11199 results for "fc coins to buy Visit Buyfc26coins.com FC 26 kolikoni ilmestyivät juuri kun pelasin. Täydellinen ajoitus!.iZqe"

in 56.97 milliseconds.

• Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training (HF-ACTION-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data Please refer to “Authorized Access” below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP.ObjectivesThe HF-ACTION study examined whether exercise training reduces a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure symptoms. Background Heart failure (HF) is a major and growing cardiovascular syndrome that is the end result of many cardiovascular disorders. Although evidence-based drug and device therapies decrease mortality, hospitalizations, and HF symptoms and improve quality of life, many patients treated with these regimens often remain burdened by dyspnea and fatigue, diminished exercise tolerance, reduced quality of life, recurrent hospitalizations, and early mortality. Whereas rest was traditionally recommended for HF patients, there has been evidence that physical deconditioning may play a key role in the progression of symptoms and poor outcomes. Previous studies have shown positive effects of exercise training on exercise capacity, quality of life, and biomarkers and suggest that exercise training might improve survival and decrease HF hospitalizations. Nonetheless, there remains a safety concern regarding exercise training in HF and a large scale, multicenter, controlled clinical trial was needed to provide definitive clinical outcome data. Participants A total of 2,331 participants were randomized. 2,130 consented to share data with non-commercial entities, and 1,753 consented to share for commercial purposes. Design All participants underwent baseline cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Test results were reviewed by investigators to identify significant arrhythmias or ischemia that would prevent safe exercise training, to determine appropriate levels of exercise training, and to establish training heart rate ranges. Demographics, socioeconomic status, past medical history, current medications, physical exam, and the most recent laboratory tests were obtained prior to randomization. All participants received detailed self-management educational materials which included information on medications, fluid management, symptom exacerbation, sodium intake, and physical activity. Participants randomized to the exercise training arm first participated in a structured, group-based, supervised exercise program, with a goal of 3 sessions per week for a total of 36 sessions in 3 months. The primary exercises were walking, treadmill, or stationary cycling. Exercise was initiated at 15 to 30 minutes per session at a heart rate corresponding to 60% of heart rate reserve, and was increased after 6 sessions to 30 to 35 minutes duration and 70% of heart rate reserve. Participants began home-based exercise after completing 18 supervised sessions and were to fully transition to home exercise after 36 supervised sessions. The target training regimen for home exercise was 5 times per week for 40 minutes at a heart rate of 60% to 70% of heart rate reserve. Participants randomized to the usual care group were not provided with a formal exercise prescription. To provide comparable levels of attention from study personnel, all participants were called every 2 weeks for the first 9 months, monthly until 24 months of follow-up, and quarterly thereafter. Participants returned for clinic visits every 3 months for the first 2 years of participation and yearly thereafter for up to 4 years. Follow-up assessments included cardiopulmonary exercise testing, a 6-minute walk test, and a physical activity questionnaire. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or all-cause hospitalization. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, the composite of cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization, and the composite of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization. Conclusions After adjustment for highly prognostic predictors of the primary end point, exercise training was associated with modestly significant reductions for both all-cause mortality or hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality or heart failure hospitalization.

  Study phs003599

• Programmatic submission based on XML

  Programmatic submissions (XML based) For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! Introduction Besides the Submitter Portal tool, EGA supports programmatic sequence and clinical data metadata submissions. If you are not sure what this means, you may want to explore our brief metadata introduction. Programmatic submissions are recommended for array-based submission. Moreove, it may be of help if your submission is recurrent or it is difficult to manage manually due to its sheer size. Otherwise, we highly recommend using the Submitter Portal to perform submissions. In this page we will guide you through the required steps to programmatically submit data to the EGA. Programmatic submissions require your metadata to be structured for an easy and straightforward validation and archival. It basically consists in formatting your metadata as Extensible markup language (XML) files and submitting them to the EGA using the WEBIN Before submitting metadata to the EGA, it is important to ensure that the information in your XML files is compliant with our standards. You can see further details on how these standards are maintained at EGA at our EGA Schemas documentation page. Using WEBIN, you can validate your XML files against EGA's schemas to ensure that your metadata is compliant before submission. WEBIN services WEBIN production service WEBIN test service We advise you to submit your metadata to the test service when submitting to the production service for the first time. The test service is identical to the production service except that all submissions will be discarded in the following 24 hours. This allows you to learn about the submission process without having to worry about data being submitted. Authentication Authentication is required each time a submission is made. The submission service uses HTTPS protocol for metadata encryption and identification to provide a secure submission environment. Data file upload Both Runs and Analyses reference files (e.g. FASTQ need to be uploaded to the EGA before these metadata objects are submitted. In other words, if you submit a Run that references a file that we cannot find associated with your account, the metadata submission will fail. See further details on how to upload your files in our File Upload documentation. Metadata model of the EGA Our metadata model is formed by multiple metadata objects. Check further details in our documentation at our EGA Schema documentation page. Working with EGA XMLs files Now that the basic concepts of the EGA metadata have been described, you can start preparing your programmatic submission through XML. Here you will find the guidance on how to prepare the XML files. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video Take a look at the Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video, which explains the workflow of a programmatic submission and goes over an example metadata submission. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video. When building your XML files, we recommend using text editors (e.g.Sublime Text or VisualStudio) that allow you to visualise the structure of the XML with ease. Furthermore, these editors constantly check the consistency of the XML structure. Alternatively, and if the submission consists of a big number of objects (specially analyses), you may find the tool star2xml handy. This tool allows for a direct conversion between metadata in a tabular format (e.g. a spreadsheet) into XMLs. Identifying objects: Aliases and center names Every EGA object must be uniquely identified within the submission account using their alias attribute. The aliases can be used in submissions to make references between EGA objects. Let us dig into EGA's use of aliases and center names: alias: every object should have a name that is unique within your submission account. Once submitted successfully, every alias will be assigned a unique and permanent accession (EGA ID). refname: when an object references another by its alias, the alias of the referenced object goes into the "refname" attribute of the referencing object. For example, if a sample has the alias "sample1", and an experiment uses this sample, then the experiment's "EXPERIMENT/SAMPLE/refname" attribute should be "sample1". center_name: The "center_name" attribute is required within the submission XML and, if not provided when the object is submitted, it will be automatically filled using your default EGA account center_name. This element is the "controlled vocabulary acronym or abbreviation that is provided to the account holder when the account is first generated". If the submitter is brokering a submission for another institute, the submitter should use their special broker account name in broker_name while the data centre acronym remains in center_name. Log-in details should have been provided when you requested a submission account. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. run_center: Many submitting centers contract out the actual sample sequencing to another center. In these cases, the sequencing center should be acknowledged in the run_center attribute. Again, this is controlled vocabulary and the acronym should be sought from EGA helpdesk before submitting. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. Prepare your XMLs The goal of this section is to provide sufficient information to be able to create the metadata XML documents required for programmatic submissions. Please note, the EGA utilises the XML schemas maintained at the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA). It is important due to the fact that by using a similar system, some pieces of documentation from the ENA's programmatic submission can also help you with your programmatic submission to the EGA. For example, you can submit programmatically without using a Submission XML by following the steps at Submission actions without submission XML. A submission does not have to contain all different types of XMLs. For example, it is possible to submit only a few samples; or a study that is later to be referenced. You can submit each object one by one, or submit all in a batch: you choose what method of submission works best for you. We do recommend, nevertheless, that you submit the objects to be referenced (e.g. samples or studies) first, and the objects that reference these (e.g. experiments or datasets) afterwards. You can see a graphical view of these objects and their relationships at our EGA Schemas page. Independently of the submission scenario, you will always require a Dataset XML. The entity of a dataset is what is used to control access to the given data, in the form of runs or analyses. In other words, when a requester is granted access, it is through the dataset and the objects (e.g. runs or analyses) that the dataset contains, granting access to them in one go. Given the nature of the EGA, a dataset XML will always be required for the data access. First, we will differentiate between submissions of "raw" and "processed" data: Runs and Analyses, respectively. Run data submissions Raw data derives from instruments "as is". For example, a plain sequence file (e.g. FASTQ or unaligned BAM files) would be considered raw data. A typical raw (unaligned) sequence read submission consists of 8 XMLs: Submission Study Sample Experiment Run DAC Policy Dataset When technical reads (e.g. barcodes, adaptors or linkers) are included in the submitted raw sequences, a spot descriptor must be submitted to describe the position of the technical reads so that they can be removed. The following data files can be submitted without providing spot descriptor information in the experiment/run XML: BAM files (single reads) SFF files (single reads without barcodes) FastQ files (single reads without any technical reads) Complete Genomics files Analysis data submissions Processed data is, in some way, refined raw data. This includes raw data that has been processed by some form of analysis method (e.g. alignment, noise reduction, etc.). For example, an aligned sequence (e.g. BAM file), that was created using raw FASTQ files, would be a processed file. This category includes most types of data: sequence alignment files (e.g. BAM or CRAM), clinical data (e.g. phenopackets), sequence variation files (e.g. VCF), sequence annotation, etc. A typical EGA analysis data submission consists of 7 EGA XML: Submission Study Sample Analysis DAC Policy Dataset We accept three different types of analysis data submissions: BAM files (for multiple read alignments) VCF files (for sequence variations) Phenotype files (in any format) In anycase, keep in mind that samples must be created in order to be referenced in the analyses. In other words, the provenance of the information within the BAM, VCF and phenotype files Example XMLs Below you can find a non-extensive list of example XMLs with descriptive fields (i.e. explaining what to provide in each field). Furthermore, you can also find real examples (i.e. the true value of the provided fields) in our GitHub repository. Submission XML The submission XML is used to validate, submit or update any number of other objects. The submission XML refers to other XMLs. New submissions use the ADD action to submit new objects. Object updates are done using the MODIFY action and objects can be validated using the VERIFY action. Descriptive submission XML example True values submission XML example Study XML The study XML is used to describe the study containing a title, a study type and abstract as it would appear in a publication. Descriptive study XML example True values study XML example Please use the following notation within the property "STUDY_LINKS" when including PubMed citations in the Study XML: <STUDY_LINKS> <STUDY_LINK> <XREF_LINK> <DB>PUBMED</DB> <ID>18987735</ID> </XREF_LINK> </STUDY_LINK> </STUDY_LINKS> Sample XML The sample XML is used to describe the samples used to obtain the data, whether they were sequenced, measured in any other way, or have an associated phenotype. The mandatory fields include information about the taxonomy of the sample, sex, subject ID and phenotype. For example, the mandatory attribute fields for each sample would look like these, within the array of "SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES": <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>subject_id</TAG> <VALUE>free text!</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>sex</TAG> <VALUE>female/male/unknown</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>phenotype</TAG> <VALUE>Free text, EFO terms (e.g. EFO:0000574) are recommended</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> Sample is one of the most important objects to be described biologically, it is highly recommended that “TAG-VALUE” pairs are generated as SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES to describe the sample in as much detail as possible. For example, were we to give the population ancestry of the sample, we could add a new attribute to the array, in which, for example, we would indicate that the sample derives from an individual of "Mende in Sierra Leone" (MSL), with an african ancestry: <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>Population</TAG> <VALUE>MSL</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> Given that VALUE and TAG are free text, the combinations are limitless in order to give you full flexibility on the information you want to provide. We recommend you use the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO) to describe the phenotypes of your samples. You can provide more than one phenotype by adding more items to the array of SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES. Phenotypes considered essential for understanding the data submission should be provided. Each phenotype described should be listed as a separate sample attribute <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE>. There is no limit to the number of phenotypes that can be submitted. If a suitable EFO accession cannot be found for your phenotype attribute, please consider using another controlled ontology database (e.g. HPO, MONDO, etc.) before using free text. Descriptive sample XML example True values sample XML example Experiment XML The experiment XML is used to describe the experimental setup, including instrument platform and model details, library preparation details, and any additional information required to correctly interpret the submitted data. Where any of these values differ between runs, a new experiment object must exist, since runs are grouped by experiments. Each experiment references a study and a sample by alias, or if previously-submitted, by accession. Pooled data must be demultiplexed by barcode for submission. Descriptive experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example True values experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example Run XML The run XML is used to associate data files with experiments and typically comprises a single data file (e.g. a FASTQ file). Please note that pooled samples should be de-multiplexed prior submission and submitted as different runs. Descriptive run XML example True values run XML example Analysis XML Given that an analysis can be used to submit any type of processed data to the EGA, we will list below an example of each of the three most common types of analysis XMLs submitted to the EGA: sequence alignments (e.g. BAM files); sequence variation (e.g. VCF files); and clinical metadata or phenotypes (e.g. phenopackets). Regardless of the type of processed data submitted in the analysis, the analysis must be associated with a Study and can reference multiple types of other objects, from samples to experiments, if they are available at the EGA. Just like with Runs, whenever a file is submitted to the EGA through an analysis object, the file MD5 checksums must be present, in order for the EGA to validate file integrity upon transfer. This also includes index files when applicable (e.g. .bai.md5 files). Ideally, any analysis that uses a reference sequence for some kind of alignment (e.g. BAM, CRAM or VCF files), would contain metadata about the alignment, such as INSDC reference assemblies and sequences, by either using accessions (e.g. CM000663.1) or common labels (e.g. GRCh37). Read alignment (BAM) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit BAM alignments to EGA. Only one BAM file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the BAM read groups must be associated with Samples. Descriptive bam alignments XML example True values bam alignments XML example Sequence variation (VCF) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit VCF files to EGA. Only one VCF file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the VCF files must be associated with Samples. Download analysis XML (VCF) Phenotype files The Analysis XML can be used to submit phenotype files to the EGA. Only one phenotype file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the phenotype files must be associated with EGA Samples. Download analysis XML (Phenotype) DAC XML The DAC XML describes the Data Access Committee (DAC) affiliated to the data submission. The DAC may consist of a group or a single individual and is responsible for the data access decisions based on the application procedure described in the POLICY.XML. As with any other object, if it was already submitted to the EGA, there is no need to submit it again: you can reference an existing object within the EGA. Hence, A DAC XML does not need to be provided if your submission is affiliated to an existing EGA DAC.. Further information on DACs can be found here, and you can always contact our Helpdesk team if you have further inquiries. Descriptive dac XML example True values dac XML example Policy XML The Policy XML describes the Data Access Agreement (DAA) to be affiliated to the named Data Access Committee. Descriptive policy XML example True values study XML example Dataset XML The dataset XML describes the data files, defined by the Run.XML and Analysis.XML, that make up the dataset and links the collection of data files to a specified Policy. The dataset xml is commonly the last metadata object to be submitted, since it references multiple other entities. Please consider the number of datasets that your submission consists of. For example, a case-control study is likely to consist of at least two datasets. In addition, we suggest that multiple datasets should be described for studies using the same samples but different sequence technologies. Descriptive dataset XML example True values dataset XML example Validating and submitting your EGA Validating EGA's XMLs through Webin After you have ensured that the XMLs are properly formatted and contain all the required information. You can proceed to validate and submit your data. Use the curl command to validate your XML file: Once you have prepared your XML file and asserted you have access to Webin, you can validate your XML file programmatically against EGA's schemas using the curl command. There are multiple ways in which you can validate your XMLs. This variety has to do with the fact that: (1) there are 2 instances of Webin (test and production); and (2) that validation is a default step during submission. In other words, any time that you submit your data through Webin, it will be validated automatically before being accepted. This allows for 4 possible routes of validation, all having the same validation result: validating or submitting to either the production service or the test service of Webin. For example, directly validating a "study" object XML in the testing service (wwwdev…) would look like the following: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" In this command, you would need to replace <USERNAME> and <PASSWORD> with your EGA account username and password, respectively. You would also replace <INPUT_FILE> with the path to your XML file. A mock example would look like the following: curl -u ega-test-data@ebi.ac.uk:egarocks -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" The validation attempt can have different results depending on the given arguments: If your XML file is valid according to EGA's schemas, you will see a message indicating that your XML file is compliant. For example, see below for our mock example, where the "success" was "true" (i.e. no validation errors found). Nevertheless, notice how the "<STUDY accession=" is empty: it is because we were simply validating, so the study did not get an accession or ID. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:19:28.850+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222768850.xml" success="true"> <STUDY accession="" alias="Mock example" status="PRIVATE"/> <SUBMISSION accession="" alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:19:28:840"/> <MESSAGES> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If there are any errors or warnings, the tool will display them, allowing you to correct them before submitting your data to EGA. For example, in the following response, it is said that the object we were trying to submit was already existing, and therefore the "success" was "false". <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:12:35.609+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222355609.xml" success="false"> <STUDY alias="Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J" status="PRIVATE" holdUntilDate="2023-03-11Z"/> <SUBMISSION alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:12:35:576"/> <MESSAGES> <ERROR>In study, alias: "Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J". The object being added already exists in the submission account with accession: "ERP127584".</ERROR> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If the curl command retrieves no response at all, please double check if your username and password are correctly provided. Also notice the "ACTION=..." argument passed to the Curl command. This specifies the action to take during the call to Webin, so we do not need a "Submission" XML just for a validation attempt. See more at submission actions without submission XML. Furthermore, validation of multiple files or objects (e.g. sample, experiment, study…) can be done in a single command by adding more arguments (i.e. '-F'). For example: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" -F "SAMPLE=@sample.xml" -F "DATASET=@dataset.xml" As mentioned above, beside "validate" action in the test environment, you can also validate your metadata by three other methods: "Validate" in the production server. From our example above, you simply need to take the "dev" away from the URL. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the development server. From our example above, you would simply need to replace the action: from "validate" to "add". Whatever is submitted to this service will be discarded in 24h, so whether something gets submitted or not would not matter in the long run. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the productionserver. A combination of the previous two methods, which would render this attempt into a submission. This path is just to be taken when you are sure your metadata is compliant and what you want to submit. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" What happens after the submission of a dataset XML? Once you have completed the registration of your dataset/s please contact our Helpdesk Team to provide a release date for your study. Please note that all datasets affiliated to unreleased studies are automatically placed on hold until the authorised submitter or DAC contact contact the EGA Helpdesk for the study to be released. We strongly advise you not to delete your data until EGA Helpdesk confirms that your data has been successfully archived.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/programmatic-submission-xml

• Genome-Wide Predictors of Treatment-Related Toxicities in SWOG S0221 Trial

  When undergoing treatment for breast cancer, many women experience severe side effects, some of which result in treatment-related death and some that can persist for years. Little is understood regarding factors that may predict drug toxicities. Pharmacogenetics, the investigation of variants in candidate genes in drug metabolism pathways, has been used to determine susceptibility to treatment-related toxicities, as well as to cancer recurrence. Although there have been some strong and important findings using this approach, such as identification of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that predispose to side effects associated with thiopurines and irinotecan, there has been less progress in assessment of genetic variants that predispose to toxicities resulting from the multi-drug regimen commonly used to treat breast cancer, anthracyclines (A), cyclophosphamide (C), and taxanes (T). These difficulties in identification of key gene variants may be due to the complex metabolic pathways of these drugs, the lack of rate limiting enzymes in the processes, or the limitations of single SNP analysis, rather than capturing all of the variability across the genes. In addition to drug metabolism pathways, however, there may be a number of constitutional factors or other processes that affect damage to normal tissues in the course of chemotherapy, some known or hypothesized, such as DNA repair and oxidative stress pathways, and others not yet discovered. However, there have been no clear candidate genes that account for a large part of the variation in drug or treatment response, and there are likely important genes that influence sensitivity of cells to chemotherapy through unknown pathways which have not yet been identified or hypothesized. The present technological capabilities to screen the entire genome for variants that discriminate populations allows the opportunity to identify these as yet unknown pathways, and open the doors to exciting new avenues of research into mechanisms that had not been previously considered. We conducted a genome-wide scan (GWAS) in a clinical trial (S0221), in which women with high risk breast cancer were treated with different dosing schedules of C, A and T. Blood specimens were collected and banked, and DNA extracted for genotyping on the Illumina OMNI 1M platform. The GWAS data were used to examine genetic variants significantly associated with grades 3 and 4 toxicities, including peripheral neuropathy recorded during the T segment. In S0221, toxicities were graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The neurotoxicity is predominantly a distal sensory neuropathy, which is characterized by pain, numbness, tingling, and reduced functional capacity in the extremities. Other symptoms include parasthesias, ataxia, impaired vibration and joint position sense, and loss of tendon reflexes. By using a GWAS approach, it is likely that important pathways not previously considered can be revealed as important in susceptibility to treatment-related toxicities, identifying those at greatest risk for alternate drugs or dose reduction, and opening new areas of research for prevention of taxanes-related neuropathy among patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.

  Study phs001428

• NHLBI TOPMed: My Life Our Future (MLOF) Research Repository of Patients with Hemophilia A (Factor VIII Deficiency) or Hemophilia B (Factor IX Deficiency)

  Hemophilia A and B are X-linked bleeding disorders resulting from a deficiency in coagulation factor VIII (FVIII) or factor IX (FIX), respectively. Hemophilia affects approximately 1/5000 male births worldwide, and results in premature death and disability due to bleeding if coagulation factor replacement therapy is not used effectively. Hemophilia is clinically categorized by coagulation factor activity levels and ranges in severity from mild (6% to 30%) to moderate (1-5%) to severe (&lt;1%). Many female "carriers" of hemophilia also have decreased factor activity and morbidity from bleeding. Hemophilia A and B are almost always caused by identifiable mutations in the F8 and F9 genes, respectively, and these mutations are found throughout the structural genes. Although the hemophilias are monogenic disorders, there are wide variations in disease severity and therapeutic outcomes which are not readily explained by the disease causing mutations alone. The My Life Our Future (MLOF) project (www.mylifeourfuture.org) is a national resource developed by a partnership of BloodworksNW (BWNW, formerly the Puget Sound Blood Center), the American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network (ATHN), the National Hemophilia Foundation (NHF) and Bioverativ, to provide free F8 and F9 gene variant analysis to patients with hemophilia A or B, and to establish a research repository of DNA sequence, DNA, RNA, buffy coat, serum and plasma. The sequence analysis and serum samples are linked to a phenotypic database hosted by ATHN, with samples submitted and clinical data entered at ~100 hemophilia treatment centers (HTCs) nationwide. (See ATHN Research Report Brief in the resource center at www.athn.org). MLOF has become the largest hemophilia genetic project worldwide. The roles of the MLOF partners are: BWNW, to serve as the central laboratory for the project and house the research repository; ATHN, to support and provide the administrative link with HTCs, to facilitate the collection of accurate phenotypic data, to conduct research review and approval for use of the repository and with BWNW to provide samples and data for research projects; NHF, to provide consumer education and facilitate consumer input into the project; and Bioverativ, to provide financial support and scientific input. The project is governed by a Steering Committee consisting of one representative from each organization. Subject samples chosen from the MLOF parent study for TOPMed and WGS were drawn from those who gave (or parents gave) informed consent for the Research Repository and included patients of all severities and type, but with an emphasis on those with severe hemophilia and others at increased risk of neutralizing antibody (inhibitor) formation and who had samples in the Research Repository (plasma, serum, RNA) for potential additional -omic studies. Also included were samples from subjects where a likely causative variant for hemophilia was not found in the F8 or F9 coding region, intron-exon boundaries or immediate upstream and downstream regions. Since hemophilia is an X-linked disorder, the majority of subjects are male. Racial distribution is similar to the overall population distribution.

  Study phs001515

• Understanding the genetic risk underlying racial disparities in uterine fibroids

  Fibroids affect 77% of women by onset of menopause in the U.S. and account for $2.1 billion in healthcare costs each year. Fibroids negatively impact reproductive health causing heavy and painful menses, pelvic pain and pressure, pregnancy complications, and interventions including myomectomy and hysterectomy. Until recently, tumor tissue and cell culture studies investigating fibroid growth have been the primary sources for understanding fibroid pathophysiology. Genetic analysis can provide a powerful and cost effective tool to identify etiological and causal factors, especially since a genetic predisposition to fibroids has already been documented from twin studies. As much as 69% of risk is explained by genetic factors. Racial disparities also support a role for genetics with fibroid risk. African American women have earlier age of onset, more numerous and larger fibroids with a greater lifetime incidence compared to Caucasians. We propose to identify genetic markers for risk of fibroids through a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of African American and Caucasian participants, leveraging ancestral differences to narrow down genomic regions for targeted follow- up analyses. To accomplish this we will take advantage of a unique Vanderbilt resource, the BioVU DNA databank. BioVU currently has over 122,470 adults linked to electronic medical records. From BioVU we have already identified 2,902 African American and Caucasian subjects who meet our stringent inclusion criteria to conduct a GWAS of fibroids, including pelvic imaging. Available imaging is critical, because many women with fibroids are asymptomatic and without imaging, studies may misclassify as many as 51% of women. We have also defined definitive controls who reached menopause without fibroids. We have a strong group of nationally known fibroid researchers who will provide over 10,000 samples for replication. Our first Specific Aim is to conduct a GWAS for association between common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and fibroid risk. Using a case-control design we will perform a GWAS in 2,902 (1,451 fibroid cases and 1,451 controls) women from BioVU stratified by African American and Caucasian race. Secondary admixture mapping (AM) analyses will also be performed to identify chromosomal regions of interest to prioritize for replication. Our second Aim is to resequence chromosome regions identified from GWAS and AM to discover rare variants. Finally, in Aim 3 we will replicate SNPs selected from Aim 1 and 2 in independent samples of at least 3,230 fibroid cases and 7,097 controls. We propose an efficient and cost-effective approach to identify genetic risk factors for fibroids, by taking advantage of imaging information and DNA available through BioVU. This study represents the largest GWAS of uterine fibroids and the first among African Americans leveraging emerging technologies and new statistical approaches to conduct this study. Our proposed study will fundamentally change knowledge about fibroids and lay the ground work for breakthroughs in understanding mechanisms of fibroid formation and in identifying novel therapeutic approaches.

  Study phs001409

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Controlled Study of the Clinical Effectiveness of Automated Real-Time Feedback on CPR Process Conducted at a Subset of ROC Sites (CPR) (ROC-CPR-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: A substudy of the ROC PRIMED trial, the ROC CPR trial sought to investigate whether real-time audio and visual feedback during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) outside a hospital increases the proportion of participants who achieved prehospital return of spontaneous circulation.Background: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is an essential link in the chain of survival for treating cardiac arrest. However, performance of CPR is highly variable both outside hospital and in hospital. Interruptions in chest compression, inadequate depth of chest compression, and high rates of ventilation adversely affect blood flow during chest compressions and can hinder resuscitation. Suboptimal CPR, particularly time spent without chest compressions (low chest compression fraction), can reduce survival of cardiac arrest patients.Current technology incorporated into a monitor-defibrillator can assess core components of CPR through the use of an accelerometer and impedance changes across the defibrillation electrodes. This technology can also provide real-time audiovisual feedback so that the rescuer is prompted to perform according to guideline specifications. Use of such feedback increases the likelihood of performing CPR in accordance with guidelines during training and simulation. Participants: There were 1586 participants: 771 treated without feedback and 815 with feedback.Design: CPR feedback was provided through proprietary Q-CPR software operating in the Philips MRx monitor-defibrillator. The feedback feature of the defibrillator includes audible voice prompts and visual messages on the monitor screen that are triggered when measured chest compressions or ventilation deviate from guidelines or are interrupted.The study was conducted in 21 emergency medical service (EMS) agencies at three ROC regions in the U.S. and Canada. Randomized treatment clusters, which ranged from individual emergency medical vehicles to groups of emergency agencies, were assigned to feedback-on or feedback-off treatments. Each cluster remained in its assigned mode for two to seven months, after which it switched to the opposite treatment arm. At the end of those two treatment periods, each cluster was again randomly assigned to feedback-on or feedback-off. This cycle continued for the duration of the study. Each cluster switched treatment arms at least once, and up to four times, during the study. Conclusions: Real-time visual and audible feedback during CPR altered performance to more closely conform with CPR guidelines. Clusters assigned to feedback were associated with increased proportion of time in which chest compressions were provided, increased compression depth, and decreased proportion of compressions with incomplete release. However, frequency of prehospital return of spontaneous circulation did not differ according to feedback status, nor did the presence of a pulse at hospital arrival, survival to discharge, or awake at hospital discharge (Hostler, et al., 2011, PMID: 21296838).

  Study phs003818

• Immunophenotyping in a COVID-19 Cohort (IMPACC) Transcriptomics and Genotyping Assays

  IMPACC (IMmunoPhenotyping Assessment in a COVID-19 Cohort) is a prospective longitudinal cohort study (NCT04378777) launched in May 2020 in response to the worldwide pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the National Institute of Health (NIH). Patient enrollment and sample analysis involved 20 hospitals associated with 15 U.S. biomedical research centers and 11 centralized Core immunoassay laboratories.The study aimed to enable the identification of potential biomarkers and inform future therapeutic interventions using a longitudinal approach encompassing the whole disease course for a comprehensive understanding of the contributions of the pathogen and host immune response in modulating the manifestations, severity, and post-acute sequelae of the infection. IMPACC enrolled close to 1200 adult symptomatic, molecularly confirmed hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the study within 48 hours of their hospital admission. Clinical data and biological samples (blood, mid-turbinate nasal swabs, and esophageal aspirant) were collected according to minimal risk guidelines at enrollment and on days 4, 7, 14, 21, and 28. Biological samples were collected at 3-month intervals up to 12 months after hospital discharge to assess functional and immunologic recovery measures. Sample collection, processing, and storage procedures were standardized across sites, and samples were transported to centralized assay-specific core laboratories (Core Labs) in batches for testing and analysis. The description of outcome severity was not limited to survival versus death but encompassed a clinical trajectory approach using 5 groups leveraging longitudinal data based on time in the hospital, disease severity by ordinal scale based on the degree of respiratory illness, and presence or absence of limitations at discharge. Disease severity was assessed based on the degree of respiratory illness using a 7-point ordinal scale adapted from the World Health Organization COVID-19 and NIAID disease ordinal severity scales. DNA for genetic analyses was collected from whole blood at a single time point. To identify any genomic determinants of severe COVID-19 disease, single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping and exome sequencing were conducted to assess genetic variants associated with individual susceptibility to severe disease. In addition, IMPACC included bulk transcriptomic analysis of upper airway (nasal swaps) samples, lower airway (esophageal aspirant) samples, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) to evaluate dynamic changes in cellular composition and cellular response during the course of the disease. Reads were aligned to the GRCh38 human reference genome. Additional information for the IMPACC study has been submitted to The Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (ImmPort) under study accession SDY1760. Further information and requests for resources and reagents should be directed to and will be fulfilled by the Lead Contact, Dr. Steven Kleinstein (steven.kleinstein@yale.edu).

  Study phs002686

• A Prospective Natural History Study of Diagnosis, Treatment and Outcomes of Children with SCID Disorders

  Individuals with a recent or new diagnosis of severe combined immune deficiency (including infants who were identified by newborn screening) may be eligible to be enrolled on the PIDTC research study 6901. Speak to your doctor to determine if you or your child may be eligible. Protocol 6901 follows patients with SCID prospectively, meaning the 6901 study enrolls participants where there is a plan to receive a blood and marrow transplant, enzyme therapy, or gene therapy in the future. Patients are then followed according to a schedule set out by the study protocol after the procedure. The times the study requests follow up will be the same as when your doctor would want to be seeing you or your child as part of their regular ongoing medical care. Patients with &#34;leaky SCID&#34;, reticular dysgenesis, and Omenn syndrome may also be eligible to participate in 6901. The 6901 research study does NOT dictate how your or your child&#39;s doctors should treat you or your child, as the PIDTC recognizes that there are many complex factors that go into this decision. The decision about how you or your child with SCID will be treated is made by your doctor. The 6901 study simply follows how you or your child do over time. There are no experimental therapies on this study. The 6901 study has been open since August 2010, and continues to be open and enrolling patients to the present day. The study plans to enroll approximately 250 patients with SCID. By studying new patients undergoing treatment for SCID, the goal is to learn more about: (1) outcomes from the treatment of SCID in the modern era of medicine, (2) what factors lead to the best long-term outcomes, such as best donor, conditioning regimen, timing of transplant, etc. and (3) what impact newborn screening and the early diagnosis of SCID has had on the long-term outcomes following BMT or gene therapy. A significant amount of information is also being gathered on how and when the immune system recovers after BMT, quality of life for long-term survivors, and about whether children develop normally after treatment. The 6901 study is the largest coordinated prospective study of patients with SCID ever performed. Information that we will learn, both now and in the future, will help doctors and other health professionals to better treat children with SCID. All hospitals within the PIDTC are enrolling patients with SCID on 6901, ensuring that the outcomes are reflective of what happens in the &#34;real world&#34; as opposed to at just one or two large centers.

  Study phs001392

• Metagenomic Epidemiology of Antibiotic Resistance in Infectious Diarrhea

  The study of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in infectious diarrhea has generally been limited to cultivation, antimicrobial susceptibility testing and targeted PCR assays. When individual strains of significance are identified, whole genome shotgun (WGS) sequencing of important clones and clades is performed. Genes that encode resistance to antibiotics have been detected in environmental, insect, human and animal metagenomes and are known as &#34;resistomes&#34;. While metagenomic datasets have been mined to characterize the healthy human gut resistome in the Human Microbiome Project and MetaHIT and in a Yanomani Amerindian cohort, directed metagenomic sequencing has not been used to examine the epidemiology of AMR. Especially in developing countries where sanitation is poor, diarrhea and enteric pathogens likely serve to disseminate antibiotic resistance elements of clinical significance. Unregulated use of antibiotics further exacerbates the problem by selection for acquisition of resistance. This is exemplified by recent reports of multiple antibiotic resistance in Shigella strains in India, in Escherichia coli in India and Pakistan, and in nontyphoidal Salmonella (NTS) in South-East Asia. We propose to use deep metagenomic sequencing and genome level assembly to study the epidemiology of AMR in stools of children suffering from diarrhea. Here the epidemiology component will be surveillance and analysis of the microbial composition (to the bacterial species/strain level where possible) and its constituent antimicrobial resistance genetic elements (such as plasmids, integrons, transposons and other mobile genetic elements, or MGEs) in samples from a cohort where diarrhea is prevalent and antibiotic exposure is endemic. The goal will be to assess whether consortia of specific mobile antimicrobial resistance elements associate with species/strains and whether their presence is enhanced or amplified in diarrheal microbiomes and in the presence of antibiotic exposure. This work could potentially identify clonal complexes of organisms and MGEs with enhanced resistance and the potential to transfer this resistance to other enteric pathogens. We have performed WGS, metagenomic assembly and gene/protein mapping to examine and characterize the types of AMR genes and transfer elements (transposons, integrons, bacteriophage, plasmids) and their distribution in bacterial species and strains assembled from DNA isolated from diarrheal and non-diarrheal stools. The samples were acquired from a cohort of pediatric patients and controls from Colombia, South America where antibiotic use is prevalent. As a control, the distribution and abundance of AMR genes can be compared to published studies where resistome gene lists from healthy cohort sequences were compiled. Our approach is more epidemiologic in nature, as we plan to identify and catalogue antimicrobial elements on MGEs capable of spread through a local population and further we will, where possible, link mobile antimicrobial resistance elements with specific strains within the population.

  Study phs001260

• PanCuRx Translational Research Initiative

  The goal of the PanCuRx TRI is to seek solutions to the high fatality rate of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), the most common type of pancreatic cancer, by generating new knowledge about the genetics and biology of the disease, mechanisms of how tumours grow and tailored treatment options. PDAC is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in Canada and is expected to become the second-leading cause of cancer death within the next decade. The current five-year survival rate of eight per cent is the lowest of all epithelial cancers. There are major clinical challenges to treating the disease, including the fact that PDAC spreads to other parts of the body early so surgical removal of the tumour benefits few patients, that PDAC has proven relatively resistant to systemic therapies such as chemotherapy and that there has been limited benefit from the use of newer molecular targeted agents. The PanCuRx team has created the world’s first resource of tumour-purified PDAC whole genomes; more than 500 PDAC samples, with combined clinical annotation, have been successfully sequenced and analyzed at the Ontario Institute for Cancer research in Toronto. The resulting clinical genomic resource created from this data has led to multiple new findings that have established a framework to better understand PDAC biology and lays the foundation for new genomic approaches to better understanding the disease. The team also launched a clinical trial called COMPASS (Comprehensive Molecular Characterization of Advanced Ductal Pancreas Adenocarcinoma for Better Treatment Selection: A Prospective Study), which is recruiting patients with advanced PDAC (both locally advanced and metastatic) at The Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM) in Toronto. The study uses the molecular results from individual patient tumours to guide selection of better second line treatment on a case-by-case basis. The primary objective of the initial study was to assess the feasibility of collecting tumour materials from patients with advanced PDAC and delivering results within 56 days of biopsy. Having achieved this objective, the trial has expanded to other cancer centres across Canada. Pancreatic cancer is one of the most deadly forms of cancer and outcomes have not improved in four decades. The PanCuRx initiative is providing a better understanding of the disease and actively applying new knowledge to cancer patients through clinical trials. This knowledge will help to improve quality of life and prolong survival for pancreatic cancer patients worldwide.

  Study EGAS00001002543