University and diversity: disabled students’ educational needs

Desde hace aproximadamente una década se ha constatado un aumento en el número de alumnado con discapacidad matriculado en las universidades españolas. Esta presencia creciente ha generado un interés por investigar la situación de este alumnado, especialmente en lo relativo a las dificultades que pudiera tener tanto en el acceso como en el desarrollo de los aprendizajes, en una institución que no ha tenido previsto mecanismos de accesibilidad a los estudios como en el resto de los niveles educativos. En este artículo se ofrecen datos relativos a la opinión que el profesorado de la Universidad de La Laguna tiene acerca de la atención educativa al alumnado con discapacidad. Se presentan los resultados obtenidos del análisis de 166 cuestionarios on-line respondidos por el profesorado de esta Universidad.For approximately a decade an increase has been stated in the number of disability students registered in the Spanish Universities. This increasing presence has generated an interest to investigate the situation of this students, specially in the relative thing to the difficulties that they could have both in the access and in the development of the learning’s, in an institution that has not foreseen mechanisms of accessibility to the studies like in the rest of the educational levels. In this article there offers information relative to the opinion that the professorship of the La Laguna University has over of the educational attention to the disability student’s. It presents the results obtained of the analysis of 166 questionnaires on-line answered by the professorship of this University

Ultrasonography in rheumatology: time to learn from patient views

Objective: The objective of this observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, multicentre study was to assess the perceived quality and grade of satisfaction expressed by patients with chronic arthropathies regarding the use of musculoskeletal (MSK) ultrasonography by rheumatologists as an integrated clinical care tool. Methods: All Spanish rheumatology departments with MSK ultrasonography incorporated in their healthcare services were invited to participate in the study. A Spanish-language survey was offered to fill out anonymously to all consecutive patients with chronic arthropathies under follow-up in the rheumatology outpatient clinics who attended their centre for a period of 3 months. The survey consisted of three sections. The first section contained patients’ demographics, disease data, frequency of performing rheumatological ultrasound and information about who performed their ultrasound assessments. The second section consisted of 14 questions about patient’s experience and opinion on different aspects of the management, performance and perceived usefulness of performing ultrasound, to be answered on a Likert scale 1–5. The third section of the survey was addressed to the rheumatologist ultrasonographers. Results: Nine hundred and four patients from 16 university hospital rheumatology departments completed the survey. All questions reached an overall favourable response ≥ 80%. Patients who reported usual ultrasound examinations in their rheumatology care and those in which it was their attending rheumatologist who performed the ultrasound assessments responded more favourably. Conclusion: Our encouraging patient-centred results may be useful in facilitating the implementation of rheumatological ultrasound in rheumatology care worldwide. Key Points • This is the largest multicentre survey carried out in patients with chronic joint diseases designed to assess their experience and perceived benefits with the use of ultrasonography performed by rheumatologists in daily practice. • Musculoskeletal ultrasound incorporated into rheumatology care was very well accepted and valued by most patients. • The patients perceived that ultrasonography helps not only their rheumatologist but also themselves to better understand their condition. • The patients believed that ultrasonography helps them accept and comply with the proposed treatmen

Assessment of a New ROS1 Immunohistochemistry Clone (SP384) for the Identification of ROS1 Rearrangements in Patients with Non–Small Cell Lung Carcinoma: the ROSING Study

Introduction: The ROS1 gene rearrangement has become an important biomarker in NSCLC. The College of American Pathologists/International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/Association for Molecular Pathology testing guidelines support the use of ROS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a screening test, followed by confirmation with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or a molecular test in all positive results. We have evaluated a novel anti-ROS1 IHC antibody (SP384) in a large multicenter series to obtain real-world data. Methods: A total of 43 ROS1 FISH-positive and 193 ROS1 FISH-negative NSCLC samples were studied. All specimens were screened by using two antibodies (clone D4D6 from Cell Signaling Technology and clone SP384 from Ventana Medical Systems), and the different interpretation criteria were compared with break-apart FISH (Vysis). FISH-positive samples were also analyzed with next-generation sequencing (Oncomine Dx Target Test Panel, Thermo Fisher Scientific). Results: An H-score of 150 or higher or the presence of at least 70% of tumor cells with an intensity of staining of 2+ or higher by the SP384 clone was the optimal cutoff value (both with 93% sensitivity and 100% specificity). The D4D6 clone showed similar results, with an H-score of at least 100 (91% sensitivity and 100% specificity). ROS1 expression in normal lung was more frequent with use of the SP384 clone (p < 0.0001). The ezrin gene (EZR)-ROS1 variant was associated with membranous staining and an isolated green signal FISH pattern (p = 0.001 and p = 0.017, respectively). Conclusions: The new SP384 ROS1 IHC clone showed excellent sensitivity without compromising specificity, so it is another excellent analytical option for the proposed testing algorithm

The evolution of the ventilatory ratio is a prognostic factor in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients

Background: Mortality due to COVID-19 is high, especially in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The purpose of the study is to investigate associations between mortality and variables measured during the first three days of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19 intubated at ICU admission. Methods: Multicenter, observational, cohort study includes consecutive patients with COVID-19 admitted to 44 Spanish ICUs between February 25 and July 31, 2020, who required intubation at ICU admission and mechanical ventilation for more than three days. We collected demographic and clinical data prior to admission; information about clinical evolution at days 1 and 3 of mechanical ventilation; and outcomes. Results: Of the 2,095 patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU, 1,118 (53.3%) were intubated at day 1 and remained under mechanical ventilation at day three. From days 1 to 3, PaO2/FiO2 increased from 115.6 [80.0-171.2] to 180.0 [135.4-227.9] mmHg and the ventilatory ratio from 1.73 [1.33-2.25] to 1.96 [1.61-2.40]. In-hospital mortality was 38.7%. A higher increase between ICU admission and day 3 in the ventilatory ratio (OR 1.04 [CI 1.01-1.07], p = 0.030) and creatinine levels (OR 1.05 [CI 1.01-1.09], p = 0.005) and a lower increase in platelet counts (OR 0.96 [CI 0.93-1.00], p = 0.037) were independently associated with a higher risk of death. No association between mortality and the PaO2/FiO2 variation was observed (OR 0.99 [CI 0.95 to 1.02], p = 0.47). Conclusions: Higher ventilatory ratio and its increase at day 3 is associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation at ICU admission. No association was found in the PaO2/FiO2 variation

Clustering COVID-19 ARDS patients through the first days of ICU admission. An analysis of the CIBERESUCICOVID Cohort

Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can be classified into sub-phenotypes according to different inflammatory/clinical status. Prognostic enrichment was achieved by grouping patients into hypoinflammatory or hyperinflammatory sub-phenotypes, even though the time of analysis may change the classification according to treatment response or disease evolution. We aimed to evaluate when patients can be clustered in more than 1 group, and how they may change the clustering of patients using data of baseline or day 3, and the prognosis of patients according to their evolution by changing or not the cluster.Methods Multicenter, observational prospective, and retrospective study of patients admitted due to ARDS related to COVID-19 infection in Spain. Patients were grouped according to a clustering mixed-type data algorithm (k-prototypes) using continuous and categorical readily available variables at baseline and day 3.Results Of 6205 patients, 3743 (60%) were included in the study. According to silhouette analysis, patients were grouped in two clusters. At baseline, 1402 (37%) patients were included in cluster 1 and 2341(63%) in cluster 2. On day 3, 1557(42%) patients were included in cluster 1 and 2086 (57%) in cluster 2. The patients included in cluster 2 were older and more frequently hypertensive and had a higher prevalence of shock, organ dysfunction, inflammatory biomarkers, and worst respiratory indexes at both time points. The 90-day mortality was higher in cluster 2 at both clustering processes (43.8% [n = 1025] versus 27.3% [n = 383] at baseline, and 49% [n = 1023] versus 20.6% [n = 321] on day 3). Four hundred and fifty-eight (33%) patients clustered in the first group were clustered in the second group on day 3. In contrast, 638 (27%) patients clustered in the second group were clustered in the first group on day 3.Conclusions During the first days, patients can be clustered into two groups and the process of clustering patients may change as they continue to evolve. This means that despite a vast majority of patients remaining in the same cluster, a minority reaching 33% of patients analyzed may be re-categorized into different clusters based on their progress. Such changes can significantly impact their prognosis

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

Background Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide.Methods A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study-a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital.Findings Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.85 [95% CI 2.58-5.75]; p&lt;0.0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63.0% vs 82.7%; OR 0.35 [0.23-0.53]; p&lt;0.0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer.Interpretation Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Background The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2017 comparative risk assessment (CRA) is a comprehensive approach to risk factor quantification that offers a useful tool for synthesising evidence on risks and risk–outcome associations. With each annual GBD study, we update the GBD CRA to incorporate improved methods, new risks and risk–outcome pairs, and new data on risk exposure levels and risk–outcome associations. Methods We used the CRA framework developed for previous iterations of GBD to estimate levels and trends in exposure, attributable deaths, and attributable disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), by age group, sex, year, and location for 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or groups of risks from 1990 to 2017. This study included 476 risk–outcome pairs that met the GBD study criteria for convincing or probable evidence of causation. We extracted relative risk and exposure estimates from 46 749 randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, household surveys, census data, satellite data, and other sources. We used statistical models to pool data, adjust for bias, and incorporate covariates. Using the counterfactual scenario of theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL), we estimated the portion of deaths and DALYs that could be attributed to a given risk. We explored the relationship between development and risk exposure by modelling the relationship between the Socio-demographic Index (SDI) and risk-weighted exposure prevalence and estimated expected levels of exposure and risk-attributable burden by SDI. Finally, we explored temporal changes in risk-attributable DALYs by decomposing those changes into six main component drivers of change as follows: (1) population growth; (2) changes in population age structures; (3) changes in exposure to environmental and occupational risks; (4) changes in exposure to behavioural risks; (5) changes in exposure to metabolic risks; and (6) changes due to all other factors, approximated as the risk-deleted death and DALY rates, where the risk-deleted rate is the rate that would be observed had we reduced the exposure levels to the TMREL for all risk factors included in GBD 2017. Findings In 2017, 34·1 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 33·3–35·0) deaths and 1·21 billion (1·14–1·28) DALYs were attributable to GBD risk factors. Globally, 61·0% (59·6–62·4) of deaths and 48·3% (46·3–50·2) of DALYs were attributed to the GBD 2017 risk factors. When ranked by risk-attributable DALYs, high systolic blood pressure (SBP) was the leading risk factor, accounting for 10·4 million (9·39–11·5) deaths and 218 million (198–237) DALYs, followed by smoking (7·10 million [6·83–7·37] deaths and 182 million [173–193] DALYs), high fasting plasma glucose (6·53 million [5·23–8·23] deaths and 171 million [144–201] DALYs), high body-mass index (BMI; 4·72 million [2·99–6·70] deaths and 148 million [98·6–202] DALYs), and short gestation for birthweight (1·43 million [1·36–1·51] deaths and 139 million [131–147] DALYs). In total, risk-attributable DALYs declined by 4·9% (3·3–6·5) between 2007 and 2017. In the absence of demographic changes (ie, population growth and ageing), changes in risk exposure and risk-deleted DALYs would have led to a 23·5% decline in DALYs during that period. Conversely, in the absence of changes in risk exposure and risk-deleted DALYs, demographic changes would have led to an 18·6% increase in DALYs during that period. The ratios of observed risk exposure levels to exposure levels expected based on SDI (O/E ratios) increased globally for unsafe drinking water and household air pollution between 1990 and 2017. This result suggests that development is occurring more rapidly than are changes in the underlying risk structure in a population. Conversely, nearly universal declines in O/E ratios for smoking and alcohol use indicate that, for a given SDI, exposure to these risks is declining. In 2017, the leading Level 4 risk factor for age-standardised DALY rates was high SBP in four super-regions: central Europe, eastern Europe, and central Asia; north Africa and Middle East; south Asia; and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania. The leading risk factor in the high-income super-region was smoking, in Latin America and Caribbean was high BMI, and in sub-Saharan Africa was unsafe sex. O/E ratios for unsafe sex in sub-Saharan Africa were notably high, and those for alcohol use in north Africa and the Middle East were notably low. Interpretation By quantifying levels and trends in exposures to risk factors and the resulting disease burden, this assessment offers insight into where past policy and programme efforts might have been successful and highlights current priorities for public health action. Decreases in behavioural, environmental, and occupational risks have largely offset the effects of population growth and ageing, in relation to trends in absolute burden. Conversely, the combination of increasing metabolic risks and population ageing will probably continue to drive the increasing trends in non-communicable diseases at the global level, which presents both a public health challenge and opportunity. We see considerable spatiotemporal heterogeneity in levels of risk exposure and risk-attributable burden. Although levels of development underlie some of this heterogeneity, O/E ratios show risks for which countries are overperforming or underperforming relative to their level of development. As such, these ratios provide a benchmarking tool to help to focus local decision making. Our findings reinforce the importance of both risk exposure monitoring and epidemiological research to assess causal connections between risks and health outcomes, and they highlight the usefulness of the GBD study in synthesising data to draw comprehensive and robust conclusions that help to inform good policy and strategic health planning

Erratum: Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Interpretation: By quantifying levels and trends in exposures to risk factors and the resulting disease burden, this assessment offers insight into where past policy and programme efforts might have been successful and highlights current priorities for public health action. Decreases in behavioural, environmental, and occupational risks have largely offset the effects of population growth and ageing, in relation to trends in absolute burden. Conversely, the combination of increasing metabolic risks and population ageing will probably continue to drive the increasing trends in non-communicable diseases at the global level, which presents both a public health challenge and opportunity. We see considerable spatiotemporal heterogeneity in levels of risk exposure and risk-attributable burden. Although levels of development underlie some of this heterogeneity, O/E ratios show risks for which countries are overperforming or underperforming relative to their level of development. As such, these ratios provide a benchmarking tool to help to focus local decision making. Our findings reinforce the importance of both risk exposure monitoring and epidemiological research to assess causal connections between risks and health outcomes, and they highlight the usefulness of the GBD study in synthesising data to draw comprehensive and robust conclusions that help to inform good policy and strategic health planning

XLVIII Coloquio Argentino de Estadística. VI Jornada de Educación Estadística Martha Aliaga Modalidad virtual

Esta publicación es una compilación de las actividades realizadas en el marco del XLVIII Coloquio Argentino de Estadística y la VI Jornada de Educación Estadística Martha Aliaga organizada por la Sociedad Argentina de Estadística y la Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Se presenta un resumen para cada uno de los talleres, cursos realizados, ponencias y poster presentados. Para los dos últimos se dispone de un hipervínculo que direcciona a la presentación del trabajo. Ellos obedecen a distintas temáticas de la estadística con una sesión especial destinada a la aplicación de modelos y análisis de datos sobre COVID-19.Fil: Saino, Martín. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Stimolo, María Inés. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Ortiz, Pablo. Universidad Nacional de córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Guardiola, Mariana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Aguirre, Alberto Frank Lázaro. Universidade Federal de Alfenas. Departamento de Estatística. Instituto de Ciências Exatas; Brasil.Fil: Alves Nogueira, Denismar. Universidade Federal de Alfenas. Departamento de Estatística. Instituto de Ciências Exatas; Brasil.Fil: Beijo, Luiz Alberto. Universidade Federal de Alfenas. Departamento de Estatística. Instituto de Ciências Exatas; Brasil.Fil: Solis, Juan Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Centro de Estudios en Bioestadística, Bioinformática y Agromática; Argentina.Fil: Alabar, Fabio. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Centro de Estudios en Bioestadística, Bioinformática y Agromática; Argentina.Fil: Ruiz, Sebastián León. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy. Centro de Estudios en Bioestadística, Bioinformática y Agromática; Argentina.Fil: Hurtado, Rafael. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy; Argentina.Fil: Alegría Jiménez, Alfredo. Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María. Departamento de Matemática; Chile.Fil: Emery, Xavier. Universidad de Chile. Departamento de Ingeniería en Minas; Chile.Fil: Emery, Xavier. Universidad de Chile. Advanced Mining Technology Center; Chile.Fil: Álvarez-Vaz, Ramón. Universidad de la República. Instituto de Estadística. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos; Uruguay.Fil: Massa, Fernando. Universidad de la República. Instituto de Estadística. Departamento de Métodos Cuantitativos; Uruguay.Fil: Vernazza, Elena. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Estadística; Uruguay.Fil: Lezcano, Mikaela. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Estadística; Uruguay.Fil: Urruticoechea, Alar. Universidad Católica del Uruguay. Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud. Departamento de Neurocognición; Uruguay.Fil: del Callejo Canal, Diana. Universidad Veracruzana. Instituto de Investigación de Estudios Superiores, Económicos y Sociales; México.Fil: Canal Martínez, Margarita. Universidad Veracruzana. Instituto de Investigación de Estudios Superiores, Económicos y Sociales; México.Fil: Ruggia, Ornela. CONICET; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias. Departamento de desarrollo rural; Argentina.Fil: Tolosa, Leticia Eva. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina. Universidad Católica de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Rojo, María Paula. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Nicolas, María Claudia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina. Universidad Católica de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Barbaroy, Tomás. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba; Argentina.Fil: Villarreal, Fernanda. CONICET, Universidad Nacional del Sur. Instituto de Matemática de Bahía Blanca (INMABB); Argentina.Fil: Pisani, María Virginia. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Quintana, Alicia. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Elorza, María Eugenia. CONICET. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; Argentina.Fil: Peretti, Gianluca. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Buzzi, Sergio Martín. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Estadística y Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Settecase, Eugenia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadísticas. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas en Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Settecase, Eugenia. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Leslie Research Facility; Australia.Fil: Paccapelo, María Valeria. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. Leslie Research Facility; Australia.Fil: Cuesta, Cristina. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadísticas. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas en Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Saenz, José Luis. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Luna, Silvia. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Paredes, Paula. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Santa Cruz; Argentina.Fil: Maglione, Dora. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral; Argentina.Fil: Rosas, Juan E. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA); Uruguay.Fil: Pérez de Vida, Fernando. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA); Uruguay.Fil: Marella, Muzio. Sociedad Anónima Molinos Arroceros Nacionales (SAMAN); Uruguay.Fil: Berberian, Natalia. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Agronomía; Uruguay.Fil: Ponce, Daniela. Universidad Estadual Paulista. Facultad de Medicina; Brasil.Fil: Silveira, Liciana Vaz de A. Universidad Estadual Paulista; Brasil.Fil: Freitas Galletti, Agda Jessica de. Universidad Estadual Paulista; Brasil.Fil: Bellassai, Juan Carlos. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Centro de Investigación y Estudios de Matemáticas (CIEM-Conicet); Argentina.Fil: Pappaterra, María Lucía. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Centro de Investigación y Estudios de Matemáticas (CIEM-Conicet); Argentina.Fil: Ojeda, Silvia María. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Matemática, Astronomía, Física y Computación; Argentina.Fil: Ascua, Melina Belén. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Roldán, Dana Agustina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Rodi, Ayrton Luis. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Ventre, Giuliana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: González, Agustina. Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Palacio, Gabriela. Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Bigolin, Sabina. Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Ferrero, Susana. Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físico-Químicas y Naturales. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Del Medico, Ana Paula. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Agrarias de Rosario (IICAR); Argentina.Fil: Pratta, Guillermo. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Agrarias de Rosario (IICAR); Argentina.Fil: Tenaglia, Gerardo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Instituto de Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico para la Agricultura Familiar; Argentina.Fil: Lavalle, Andrea. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Departamento de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Demaio, Alejo. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Hernández, Paz. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Di Palma, Fabricio. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Calizaya, Pablo. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Avalis, Francisca. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Caro, Norma Patricia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Caro, Norma Patricia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Fernícola, Marcela. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Nuñez, Myriam. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Dundray, , Fabián. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Calviño, Amalia. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Química y Metabolismo del Fármaco. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Farfán Machaca, Yheni. Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco. Departamento Académico de Matemáticas y Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Paucar, Guillermo. Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco. Departamento Académico de Matemáticas y Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Coaquira, Frida. Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco. Escuela de posgrado UNSAAC; Argentina.Fil: Ferreri, Noemí M. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Pascaner, Melina. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Martinez, Facundo. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Bossolasco, María Luisa. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina.Fil: Bortolotto, Eugenia B. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro de Estudios Fotosintéticos y Bioquímicos (CEFOBI); Argentina.Fil: Bortolotto, Eugenia B. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Faviere, Gabriela S. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro de Estudios Fotosintéticos y Bioquímicos (CEFOBI); Argentina.Fil: Faviere, Gabriela S. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Angelini, Julia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro de Estudios Fotosintéticos y Bioquímicos (CEFOBI); Argentina.Fil: Angelini, Julia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Cervigni, Gerardo. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Centro de Estudios Fotosintéticos y Bioquímicos (CEFOBI); Argentina.Fil: Cervigni, Gerardo. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Valentini, Gabriel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria INTA San Pedro; Argentina.Fil: Chiapella, Luciana C.. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Bioquímicas y Farmacéuticas; Argentina.Fil: Chiapella, Luciana C. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET); Argentina.Fil: Grendas, Leandro. Universidad Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Farmacología; Argentina.Fil: Daray, Federico. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET); Argentina.Fil: Daray, Federico. Universidad Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Farmacología; Argentina.Fil: Leal, Danilo. Universidad Andrés Bello. Facultad de Ingeniería; Chile.Fil: Nicolis, Orietta. Universidad Andrés Bello. Facultad de Ingeniería; Chile.Fil: Bonadies, María Eugenia. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Ponteville, Christiane. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica; Argentina.Fil: Catalano, Mara. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Catalano, Mara. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Dillon, Justina. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Carnevali, Graciela H. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Ingeniería y Agrimensura; Argentina.Fil: Justo, Claudio Eduardo. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Agrimensura. Grupo de Aplicaciones Matemáticas y Estadísticas (UIDET); Argentina.Fil: Iglesias, Maximiliano. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Estadística y Demografía; Argentina.Fil: Gómez, Pablo Sebastián. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina.Fil: Real, Ariel Hernán. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Vargas, Silvia Lorena. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: López Calcagno, Yanil. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Batto, Mabel. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Sampaolesi, Edgardo. Universidad Nacional de Luján. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Tealdi, Juan Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Buzzi, Sergio Martín. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Estadística y Matemática; Argentina.Fil: García Bazán, Gaspar. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Monroy Caicedo, Xiomara Alejandra. Universidad Nacional de Rosario; Argentina.Fil: Bermúdez Rubio, Dagoberto. Universidad Santo Tomás. Facultad de Estadística; Colombia.Fil: Ricci, Lila. Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Centro Marplatense de Investigaciones Matemáticas; Argentina.Fil: Kelmansky, Diana Mabel. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Cálculo; Argentina.Fil: Rapelli, Cecilia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Escuela de Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: García, María del Carmen. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Escuela de Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Bussi, Javier. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Méndez, Fernanda. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística (IITAE); Argentina.Fil: García Mata, Luis Ángel. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán; México.Fil: Ramírez González, Marco Antonio. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Facultad de Estudios Superiores Acatlán; México.Fil: Rossi, Laura. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Vicente, Gonzalo. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina. Universidad Pública de Navarra. Departamento de Estadística, Informática y Matemáticas; España.Fil: Scavino, Marco. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Estadística; Uruguay.Fil: Estragó, Virginia. Presidencia de la República. Comisión Honoraria para la Salud Cardiovascular; Uruguay.Fil: Muñoz, Matías. Presidencia de la República. Comisión Honoraria para la Salud Cardiovascular; Uruguay.Fil: Castrillejo, Andrés. Universidad de la República. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y de Administración. Instituto de Estadística; Uruguay.Fil: Da Rocha, Naila Camila. Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho- UNESP. Departamento de Bioestadística; BrasilFil: Macola Pacheco Barbosa, Abner. Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho- UNESP; Brasil.Fil: Corrente, José Eduardo. Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho – UNESP. Instituto de Biociencias. Departamento de Bioestadística; Brasil.Fil: Spataro, Javier. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Economía; Argentina.Fil: Salvatierra, Luca Mauricio. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Nahas, Estefanía. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Márquez, Viviana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Boggio, Gabriela. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Arnesi, Nora. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Harvey, Guillermina. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Settecase, Eugenia. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Instituto de Investigaciones Teóricas y Aplicadas de la Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Wojdyla, Daniel. Duke University. Duke Clinical Research Institute; Estados Unidos.Fil: Blasco, Manuel. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Economía y Finanzas; Argentina.Fil: Stanecka, Nancy. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Estadística y Demografía; Argentina.Fil: Caro, Valentina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Instituto de Estadística y Demografía; Argentina.Fil: Sigal, Facundo. Universidad Austral. Facultad de Ciencias Empresariales. Departamento de Economía; Argentina.Fil: Blacona, María Teresa. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística. Escuela de Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Rodriguez, Norberto Vicente. Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero; Argentina.Fil: Loiacono, Karina Valeria. Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero; Argentina.Fil: García, Gregorio. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Dirección Nacional de Metodología Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Ciardullo, Emanuel. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Dirección Nacional de Metodología Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Ciardullo, Emanuel. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Dirección Nacional de Metodología Estadística; Argentina.Fil: Funkner, Sofía. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina.Fil: Dieser, María Paula. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina.Fil: Martín, María Cristina. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina.Fil: Martín, María Cristina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Peitton, Lucas. Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Estadística; Argentina. Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; Australia.Fil: Borgognone, María Gabriela. Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries; Australia.Fil: Terreno, Dante D. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Contabilidad; Argentina.Fil: Castro González, Enrique L. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Contabilidad; Argentina.Fil: Roldán, Janina Micaela. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; Argentina.Fil: González, Gisela Paula. CONICET. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur; Argentina.Fil: De Santis, Mariana. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas; Argentina.Fil: Geri, Milva. CONICET. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas y Sociales del Sur; Argentina.Fil: Geri, Milva. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Economía; Argentina. Universidad Nacional del Sur. Departamento de Matemática; Argentina.Fil: Marfia, Martín. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Facultad de Ingeniería. Departamento de Ciencias Básicas; Argentina.Fil: Kudraszow, Nadia L. Universidad Nacional de la Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas. Centro de Matemática de La Plata; Argentina.Fil: Closas, Humberto. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional; Argentina.Fil: Amarilla, Mariela. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional; Argentina.Fil: Jovanovich, Carina. Universidad Tecnológica Nacional; Argentina.Fil: de Castro, Idalia. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Franchini, Noelia. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Cruz, Rosa. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Dusicka, Alicia. Universidad Nacional del Nordeste; Argentina.Fil: Quaglino, Marta. Universidad Nacional de Rosario; Argentina.Fil: Kalauz, Roberto José Andrés. Investigador Independiente; Argentina.Fil: González, Mariana Verónica. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Departamento de Estadística y Matemáticas; Argentina.Fil: Lescano, Maira Celeste.

The continuity of effect of schizophrenia polygenic risk score and patterns of cannabis use on transdiagnostic symptom dimensions at first-episode psychosis: findings from the EU-GEI study

Abstract: Diagnostic categories do not completely reflect the heterogeneous expression of psychosis. Using data from the EU-GEI study, we evaluated the impact of schizophrenia polygenic risk score (SZ-PRS) and patterns of cannabis use on the transdiagnostic expression of psychosis. We analysed first-episode psychosis patients (FEP) and controls, generating transdiagnostic dimensions of psychotic symptoms and experiences using item response bi-factor modelling. Linear regression was used to test the associations between these dimensions and SZ-PRS, as well as the combined effect of SZ-PRS and cannabis use on the dimensions of positive psychotic symptoms and experiences. We found associations between SZ-PRS and (1) both negative (B = 0.18; 95%CI 0.03–0.33) and positive (B = 0.19; 95%CI 0.03–0.35) symptom dimensions in 617 FEP patients, regardless of their categorical diagnosis; and (2) all the psychotic experience dimensions in 979 controls. We did not observe associations between SZ-PRS and the general and affective dimensions in FEP. Daily and current cannabis use were associated with the positive dimensions in FEP (B = 0.31; 95%CI 0.11–0.52) and in controls (B = 0.26; 95%CI 0.06–0.46), over and above SZ-PRS. We provide evidence that genetic liability to schizophrenia and cannabis use map onto transdiagnostic symptom dimensions, supporting the validity and utility of the dimensional representation of psychosis. In our sample, genetic liability to schizophrenia correlated with more severe psychosis presentation, and cannabis use conferred risk to positive symptomatology beyond the genetic risk. Our findings support the hypothesis that psychotic experiences in the general population have similar genetic substrates as clinical disorders