12241 results for "selling my fc coins Visit Buyfc26coins.com for latest FC 26 coins news..XVJT"

in 16.83 milliseconds.

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Cardiac Epidemiologic Registry (Cardiac Epistry) Versions 1 and 2 (ROC-Cardiac Epistry 1 and 2-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. Available Data: The ROC Cardiac Epistry versions 1 and 2 include all cardiac arrest cases entered into the ROC database from December 1, 2005 to April 1, 2011. ROC Cardiac Epistry 3 includes cardiac arrest cases captured between 2011 and 2015, and introduced significant changes in how and which data were collected.For ROC traumatic injury Epistry data, please see: ROC-Trauma Epistry Objectives: To build a prospective population-based registry of participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest responded to by Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Specific aims: to establish whether the results of Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) trials can be generalized to the larger population of participants that experience cardiac arrest;to more fully establish the burden of cardiac arrest; and to examine the relationships between variation in EMS structure and process, regional and periodic factors, and participant outcomes.Background: Cardiac arrest is a common, serious, debilitating and costly public health problem. Although there has been a steady decline in morbidity and mortality from most cardiovascular diseases, high mortality rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests continue to pose a challenge for healthcare providers and a significant public health burden. The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) was established in 2004 to conduct clinical research in the areas of cardiopulmonary arrest and life-threatening traumatic injury with the overall goal of improving resuscitation outcomes. Participant and care characteristics can predict favorable outcomes in cardiac arrests, but there is still a wide variation in outcomes that is not well understood. EMS factors such as service level, number of responding providers, use of procedures or drugs in the field, training, quality assurance/feedback, and response time intervals also vary significantly by region. Variations in geographic, socioeconomic and periodic factors may also be associated with differences in outcomes.Prior to ROC Cardiac Epistry, there were no North American population-based registries for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Therefore there was a need for standardized data collection of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in diverse geographic locations in order to identify the independent effects of prognostic or treatment factors accounting for variations in survival. Participants: The registry included 109,326 cardiac arrest events from 264 EMS agencies transporting to 287 acute care hospitals from the following regional centers: Birmingham, Alabama; Dallas, Texas; Iowa City, Iowa; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; San Diego, California; Seattle/King County, Washington; Ottawa, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; and Vancouver, British Columbia.Design: ROC Epistry collected standardized data regarding episode-specific factors, participant demographics, clinical information, pre-hospital interventions and disposition, hospital information, and participant outcome for all out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in the ROC regions. Each ROC site had to ensure capture of all eligible cases within the EMS service areas. Out-of-hospital data were extracted from existing databases whenever possible and augmented with targeted review of EMS reports. Hospital data were abstracted directly from the hospital file in most cases. Alternative methods included linkage to death registries and obituaries if the death occurred within 30 days. Sites submitted data using a web-based interface or batch uploads. Participants were not contacted directly.

  Study phs003803

• Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA): African American Family GWAS

  COGA is a family study of alcoholism, in which the subjects have been drawn from the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA), a large, ongoing family-based study that includes subjects from seven sites around the US. COGA has gathered detailed, standardized data on study participants, including diagnostic and neurophysiological assessments. This project has already proved successful in identifying several genes that influence the risk for alcoholism and neurophysiological endophenotypes, which have been independently replicated. COGA data were included as part of two Genetic Analysis Workshops, and the phenotypes are familiar to the genetics community. Alcoholic probands were recruited from treatment facilities, assessed by personal interview, and after securing permission, other family members were also assessed. A set of comparison families was drawn from the same communities as the families recruited through an alcoholic proband. Assessment involved a detailed personal interview developed for this project, the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism (SSAGA), which gathers detailed information on alcoholism related symptoms along with other drugs and psychiatric symptoms. Many participants also came to the laboratories for electroencephalographic studies. Neurophysiological features that have been shown to be useful endophenotypes for which we have linkage and in some cases association results are included on a subset of the case-control sample: the beta power of the resting electroencephalogram (EEG), the P3(00) amplitude of the visual event-related potential (ERP), and the theta and delta event-related oscillations (EROs) underlying the P3. As part of COGA, a set of informative African American families were selected to have Genome-Wide Association data obtained within families. Genotyping was performed using the Illumina Omni2.5_080814_1 chip to genotype 3,438 subjects selected from densely affected families. Genotyping was performed at CIDR. This sample complements a set of densely affected European American families previously made available under dbGaP study accession phs000763. In addition, exome sequencing data on a subset of individuals with GWAS were added in version 2.For version 3, a subset had 30X Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) as part of the NIDA Sequencing Initiative. The subset contained two distinct sets: Sibling pairs where one sibling had at least two dependence diagnoses in the set (alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, and opioid), and the other had none, and non-related Case-Control pairs matched for age and ethnicity where the cases had alcohol and at least 2 other dependence diagnoses and controls had none. After sequencing, some sibling pairs are re-classified as half siblings, Three VCF files (small variants, structural variants, and copy number variations) are provided. Additional substance abuse variables are made available in version 3. We note that the full sample data are deposited in four dbGaP submissions and the sequenced samples are split across all four: CIDR: Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism Case Control Study (phs000125). GWAS data on cases (primarily probands) and controls drawn from the families. Families with highest density of alcohol dependence and/or extreme event-related oscillation data (phs000763). GWAS data on 119 extended families of European descent are available here, along with extensive documentation. Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA): African American Family GWAS (phs000976). GWAS data on all available COGA families of African descent are available. COGA: Smokescreen GWAS (phs001208). GWAS data on all remaining COGA DNA samples, primarily of other racial background, were genotyped on the Smoke Screen array. A listing of all sequenced pairs is provided in the documentation to facilitate the merging of these samples.

  Study phs000976

• 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

• Durvalumab Plus Tremelimumab Alone or in Combination with Low-Dose or Hypofractionated Radiotherapy in Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Refractory to Previous PD(L)-1 Therapy: an Open-Label, Multicentre, Randomised, Phase 2 Trial

  Brief SummaryThis randomized phase II trial studies the side effects of durvalumab and tremelimumab and to see how well they work with or without high or low-dose radiation therapy in treating patients with colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer that has spread to other parts of the body (metastatic). Immunotherapy with durvalumab and tremelimumab, may induce changes in body's immune system and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Radiation therapy uses high energy x-rays to kill tumor cells and shrink tumors. Giving durvalumab and tremelimumab with radiation therapy may work better in treating patients with colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer.Detailed DescriptionPRIMARY OBJECTIVES:I. To assess safety and tolerability of combined checkpoint blockade with MEDI4736 (durvalumab) and tremelimumab alone or with high or low-dose radiation in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). (NSCLC Cohort) II. To compare the overall response (excluding the irradiated lesion[s]) between combined checkpoint blockade with MEDI4736 and tremelimumab alone or combined checkpoint blockade with low or high dose radiation. (NSCLC Cohort) III. To assess safety and tolerability of combined checkpoint blockade with MEDI4736 and tremelimumab with high or low-dose radiation. (Colorectal Cohort) IV. To determine the overall response rate (excluding the irradiated lesion[s]) with combined checkpoint blockade with MEDI4736 and tremelimumab with either low or high dose radiation. (Colorectal Cohort)SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:I. To estimate median progression-free survival and overall survival. (NSCLC Cohort) II. To determine local control within the irradiated field(s) and abscopal response rates. (NSCLC Cohort) III. To evaluate associations between PD-L1 expression as well as levels of infiltrating CD3+, CD8+ T-cells and overall response. (NSCLC Cohort) IV. To explore changes in PD-L1 expression, circulating T-cell populations, T-cell infiltration, ribonucleic acid (RNA) expression, spatial relationship of immune markers, and mutational burden as a result of low or high dose radiation. (NSCLC Cohort) V. To estimate median progression-free survival and overall survival. (Colorectal Cohort) VI. To determine local control within the irradiated field and abscopal response rates. (Colorectal Cohort) VII. To evaluate associations between PD-L1 expression as well as levels of infiltrating CD3+ CD8+ T-cells and overall response. (Colorectal Cohort) VIII. To evaluate changes between PD-L1 expression as well as levels of infiltrating CD3+, CD8+ T-cells induced by targeted low or high dose radiation. (Colorectal Cohort) IX. To explore changes in circulating T-cell populations, T-cell infiltration, RNA expression, spatial relationship of immune markers, and mutational burden as a result of low or high dose radiation. (Colorectal Cohort)OUTLINE: Patients are assigned to 1 of 2 cohorts. NOTE: This Study is only for Cohort 1. Please see phs003294 for Cohort 2COHORT 1: Patients with NSCLC are randomized to 1 of 3 arms.ARM A: Patients receive tremelimumab and durvalumab and as in Arm C. Beginning at week 2, patients receive high dose radiation therapy once per day (QD) over 10 days for up to 3 fractions.ARM B: Patients receive tremelimumab and durvalumab and as in Arm C. Beginning at week 2, patients receive low dose radiation therapy every 6 hours twice per day (BID) on weeks 2, 6, 10 and 14.ARM C: Patients receive tremelimumab intravenously (IV) and durvalumab IV over 60 minutes every 4 weeks for up to 16 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients then receive durvalumab IV over 60 minutes 4 weeks after last combination dose for up to 9 additional doses.COHORT 2: Patients with CRC are randomized to 1 of 2 arms.ARM A: Patients receive tremelimumab intravenously (IV) and durvalumab IV over 60 minutes every 4 weeks for up to 16 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients then receive durvalumab IV over 60 minutes 4 weeks after last combination dose for up to 9 additional doses. Beginning at week 2, patients receive high dose radiation therapy once per day (QD) over 10 days for up to 3 fractions.ARM B: Patients receive tremelimumab intravenously (IV) and durvalumab IV over 60 minutes every 4 weeks for up to 16 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients then receive durvalumab IV over 60 minutes 4 weeks after last combination dose for up to 9 additional doses. Beginning at week 2, patients receive low dose radiation therapy every 6 hours twice per day (BID) on weeks 2, 6, 10 and 14.After completion of study treatment, patients are followed for up to 12 weeks.Official TitleA Phase 2 Study of MEDI4736 (Durvalumab) and Tremelimumab Alone or in Combination With High or Low-Dose Radiation in Metastatic Colorectal and NSCLC Conditions Metastatic Colorectal CarcinomaMetastatic Lung Non-Small Cell CarcinomaStage IV Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7Stage IV Lung Non-Small Cell Cancer AJCC v7Stage IVA Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7Stage IVB Colorectal Cancer AJCC v7 Intervention/Treatment Biological: DurvalumabRadiation: Radiation TherapyBiological: Tremelimumab Other Study ID Numbers NCI-2016-01325NCI-2016-01325 ( Registry Identifier ) (REGISTRY: CTRP (Clinical Trial Reporting Program))17-71910021 ( Other Identifier ) (OTHER: Dana-Farber - Harvard Cancer Center LAO)10021 ( Other Identifier ) (OTHER: CTEP) Molecular Technologies / AssaysCyTOFIHCmIFOlinkRNAseqWES

  Study phs003295

• DATA ACCESS AGREEMENT CGNT- GROUP COMMITTEE for project "Exome sequencing of 22 Pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma tumors" at Gothenburg University.

  Dac EGAC00001000411

• DAC for Greenland Studies of University of Copenhagen and University of Southern Denmark.

  Dac EGAC00001000736

• The data access committee for Evolution of neoantigen landscape during immune checkpoint blockade in non-small cell lung cancer.

  Dac EGAC00001000757

• Data Access Committee for the study "Somatic chronology of treatment-resistant prostate cancer via deep whole-genome ctDNA sequencing"

  Dac EGAC00001002479

• Access Committee for Separation, characterization, and identification of individuals from multi-person blood mixtures

  Dac EGAC00001002646

• ASTAR Skin Research Laboratory

  Data Access Committee for A*STAR Skin Research Laboratory, A*STAR Research Institutes, Singapore.

  Dac EGAC50000000109