12219 results for "selling my fc coins Visit Buyfc26coins.com for latest FC 26 coins news..XVJT"

in 24.27 milliseconds.

• Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Network (IPFnet) Prednisone, Azathioprine, and N-Acetylcysteine: A Study That Evaluates Response in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPFNet-Panther-IPF-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 initial objective of the PANTHER-IPF study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a drug combination of prednisone, azathioprine, and N-acetylcysteine in the treatment of mild-to-moderate idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) compared to N-acetylcysteine alone or placebo. After interim analysis presented safety concerns regarding the three drug regimen, the protocol was modified to evaluate only N-acetylcysteine effectiveness. Background: IPF is a chronic, progressive lung disease of unknown cause that is characterized by the histopathological or radiologic patterns of usual interstitial pneumonia in a typical clinical setting. The median survival of participants with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis after diagnosis is 2 to 5 years. To date, no pharmacologic therapies have been shown to improve survival. Acetylcysteine has been suggested as a beneficial treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, although data from placebo-controlled studies are lacking.Design: Patients with mild-to-moderate impairment in pulmonary function were randomly assigned to receive a three-drug regimen (prednisone, azathioprine, and acetylcysteine), acetylcysteine alone (plus matched placebos for prednisone and azathioprine), or matched placebos for each of the active therapies. After the planned midpoint interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended discontinuation of the three-drug regimen because of an excess in the number of deaths, hospitalizations, and serious adverse events among patients in the combination-therapy group, as compared with the placebo group. After NHLBI accepted this recommendation on October 14, 2011, the three-drug regimen was discontinued and patients were recruited for only the acetylcysteine group and the placebo group. Patients were seen at the clinical centers for screening, at baseline, and at 4, 15, 30, 45, and 60 weeks. The primary outcome measure was change in FVC over 60 weeks.Conclusions: As compared with placebo, acetylcysteine offered no significant benefit with respect to the preservation of FVC in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with mild-to-moderate impairment in lung function. In addition, there were no significant differences between the acetylcysteine group and the placebo group in the rates of death or acute exacerbation.

  Study phs004071

• A Case Controlled Etiologic Study of Sarcoidosis (ACCESS-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from (ACCESS) include Bronchial Lavage, DNA, Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells, and Plasma. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Objectives: To determine the etiology of sarcoidosis by establishing a case control, multi-center study. In addition to etiology, this study also sought to examine socioeconomic variables and the clinical course of patients with sarcoidosis, including quality of life.Background: Sarcoidosis is a chronic granulomatous disorder of unknown cause that is characterized by activation of T-lymphocytes and macrophages. For many years, sarcoidosis was presumed to be an atypical manifestation of tuberculosis because of the similarity between the inflammatory responses of the two diseases. However, as culture techniques became more widely employed to diagnose tuberculosis and it became less common, it became clear that sarcoidosis was not simply a variation of tuberculosis. Data on the etiology of sarcoidosis have come from diverse sources: in clinical investigations, alveolitis has been found to precede granulomatous inflammation; in case control studies, familial aggregation has been identified; and in case reports, recurrence of granulomatous inflammation has been observed after lung transplantation. The cause may not prove to be a single, known exposure. Interactions of exposures with genetic dispositions could have important implications for our understanding of immune responses as well as the pathogenesis of sarcoidosis.Participants: 736 participants with sarcoidosis enrolled within 6 months of diagnosis from 10 clinical centers in the U.S. Using the ACCESS sarcoidosis assessment system, organ involvement was determined for the whole group and for subgroups differentiated by sex, race, and age (Conclusions: The initial presentation of sarcoidosis is related to sex, race and age, and it tends to remain stable over two years in the majority of patients. The etiology is probably multifactoral with both genetic and environmental factors contributing.Specimen Details: The PBMC for this study are pelleted and suspended in guanidinium-based solution and are nonviable.

  Study phs004276

• All you need to know about the new Submitter Portal

  In September we launched new services for all EGA users, including a new version of the former Submitter Portal. Our main objective with this Portal is to transform the metadata submission in a simplified and user-friendly method. Although it is possible to find documentation about the Submitter Portal on our website, we wanted to highlight the new features in this article. Enjoy! Credentials: who needs to create a new user to access the Submitter Portal and who doesn't? Users with an old submission account (ega-box) can already access the new Submitter Portal. If it is the first time that you want to access, it is time to request a submitter role linked to the EGA User. In the form, it is mandatory to explain which type of data you want to deposit, the size of your submission, add any comment you’d like us to read, and manage the EGA Data Processing Agreement (DPA) document. This document should be checked by the legal department of your institution and signed by a person with authority to sign contracts on behalf of the institution. Note that we provide a DPA template for new Users; it can be found and downloaded in the Submitter Request section. With the DPA signed and the Submitter Request sent, it is time to wait for our Helpdesk team to validate the request. Metadata submission now can be collaborative It is possible to add collaborator(s) to your submissions. Only registered EGA Users will appear on the search bar. When adding a collaborator, it is mandatory to define the permission granted: Read only: collaborators with this permission can check if the information of the submission is correct but cannot modify anything. Read & write: collaborators with this label can register new objects and modify the registered ones. We wanted to save time for submitters that usually rely on the same collaborators. For that, we have implemented the possibility of adding the same collaborators from previous submissions; all you need to do is to search the submission, and the exact set of EGA users will have access to your submission. You can check the collaborators and their permissions at any point of the submission by going to the collaborators section. Even adding more people to complete the submission is allowed by following the same steps: looking for the EGA User and defining the permission granted (please, note that during the submission it is not possible to add collaborators from previous submissions). Use external links to complement the study information When filling the information about the study we recommend users to enrich the submission with complementary fields such as PubMeds IDs, custom tags and external links. External links are used to connect a study to an external repository. We have implemented an external link to Euro-Bioimaging for a European Project (EuCanImage). Now, we are looking forward to keeping increasing the list of external repositories! Choose the expected release date for your metadata to be searchable on our website Once all the metadata objects are registered it is time to finalise the submission so that the Helpdesk team can approve it. In the new version of the Submitter Portal users can choose the expected release date for the metadata to be searchable on the EGA website. Please, note that the selected date will have a minimum of one week margin from the day of finalisation. This time is necessary for your files to be archived and for the submission to be validated by the Helpdesk Team. Are you looking for the Array submission within the Submitter Portal? Our Submitter Portal does not support array submissions. The submission of Array-based metadata must be done using the EGA programmatic submission. You will find our Array-based format template and all the necessary information on our website, and you can find all the steps in our submission quickguide! More information about the submission process at the EGA Our Team has developed an extended documentation related to metadata submission. A good first step is to take a closer look at the Submission FAQ. To have a general overview of all the metadata submission process we recommend taking a glimpse of our take-the-tour or watching the tutorial available on our YouTube Channel. Don't miss our section on EGA Schemas, to learn more about how the EGA is built. It can be useful to fully ensure that your submissions comply with the EGA's standards and contribute to a valuable and accessible genomic resource.

  Blog new-submitter-portal

• Discrepancies in Tumour Mutation Burden (TMB) reporting from sequential Endobronchial ultrasound trans bronchial needle aspiration (EBUS TBNA) samples within single lymph node stations

  Introduction: Tumour Mutation Burden (TMB) is a potential biomarker for immune therapies. Identifying factors that may affect TMB prediction is key to its utility as biomarker for treatment options. Here we investigated parameters that might affect TMB using cytology smears obtained from endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS TBNA)-sampled malignant lymph nodes, which are often the only diagnostic samples collected in patients with advanced lung cancer. Methods: Individual Diff-Quik cytology smears were prepared for each needle pass from the same enlarged malignant mediastinal lymph nodes. DNA extracted from smears of each pass underwent sequencing using a large gene panel sequencing (TSO500, Illumina). TMB was estimated for each individual needle pass using the TSO500 Local App v. 2.0 (Illumina). Results: Twenty patients had two or more Diff-Quik smears (total 45 smears) which passed sequencing quality control. Average TMB for all smears was 8.7 ± 5.0 mutations per megabase (Mb). Sixteen of the 20 patients had paired samples with minimal differences in TMB score (average difference 1.3 ± 0.85). Paired samples from 13 patients had concordant TMB in terms of scores being below or above a threshold of 10 mutations/Mb. Samples from seven patients had discrepant TMB, with four cases in particular exhibiting an average difference of 11.3 ± 2.7 mutations/Mb. Factors affecting TMB calling involved tumour content of the samples, the amount of DNA used in sequencing as well as bone fide intra tumour heterogeneity between paired samples. Conclusions: TMB assessment is feasible from EBUS-TBNA derived Diff-Quik slides from a single needle pass. Repeated samples of one or more lymph nodes have minimal variation in TMB in most cases (80%), suggesting accuracy of the test overall. To enhance accuracy of the result, care should be taken in relation to the tumour content of the cytology smear. Further, clinicians should be aware that even slight differences in lymph node site selection could give rise to variable genomics and discrepant TMB due to tumour heterogeneity. Therefore, it would be reasonable for multi-lymph node site analysis of TMB to be performed using EBUS TBNA aspirates from different easily accessible lymph nodes. Further investigations need to determine whether these samples should be combined as one sample or tested separately.

  Study EGAS00001007484

• Causative Mutations for TAR DAC

  Dac EGAC00001000008

• Data Access Committee for TraIT

  Dac EGAC00001000212

• Data Committee for EMSEQ project

  Dac EGAC00001000265

• DAC for HTS MRD study

  Dac EGAC00001000359

• DAC for Korean BC data

  Dac EGAC00001000740

• DAC for A Karadimitris Lab

  Dac EGAC00001001003

• Data Access Commitee for EGAS00001003258

  Dac EGAC00001001038

• Data access comittee for Institut Curie

  Dac EGAC00001001042

• DAC for the study EGAS00001003572

  Dac EGAC00001001174

• DAC for hepatitis B analysis

  Dac EGAC00001001228

• DAC for Wigler Group

  Dac EGAC00001001256

• DAC for panc_met data set

  Dac EGAC00001001480

• Center for Medical Genetics Ghent

  Dac EGAC00001001507

• DAC for mUC sequencing data

  Dac EGAC00001001710

• Data Access Commitee for ECA

  Dac EGAC00001001856

• DAC for Hypermutated Gliosarcoma project

  Dac EGAC00001001867

• Data Access Committee for EGAS00001005426

  Dac EGAC00001002194

• Data Access Committee for cfMeDIP

  Dac EGAC00001002250

• Center for Medical Genetics Ghent

  Dac EGAC00001002384

• DAC for intraphepatic cholangiocarcinoma

  Dac EGAC00001002521

• DAC for cfMethyl-Seq data

  Dac EGAC00001002534