534 results for "fccoins trustpilot Visit Buyfc26coins.com Pomocni i przyjaźni pracownicy obsługi klienta..qNQH"

in 8.43 milliseconds.

• Natural History and Structural Functional Relationships in Fabry Renal Disease

  Fabry disease is a rare genetic disease with deficient activity of an enzyme, which leads to accumulation of inclusions in different organs including kidney, heart and vessels. The purpose of the study is to conduct a cross-sectional investigation of the natural history of Fabry renal disease and measure renal function and renal structure in male and female Fabry's patients. The study will utilize the resultant cross-sectional information to determine the renal structural parameters or composite of parameters that most closely relates to the onset and progression of clinical renal disease in Fabry patients. This is an observational, cross-sectional study of 60 individuals with Fabry disease. Those participating in the study will be evaluated during a one day visit and on a PRN basis. The primary study objectives are as follows: To study the natural history of Fabry renal disease and measure renal function and renal structure in male and female Fabry's patients. These patients would encompass the broad age range from childhood to adulthood and from normal renal function to moderate renal insufficiency [serum creatinine (SCr) ≤ 2.5mg/dl (chronic kidney disease or CKD3)]. To utilize the resultant cross-sectional information to determine the renal structural parameters or composite of parameters that most closely relates to the onset and progression of clinical renal disease in Fabry patients.

  Study phs001333

• eMERGE Geisinger eGenomic Medicine (GeM) - MyCode Project Controls

  A research cohort of adult Geisinger Clinic patients was enrolled from community-based primary care clinics of the Geisinger Health System. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were a primary care patient of a Geisinger Clinic physician and were scheduled for a non-emergent clinic visit. All participants provided written informed consent and HIPAA authorization. Consenting patient agreed to provide blood samples for broad biomedical research use, and permission to access data in their Geisinger electronic medical record for research. The enrollment rate was 90% of patients approached. The demographics of the cohort approximate those of the Geisinger Clinic outpatient population. Research blood samples were collected during an outpatient clinical phlebotomy encounter. Research blood samples are coded and stored in a central biorepository. Samples are linkable to clinical data in a de-identified manner for research via an IRB-approved data broker process. For genomic analysis, DNA is extracted from EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood. For the initial eMERGE Geisinger eGenomic Medicine (GeM) genotyping project, a subset of 1,232 unique samples were genotyped using Illumina HumanOmniExpress-12 v1.0 arrays, and used as population controls for other Geisinger Clinic case cohorts, including abdominal aortic aneurysm and gastric bypass surgery cases. These samples were selected from a larger subset of approximately 6,000 MyCode DNA samples using a partial matching algorithm that included age, sex, and body mass index as variables.

  Study phs000381

• AIDS Linked to the Intravenous Experience (ALIVE) Cohort

  The AIDS Linked to the Intravenous Experience (ALIVE) Study is a long-standing community based research effort that includes past and current injection drug users (IDUs). ALIVE has been ongoing since 1988 and is one of the longest-running community-based cohorts of IDUs in existence. The primary objectives when the study started were to characterize the incidence and natural history of HIV among injection drug users (IDUs). At each study visit, participants undergo a series of questionnaires that elicit information about substance use (including drugs used and route of administration) and a blood draw. A subsample of 1200 subjects was selected for genotyping for the NIDA Smokescreen effort who report heroin injection and have existing peripheral blood samples (isolated buffy coat). In addition to injected heroin, ALIVE subjects are assessed on lifetime and previous six months use of marijuana (76.3%), crack (55.5%), snorted cocaine (48.3%), injected cocaine (89.9%), injected speedball (87.0%), and smoking heroin (9.0%). The sample is 33.4% female, ~85% African-American and assessed through a mean maximum age of 49.9 years old. Importantly, subjects are not assessed to meet DSM criteria, but all subjects report having injected drugs. We provide demographic data (age at assessment, sex, self-reported race) and drug use data (lifetime "use" ever endorsed) for each drug class/route described above for each subject

  Study phs001494

• INSIGHT (Intervention Nurses Start Infants Growing on Healthy Trajectories) Cohort

  This is a study of the biological risk factors for children enrolled in the INSIGHT (Intervention Nurses Start Infants Growing on Healthy Trajectories) study. INSIGHT is a randomized, controlled trial testing a responsive parenting intervention designed for the primary prevention of childhood obesity against a safety control. These first-born children were deeply studied in this time period with data collected on a wide variety of variables including mode of delivery, gender, weight and height (collected at 7 time points), medication usage, diet information, and maternal health information (gestational weight gain, gestational diabetes, smoking during pregnancy). This study includes a survey of the oral and gut microbiota from 226 mother-child dyads. It was designed to investigate the relationship between a cross-sectional view of the child's microbiome (at two years of age) and the patterns of growth between birth and 2 years. Microbiome samples from children (buccal swab and stool sample) and their mothers (buccal swab) are collected at the children's 2-year clinical research visit. Stool metabolites have also been assayed for a subset of the 226 children using 1H-NMR. Additionally, we genotyped the same individuals for SNPs across the genome. For a subset of 48 individuals we have added second-born siblings. For these additional 48 children, we characterized the methylation pattern across the genome using cord blood and placenta samples.

  Study phs001498

• National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Bench to Bassinet Program: The Pediatric Cardiac Genetics Consortium (PCGC) Study

  Multi-center, prospective observational cohort study of individuals with congenital heart defects (CHD). Phenotypic data and source DNA derived from 10,000 probands, parents, and families of interest are being collected to investigate relationships between genetic factors and phenotypic and clinical outcomes in patients with CHD. Phenotype data will be stored at dbGaP, while molecular and sequence data will be stored at BioData Catalyst. The PCGC Cohort is utilized in the following dbGaP substudies. Please click on the following substudies below or in the "Substudies" section of this top-level study page phs001194 PCGC Cohort. phs000571 PCGC: whole exome sequences, whole genome sequences, targeted sequences, MIP sequences, and SNP array data phs001843 PCGC-CMG Collaboration: whole genome sequences The Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research Program (Kids First) subset of the PCGC project (phs001194) is now accessible through a separate dbGaP study accession: phs001138. To access this dataset, please submit a Data Access Request (DAR) for phs001138. Approval of this DAR will be expedited for approved users of phs001194. To learn about other Kids First datasets visit https://kidsfirstdrc.org/.NHLBI's TOPMed program has provided additional Whole Genome Sequencing for PCGC participants - that data is accessible through a separate dbGaP sudy accession: phs001735. Access to this data set should be requested through a Data Access Request (DAR) for phs001735.

  Study phs001194

• Genetic Markers of Caries Risk in Diverse Underserved Children: CIDR

  The study Predicting Caries Risk In Underserved Children, From Toddlers To The School-age Years In Primary Healthcare Settings, is a renewal of an initial project designed to develop a dental caries risk tool for use in primary medical and dental healthcare settings to identify high dental caries risk children, expanding from the toddler (1-4 years old, referred to as Stage 1 grant) to the school-age years (6-9 years old, referred to as Stage 2 grant); and to determine the relationships between dental caries risk profiles and dental caries disease patterns. 1326 children, 12 +/- 3 months of age, and their primary caregivers, were enrolled in the study. This cohort represents a diverse population, including ethnic and racial minorities and low socio-economic status groups. There are a total of six in-person visits (at child age 1, 2.5, 4, 6.5, 8 and 9.5 years), and at each one the primary caregiver (PCG) completes a dental caries risk questionnaire, and the child receives a detailed dental caries examination. Saliva samples were collected during the age 8 visit (2019-2020) from 1,059 racially and ethnically diverse individuals (543 children and 516 PCGs) for the purposes of human genetic testing, to study the genetics of dental caries experience of children and their primary caregivers.

  Study phs003280

• Finnish_population_cohort_genotyping_B

  The FINRISK cohorts comprise the respondents of representative, cross-sectional populationsurveys that are carried out every 5 years since 1972, to assess the risk factors of chronicdiseases (e.g. CVD, diabetes, obesity, cancer) and health behavior in the working agepopulation, in 3-5 large study areas of Finland. DNA samples were collected in the followingsurvey years: 1987, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, and 2012. The MONICA and EHES (EU)procedures were applied in phenotype collection (cf. MORGAM) and a wide spectrum oflaboratory tests was carried out from serum and plasma samples. Background information onsocioeconomic status, medical history, diet, exercise, measured anthropometric measures,etc. was collected by questionnaires and during a clinical visit. Plasma/serum samples arestill available for the 2002-2012 cohorts. The cohort sizes are 6000-8800 per survey. Thecohorts have been followed up by linking them to the national hospital discharge register,causes-of-death register and cancer register.This project is an extension to previous efforts to build a catalogue of Finnish genome widedata on population-based Finsrisk samples with rich phenotypic characterisations and healthregistry link-up. These samples will extend the current Sequencing Initiative Suomi (SISu)samples with a combination of genotyping using Illumina HumanCoreExome array and SISu-based imputation. This will lead to high confidence common and low frequency variantcatalogue. The project will be funded by Aarno Palotie’s remaining faculty fundscomplemented by Finnish funding from FIMM.

  Study EGAS00001001047

• Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist (TOPCAT-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTEPlease refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession. Access differs from many other dbGaP accessions. BiospecimensAccess to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from TOPCAT include Buffy Coat, DNA, Plasma, Serum, Urine, and Whole Blood. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Objectives The TOPCAT trial evaluated the effectiveness of aldosterone antagonist therapy in reducing cardiovascular mortality, aborted cardiac arrest, and heart failure hospitalization in patients who have heart failure with preserved systolic function. Background Many patients with heart failure have a normal, or near-normal, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Such patients share similar signs and symptoms as patients who have heart failure and a reduced LVEF, as well as an impaired quality of life and a poor prognosis. However, at the time of TOPCAT, the benefit of medical therapies for heart failure were limited to those with a reduced LVEF. Due to a lack of favorable evidence from clinical trials, clinical guidelines offered no specific recommendations for the management of heart failure in patients with preserved LVEF, except for attention to coexisting conditions. Among patients with heart failure and a reduced LVEF and those with myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have been shown to be effective in reducing overall mortality and hospitalizations for heart failure. In small mechanistic studies involving patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular function, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists improved measures of diastolic function. However, rigorous testing was needed regarding their effect on clinical outcomes in patients with preserved LVEF. Therefore, the TOPCAT trial was initiated to determine whether treatment with spironolactone, an aldosterone antagonist, would improve clinical outcomes in patients with symptomatic heart failure and a relatively preserved LVEF. Participants A total of 3445 participants were enrolled, with 1722 assigned to the spironolactone group and 1723 assigned to the placebo group. Among these, 2464 participants were enrolled via the hospitalization stratum and 981 were enrolled via the BNP stratum. Design TOPCAT was a phase 3, multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, and placebo controlled trial. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either spironolactone or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified according to whether the patient met the criterion for previous hospitalization or BNP elevation. The baseline visit included assessment of socio-demographics, physical characteristics, medical history, lifestyle factors, laboratory measures, electrocardiography variables and health-related quality of life and functional status. Study drugs were initially administered at a dose of 15 mg once daily, which was increased as tolerated to a maximum of 45 mg daily during the first four months after randomization. Subsequent dose adjustments were made as required and subjects continued to receive other treatments for heart failure and co-existing illnesses. Measurement of potassium and creatinine levels was required within 1 week after a change in the study-drug dose and at each scheduled study visit. Follow-up visits to monitor symptoms, medications, and events and to dispense study drug were scheduled every four months during the subject's first year on the study, and every six months thereafter. The mean follow-up interval was 3.3 years in each study group. Repository blood and urine samples were collected at the baseline and 1 year visits from consenting subjects. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, aborted cardiac arrest or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure management, new onset of diabetes mellitus or atrial fibrillation, and quality of life. A subset of subjects also participated in the Echocardiography or Echocardiography and Vascular Stiffness ancillary studies. Echocardiography, and additionally tonometry in the Echocardiography and Vascular Stiffness study, were performed at baseline and at either 12 or 18 months following randomization. If the subject was already enrolled in the TOPCAT trial at the time the ancillary study was initiated, but had not yet reached the 18 month visit, baseline was determined via a retrospective analysis performed on any echocardiographic images completed within 60 days prior to TOPCAT enrollment and no tonometry was performed if applicable. Conclusions In patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction, treatment with spironolactone did not significantly reduce the incidence of the primary composite outcome of death from cardiovascular causes, aborted cardiac arrest, or hospitalization for the management of heart failure. However, the drug reduced the secondary endpoint of heart failure hospitalization incidence.

  Study phs003665

• Submission FAQ

  Submission FAQ Before Submission Is the EGA the right archive for my data? TThe most suitable archive for your data is dependent on the type of data you are wishing to submit and whether the data require public or controlled access. Public access is defined as complete and open access to all submitted data. On the contrary, controlled access, exerted by the EGA, requires formal applications to be made to access the submitted data files and metadata. EGA only accepts human-derived data subject to controlled access. If your submission contains other types of data, please choose the appropriate repository for it (see image below): ENA, EVA, ArrayExpress, BioSD and GWAS catalog.  Should your submission be subjected to controlled access? Data access conditions are normally defined in the original informed consent agreements signed by the participants involved in your study. All data submitted to the EGA is subject to controlled access. These consents prevent the derived data files, potentially identifiable, from being dispersed by open and public access. Controlled access data often refers to human data derived from medical research and consortium projects. If in doubt, consult the informed consent agreements that apply to your study The EGA enables you to hold a submission before publication. What data types can be submitted to the EGA? Data types accepted by the EGA can be split into three categories: Sequences: both in generic and platform-specific formats. Array-based: from raw signal files to processed matrices. Phenotypes: all possible phenotype formats are accepted. All manufacturer-specific raw data formats derived from major next generation sequencing platforms are accepted. Also generic sequence formats: flat reads in a FASTQ file, aligned sequences (BAM or CRAM files) as well as sequence variation files in VCF format. All array-based technologies are accepted, including raw data, intensity and analysis files, without any restriction on data formats accepted. We also accept and distribute phenotype data (associated to the samples) in almost any format: from an image to a README file. How long does a submission take? Submissions to EGA come in a variety of formats and sizes, thus it is difficult for us to exactly predict how long a submission will take. We, therefore, advise all of our submitters to allow as much time as possible to make a submission. Based on previous records, we anticipate that the submission process may take at least one month. The submitter’s familiarity with the procedures, possible technical issues that may arise during submission and the amount of data that is being submitted are the main factors that will affect the length of the submission process. However, each step of a regular submission should be considered when estimating the time it would take: Encryption of the files Upload of the files Metadata submission Archival of the files Release of the study and datasets to EGA webpage For example, the upload of the files depends on the submission size, while metadata submission mainly relies on each submitter’s expertise. Further, some steps (e.g. answering to inquiries) depend on the EGA Helpdesk team, which may take some days to be processed during busy times Is data deposited in the EGA secure? The EGA set-up consists of a secure computing facility for data processing, a shared EBI set-up for data submissions and distribution of data via data requests made through the EGA website. Data is also copied in the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC) infrastructure, where all stored and distributed data is encrypted Data is encrypted along the submission process and stored securely, granting its access to authorised users exclusively. During the download process, through our Python Client or Aspera, all requested data is downloaded over secure https connections. All data at the EGA is encrypted, and only accessible (for log-in and download) through secure protocols. For further information please, visit our security overview. What documentation do I need to provide? All submissions require policy’s documentation: 'Data Access Agreement (DAA)', 'Data Processing Agreement (DPA)' and 'Authorized Submitters Formulary'. The data processors (EGA) and the data owners will also sign the DPA. Will all metadata be public? Among the submitted metadata we need to make the distinction between identifiable and unidentifiable metadata: (1) the former may allow the identification of the human the sample derived from (e.g. detailed geographical providence, personal name, family ancestry…); (2) while the latter can be used to interpret the data without compromising the anonymity of the patients. The majority of the metadata submitted to the EGA corresponds to the unidentifiable category (e.g. sequencer's model). This type of metadata is publicly available on the EGA website and other EBI resources/partners’ websites. On the other hand, some parts samples’ metadata are subject to being identifiable, and thus only accessible by authorized data requesters, with the exception of: 5 submitter-defined attributes of the sample: alias, title, subject_id, gender and phenotype. It is the submitter’s responsibility not to submit sensitive metadata in these public fields. 3 anonymised fields that pinpoint the sample record in archivals: sample’s EGA stable ID (EGAN…), BioSample ID (SAMEA…) and submitter’s center name. During Submission Are there any sample specific requirements for EGA? All samples submitted to the EGA must include the attributes of biological sex, subject ID (anonymised individual identifier) and phenotype information. These are critical for data findability and its analysis, and we highly recommend using controlled ontology terms where applicable. For example: defining tumour and non-tumour samples and/or defining disease state. The EGA recommends using the Experimental Factor Ontology Database to find ontologized terms that describe your sample phenotypes. How do I get an accession number to use in my publication? You will receive your study accession number (EGAS…) upon complete your submission, either: Programmatically. As soon as the metadata is submitted and validated your study will be assigned an accession number that will be given in the submission’s response. Manually registering your study and relevant metadata using the online metadata submission tool: the EGA submitter Portal. How are files uploaded to the EGA? Data files are uploaded into private submission drop boxes (i.e. environments to which you are granted access and where you can transfer your files) using INBOX or FTP. These spaces are provided as part of the submission procedure. Before uploading any file, you must encrypt your files, . Only encrypted files shall be uploaded to the drop boxes. Why does data need to to encrypted for my submitted files? It is one of the security steps the EGA has implemented. In case of a security breach, people without the proper encryption key will not be able to read or use the information that could have been leaked. This measure is essential when working with sensitive data, such as controlled access human data. All submitters must use crypt4gh to create EGA compliant files prior to uploading them. This encryption is GPG-based, using EGA’s public key. Why are my files not available if I see them in the INBOX? There exists a time window between the data upload and the availability of such files via the Submitter Portal. For this reason, some metadata (run and analysis objects) cannot be registered until at least 24 hours after the files have been uploaded to your box. Why are MD5 sum values generated for my submitted files? We require pre- and post- encryption MD5 (message-digest) checksum values to be provided for all submitted files. These 128-bit values are computed using the content of each file, creating unique sequences that allow us to ensure that file integrity has been maintained during the transfer process. In other words, if the MD5 checksums we generate and those you generated match, we infer that the content of the transferred files is correct (i.e. files are not corrupted or truncated). MD5 checksums are computed automatically using the crypt4gh tool provided. Your submission will not be accepted and may be significantly delayed if you do not provide MD5 checksum values for all data files in the required format. How can I check if my files are correctly uploaded to the inbox? It is important to check the status pf your file so you know whether your files are in the inbox, being processed, or if there is any issue with one of them. In order to check this, you should: Look for the file locally. Drag and drop it to the file table. Then bars will appear on the table, which means that we are processing it. Green: The files checksum are correct and your file will move to “ingested files”. No further actions are needed from your end.. Red: The files checksum does not match and your file needs to be re-uploaded. Please re-upload relevant files to your inbox using the same path. After Submission How do I use my accession number in my publication? We suggest the use of the below template, using your study accession ID (EGAS…) : Data has been deposited at the European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA), which is hosted by the EBI and the CRG, under accession number EGASXXXXXXXXXXX. Further information about EGA can be found at https://ega-archive.org and "The European Genome-phenome Archive of human data consented for biomedical research" Your study ID will be the one that groups your whole submission, and thus its usage is recommended as such. Nevertheless, all metadata submitted to EGA hold a unique and persistent identifier (starting with EGA…) that can be used to identify specific records. For example, you could reference a specific dataset (EGAD…) or sample (EGAN…) in your publications (see full list of identifiers). How do I make my data searchable? Once you have finalized your submission, you can schedule the data release. Please take into account that the release process needs time for the files to be archived in our system, and for the Helpdesk team to validate your submission. Can I withdraw (meta)data from the EGA? We have methods in place for the secure removal of deposited (meta)data. Contact EGA-helpdesk for further details. EGA complies with FAIRness of (meta)data, and thus, even when the data is removed we keep an entry for their identifiers in our system. In other words, we execute a soft delete on canceled objects (e.g. a study): metadata is still stored in our systems, but it loses all links, cannot be queried and data files cannot be retrieved anymore. The reason behind this behaviour is so that queries using withdrawn data properly respond back (see example of a canceled study). What happens to the data once it has been submitted to the EGA? When the data is submitted, the submitter can choose either keep their data private or schedule the release of their data.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/FAQ

• Mayo Clinic and Illumina Collaborative Early Stage Ovarian Cancer (ESOC) Study

  Twenty five patients with early stage carcinoma (Stage I and II) of the ovary were consented for this study. As part of a collaborative agreement with Illumina Inc, Tumor-DNA and patient matched normal DNA from blood underwent whole genome sequencing and microarray genotyping and RNA underwent RNASeq. Tissue also underwent IHC staining for TP53 mutations. The aim of the study was to profile the genomic landscape of these early tumors to discover biomarkers for early detection or subgrouping into different genomic or outcome subgroups. Analyses performed include somatic mutation analysis, RNASeq mutation analysis, LOH analysis, structural variant detection. The current release of this study focusses on 17 patients with serous carcinoma and stage 1 or 2 and with high grade (3 or 4).

  Study phs000897