailed food frequency questionnaire, is available to facilitate gene/environment studies. Northwestern University: The NUgene Project is a repository with longitudinal medical information from participating patients at affiliated hospitals and outpatient clinics from the Northwestern University Medical Center. Participants' DNA samples are coupled with data from a self-reported questionnaire and continuously updated data from our Electronic Medical Record (EMR) representing actual clinical care events. Northwestern has a state-of-the art, comprehensive inpatient and outpatient EMR system of over 2 million patients. NUgene has broad access to participant data for all outpatient visits as well as inpatient data via a consolidated data warehouse. NUgene participants consent to distribution and use of their coded DNA samples and data for a broad range of genetic research by third-party investigators. Group Health(GH)/University of Washington (UW): Aging and Dementia eMERGE study biorepository leverages rich population-based longitudinal data from both electronic medical records and in-depth research data to explore genome wide associations. Participants include Seattle-area members of GH (a large integrated health care system in Washington State) consented and enrolled in 1) the UW Alzheimer's Disease Patient Registry (ADPR) and 2) the Adult Changes in Thought (ACT) study. The ADPR (PI: Eric B. Larson; NIH/NIA U01 AG 006781) is a population-based registry of incident dementia cases designed to identify all new Alzheimer's Disease cases within GH from 1987 to 1996. Medical history, physical, laboratory testing, and neuropsychological testing were performed on all consenting potential cases for determination of dementia status by a consensus conference. The study base of the ADPR population was stable with an attrition rate of less than 1%/year. The ACT study (PI: Eric B. Larson; NIH/NIA U01 AG 006781) is an ongoing community-based cohort study of aging and dementia. The original cohort of 2,581 randomly selected dementia-free members age 65 and older was enrolled in 1994-1996 and expanded by 811 in 2000-2002. Continuous enrollment to maintain a cohort of 2,000 dementia free persons began in 2005. Participants receive biennial assessment including cognitive status determination. The ACT sub-sample is stable; for the original cohort, median enrollment in GH was 19 years prior to joining the ACT study, and 85% of the cohort has ≥ 10 years of GH enrollment. DNA for the ADPR participants were obtained through a companion study, Genetic Differences in Cases and Controls (PI: Walter Kukull; NIH/NIA R01 AG007584). DNA obtained through both studies were extracted from blood using Gentra Systems Puregene methods. DNA concentration is determined by UV optical density. All samples are checked for quality by 260/280 ratio. For long-term storage, samples are aliquoted and stored at -70°C. Mayo Clinic: The Mayo biobank is a disease-specific biobank for vascular diseases including peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PAD patients were identified from individuals referred to the non-invasive vascular laboratory for lower extremity arterial evaluation. Since 1997, laboratory findings have been recorded into an electronic database employing an in-house software package for data archiving and retrieval; this data becomes part of the Mayo EMR. Patients referred to the center with suspected PAD undergo a comprehensive non-invasive evaluation including the ankle-brachial index (ABI) - the ratio of blood pressure measured in the upper arms divided by blood pressure measured at the ankles. Controls subjects are identified from patients referred to the Cardiovascular Health Clinic for stress ECG. The prevalence of PAD in patients with normal exercise capacity who do not have inducible ischemia on the stress ECG, was <1%. Data regarding risk factors for atherosclerosis such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking are ascertained from the EMR.

  Study phs000297

• Submitter Portal

  Submitter Portal The Submitter Portal does not support array submissions! Please refer to the array documentationAny new objects registered in the Submitter Portal will not be available for use in an array submission For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! The metadata submission process can be difficult and time-consuming. For this reason, the EGA has developed the Submitter Portal, a tool that was created to offer a simplified and user-friendly method of registering metadata. Our portal provides features that are intended to make the input of metadata easier, ensuring that your data is registered correctly and effectively. Our page is divided into logical sections and includes a helpful video instruction to further assist you as you complete the submission process. With the Submitter Portal, you can rest assured that the submission of your data is in good hands. Submitter Portal Index Previous steps Access to Submitter Portal Start a Submission Take The Tour Tutorial Previous steps Create your EGA account To submit data, you first need to create your EGA user. Then, once your account has been verified by the Help Desk team, you will be able to request a submitter role and send the EGA Data Processing Agreement (DPA). In the case you already have an EGA account, or an ega-box (submission account), you can skip this step. Upload your files Please note that all your files must be encrypted using the Crypt4GH tool before upload them.As soon as you are assigned with a submitter role and added your public key to your profile, you will be able to connect to the EGA inbox and upload your files. Understand the EGA metadata schema It's crucial to comprehend the EGA metadata schema, a set of rules that specify how data is organised, described, and shared inside the EGA, in order to get the most out of this resource. Learn all about EGA metadata schema! Register your DAC and policy There are two objects in the EGA metadata schema that are registered in a separate portal. All DACs and policy objects are registered using the DAC Portal, a tool developed by EGA to help data controllers manage their data stored at the EGA. You can find relevant information in the DAC Portal Guide. Access to Submitter Portal 1. Request Submitter Role Once you have created your EGA user, request a Submitter Role and complete relevant information such as submission type and size. 2. Signature of the Data Processing Agreement The Data Processing Agreement (DPA) signed by CRG and EMBL-EBI (Joint Data Processors for the EGA) can be downloaded to the submitter for its signature. Further information related to the DPA can be in the Privacy Notice section. The DPA should be signed by a legal representative of the submitter with power of attorney/appointment duly authorised to sign contracts on behalf of the institution. The submitter will return a fully-executed copy of the DPA to us. Please note that due to the high volume of submissions to EGA the DPA is non-negotiable. Once you have completed all the information and attached the DPA signed, send your Submitter request and the EGA Helpdesk Team will validate it and send a confirmation to start submitting your metadata. Start a Submission The steps below will show you how to start a submission and are accompanied with a tutorial and the Take the tour of Submitter Portal. 1. Login Go to the Submitter Portal interface and log in using your EGA account credentials. 2. Create a submission The Submitter Portal interface will show you any already existing open submission. To start a new submission click on “Create a Submission”.In this phase you have the option to add any collaborator(s) as well as their permissions (“Read only” or “Read & Write”). If you want to invite all the collaborators from a previous submission, you can add them by selecting said submission.In the event that the submission has been closed, you will need to reopen it. To do this, you will need to modify one of the objects in the submission, for example, copy and paste the title. Once the submission is open, you can add a collaborator. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 3. Create Study Click on add Study and complete the form with the relevant information. The fields with an asterisk (*) are mandatory. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour4. Create Sample Sample registration can be done either individually or in batch by using a template. Batch upload: download the template and complete it with information about the sequencing samples. Upload the samples.csv and the sample will be created.Add single sample: complete the mandatory fields with the metadata information of your sample.  Further information can be found in the Submission Tour5. Create Experiment Register an experiment with ​information about the sequencing methods, protocols and machines. Experiments generate the connection between samples and study. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour6. Create Run Samples, experiments and files are linked through runs. To register a run, you will be asked to select the appropriate experiment and the file format. Run registration can be done either individually or in batch by using a template. Batch upload: download the template and complete it with the sample - file linkage. Upload the run.csv and the runs will register.As the INBOX is a directory, bear in mind to include the file path (/). Example: /filename.c4gh. Add single run: select the file format, sample and experiment from the drop box. For re-using submitted samples, please use the EGA accession ID (EGANXXX). Please note that files must be uploaded in your inbox before linking your files and samples. Further information can be found in the Submission Tour7. Create Analysis Analysis should be only used for BAM/BAI or CRAM/CRAI pair, VCF and phenotype linkage to samples. The analysis is an EGA specific metadata object that links samples to files. This object also stores some metadata about your experiments, such as the experiment type, genome reference, or the platform used. **If only BAM or CRAM alignment files are submitted but not the original unaligned FASTQ files, then please make sure that the BAM or CRAM files also contain the unaligned reads. This is critical to enable primary re-analysis and re-alignment of the dataset using new tools or future genome assemblies.** Start by selecting the samples to be linked to the file, and then populate the required attribute fields. Please be aware of the existence of mandatory fields that must be populated.When populating the chromosome field (mandatory), please select the chromosomes from the checkbox. Please take in consideration that EGA allows for the re-use of any registered metadata. Therefore, a previously registered study or samples can be referenced for the analysis in the current data submission.Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 8. Create Dataset Dataset contains the collection of runs/analysis data files subjected to controlled access by being associated with a Policy. Complete the mandatory fields such as title, description, type and policy. Please, take in consideration that DAC and Policy must be registered in advance in the DAC Portal. Similar to other metadata objects, you can re-use previous runs or analyses, using their EGA accessions IDs (runs - EGAR, analyses - EGAZ). Further information can be found in the Submission Tour 9. Finalise submission Once the files are ingested please delete them from your SFTP INBOX before finalising your submission. This will prevent the files from reappearing in your Submitter Portal Inbox. Once you have completed your submission, click on the Finalise button, and schedule an estimated release date. Afterwards, your submission will be sent to Helpdesk for approval. Please note that once the Helpdesk has approved your submission, you will receive the identifiers for your data. See the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for more information. 10. Update closed submission If you want to append more file to a closed submission, you will need to re-open the submission where the dataset was registered. Find the Submission: go to the Submitter Portal Menu -> Datasets section and find the submission id (EGA0XXX).  Reopen the submission where the dataset is located: to reopen a submission, you must edit any object within the submission. For example, you can copy and paste the title. Take The Tour The Submitter Portal Take The Tour is a visual guidance of all the steps described previously about how to start a submission. Tutorial In this tutorial we will show you how to use the Submitter Portal to register your metadata. Please note the video focuses on the run-based submission (for raw files - fastq - and aligned data - BAM/CRAM) and analysis-based submission (for your BAM/BAI pairs, variation -VCF - and phenotype files).

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/sequencing-phenotype/submitter-portal

• All you need to know about our new DAC Portal v2

  An updated version to boost the management of DACs (Data Access Committees), policies, and data access requests. In September of 2023, we launched new services for all EGA users, including a DAC Portal. Since then, our team has been working to refine it and improve the user experience. The version 2 of our DAC Portal is now ready, with a range of new features aimed at streamlining your workflow and boosting productivity. If you are interested in learning more about the latest version of our DAC Portal, then you are in the right place! In this post, you will find information about the implemented features and more. The full documentation is available on our website. Moreover, we highly recommend exploring the DAC Portal through the Take the Tour. This said, let's get cracking! Customise your data access requests table This table offers the possibility to tailor information about the data access requests by making visible or hiding different columns regarding the Dataset Persistent Identifier, the Organisation or the requestor's name s, among others. You can choose which columns to see, depending on your needs and interests. Additionally, we have implemented two new features columns with two new functionalities, DAC Comment and Expiration Date. You can find more details in the following sections! In this table, all data access requests are displayed by default. With the latest version of the Portal, you can now apply filters, combine them, and save them for future use. Leave internal comments on pending requests and visible to all the DAC Members We understand that many Data Access Committees (DACs) cannot instantly approve or deny data access requests. Often, there's an intermediary phase where discussions and the signing of legal documents are necessary. To facilitate this process, we've introduced the DAC comment feature! When you navigate to the DAC column, you'll find two tabs: "User" and "DAC". Under "User", you'll see the message provided by the requester at the time of requesting access to the data. As a DAC member/admin, you can then add an internal comment in the "DAC" tab. These comments are visible only to DAC members/admins, ensuring confidentiality. Requesters won't have access to DAC comments. By adding a DAC comment to a pending request, we'll know that you've begun reviewing it. This allows you to filter pending requests without DAC comments to focus on genuinely new requests, and it prevents you from receiving email notifications about ongoing data requests. Set expiration dates for permissions and revoke them automatically The latest update to the DAC Portal introduces a new feature allowing you to set expiration dates for new access requests. For instance, if you anticipate approving a data access request but only wish to grant access for a limited time, you can now specify an expiration date for the granted permissions. Once this date is reached, the permissions will automatically be revoked. By default, permissions are granted indefinitely without an expiration date. However, if you ever need to revoke permissions, you can easily do so from the History page. Audit your metadata objects Managing and auditing your metadata objects will be easier from now on as the new DAC Portal enhances and facilitates your role as a Data Controller. This is possible thanks to the tables available in each of the primary tabs visible on the homepage: DACs, Policies and Datasets. Starting with DACs, this section allows to check the policies linked to a specific DAC. In Policies, you can obtain a list of the datasets connected to a particular policy. In the Dataset tab, it is possible to group datasets by either DAC or Policy, as well as the release status. Now you have the option of deprecating metadata objects that you don’t want to use anymore, or that were created by mistake. You will find the deprecate button on the EDIT page of the DAC, as well as for registered policies. You can find more information here. What's neat about this feature is that once a DAC or policy is deprecated, it becomes hidden within the DAC Portal. This ensures that you only see information that is consistently up to date! Define your preferences regarding email notifications For pending requests, you will be able to decide how often you want to get the notifications: daily, weekly or fortnightly. Remember, you will not receive email notifications for pending requests with a DAC comment! Furthermore, you have the flexibility to decide which notifications you wish to receive, such as invitations to join a new DAC or notifications regarding DAC acceptance by the Helpdesk, among other options. Check the User preference to see the complete list of available notification settings! What’s next: incoming DAC Portal API In addition to the new DAC Portal, we are excited to announce the release of the DAC API! This enables users to programmatically manage permissions. If you are interested in learning more about the technical specifications, you can consult the DAC API specification. This post was written by Aina Jené and Ana T. Alonso.

  Blog new-dac-portal-v2

• Women's Environmental Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology (WECARE) Study

  Study population The WECARE Study is an international multicenter population-based case-control study of cases with asynchronous contralateral breast cancer (CBC) and individually matched controls with unilateral breast cancer (UBC). Recruitment and data collection for the WECARE Study were conducted in two phases, herein referred to as WECARE I (2001–2004) and WECARE II (2009–2012). The study design of the first phase (WECARE I) has been described in detail elsewhere [Bernstein JL, et al 2004, PMID: 15084244]; the second phase (WECARE II) employed a nearly identical approach [Langballe R, et al 2016, PMID: 27400983]. Participants in each phase were identified through eight population-based cancer registries, including six in the United States that contribute to the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program: Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program; Cancer Surveillance System of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center (Seattle region, WA); State Health Registry of Iowa; Cancer Surveillance Program of Orange County/San Diego-Imperial Organization for Cancer Control (Orange County/San Diego, CA); the Greater Bay Area Cancer Registry (San Francisco Bay Area region and Santa Clara region, CA); and the Sacramento and Sierra Center Registry (Sacramento region, CA). Participants were additionally identified using the Ontario Cancer Registry (Canada) and the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Registry, supplemented by data from the Danish Cancer Registry. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review or regulatory ethics boards at each study site. Data collection Study participants were interviewed by telephone using a structured questionnaire aimed at evaluating known or suspected breast cancer risk factors, including personal demographics, medical history, menstrual and reproductive history, family history of cancer, use of hormones, smoking, and alcohol intake. Risk factor status was assessed during the period prior to first diagnosis, as well as between first diagnosis and reference date (i.e., the at-risk period for CBC). Detailed data on treatment and tumor characteristics were obtained directly from cancer registry records or by abstracting medical records, including pathology and surgical reports, radiation oncology clinic notes, and systemic adjuvant treatment data. Complete medical treatment history information was collected, and for all women who received radiotherapy, the radiation dose to the contralateral breast was reconstructed using radiotherapy records and radiation measurements. Biospecimens were collected from study participants for genotyping: blood collected from WECARE I women; and saliva collected from WECARE II women.

  Study phs003945

• Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension and Sickle Cell Disease with Sildenafil Therapy (Walk-PHaSST)

  Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive condition characterized by narrowing or stiffening pulmonary arterioles resulting in increased pulmonary blood pressure and reduced delivery of oxygenated blood to the body. It is a common complication of sickle cell disease and initially presents with the symptom of shortness of breath (dyspnea) on exertion. As the condition worsens, other symptoms such as dizziness, lower extremity edema, and chest pain can develop. The drug, sildenafil, works by relaxing blood vessels in the lungs which reduces pulmonary blood pressure and allows more oxygenated blood to circulate. Increased levels of oxygenated blood allows individuals with PAH to tolerate more activity, but guidelines for using sildenafil in patients with PAH and sickle cell disease were unavailable at the time of the Walk-PHaSST trial.Participants were screened for the existence of pulmonary hypertension with a six minute walk test and a Doppler echocardiogram that assessed TRV, diastolic function, and valvular and systolic function. Subjects with TRV ≥ 2.7 m/s received further clinical evaluation for possible causes of pulmonary hypertension. Other screening data included medical history, a physical exam, and standard laboratory testing. For individuals with moderate to severe pulmonary hypertension (TRV ≥ 3.0), a cardiac catheterization was done at the baseline and week 16 data collection periods.Subjects eligible for the main intervention trial based on screening results were randomized in a 1:1 double blind fashion to receive sildenafil or placebo for 16 weeks. Subjects received 20 mg of oral sildenafil or matching placebo 3 times daily for 6 weeks, followed by 40 mg 3 times daily for 4 weeks, followed by 80 mg 3 times daily for 6 weeks, as tolerated. Participants could also receive other therapies as needed to manage sickle cell and related complications. The primary outcome measure of the trial was change in the six minute walk test, a standard indicator of a person's heart and lung function and exercise capacity, from baseline to week 16. After completing the study treatment (or placebo), participants could choose to be part of the open-label follow-up phase of the study and continue to be assessed for up to one year.The study was intended to screen about 1000 subjects and randomize 132 subjects, however it was terminated early due to the unforeseen increase in adverse events in participants treated with sildenafil as compared to placebo. When the study was stopped, 33 participants had completed the trial. Subjects continued to be monitored, but were instructed to taper sildenafil treatment over three to seven days.There was no evidence that treatment with sildenafil impacted the six minute walk distance from baseline to week 16. In addition, treatment with sildenafil appeared to increase rates of hospitalization due to sickle cell disease pain.Due to in part to the early termination of the trial, the majority of subject data was collected from the screening phase of the study (n=720), as opposed to the main intervention trial (n=74).Instructions for requesting individual-level data are available on BioData Catalyst at https://biodatacatalyst.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/data/. Apply for data access in dbGaP. Upon approval, users may begin accessing requested data in BioData Catalyst. For questions about availability, you may contact the BioData Catalyst team at https://biodatacatalyst.nhlbi.nih.gov/contact.

  Study phs002383

• Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressors Early Resuscitation in Sepsis (CLOVERS) (PETAL CLOVERS-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. Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from PETAL CLOVERS include plasma, and whole blood. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Available Data: The data available for request now include Long Term Outcome data.Objectives: To compare the effects of a restrictive fluid strategy (with early use of vasopressors) to a liberal fluid strategy in participants with sepsis-induced hypotension.Background: Intravenous fluid resuscitation is a common therapy used in the initial treatment of participants with septic shock and sepsis-induced hypotension. The goal of initial fluid therapy is to increase depleted or functionally reduced intravascular volume that occurs in sepsis due to a vasodilated vascular network. However, intravenous fluid resuscitation can create dilutional coagulopathy, fluid overload, and pathogenic edema in the lungs and other organs. Vasopressor agents are also commonly used to treat hypoperfusion by inducing constriction of arterioles and venules and increasing cardiac contractility. Vasopressor therapy also comes with risks that include vasoconstriction resulting in tissue ischemia, increased cardiac workload, and arrhythmias. Clinicians have used these strategies, typically in combination, to provide supportive care for participants with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion. However, at the time of the CLOVERS study, there was limited data to guide specific use of these therapies, including fluid volumes, in the early care of participants with sepsis-induced hypotension. The CLOVERS study hypothesized that a restrictive fluid strategy used during the first 24-hours of resuscitation for sepsis-induced hypotension would lead to lower mortality before discharge home by day 90 than a liberal fluid strategy.Participants: A total of 1,563 participants, from 60 medical centers, of the planned 2,230 participants were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Enrollment in the trial was ended after the second interim analysis due to a lack of significant difference observed between the two 24-hour strategies.Design: This study was a multi-center, prospective, phase 3 randomized non-blinded interventional trial of fluid treatment strategies in the first 24 hours for participants with sepsis-induced hypotension. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a restrictive fluid strategy (with early vasopressor use) or a liberal fluid strategy. In each group, the assigned protocol was followed for a period of 24 hours. The restrictive fluid protocol prioritized vasopressors as the primary treatment for sepsis-induced hypotension, with 'rescue fluids' being permitted for prespecified indications that suggested severe intravascular volume depletion. The liberal fluid protocol consisted of a recommended initial 2000-ml intravenous infusion of isotonic crystalloid, followed by fluid boluses administered on the basis of clinical triggers (e.g., tachycardia) with 'rescue vasopressors' permitted for prespecified indications. A protocol amendment implemented in October, 2019, allowed for limiting the initial infusion to 1,000 ml if the participant's blood pressure and heart rate had stabilized and the clinical assessment was that the participant was unlikely to benefit from additional intravenous fluid administration. The clinical team could override the protocol-specified care instructions at any time if it was judged to be in the best interest of the participant.The primary outcome was death from any cause before discharge home by day 90. Secondary outcomes included 28-day measures of the number of days free from ventilator use, days free from renal-replacement therapy, days free from vasopressor use, days out of the ICU, and days out of the hospital. Conclusions: Among participants with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality, or other measures of recovery such as length of hospital stay, before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy.

  Study phs004080