Clotting Changes, Including Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation, during Rapid Renal-Homograft Rejection

One of two patients in whom early homograft rejection developed after renal transplantation had many antidonor antibodies before operation. By the measurement of gradients across intracorporeal and extracorporeal homografts in this patient, the new kidneys were shown to sequester host immunoglobulins, platelets, white cells and clotting factors. Moreover, the renal venous blood then contained fibrinolytic activity. This presensitized recipient, as well as a second patient who did not have detectable preformed humoral antibodies, gave evidence from clinical observation and from the various clotting tests of disseminated intravascular coagulation with fibrinolysis and a severe bleeding diathesis. Immunofluorescent and histologic studies revealed a laying down of fibrin in the homograft vessels that continued in some cases to cortical necrosis of the transplanted kidneys or, alternatively, receded at the time fibrinolysis occurred. The variety of rejection seen in these patients has been characterized as an immunologically induced coagulopathy. © 1970, Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved

Genomic, Pathway Network, and Immunologic Features Distinguishing Squamous Carcinomas

This integrated, multiplatform PanCancer Atlas study co-mapped and identified distinguishing molecular features of squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) from five sites associated with smokin

Pan-Cancer Analysis of lncRNA Regulation Supports Their Targeting of Cancer Genes in Each Tumor Context

Long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are commonly dys-regulated in tumors, but only a handful are known toplay pathophysiological roles in cancer. We inferredlncRNAs that dysregulate cancer pathways, onco-genes, and tumor suppressors (cancer genes) bymodeling their effects on the activity of transcriptionfactors, RNA-binding proteins, and microRNAs in5,185 TCGA tumors and 1,019 ENCODE assays.Our predictions included hundreds of candidateonco- and tumor-suppressor lncRNAs (cancerlncRNAs) whose somatic alterations account for thedysregulation of dozens of cancer genes and path-ways in each of 14 tumor contexts. To demonstrateproof of concept, we showed that perturbations tar-geting OIP5-AS1 (an inferred tumor suppressor) andTUG1 and WT1-AS (inferred onco-lncRNAs) dysre-gulated cancer genes and altered proliferation ofbreast and gynecologic cancer cells. Our analysis in-dicates that, although most lncRNAs are dysregu-lated in a tumor-specific manner, some, includingOIP5-AS1, TUG1, NEAT1, MEG3, and TSIX, synergis-tically dysregulate cancer pathways in multiple tumorcontexts

Spatial Organization and Molecular Correlation of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes Using Deep Learning on Pathology Images

Beyond sample curation and basic pathologic characterization, the digitized H&E-stained images of TCGA samples remain underutilized. To highlight this resource, we present mappings of tumorinfiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) based on H&E images from 13 TCGA tumor types. These TIL maps are derived through computational staining using a convolutional neural network trained to classify patches of images. Affinity propagation revealed local spatial structure in TIL patterns and correlation with overall survival. TIL map structural patterns were grouped using standard histopathological parameters. These patterns are enriched in particular T cell subpopulations derived from molecular measures. TIL densities and spatial structure were differentially enriched among tumor types, immune subtypes, and tumor molecular subtypes, implying that spatial infiltrate state could reflect particular tumor cell aberration states. Obtaining spatial lymphocytic patterns linked to the rich genomic characterization of TCGA samples demonstrates one use for the TCGA image archives with insights into the tumor-immune microenvironment

Pan-cancer Alterations of the MYC Oncogene and Its Proximal Network across the Cancer Genome Atlas

Although theMYConcogene has been implicated incancer, a systematic assessment of alterations ofMYC, related transcription factors, and co-regulatoryproteins, forming the proximal MYC network (PMN),across human cancers is lacking. Using computa-tional approaches, we define genomic and proteo-mic features associated with MYC and the PMNacross the 33 cancers of The Cancer Genome Atlas.Pan-cancer, 28% of all samples had at least one ofthe MYC paralogs amplified. In contrast, the MYCantagonists MGA and MNT were the most frequentlymutated or deleted members, proposing a roleas tumor suppressors.MYCalterations were mutu-ally exclusive withPIK3CA,PTEN,APC,orBRAFalterations, suggesting that MYC is a distinct onco-genic driver. Expression analysis revealed MYC-associated pathways in tumor subtypes, such asimmune response and growth factor signaling; chro-matin, translation, and DNA replication/repair wereconserved pan-cancer. This analysis reveals insightsinto MYC biology and is a reference for biomarkersand therapeutics for cancers with alterations ofMYC or the PMN

Dedication of the Alumni Chapel Organ

Program booklet. Includes Choral Vespers service on 5 Nov. 1950. Ellis A. Fuller was listed as the main speaker for the event on 9 Nov. 1950, but he died 28 Oct. 1950. PDF with OCR

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation in the treatment of infants, children, and adolescents: a systematic scoping review

PURPOSE: To i) identify and map the available evidence regarding effectiveness and harms of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for infants, children and adolescents with a broad range of conditions; ii) identify and synthesise policies, regulations, position statements and practice guidelines informing their clinical use. DESIGN: Systematic scoping review, utilising four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane) and grey literature from root to 4(th) February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Infants, children and adolescents (birth to < 18 years) with any childhood disorder/condition. INTERVENTION: Spinal manipulation and mobilisation OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes relating to common childhood conditions were explored. METHOD: Two reviewers (A.P., L.L.) independently screened and selected studies, extracted key findings and assessed methodological quality of included papers using Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Synthesis, Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers, Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and International Centre for Allied Health Evidence Guideline Quality Checklist. A descriptive synthesis of reported findings was undertaken using a levels of evidence approach. RESULTS: Eighty-seven articles were included. Methodological quality of articles varied. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation are being utilised clinically by a variety of health professionals to manage paediatric populations with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), back/neck pain, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy (CP), dysfunctional voiding, excessive crying, headaches, infantile colic, kinetic imbalances due to suboccipital strain (KISS), nocturnal enuresis, otitis media, torticollis and plagiocephaly. The descriptive synthesis revealed: no evidence to explicitly support the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilisation for any condition in paediatric populations. Mild transient symptoms were commonly described in randomised controlled trials and on occasion, moderate-to-severe adverse events were reported in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and other lower quality studies. There was strong to very strong evidence for ‘no significant effect’ of spinal manipulation for managing asthma (pulmonary function), headache and nocturnal enuresis, and inconclusive or insufficient evidence for all other conditions explored. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding spinal mobilisation to treat paediatric populations with any condition. CONCLUSION: Whilst some individual high-quality studies demonstrate positive results for some conditions, our descriptive synthesis of the collective findings does not provide support for spinal manipulation or mobilisation in paediatric populations for any condition. Increased reporting of adverse events is required to determine true risks. Randomised controlled trials examining effectiveness of spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatric populations are warranted. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-022-03781-6

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation in paediatrics–an international evidence-based position statement for physiotherapists

Introduction: An international taskforce of clinician-scientists was formed by specialty groups of World Physiotherapy–International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) &amp; International Organisation of Physiotherapists in Paediatrics (IOPTP)–to develop evidence-based practice position statements directing physiotherapists clinical reasoning for the safe and effective use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations (&lt;18 years) with varied musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions. Method: A three-stage guideline process using validated methodology was completed: 1. Literature review stage (one scoping review, two reviews exploring psychometric properties); 2. Delphi stage (one 3-Round expert Delphi survey); and 3. Refinement stage (evidence-to-decision summative analysis, position statement development, evidence gap map analyses, and multilayer review processes). Results: Evidence-based practice position statements were developed to guide the appropriate use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation for paediatric populations. All were predicated on clinicians using biopsychosocial clinical reasoning to determine when the intervention is appropriate. 1. It is not recommended to perform: • Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants. • Cervical and lumbar spine manipulation on children. •Spinal manipulation and mobilisation on infants, children, and adolescents for non-musculoskeletal paediatric conditions including asthma, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, breastfeeding difficulties, cerebral palsy, infantile colic, nocturnal enuresis, and otitis media. 2. It may be appropriate to treat musculoskeletal conditions including spinal mobility impairments associated with neck-back pain and neck pain with headache utilising: • Spinal mobilisation and manipulation on adolescents; • Spinal mobilisation on children; or • Thoracic manipulation on children for neck-back pain only. 3. No high certainty evidence to recommend these interventions was available. Reports of mild to severe harms exist; however, risk rates could not be determined. Conclusion: Specific directives to guide physiotherapists’ clinical reasoning on the appropriate use of spinal manipulation or mobilisation were identified. Future research should focus on trials for priority conditions (neck-back pain) in children and adolescents, psychometric properties of key outcome measures, knowledge translation, and harms.</p

Comparison of Language Profiles and Electocortical Dysfunction in Aphasia

TB

Spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents: an international Delphi survey of expert physiotherapists

Objective: The aim of this study was to establish international consensus regarding the use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation among infants, children, and adolescents among expert international physiotherapists. Methods: Twenty-six international expert physiotherapists in manual therapy and paediatrics voluntarily participated in a 3-Round Delphi survey to reach a consensus via direct electronic mail solicitation using Qualtrics®. Consensus was defined a-priori as ≥75% agreement on all items with the same ranking of agreement or disagreement. Round 1 identified impairments and conditions where spinal mobilisation and manipulation might be utilised. In Rounds 2 and 3, panelists agreed or disagreed using a 4-point Likert scale. Results: Eleven physiotherapists from seven countries representing five continents completed all three Delphi rounds. Consensus regarding spinal mobilisation or manipulation included: Manipulation is not recommended: (1) for infants across all conditions, impairments, and spinal levels; and (2) for children and adolescents across most conditions and spinal levels. Manipulation may be recommended for adolescents to treat spinal region-specific joint hypomobility (thoracic, lumbar), and pain (thoracic). Mobilisation may be recommended for children and adolescents with hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, or stiffness at all spinal levels.Conclusion: Consensus revealed spinal manipulation should not be performed on infants regardless of condition, impairment, or spinal level. Additionally, the panel agreed that manipulation may be recommended only for adolescents to treat joint pain and joint hypomobility (limited to thoracic and/or lumbar levels). Spinal mobilisation may be recommended for joint hypomobility, joint pain, muscle/myofascial pain, and muscle/myofascial stiffness at all spinal levels among children and adolescents.</p