Decoding negative affect personality trait from patterns of brain activation to threat stimuli

INTRODUCTION: Pattern recognition analysis (PRA) applied to functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been used to decode cognitive processes and identify possible biomarkers for mental illness. In the present study, we investigated whether the positive affect (PA) or negative affect (NA) personality traits could be decoded from patterns of brain activation in response to a human threat using a healthy sample. METHODS: fMRI data from 34 volunteers (15 women) were acquired during a simple motor task while the volunteers viewed a set of threat stimuli that were directed either toward them or away from them and matched neutral pictures. For each participant, contrast images from a General Linear Model (GLM) between the threat versus neutral stimuli defined the spatial patterns used as input to the regression model. We applied a multiple kernel learning (MKL) regression combining information from different brain regions hierarchically in a whole brain model to decode the NA and PA from patterns of brain activation in response to threat stimuli. RESULTS: The MKL model was able to decode NA but not PA from the contrast images between threat stimuli directed away versus neutral with a significance above chance. The correlation and the mean squared error (MSE) between predicted and actual NA were 0.52 (p-value=0.01) and 24.43 (p-value=0.01), respectively. The MKL pattern regression model identified a network with 37 regions that contributed to the predictions. Some of the regions were related to perception (e.g., occipital and temporal regions) while others were related to emotional evaluation (e.g., caudate and prefrontal regions). CONCLUSION: These results suggest that there was an interaction between the individuals' NA and the brain response to the threat stimuli directed away, which enabled the MKL model to decode NA from the brain patterns. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that PRA can be used to decode a personality trait from patterns of brain activation during emotional contexts

In Situ Compatibilization of Biopolymer Ternary Blends by Reactive Extrusion with Low-Functionality Epoxy-Based Styrene Acrylic Oligomer

[EN] The present study reports on the use of low-functionality epoxy-based styrene¿acrylic oligomer (ESAO) to compatibilize immiscible ternary blends made of poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate) (PHBV), polylactide (PLA), and poly(butylene adipate-co-terephthalate) (PBAT). The addition during melt processing of low-functionality ESAO at two parts per hundred resin (phr) of biopolymer successfully changed the soften inclusion phase in the blend system to a thinner morphology, yielding biopolymer ternary blends with higher mechanical ductility and also improved oxygen barrier performance. The compatibilization achieved was ascribed to the in situ formation of a newly block terpolymer, i.e. PHBVb- PLA-b-PBAT, which was produced at the blend interface by the reaction of the multiple epoxy groups present in ESAO with the functional terminal groups of the biopolymers. This chemical reaction was mainly linear due to the inherently low functionality of ESAO and the more favorable reactivity of the epoxy groups with the carboxyl groups of the biopolymers, which avoided the formation of highly branched and/or cross-linked structures and thus facilitated the films processability. Therefore, the reactive blending of biopolymers at different mixing ratios with low-functionality ESAO represents a straightforward methodology to prepare sustainable plastics at industrial scale with different physical properties that can be of interest in, for instance, food packaging applications.This research was funded by the EU H2020 project YPACK (Reference number 773872) and by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities (MICIU) with project numbers MAT2017-84909-C2-2-R and AGL2015-63855-C2-1-R. L. Quiles-Carrillo wants to thank the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports (MECD) for financial support through his FPU Grant Number FPU15/03812. Torres-Giner also acknowledges the MICIU for his Juan de la Cierva contract (IJCI-2016-29675).Quiles-Carrillo, L.; Montanes, N.; Lagaron, J.; Balart, R.; Torres-Giner, S. (2019). In Situ Compatibilization of Biopolymer Ternary Blends by Reactive Extrusion with Low-Functionality Epoxy-Based Styrene Acrylic Oligomer. Journal of Polymers and the Environment. 27(1):84-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-018-1324-2S8496271Babu RP, O’Connor K, Seeram R (2013) Prog Biomater 2:8Torres-Giner S, Torres A, Ferrándiz M, Fombuena V, Balart R (2017) J Food Saf 37:e12348Quiles-Carrillo L, Montanes N, Boronat T, Balart R, Torres-Giner S (2017) Polym Test 61:421Zakharova E, Alla A, Martínez A, De Ilarduya S, Muñoz-Guerra (2015) RSC Adv 5:46395Steinbüchel A, Valentin HE (1995) FEMS Microbiol Lett 128:219McChalicher CWJ, Srienc F (2007) J Biotechnol 132:296Reis KC, Pereira J, Smith AC, Carvalho CWP, Wellner N, Yakimets I (2008) J Food Eng 89:361Vink ETH, Davies S (2015) Ind Biotechnol 11:167John RP, Nampoothiri KM, Pandey A (2006) Process Biochem 41:759Madhavan Nampoothiri K, Nair NR, John RP (2010) Biores Technol 101:8493Garlotta D (2001) J Polym Environ 9:63Lim LT, Auras R, Rubino M (2008) Prog Polym Sci 33:820Quiles-Carrillo L, Montanes N, Sammon C, Balart R, Torres-Giner S (2018) Ind Crops Prod 111:878Quiles-Carrillo L, Blanes-Martínez MM, Montanes N, Fenollar O, Torres-Giner S, Balart R (2018) Eur Polym J 98:402Witt U, Müller R-J, Deckwer W-D (1997) J Environ Polym Degrad 5:81Siegenthaler KO, Künkel A, Skupin G, Yamamoto M (2012) Ecoflex® and Ecovio®: biodegradable, performance-enabling plastics. In: Rieger B, Künkel A, Coates GW, Reichardt R, Dinjus E, Zevaco TA (eds) Synthetic biodegradable polymers. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, p 91Jiang L, Wolcott MP, Zhang J (2006) Biomacromol 7:199Brandelero RPH, Yamashita F, Grossmann MVE (2010) Carbohyd Polym 82:1102Muthuraj R, Misra M, Mohanty AK (2014) J Polym Environ 22:336Porter RS, Wang L-H (1992) Polymer 33(10): 2019Koning C, Van Duin M, Pagnoulle C, Jerome R (1998) Prog Polym Sci 23:707Muthuraj R, Misra M, Mohanty AK (2017) J Appl Polym Sci 135:45726Ryan AJ (2002) Nat Mater 1:8Wu D, Zhang Y, Yuan L, Zhang M, Zhou W (2010) J Polym Sci Part B 48:756Kim CH, Cho KY, Choi EJ, Park JK (2000) J Appl Polym Sci 77:226Supthanyakul R, Kaabbuathong N, Chirachanchai S (2016) Polymer 105:1Na Y-H, He Y, Shuai X, Kikkawa Y, Doi Y, Inoue Y (2002) Biomacromolecules 3:1179Zeng J-B, Li K-A, Du A-K (2015) RSC Adv 5:32546Xanthos M, Dagli SS (1991) Polym Eng Sci 31:929Sundararaj U, Macosko CW (1995) Macromolecules 28:2647Milner ST, Xi H (1996) J Rheol 40:663Villalobos M, Awojulu A, Greeley T, Turco G, Deeter G (2006) Energy 31:3227Torres-Giner S, Montanes N, Boronat T, Quiles-Carrillo L, Balart R (2016) Eur Polym J 84:693Lehermeier HJ, Dorgan JR (2001) Polym Eng Sci 41:2172Liu B, Xu Q (2013) J Mater Sci Chem Eng 1:9Eslami H, Kamal MR (2013) J Appl Polym Sci 129:2418Loontjens T, Pauwels K, Derks F, Neilen M, Sham CK, Serné M (1997) J Appl Polym Sci 65:1813Ojijo V, Ray SS (2015) Polymer 80:1Frenz V, Scherzer D, Villalobos M, Awojulu AA, Edison M, Van Der Meer R (2008) Multifunctional polymers as chain extenders and compatibilizers for polycondensates and biopolymers. In: Technical papers, regional technical conference—society of plastics engineers, p. 3/1678Utracki LA (2002) Can J Chem Eng 80:1008Al-Itry R, Lamnawar K, Maazouz A (2012) Polym Degrad Stab 97:1898Lin S, Guo W, Chen C, Ma J, Wang B (2012) Mater Des (1980–2015) 36: 604Arruda LC, Magaton M, Bretas RES, Ueki MM (2015) Polym Test 43:27Wang Y, Fu C, Luo Y, Ruan C, Zhang Y, Fu Y (2010) J Wuhan Univ Technol Mater Sci Ed 25:774Wei D, Wang H, Xiao H, Zheng A, Yang Y (2015) Carbohyd Polym 123:275Abdelwahab MA, Taylor S, Misra M, Mohanty AK (2015) Macromol Mater Eng 300:299Sun Q, Mekonnen T, Misra M, Mohanty AK (2016) J Polym Environ 24:23Torres-Giner S, Gimeno-Alcañiz JV, Ocio MJ, Lagaron JM (2011) J Appl Polym Sci 122:914Miyata T, Masuko T (1998) Polymer 39:5515Muthuraj R, Misra M, Mohanty AK (2015) J Appl Polym Sci 132:42189Ren J, Fu H, Ren T, Yuan W (2009) Carbohyd Polym 77:576Torres-Giner S, Montanes N, Fenollar O, García-Sanoguera D, Balart R (2016) Mater Des 108:648Jamshidian M, Tehrany EA, Imran M, Jacquot M, Desobry S (2010) Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 9:552Savenkova L, Gercberga Z, Nikolaeva V, Dzene A, Bibers I, Kalnin M (2000) Process Biochem 35:573Costa ARM, Almeida TG, Silva SML, Carvalho LH, Canedo EL (2015) Polym Test 42:115Zhang K, Mohanty AK, Misra M (2012) ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 4:3091Zhang N, Wang Q, Ren J, Wang L (2009) J Mater Sci 44:250Chinsirikul W, Rojsatean J, Hararak B, Kerddonfag N, Aontee A, Jaieau K, Kumsang P, Sripethdee C (2015) Packag Technol Sci 28:741Auras R, Harte B, Selke S (2004) J Appl Polym Sci 92:1790Sanchez-Garcia MD, Gimenez E, Lagaron JM (2008) Carbohyd Polym 71:235Sanchez-Garcia MD, Gimenez E, Lagaron JM (2007) J Plast Film Sheeting 23:133Lagaron JM (2011) Multifunctional and nanoreinforced polymers for food packaging. In: Multifunctional and nanoreinforced polymers for food packaging. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, p 

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density

Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals &lt;1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

How do you perceive threat? It's all in your pattern of brain activity

Whether subtle differences in the emotional context during threat perception can be detected by multi-voxel pattern analysis (MVPA) remains a topic of debate. To investigate this question, we compared the ability of pattern recognition analysis to discriminate between patterns of brain activity to a threatening versus a physically paired neutral stimulus in two different emotional contexts (the stimulus being directed towards or away from the viewer). The directionality of the stimuli is known to be an important factor in activating different defensive responses. Using multiple kernel learning (MKL) classification models, we accurately discriminated patterns of brain activation to threat versus neutral stimuli in the directed towards context but not during the directed away context. Furthermore, we investigated whether it was possible to decode an individual's subjective threat perception from patterns of whole-brain activity to threatening stimuli in the different emotional contexts using MKL regression models. Interestingly, we were able to accurately predict the subjective threat perception index from the pattern of brain activation to threat only during the directed away context. These results show that subtle differences in the emotional context during threat perception can be detected by MVPA. In the directed towards context, the threat perception was more intense, potentially producing more homogeneous patterns of brain activation across individuals. In the directed away context, the threat perception was relatively less intense and more variable across individuals, enabling the regression model to successfully capture the individual differences and predict the subjective threat perception