11034 results for "fc points to coins calculator Visit Buyfc26coins.com Bardzo pod wrażeniem jakości usług..UK7B"

in 12.29 milliseconds.

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

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

  Study phs003878

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

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

  Blog fega-and-gdi

• RNA sequencing of chondrosarcoma

  To profile chondrosarcoma patients.

  Study EGAS00001004585

• CGP_CORE_CELL_LINES___RNA_seq

  Graham to complete

  Study EGAS00001000828

• REDS-IV-P Epidemiology, Surveillance and Preparedness of the Novel SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic (RESPONSE)

  Leveraging access to the blood supply and blood donors, the REDS-IV-P program began conducting the RESPONSE study (REDS-IV-P Epidemiology, Surveillance and Preparedness of the Novel SARS-CoV-2 Epidemic) in early 2020 in order to 1) evaluate if SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in blood donations in the U.S. using an assay that could potentially be used to screen the blood supply if evidence of SARS-CoV-2 transfusion-transmission became apparent 2) conduct serosurveys using optimized assays/algorithms to monitor antibody reactivity in blood donor populations over time, 3) enroll SARS-CoV-2 positive donors and others into a longitudinal cohort study to answer fundamental questions about the evolution of viremia and immune responses, and 4) establish a sharable biorepository that includes specimens collected early on in the infection and potentially large volumes of plasma from infected/convalescent donors.Screening for SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia was completed using a SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid test (NAT) performed on retained blood donor minipool samples from six geographic regions in the US. The study also included serosurveillance (i.e. testing for antibody directed against the SARS-CoV2 spike protein) of donations from the same six regions to document accruing seroincidence in blood donor populations and to project these rates in the general population. To enrich for donors with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, another part of the study focused on donors reporting post-donation information (PDI) consistent with COVID-19 by testing plasma from all available PDI donations for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by NAT. Subjects who were diagnosed with COVID-19 based on PDI reports or who tested positive by SARS-CoV-2 NAT on index donation plasma were enrolled into a longitudinal follow-up study which collected multiple samples for up to one-year post-infection. The longitudinal follow-up study also enrolled community members who reported a new positive SARS-CoV-2 NAT test in the prior 7-14 days. The specific aims of the RESPONSE study were to: Establish the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia in blood donations from the American Red Cross (ARC) regions in Los Angeles, Boston, and Minneapolis metropolitan areas, Bloodworks Northwest (BWNW), New York Blood Center (NYBC), and Vitalant San Francisco Bay Area, monthly between March and September of 2020 Conduct serosurveys to study antibody reactivity in same six areas as above monthly for March to August 2020 Document rates of Post Donation Information (PDI) reports to determine PDI rates relevant to SARS-CoV-2 clinical disease and test index donation plasma from PDI donors for SARS-CoV-2 RNA Enroll SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects into a longitudinal cohort study to answer fundamental questions on the evolution of viremia, early immune responses and waning of immunity over 3-12 months of follow-up Establish a sharable biorepository of samples from all of the above Aims for future research The data from Aims 3 and 4 above is being made available in BioData Catalyst.Biospecimens for these Aims are managed by Vitalant Research Institute (VRI). More information on biospecimens is available.

  Study phs003578

• Public Access Defibrillation Community Trial (PAD)(PAD-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Objectives The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Community Trial sought to evaluate broad implementation of Public Access Defibrillators (PAD) in urban community units. Survival to hospital discharge of participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was the main outcome measure. Survival was compared in community units (e.g., apartment or office buildings, gated communities, sports venues, senior centers, shopping malls) served by non-medical responders trained in CPR and use of automated external defibrillators (AEDs), to units receiving the traditional optimum community standard of care (i.e., rescuers trained to recognize a cardiac emergency, call 911, and initiate CPR). Background Sudden out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OOH-CA) remains a significant cause of death, in spite of recent declines in overall mortality from cardiovascular disease. Existing methods of emergency resuscitation are inadequate due to time delays inherent in transporting trained responders with defibrillation capabilities to the side of the OOH-CA victim. Existing Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems typically combine paramedic Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) services with some level of community involvement, such as bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training. Some communities include automated external defibrillators (AEDs) at isolated sites or in mobile police or fire vehicles. Such an approach typically varies in effectiveness, with an incremental improvement in effectiveness seen in communities that organize and integrate services with the existing EMS system. However, optimal improvement in survival from sudden OOH-CA may require a program that utilizes volunteer non-medical responders (who may not have a traditional duty to respond to an emergency) trained to use AEDs. Participants The PAD trial was a prospective, randomized community based trial. More than 19,000 volunteer responders from 993 community units in 24 North American regions participated. The two study arms had similar unit and volunteer characteristics. Participants with treated out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in the two groups were similar in age (mean: 69.8 years), proportion of men (67 perecnt), rate of cardiac arrest in a public location (70 percent), and rate of witnessed cardiac arrest (72 percent). Conclusions Community units with volunteers trained in CPR and AEDs had significantly more participants surviving to hospital discharge than units with volunteers trained to use CPR only. There were 30 survivors among 128 definite cardiac arrests in the CPR+AED units and 15 survivors among 107 definite cardiac arrests in the CPR only units (p = 0.03). Serious adverse effects were rarely reported. No volunteers received inadvertent shocks, and no participants were shocked unnecessarily. AED maintenance problems were infrequent. A few participating volunteers reported severe stress related to responding to emergency situations. Although residential complexes represented 16% of the units and 29% of the treatable cardiac arrests, only 5% of the survivors were from residential complexes. Such information should be helpful for individual facilities that are considering implementing PAD programs. (NEJM 2004; 351:637-46).

  Study phs003858

• Best Endovascular vs. Best Surgical Therapy in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia (BEST CLI-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 To compare the effectiveness of surgical treatment to the effectiveness of endovascular treatment in adults with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who are eligible for both treatment options. Background Peripheral artery disease (PAD) affects more than 200 million people worldwide. A portion of those individuals develop chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). CLTI is associated with severe health outcomes. CLTI is defined by ischemic foot pain at rest, ischemic ulcerations, or gangrene. Treatment for CLTI includes revascularization to improve limb perfusion and limit the risk of amputation. However, the choice of surgery or endovascular therapy for revascularization varies greatly. The extent to which this variability affects clinical outcomes in patients with CLTI is unknown. The BEST-CLI trial was initiated to determine whether endovascular revascularization was superior to surgical revascularization in patients with CLTI. Participants A total of 1434 participants with a single segment of great saphenous vein comprised cohort 1. Of these, 718 participants were randomly assigned to the surgical treatment group and 716 participants were randomly assigned to the endovascular therapy group. A total of 396 participants needing an alternative conduit comprised cohort 2. Of these, 197 participants were randomly assigned to the surgical treatment group and 199 participants were randomly assigned to the endovascular therapy group. Design BEST-CLI was an international, randomized, open-label trial. Participants were assigned to one of two cohorts based on the availability of a single segment of great saphenous vein. Participants in both cohorts were randomly assigned to either surgery or endovascular therapy. Follow-up was performed at 30 days after the procedure, 3 months, 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter up to 84 months after randomization. Telephone visits in lieu of clinic visits were planned at 30 months and every 12 months thereafter and at the end of the trial. Participants were followed for major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause), quality of life, level of pain, and performance on the six-minute walk test. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse limb events or death from any cause. A major adverse limb event was defined as above ankle amputation of the index limb or a major index-limb reintervention (new bypass, interposition graft revision, thrombectomy, or thrombolysis). Conclusions Among patients with CLTI who had an adequate great saphenous vein for surgical revascularization (cohort 1), the incidence of a major adverse limb event or death was significantly lower in the surgical group than in the endovascular group. Among the patients who lacked an adequate saphenous vein conduit (cohort 2), the outcomes in the two groups were similar. Farber A, Menard MT, Conte MS, et al. Surgery or Endovascular Therapy for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(25):2305-2316. PMID 36342173

  Study phs003844

• CIP: Differential Response to Hydroxyurea and Incidence of Stroke in Sickle Cell Disease

  Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a severe debilitating hematological disorder associated with a high degree of morbidity and mortality. There are approximately 200,000 babies born with sickle cell disease each year, with the disease predominately affecting individuals in Africa. The overall global burden of the disease is tremendous, with more than 100,000 patients currently in the US and further millions worldwide. The governing bodies of the World Health Organization have recently adopted a resolution to strengthen the response to sickle disease in all affected countries and there is a definite need for high quality sickle cell disease research that has the potential to improve the treatment and prognosis of patients with this devastating disease. The clinical manifestations of SCD arise from a complex pathophysiology that includes hemolysis, acute vaso-occlusion, endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, and chronic organ damage. While the individual clinical course of this disease is highly variable, many of the associated complications demonstrate some degree of heritability. Intensive research into identifying genetic modifiers that can affect the pathophysiology of SCD has been limited to date and there is an urgent need to improve of our knowledge the molecular mechanisms underlying the clinical complications of SCD. The Sickle cell CIP project is investigating complication of stroke and pharmacogenomics of hydroxyurea response in patients with sickle cell anemia. The major benefit of hydroxyurea comes from its ability to induce fetal hemoglobin (HbF) and higher HbF levels are associated with reduced morbidity and mortality in SCA patients. We will perform whole exome and whole genome sequencing of SCA patients in order to identify genome variants associated with incidences of stroke and HbF response to hydroxyurea.

  Study phs000691

• Response and Resistance to ER-Directed Therapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer

  Despite the reduction in cancer recurrence and mortality provided by hormonal therapy, estrogen receptor positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) remains the most common cause of breast cancer death, resulting in more than 20,000 deaths in the U.S each year. Although several therapeutic options exist to target the estrogen receptor, resistance to these therapies invariably occurs. Genetic mechanisms of acquired resistance to targeted therapies in ER+ MBC are not well understood. To address this, we developed a prospective biopsy protocol where multiple research biopsies are collected from metastatic samples and used for pathology, ER/PR/HER2, OncoPanel (a CLIA 300 gene sequencing panel), whole exome sequencing (WES), transcriptome sequencing (RNA-Seq), and single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq). In some cases, tissue is used for cell line and xenograft generation. Archival primary biopsies are also obtained when possible for parallel genomic studies. Patients are followed and serial metastatic biopsies are obtained. This data will be used to determine the landscape of genomic alterations in treatment-resistant ER+ MBC, and compared to data generated by TCGA for treatment-naive ER+ primary breast cancer. Comparison of genomic studies from resistant, metastatic specimens with corresponding pre-treatment primary samples will allow us to identify genomic association with resistance to specific therapies. Analysis of the serial metastatic biopsies collected over the course of multiple treatments will also shed light on tumor evolution under selective therapeutic pressure.NoteA subset of the MBC blood biopsies that are included in our study can be accessed and downloaded from the phs001977 accession.Another subset of patients in this study participated in a clinical trial (NCT02871791) and have their data deposited in the current study as well.

  Study phs001285

• Exploiting immune cell receptor information to quantify index switching in single cell transcriptome sequencing experiment

  By offering high sequencing speed and ultra-high-throughput at a low price, Illumina next-generation sequencing platforms has been widely adopted in recent years. However, an experiment with multiplexed library could be at risk of molecular recombination, known as “index switching”, which causes certain amount of reads to be assigned to an incorrect library. It is reported that a new advance, exclusion amplification (ExAmp) in conjunction with the patterned flow cell technology introduced on HiSeq 3000/HiSeq 4000/HiSeq X sequencing systems, potentially suffers from a higher rate of index switching than conventional bridge amplification. We took advantage of the diverse but highly cell-unique expression of immune cell receptors to quantify index switching on single cell RNA-seq data that were sequenced on HiSeq 3500 and HiSeq 4000. By utilizing the unique T-cell receptor (TCR) expression, we could quantify the spread-of-signal from many different wells (n=51 from total three batches) due to index switching. We used TraCer to reconstruct full-length TCR from all samples, and then used Kallisto to quantify TCR gene expression. We found index switching in all three batches of experiments investigated. The median percentage of incorrectly detected markers was estimated to be 4.2% (interquartile range (IQR): 2.0%-8.7%). We did not detect any consistent pattern of certain indices to be more prone for switching than others, suggesting that index switching is a stochastic process. We confirm that index switching is a problem that affects all samples run in multiplexed libraries on Illumina HiSeq 3500 and HiSeq 4000 platforms.

  Study EGAS00001002911