Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)

Evaluating educators using a novel toolbox: applying rigorous criteria flexibly across institutions

Valuing faculty as educators is essential for medical schools to fulfill their unique mission of educating physicians. The 2006 Consensus Conference on Educational Scholarship, sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Group on Educational Affairs, provided educators seeking academic promotion with a portfolio-based format for documenting activities in five domains, using evidence of quantity, quality, a scholarly approach, and educational scholarship. Yet, the lack of a rigorous, widely accepted system to assess educator portfolio submissions during the promotion and tenure process continues to impede the ability to fully value educators and educational scholars.The AAMC Task Force on Educator Evaluation was formed in 2010 to establish consensus guidelines for use by those responsible for the rigorous evaluation of the educational contributions of faculty. The task force delineated the educational contributions currently valued by institutions and then fulfilled its charge by creating the Toolbox for Evaluating Educators, a resource which contains explicit evidence-based criteria to evaluate faculty in each of the five domains of educator activity. Adoption of such criteria is now the rate-limiting step in using a fair process to recognize educators through academic promotion. To inform institutional review and implementation of these criteria, this article describes the iterative, evidence- and stakeholder-based process to establish the criteria. The authors advocate institutional adoption of these criteria so that faculty seeking academic promotion as educators, like their researcher colleagues, can be judged and valued using established standards for the assessment of their work

Evaluating educators using a novel toolbox: applying rigorous criteria flexibly across institutions

Valuing faculty as educators is essential for medical schools to fulfill their unique mission of educating physicians. The 2006 Consensus Conference on Educational Scholarship, sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Group on Educational Affairs, provided educators seeking academic promotion with a portfolio-based format for documenting activities in five domains, using evidence of quantity, quality, a scholarly approach, and educational scholarship. Yet, the lack of a rigorous, widely accepted system to assess educator portfolio submissions during the promotion and tenure process continues to impede the ability to fully value educators and educational scholars.The AAMC Task Force on Educator Evaluation was formed in 2010 to establish consensus guidelines for use by those responsible for the rigorous evaluation of the educational contributions of faculty. The task force delineated the educational contributions currently valued by institutions and then fulfilled its charge by creating the Toolbox for Evaluating Educators, a resource which contains explicit evidence-based criteria to evaluate faculty in each of the five domains of educator activity. Adoption of such criteria is now the rate-limiting step in using a fair process to recognize educators through academic promotion. To inform institutional review and implementation of these criteria, this article describes the iterative, evidence- and stakeholder-based process to establish the criteria. The authors advocate institutional adoption of these criteria so that faculty seeking academic promotion as educators, like their researcher colleagues, can be judged and valued using established standards for the assessment of their work

Faculty Promotion and Tenure Evaluating the Performance of Medical Educators: A Novel Analysis Tool to Demonstrate the Quality and Impact of Educational Activities

Abstract Purpose Traditional promotion standards rely heavily on quantification of research grants and publications in the curriculum vitae