An Invasive Species Assessment Protocol: Evaluating Non-Native Plants for Their Impact on Biodiversity, Version 1

NatureServe, in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. National Park Service, developed this Invasive Species Assessment Protocol as a tool for assessing, categorizing, and listing non-native invasive vascular plants according to their impact on native species and natural biodiversity in a large geographical area such as a nation, state, province, or ecological region. This protocol is designed to make the process of assessing and listing invasive plants objective and systematic, and to incorporate scientific documentation of the information used to determine each species’ rank. NatureServe’s methodology has previously included assessments of the conservation significance of native species; this protocol extends that scope to non-native species as well. The protocol is used to assess species (or infraspecific taxa, as appropriate) individually for a specified “region of interest” and to assign each species an Invasive Species Impact Rank (I-Rank) of High, Medium, Low, or Insignificant to categorize its negative impact on natural biodiversity within that region. The protocol includes 20 questions, each with four scaled responses (A-D, plus U = unknown). The 20 questions are grouped into four sections: Ecological Impact, Current Distribution and Abundance, Trend in Distribution and Abundance, and Management Difficulty. Each species is assessed by considering these questions, with the answers used to calculate a subrank for each of the four sections. An overall I-Rank is then calculated from the subranks. Text comments and citations to information sources should be provided as documentation for each answer selected, along with a concise text summary of the major considerations leading to the overall rank. While designed for use in a specified large, contiguous, biogeographically diverse region, the protocol can be adapted to specified noncontiguous regions (such as the 50 states of the United States), and may also be applied to assess the impact in the non-native range of a species that is also present elsewhere in a region as a native. NatureServe is now using this protocol to assess the biodiversity impact of the approximately 3,500 non-native vascular plant species established outside cultivation in the United States. The protocol is offered here in generalized form for others who might wish to use it to conduct similar assessments and create lists of invasive plants for other nations, states, provinces, ecological regions, or comparable areas

Junior Recital

List of performers and performances

Comparison of neuropsychological functioning in Alzheimer's disease and frontotemporal dementia

Compared the archival neuropsychological data of 15 frontotemporal dementia (FTD) patients (mean age 63.9 yrs), 16 Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients (mean age 70.3 yrs), and 16 controls were compared. Controls outperformed both patient groups on measures of verbal and nonverbal memory, executive ability, and constructional skill, with AD patients showing more widespread memory decline. Patient groups differed only in nonverbal memory, with FTD patients performing significantly better than AD patients. Patient groups also differed in pattern of performance across executive and memory domains. Specifically, AD patients exhibited significantly greater impairment on memory than executive tasks, whereas the opposite pattern characterized the FTD group. Findings suggest that examination of relative rankings of scores across cognitive domains, in addition to interpretation of individual neuropsychological scores, may be useful in differential diagnosis of FTD vs AD

Convocation

Program listing performers and works performe

Convocation

Program listing performers and works performe

Can we predict which COVID-19 patients will need transfer to intensive care within 24 hours of floor admission?

Background Patients with COVID‐19 can present to the emergency department (ED) at any point during the spectrum of illness, making it difficult to predict what level of care the patient will ultimately require. Admission to a ward bed, which is subsequently upgraded within hours to an intensive care unit (ICU) bed, represents an inability to appropriately predict the patient's course of illness. Predicting which patients will require ICU care within 24 hours would allow admissions to be managed more appropriately. Methods This was a retrospective study of adults admitted to a large health care system, including 14 hospitals across the state of Indiana. Included patients were aged ≥ 18 years, were admitted to the hospital from the ED, and had a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for COVID‐19. Patients directly admitted to the ICU or in whom the PCR test was obtained > 3 days after hospital admission were excluded. Extracted data points included demographics, comorbidities, ED vital signs, laboratory values, chest imaging results, and level of care on admission. The primary outcome was a combination of either death or transfer to ICU within 24 hours of admission to the hospital. Data analysis was performed by logistic regression modeling to determine a multivariable model of variables that could predict the primary outcome. Results Of the 542 included patients, 46 (10%) required transfer to ICU within 24 hours of admission. The final composite model, adjusted for age and admission location, included history of heart failure and initial oxygen saturation of 6.4 or glomerular filtration rate < 46. The odds ratio (OR) for decompensation within 24 hours was 5.17 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.17 to 12.31) when all criteria were present. For patients without the above criteria, the OR for ICU transfer was 0.20 (95% CI = 0.09 to 0.45). Conclusions Although our model did not perform well enough to stand alone as a decision guide, it highlights certain clinical features that are associated with increased risk of decompensation

Convocation

Program listing performers and works performe

Characteristics of COVID-19 Patients with Bacterial Co-infection Admitted to the Hospital from the Emergency Department in a Large Regional Healthcare System

Introduction The rate of bacterial coinfection with SARS‐CoV‐2 is poorly defined. The decision to administer antibiotics early in the course of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection depends on the likelihood of bacterial coinfection. Methods We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients admitted through the emergency department with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection over a 6‐week period in a large healthcare system in the United States. Blood and respiratory culture results were abstracted and adjudicated by multiple authors. The primary outcome was the rate of bacteremia. We secondarily looked to define clinical or laboratory features associated with bacteremia. Results There were 542 patients admitted with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, with an average age of 62.8 years. Of these, 395 had blood cultures performed upon admission, with six true positive results (1.1% of the total population). An additional 14 patients had positive respiratory cultures treated as true pathogens in the first 72 h. Low blood pressure and elevated white blood cell count, neutrophil count, blood urea nitrogen, and lactate were statistically significantly associated with bacteremia. Clinical outcomes were not statistically significantly different between patients with and without bacteremia. Conclusions We found a low rate of bacteremia in patients admitted with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. In hemodynamically stable patients, routine antibiotics may not be warranted in this population

Convocation

Program listing performers and works performe

Convocation

Program listing performers and works performe