1280 results for "get free coins fc 26 Visit Buyfc26coins.com Bardzo pod wrażeniem jakości usług..VZcl"

in 12.18 milliseconds.

• Non-muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer Molecular Subtypes Predict Differential Response to Intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin

  The recommended treatment for patients with high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HR-NMIBC) is tumor resection followed by adjuvant Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) bladder instillations. However, only 50% of patients benefit from this therapy. In case of progression to advanced disease, patients must undergo a radical cystectomy with significant morbidity and have a poor clinical outcome. Identifying tumors least likely to respond to BCG can translate into alternative treatments, such as early radical cystectomy or novel targeted or immunotherapies. Here we present molecular profiling of 132 BCG-naive, HR-NMIBC patients, and 44 post-BCG recurrences (34 matched), which uncovered three distinct BCG Response Subtypes (BRS1-3). Patients with BRS3 tumors have reduced recurrence and progression-free survival compared to BRS1-2. BRS3 tumors expressed high EMT-basal markers and had an immunosuppresive profile, which was confirmed with spatial proteomics. Tumors which recurred post-BCG were enriched for BRS3. BRS stratification was validated in a second cohort of 151 BCG-naive HR-NMIBC patients and the molecular subtypes outperformed guideline recommended risk stratification based on clinicopathological variables. For clinical application, we validated that a commercially approved assay was able to accurately predict BRS3 tumors (AUROC 0.86). Our findings provide a potential clinical tool for improved identification of HR-NMIBC patients at the highest risk of progression, which can be used to select patients for early radical cystectomy or novel subtype-directed therapies.

  Study EGAS00001006879

• A Genome-Wide Association Study in Breast Cancer Patients from the Prospectively Randomized SUCCESS Trial

  The SUCCESS-A Study (http://www.success-studie.de) is a randomized Phase III study of response to treatment of early primary breast cancer with adjuvant therapy after surgical resection. The primary outcome is disease-free survival and secondary outcomes are overall survival and toxicity. The study design includes comparison of two pairs of treatment regimes performed in sequence. The first randomization contrasts treatment with and without Gemcitabine (3 cycles of Epirubicin-Fluorouracil-Cyclophosphamide(FEC)-chemotherapy, followed by 3 cycles of Docetaxel(D)-chemotherapy versus 3 cycles of Epirubicin-Fluorouracil-Cyclophosphamide(FEC), followed by 3 cycles of Gemcitabine-Docetaxel(DG)-chemotherapy). The second randomization contrasts treatment with Zoledronate for two versus five years. Patients were recruited from 2005 to 2007 and a total of 3754 patients were included from 250 study sites across Germany. Genome-wide SNP microarray data and phenotype outcomes for the first phase of the study (treatment with and without Gemcitabine) are included in the GARNET (Genomics and Randomized Trials Network) pharmacogenomic study in this dbGaP submission. (The Zoledronate treatments are still underway). SUCCESS-A is a an open-label, multicenter, 2x2 factorial design, randomized controlled, Phase III study comparing the disease free survival after randomization in patients treated with 3 cycles of Epirubicin-Fluorouracil-Cyclophosphamide(FEC)-chemotherapy, followed by 3 cycles of Docetaxel(D)-chemotherapy versus 3 cycles of Epirubicin-Fluorouracil-Cyclophosphamide(FEC), followed by 3 cycles of Gemcitabine-Docetaxel(DG)-chemotherapy, and to compare the disease free survival after randomization in patients treated with 2 years of Zoledronate versus 5 years of Zoledronate in patients with early primary breast cancer. Patients were required to have histopathological proof of axillary lymph node metastases (pN1-3) or high risk node negative, defined as: pT>2 or histopathological grade 3, or age , ≤ 35 or negative hormone receptor, but were not allowed to have evidence of distant disease. Patients were entered into the study no later than 6 weeks after complete resection of the primary tumor. No antineoplastic treatment other than surgical treatment, the defined cytotoxic and endocrine treatment, and radiotherapy was allowed prior to study entry and during the course of the study. After surgery, leading to complete resection of the invasive and intraductal components of the primary tumor, patients were randomized to one of the following two treatments for the first phase of the project (which is included in this GARNET pharmacogenomics study): AA: 3 cycles of 5-Fluorouracil 500 mg/m² i.v. body surface area and Epirubicin 100 mg/m² i.v. and Cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m² i.v., (FEC100), each administered on day 1, repeated on day 22, subsequently followed by 3 cycles of Docetaxel 75 mg/m² body surface area i.v. (D), and Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² i.v. (30 min infusion) (G), administered on day 1, followed by Gemcitabine 1000 mg/m² i.v. (30 min infusion) on day 8, repeated on day22 AB: 3 cycles of 5-Fluorouracil 500 mg/m² i.v. body surface area and Epirubicin 100 mg/m² i.v. and Cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m² i.v., (FEC100), each administered on day 1, repeated on day 22, subsequently followed by 3 cycles of Docetaxel 100 mg/m² body surface area i.v. (D), administered on day 1, repeated on day 22 A second randomization was made for assigning patients to one of the following two subsequent treatments for the second phase of the project (NOT included in the pharmacogenetic study in this dbGaP submission): BA: Zoledronic acid 4 mg i.v., every 3 months for the duration of two years, subsequently followed by zoledronic acid 4 mg i.v., every 6 months for the duration of additional three years BB: Zoledronic acid 4 mg i.v., every 3 months for the duration of two years Patients with positive hormone receptor status (≥10% positively stained cells for estrogen and/or progesterone) of the primary tumor were recommended to receive Tamoxifen treatment 20 mg p.o. per day for 2 years, after the end of chemotherapy . Subsequent to chemotherapy, postmenopausal patients with positive hormone receptor status were recommended to be treated with Anastrozole (Arimidex®) 1 mg p.o. for additional 3 years, premenopausal patients will continue Tamoxifen treatment for those additional 3 years. In addition to tamoxifen, all patients with positive hormone receptor status of the primary tumor and under the age of 40 or restart of menstrual bleeding within 6 months after the completion of cytostatic treatment or with premenopausal hormone levels as defined below were recommended to receive Goserelin (Zoladex®) 3.6 mg subcutaneously every 4 weeks over a period of 2 years following chemotherapy. Premenopausal endocrine status will be assumed, if the following serum levels are met: LH < 20 mIE/ml, FSH < 20 mIE/ml and E2 > 20 pg/ml. Endocrine therapy will start after the end of chemotherapy. All patients with breast conserving therapy or more than 3 axillary lymph node metastases or in the following cases after mastectomy will receive adjuvant radiotherapy: T3/T4-carcinoma, T2-carcinoma > 3 cm, multicentric tumor growth, lymphangiosis carcinomatosa or vessel involvement, involvement of the pectoralis fascia or a safety margin < 5 mm. Radiotherapy was usually performed after the chemotherapy and parallel to the beginning of the zoledronic acid therapy. Initially, DNA was extracted for performing SNP microarray assays using blood collected at baseline prior to the first randomization. However, the first set of SNP microarray results indicated a quality problem with approximately 50% of the DNA samples. A majority of the problematic samples were replaced with DNA extracted from redrawn blood. The remaining problematic samples were 'restored' using an Illumina FFPE Restoration procedure. A total of 3322 subjects (1638 from arm AA and 1684 from arm AB) were successfully genotyped. Among those, 1771 were from original blood samples, 1092 from redrawn blood samples and 459 from restored blood samples. The SUCCESS-A study is part of the Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET, http://www.garnetstudy.org) funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to disease-free survival for breast cancer patients using different forms of chemotherapy through large-scale genome-wide association studies of treatment response in randomized clinical trials. The study was conducted at the University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. Genotyping was performed at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). Data cleaning and harmonization were performed at the GARNET Coordinating Center at the University of Washington.

  Study phs000547

• DAC Portal documentation

  DAC Portal Welcome to the DAC Portal documentation! If you are involved in governance or legal aspects, technical or operational aspects, or serving as a data steward, this page will be helpful for you. By exploring these materials, you can define your own Data Access Committee (DAC) and policies, understand the minimal requirements for a DAC and a policy object, and comprehend how the EGA data access requests are managed. DAC Portal Index Setting up your account DACs and Policies Pending Request table Manage Data Requests History page Audit your DACs, policies, and datasets Deprecation User Preferences DAC API - A programmatic approach Setting up your account Register yourself as an EGA user. The Helpdesk team will validate your account (this could take up to 48 hours). After validation, you will receive an email with a link to verify your email - Make sure you click on the link to verify your account! If you don’t receive the email, please check your spam folder. Once your account is active you can login to the DAC Portal. We recommend you to check out the Take The Tour! DACs and Policies Create a DAC Click on Create a DAC Add the title and description to your DAC. Once ready, click on the ‘Create’ button. You will have to wait until the Helpdesk Team validates the creation of your DAC. Once approved by Helpdesk, your DAC will be assigned with a persistent identifier (EGAC). Edit a DAC Once your DAC is registered and approved, you can edit it and add contacts. Remember, you can add as many contacts as needed. And, you can also remove/add contacts anytime. To add a contact, you must write the username or email of a registered EGA user in the Members field. Once you have typed the whole username or email, a drop-down menu will appear where you can select the contact. Select a contact from the drop-down menu. Make sure you write the full username or email of the contact so it appears as an option. Make sure that you select one main contact. Set up the role you want to grant to the new contact of the DAC. We recommend you to check out the FAQ to learn more about the different roles! After adding all the necessary contacts and assigning roles, click on Update. This will send an email notification to the new DAC member, letting them know about the invitation to managing the DAC. Once they log into the DAC Portal, they will be able to either accept or turn down the invitation. Create a policy First, please note that all information registered in a policy metadata object will be publicly available on the EGA website. For each released dataset, all users will be able to read the policy under the “Data Access” tab. Select Create a Policy from the Policies tab. Select the DAC that you want your policy to depend on. Add the title and terms and conditions for accessing and using your data. If you already have an external website for data access requests, you can add the URL directly here (see example here). You can find a template of a Data Access Agreement (DAA) document in our Policy documentation page. The DAA template is provided for guidance only and should be adapted to suit your own purpose depending on the security policies, terms for publication or embargoes, and restrictions on data use or sharing. You can also add Data Use Ontologies (DUO) to your policy. These DUO codes are used to semantically tag the terms and conditions of using the data linked to the policy (example). For more information, you can refer to the Data Uso Ontology documentation. Once completed, make sure to click the Create button in order to register your policy. A persistent identifier (EGAP) will be assigned automatically. Edit a policy Please, note that you will not be able to edit the policy if it shows in orange. Meaning that you are a member of the DAC linked to that policy. Members don’t have edit rights. Only admins can edit objects. You can check your registered policies on My policies, available at the menu in the top-right corner. Select your policy. It will then display the information of that policy, allowing you to edit the information. Once you are done with the modifications, click Update. Pending Requests Table Table Settings Upon selecting a specific DAC, you will be presented with a customisable table showcasing all pending data access requests. This table allows you to tailor the displayed information according to your preferences by selecting desired columns. Available Columns (Displayed with the Eye Icon): Date: The date when the data access request was submitted. Full Name: Name and surname of the user submitting the request. Email: Email address associated with the user's request. Username: The username linked to the EGA account of the user submitting the request. Organisation: Affiliated organisation of the user submitting the request. Dataset: EGA accession ID for the requested EGA dataset. Dataset Title: Title of the requested dataset. DAC Comment: Space provided for internal comments related to the request. Expiration: Option to specify an expiration date for granted permissions. Check more information on the pending request table here! Table Filters By default, all data access requests are displayed. However, you have the option to apply filters to refine your view. Follow these steps to apply filters: Click on the More button. This action will reveal the different columns available for applying filters. As you select columns, the checked fields will be displayed at the top of the request table. Choose the specific values within the selected columns that you want to filter for. Click the Search button to apply the selected filters. Do you find yourself frequently applying the same filters? You can save multiple combinations of filters for easy access at any time! Here's how: Click the Save button. Provide a descriptive name for the filter combination. Click Save to confirm. To load saved filters, simply select the saved filter from the dropdown menu to apply it automatically. Check more information on filters here! Advanced Search For users requiring more granular control over their data access requests, the DAC Portal offers an Advanced Search feature using JIRA Query Language (JQL). With JQL, you can craft precise and complex queries to filter and retrieve specific data access requests based on various criteria such as date, user details, dataset attributes, and more. Using JQL's flexibility, you can create custom queries to meet your specific needs, allowing for advanced filtering options beyond the standard filters provided. You can find the Advanced Search feature following these steps: Click the … button Select Advanced To view the allowed fields for filtering and explore all available options, simply click on the info icon. Once you have written the filtering values, click the Search button to apply. Check more information on filters here! Manage Data Requests Upon logging into the DAC Portal, you'll notice a sand clock icon next to the DAC ID, indicating the number of pending requests. Click on the DAC to review these requests. Accept requests Click on the right side of the toggle button to grant access to the user. You can manage other requests before proceeding to the next step. After managing the requests, click on the Apply button. A confirmation box will appear summarising the options to be applied. Click on Yes, Confirm to proceed with granting permissions. Deny requests Click on the left side of the toggle button to deny access to the user. Provide a reason for the denial. Note that the user will receive an email with this reason. Click on the Done button. You can manage other requests before proceeding to the next step. After managing the requests, click on the Apply button. A confirmation box will appear summarising the options to be applied. Click on Yes, Confirm to proceed with denying permissions. Tips! Apply a filter to view all requests to be managed at once. Use the toggle in the row with column names to grant or deny permissions for multiple requests simultaneously. You can grant and deny permissions in the same action, simplifying the process. The confirmation box will provide a summary of all actions, including grants, denials, DAC comments, and expiration dates. History Page The History page serves as a dedicated space to view information regarding all requests managed by all DAC members. Here, you can review active permissions and revoke them as needed. Go to the History page by clicking on the "HISTORY" button from a DAC page in the DAC Portal. Here are the different row types you may find: Current permissions: row in green with a toggle button to revoke permissions on the right. Approved requests: row in green, with no toggle button. Request denied: row in red with “request denied” on the right. Permission revoked: row in red with “permission revoked” on the right. Distinctions to Note! Between Request Denied and Permission Revoked: Request Denied: Refers to requests that were rejected from the outset, indicating that access to the dataset was never granted. Permission Revoked: Indicates that permissions were previously granted but have since been revoked. Users with permissions revoked have previously accessed the dataset. Between Approved Request and Current Permissions: Approved Request: Represents an entry when a data access request has been approved in the past. Current Permissions: Denotes ongoing permissions where a user has present access to the dataset. An approved request may now appear as Permission Revoked in the present. By observing these different rows, users can gain insight into the complete history of a user's interactions and permissions regarding a dataset over time. To revoke access to a specific user for a dataset, follow these steps: Go to History page Look for the row with the specific permissions. You can use the filters! Click on the toggle button to revoke access. Add a denial reason. Bear in mind that the requester will receive the denial reason! Click on the Apply button. Check more information on the Hisotry page here! Audit your metadata objects In the DAC Portal, you can efficiently manage and audit various metadata objects pertinent to your role as a Data Controller. Upon accessing the DAC Portal, you will encounter three primary tabs on the homepage: DAC: Contains information about Data Access Committees (DACs). Policies: Provides insights into linked policies. Datasets: Displays datasets and relevant details. Within each tab, you'll find a comprehensive list of the objects you manage, these being grouped by type (DAC, Policies, Datasets), as well as by your role (member/admin). Whilst the lists give you a quick look, to check how things are connected, we've added a table at the bottom DACs and policies. DACs Let’s check which policies are linked to a specific DAC: Go to "My DACs." Select a DAC. Click on "EDIT" to see more details. You are now on this page: Scroll down to see the linked policies. Click on “List of linked policies of this DAC” and you will see a list of all policies linked to your selected DAC. Policies Do you want to view a list of datasets connected to a particular policy? Follow the same steps mentioned earlier, but head to the policy tab this time. In the policy tab, you'll find a list of all your policies. Here, you may notice two different icons next to the policy ID (EGAP): DAC Icon (): This represents the DAC. Hover your mouse over the icon to see the DAC ID. Dataset icon (): This indicates datasets falling under that policy. The number next to the icon tells you how many datasets are linked to the policy. For example, if you see "2" next to the icon, it means there are two datasets linked to that policy. If you want to check the linked datasets and their relevant information, simply click on a specific policy. You'll then find the "List of linked datasets of this policy" at the bottom of the page. Datasets Finally, in the dataset tab, by default you will see a list of all the datasets you can manage with all your DACs and policies. Yet, we've included two handy ways to organise them: DAC vs. policy: You can group by datasets, either by DAC or policy. Released vs. unreleased: You can sort out datasets based on their release status. Feel free to experiment with both options! For instance, if you want to see which DACs have unreleased datasets, simply select DAC and unreleased, and you'll get the details you need! Deprecation Do you have a bunch of metadata objects like DACs and policies that you don’t need anymore? This section shows you how to get rid of them! But what does "deprecation" mean for EGA? It's basically changing the status of a metadata object to "deprecated," which means we won't be using it in the future. In simple terms, it's like saying these objects are no longer useful. However, because we believe in making metadata FAIR, once an object has a persistent identifier, we can't just delete it. So, instead of deleting, we deprecate it. Here's a helpful tip! If you want to make a metadata object disappear from the DAC Portal, deprecate it. You won’t see it in the portal anymore! Let’s say you want to deprecate a DAC. Let’s do it! Go to "My DACs." Select a DAC. Click "EDIT" to see more details. You are now in this page: Click on the Deprecate button It will then appear a message. There are two options here: Your DAC is not linked to any policy, hence it’s ready to be deprecated. Click on “Yes. Confirm” to deprecate your DAC object! Your DAC is linked to at least one policy, and you need to either: Deprecate the linked policy first, or Link the policy to a different DAC Now, let’s say you don’t want to get rid of the policy altogether, but you want to change the DAC it’s linked to. Here's how: Go to the policy tab. Find the policy you want to change (for example, EGAP50000000019). Choose a new DAC to link it to. Click on Update. See the Edit Policy section for more details. After ensuring that the DAC we want to deprecate isn’t linked to any policy, return to the "My DACs" section and follow the steps outlined previously. This will lead you to a confirmation message. You can only deprecate DACs and Policies. To deprecate a dataset, please contact our Helpdesk team. Check more information on how deprecation works here! User Preferences We have implemented email notifications in the DAC Portal. Here’s the complete list: DACs: Pending requests Approved by Helpdesk Rejected by Helpdesk DAC Invitation Requesters: Data access request approved Data access request denied Permissions revoked Upcoming expiration date As a DAC member, you will be able to decide whether you want to receive the DAC notifications or not. For that, go to the top-right corner menu, select User Preference. You will be able to decide whether you want to receive notifications for: Approved by Helpdesk Rejected by Helpdesk DAC Invitation For pending requests, you will be able to select how often do you want to receive the notification: Daily Weekly Fortnightly As a DAC member, you are responsible for managing data access requests. Consequently, you will receive notifications for pending requests. If you prefer not to manage these requests, please arrange to be removed as a contact for your DAC. Here's a tip! Do you have a pending request that you don’t want to receive a notification? Add a DAC comment! The EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! DAC API - A programmatic approach In addition to the new DAC Portal, we are excited to announce the release of the DAC API. This enables users to programmatically manage permissions. If you are interested in learning more about the technical specifications, you can click the button below. Check out the DAC API specification!

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/dac-portal

• Multimodal cell-free DNA whole-genome TAPS is sensitive and reveals specific cancer signals

  This study presents a methodology for detecting circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) using deep whole-genome TET-Assisted Pyridine Borane Sequencing (TAPS), a less destructive alternative to bisulphite sequencing. The method enables simultaneous analysis of genomic and methylomic data for multi-cancer detection and monitoring minimal residual disease. In a diagnostic accuracy study across various cancer types, it achieved 85.3% sensitivity and 88.8% specificity, with validation done using matched tumour biopsies. Additionally, in silico validation showed strong discrimination at low ctDNA levels. The approach also successfully tracks tumour burden and ctDNA shedding from precancerous lesions post-treatment, making it ready for further clinical testing.

  Study EGAS50000000715

• Papua New Guinean Genome Diversity Project (PGDP)

  The PGDP dataset includes 58 whole genome sequences for Papua New Guinean individuals from different locations. DNA was extrated from saliva samples (Oragen kit). Sequencing libraries were prepared using the TruSeq DNA PCR-Free HT kit. 150 bp paired-end sequencing was performed on the Illumina HiSeq X5 sequencer. The PGDP dataset provides Fastq and BAM files.

  Dataset EGAD00001007783

• The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young Study (TEDDY)

  The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) Study investigates genetic and genetic-environmental interactions, including gestational infection or other gestational events, childhood infections and other environmental factors after birth, in relation to the development of pre-diabetic islet autoimmunity and type 1 diabetes (T1D). Beginning in 2002, a consortium of six centers assembled to participate in the development and implementation of studies to identify environmental factors that trigger the development of islet autoimmunity and T1D in genetically susceptible individuals. The TEDDY study screened around 400,000 newborns and recruited 7,749 neonates from the general population with a pre-determined T1D risk of 3% and 919 neonates with first degree relatives who have T1D and who have a pre-determined T1D risk of 10%. Thus, TEDDY proposes to follow over 8,000 participants across six clinical centers worldwide (Finland, Germany, Sweden and three in the United States) until the age of 15. Participants are followed every three months for islet autoantibody measurements with blood sampling until four years of age and then at least every six months until the age of 15. After the age of four, autoantibody positive subjects continue to be followed at 3 month intervals and autoantibody negative subjects are followed at six month intervals. In addition to the analysis of autoantibodies, additional data and sample collection is performed at each visit. The parents collect monthly stool samples in early childhood. The parents also fill out questionnaires at regular intervals in connection with study visits and record information about diet and health status in the child's TEDDY Book between visits. Continued long-term follow-up of the currently active TEDDY participants will provide important scientific information on early childhood diet, reported and measured infections, vaccinations, and psychosocial stressors that may contribute to the development of type 1 diabetes and islet autoimmunity. DNA extracted from the 9-month TEDDY blood sample was used for SNP genotyping. Samples were available for 7,082 participants. SNPs were genotyped by the Center for Public Health Genomics at the University of Virginia, using the Illumina ImmunoChip SNP microarray of around 196,000 SNPs selected from 186 regions associated with 12 autoimmune diseases (including T1D) (Hadley et al., 2015). "Data quality control (QC) steps included eliminating subjects with a low call rate (> 5% SNPs missing) and discrepancies between reported gender and prior genotyping at the HLA laboratory. Secondly, SNPs were removed from analysis due to low call rate, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium P value < 10-6, except for chromosome 6 due to HLA eligibility requirements)" (Törn et al., 2015). QC resulted in a total of 7,023 subjects with data on 176,586 SNPs. Additional information on the TEDDY study are available in the following articles: The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) Study. TEDDY Study Group. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 2008 and TEDDY - The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young - An Observational Clinical Trial. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 2006 Details of the TEDDY protocol can be found in The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY): Genetic Criteria and International Diabetes Risk Screening of 421,000 infants. Pediatric Diabetes, 2011

  Study phs001037

• STAMPEED: Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 (NFBC1966)

  The Northern Finland Birth Cohorts program (NFBC) was initiated in the 1960s in the two northernmost provinces of Finland to study risk factors involved in pre-term birth and intrauterine growth retardation, and the consequences of these early adverse events on subsequent morbidity and mortality. The uniqueness of NBFCs is that the data of the cohorts were obtained from early fetal life (including maternal health during pregnancy) to adulthood. The NFBC1966 includes 12,058 live births to mothers in the two northern-most provinces of Finland. Two decades later, a second cohort of 9432 births was obtained (NFBC1986). In NFBC1966 pregnancies were followed prospectively from the first antenatal contact (10-16th week). After birth, the offspring were examined and then again underwent clinical evaluation at ages 1y, 7y, 14-16y and 31y. At each visit, a wide range of phenotypic, lifestyle and demographic data were gathered by questionnaires and clinical examinations. For the most part, NFBC1986 has undergone similar evaluations to NFBC1966. Linkage to national registries includes hospitalization, deaths, education, medication, pensions, and provides up-to-date demographic and clinical information for members of both cohorts. DNA samples were obtained from 5,923 subjects from NFBC1966 and 6688 subjects from NFBC1986. Data coverage, 96% of all births in 1966 and 99% in 1986, is highly representative for the whole population. The NFBC program comprises more than 20 different projects coordinated by the Center of Lifecourse Disease studies in Northern Finland (COLD) at Oulu University. The prospective data collected from the NFBCs form a unique resource, allowing the study of disease emergence, and of the importance of genetic, biological, social and behavioral risk factors. The genome-wide association (GWA) study sponsored through the STAMPEED program of NHLBI employed genomic DNA samples previously collected by the NFBC1966 study and stored in the DNA repository of the National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland. This NHLBI sponsored RO1 project aimed to identify genetic variants contributing to metabolic and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). In addition to de-identified genome wide genotypic data, a selected list of phenotypic data related to CVD including weight, height, BMI, HDL, LDL, total cholesterol, triglyceride, glucose, insulin and fasting status, are also available in dbGaP. A summary of the GWAS for the NFBC1966 cardiovascular risk traits can be found in Sabatti et al., Nature Genetics 41: 35-46, 2009, PMID: 19060910. The version 2 release of this study contains sequence data from seventeen loci associated with levels of triglyceride, HDL-C, LDL-C, total cholesterol, fasting plasma glucose, and fasting plasma insulin (Kathiresan et al. 2008, Willer et al. 2008, Sabatti et al. 2009, Dupuis et al. 2010, Teslovich et al. 2010). At each locus, protein-coding regions and 5' and 3' untranslated regions of genes nearest to single nucleotide polymorphisms showing genome-wide significant association with metabolic syndrome-related traits, were sequenced. Targeted Illumina sequencing of 78 genes (~270kb) using 150bp probes was performed on 4943 subjects of the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966 (NFBC1966). Whole exome sequencing on the Illumina platform was carried out on 586 of those participants. The sequencing study is part of a larger project that is funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute's Allelic Spectrum in Common Disease Initiative, and comprises sequence data from more than 7000 individuals in two Finnish cohorts: NFBC1966 and the Finland-United States Investigation of NIDDM Genetics (FUSION) study.

  Study phs000276

• Heart Failure Network - Nitrate's Effect on Activity Tolerance in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFN NEAT-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. Related StudiesEcho images are available with HFN-NEAT Imaging.ObjectivesTo determine the effect of isosorbide mononitrate on daily activity in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.Background Nitrates are commonly prescribed for symptom relief in patients with heart failure. Early studies in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction concluded that long-acting nitrates improve activity tolerance; however, approximately half of heart failure patients have preserved ejection fraction. The effects of nitrates in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction have not been extensively studied and the overall effect of nitrates on activity tolerance in such patients is uncertain. ParticipantsThere were a total of 110 participants enrolled with 51 participants assigned to receive isosorbide mono-nitrate first and placebo second, and 59 participants assigned to receive placebo first and isosorbide mononitrate second. Design Enrolled participants underwent baseline assessments, including echocardiography, quality-of-life scores, 6-minute walk test distance, and NT-proBNP levels. participants were also supplied with two kinetic activity monitors containing high-sensitivity triaxis accelerometers, to be worn 24 hours per day. The accelerometer measurements were expressed as arbitrary accelerometer units and stored every 15 minutes equaling 96 data points per day. The 15-minute cumulative accelerometer units were totaled over a 24-hour period to provide daily accelerometer units. Participants were assigned to one of two treatment groups: 6 weeks of placebo first with crossover to 6 weeks of isosorbide mononitrate, or 6 weeks of isosorbide mononitrate first with crossover to 6 weeks of placebo. The study drugs were prepared as 30-mg tablets of isosorbide mononitrate and matching placebo. During each 6-week period, participants were instructed to take no study drug for the first 2 weeks followed by one tablet (30 mg daily) for 1 week, two tablets (60 mg once daily) for 1 week, and four tablets (120 mg once daily) until the next study visit, for a treatment duration of at least 2 weeks and up to 4 weeks. After each 6-week period, participants returned to the study center to repeat end-point assessments. The primary outcome for the study was the comparison of average daily accelerometer units during the period in which participants were receiving the 120-mg dose of isosorbide mononitrate compared to the period in which participants received the placebo. Other secondary end points included the 6-minute walk distance and the post-walk Borg dyspnea score, scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, and NT-proBNP levels. In addition, participants completed a questionnaire indicating in which period (first, second, no preference) they felt better. Conclusions Participants were active for fewer hours of the day during the 120-mg phase of receipt of isosorbide mononitrate as compared with placebo. Furthermore, during all study-drug regimens combined (30 mg to 120 mg), participants were less active during receipt of isosorbide mononitrate as compared with placebo. There was no significant effect of isosorbide mononitrate on secondary outcomes.

  Study phs003548

• Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury (PETAL) Network - Functional, Imaging, and Respiratory Evaluation in CORAL (PETAL FIRE CORAL-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions.Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from PETAL FIRE CORAL include plasma and whole blood. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent and biospecimens may not be used to produce commercial products.Objectives: To examine the recovery from COVID-19 disease following acute hospitalization with an emphasis on functional, imaging, and respiratory evaluation, and assess the feasibility of conducting a larger study to evaluate variables associated with differential recovery.Background: The BLUE CORAL study, dbGaP phs003419, was intended to address the knowledge gaps and provide critical data to help guide clinical care, public health, and scientific efforts regarding SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) recovery. The understanding and treatment of long-term sequelae of COVID-19, referred to variously as post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), post-acute COVID, long COVID, or long-haul COVID, is fundamental to patient recovery. These long-term consequences are common and increasingly recognized, although heterogeneous in manifestation, and can result in a failure to return to baseline level of health. At the time of the FIRE CORAL study, there were limited studies that collected objective assessments following hospital discharge for a wide spectrum of patients surviving COVID-19.Participants: FIRE CORAL enrolled adult participants as a subset of those enrolled in the BLUE CORAL study with a recent COVID-19 hospitalization and that completed the 1- or 3-month post-hospital telephone long-term outcomes assessment. The target enrollment for this pilot study cohort was 80 participants.Design: FIRE CORAL was a multicenter prospective cohort study of participants recovering from COVID-19 disease with in-person follow-up, as an extension of the BLUE CORAL study. The study consisted of a battery of assessments objectively measuring pulmonary function, abnormalities on lung imaging, and functional status. Participants were to attend and perform initial in-person testing at 3 to 9 months after hospital discharge. Participants with abnormal findings on pulmonary function testing or chest imaging during their initial assessment or those with persistent respiratory symptoms were eligible to repeat study procedures 3 months later with a subsequent visit at 12 months. All participants were invited to return for in-person follow up at 12 months after hospital discharge. Assessments included high-resolution chest CT scan without contrast, spirometry, lung volume assessment, diffusing capacity measured by single breath measurement, Six Minute Walk Test, Short Physical Performance Battery, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale. Demographic and hospitalization data are available as part of the BLUE CORAL study.The primary aim of the FIRE CORAL study was to examine the feasibility of conducting rigorous in-person follow-up testing of participants discharged from the hospital following COVID-19 illness to assist with planning for a larger study to evaluate variables associated with differential recovery. The secondary aim was to describe the pulmonary, imaging, and functional recovery following COVID-19 hospitalization in a diverse population of patients.

  Study phs004130

• Heart Failure Network - Imaging from Nitrate's Effect on Activity Tolerance in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFN NEAT-Imaging)

  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 determine the effect of isosorbide mononitrate on daily activity in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction.Background: Nitrates are commonly prescribed for symptom relief in patients with heart failure. Early studies in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction concluded that long-acting nitrates improves activity tolerance; however, approximately half of heart failure patients have preserved ejection fraction. The effects of nitrates in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction have not been extensively studied and the overall effect of nitrates on activity tolerance in such patients is uncertain.Subjects: There were a total of 110 patients enrolled with 51 patients assigned to receive isosorbide mono-nitrate first and placebo second, and 59 patients assigned to receive placebo first and isosorbide mononitrate second.Design: Enrolled subjects underwent baseline assessments, including echocardiography, quality-of-life scores, 6-minute walk test distance, and NT-proBNP levels. Subjects were also supplied with two kinetic activity monitors containing high-sensitivity triaxis accelerometers, to be worn 24 hours per day. The accelerometer measurements were expressed as arbitrary accelerometer units and stored every 15 minutes equaling 96 data points per day. The 15-minute cumulative accelerometer units were totaled over a 24-hour period to provide daily accelerometer units.Subjects were assigned to one of two treatment groups: 6 weeks of placebo first with crossover to 6 weeks of isosorbide mononitrate, or 6 weeks of isosorbide mononitrate first with crossover to 6 weeks of placebo. The study drugs were prepared as 30-mg tablets of isosorbide mononitrate and matching placebo. During each 6-week period, patients were instructed to take no study drug for the first 2 weeks followed by one tablet (30 mg daily) for 1 week, two tablets (60 mg once daily) for 1 week, and four tablets (120 mg once daily) until the next study visit, for a treatment duration of at least 2 weeks and up to 4 weeks. After each 6-week period, patients returned to the study center to repeat end-point assessments. The primary outcome for the study was the comparison of average daily accelerometer units during the period in which patients were receiving the 120-mg dose of isosorbide mononitrate compared to the period in which patients received the placebo. Other secondary end points included the 6-minute walk distance and the post-walk Borg dyspnea score, scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, and NT-proBNP levels. In addition, subjects completed a questionnaire indicating in which period (first, second, no preference) they felt better. Conclusions: Patients were active for fewer hours of the day during the 120-mg phase of receipt of isosorbide mononitrate as compared with placebo. Furthermore, during all study-drug regimens combined (30 mg to 120 mg), patients were less active during receipt of isosorbide mononitrate as compared with placebo. There was no significant effect of isosorbide mononitrate on secondary outcomes.

  Study phs004254