Assessing housing quality and its impact on health, safety and sustainability

Background The adverse health and environmental effects of poor housing quality are well established. A central requirement for evidence-based policies and programmes to improve housing standards is a valid, reliable and practical way of measuring housing quality that is supported by policy agencies, the housing sector, researchers and the public. Methods This paper provides guidance on the development of housing quality-assessment tools that link practical measures of housing conditions to their effects on health, safety and sustainability, with particular reference to tools developed in New Zealand and England. Results The authors describe how information on housing quality can support individuals, agencies and the private sector to make worthwhile improvements to the health, safety and sustainability of housing. The information gathered and the resultant tools developed should be guided by the multiple purposes and end users of this information. Other important issues outlined include deciding on the scope, detailed content, practical administration issues and how the information will be analysed and summarised for its intended end users. There are likely to be considerable benefits from increased international collaboration and standardisation of approaches to measuring housing hazards. At the same time, these assessment approaches need to consider local factors such as climate, geography, culture, predominating building practices, important housing-related health issues and existing building codes. Conclusions An effective housing quality-assessment tool has a central role in supporting improvements to housing. The issues discussed in this paper are designed to motivate and assist the development of such tools

Coordination changes in liquid tin under shock compression determined using in situ femtosecond x-ray diffraction

Little is known regarding the liquid structure of materials compressed to extreme conditions, and even less is known about liquid structures undergoing rapid compression on nanosecond timescales. Here, we report on liquid structure factor and radial distribution function measurements of tin shock compressed to 84(19) GPa. High-quality, femtosecond x-ray diffraction measurements at the Linac Coherent Light Source were used to extract the liquid diffuse scattering signal. From the radial distribution function, we find that the structural evolution of the liquid with increasing pressure mimics the evolution of the solid phase. With increasing pressure, we find that the liquid structure evolves from a complex structure, with a low coordination number, to a simple liquid structure with a coordination number of 12. We provide a pathway for future experiments to study liquids at elevated pressures using high-energy lasers to shock compress materials beyond the reach of static diamond anvil cell techniques

Flexible and scalable diagnostic filtering of genomic variants using G2P with Ensembl VEP.

We aimed to develop an efficient, flexible and scalable approach to diagnostic genome-wide sequence analysis of genetically heterogeneous clinical presentations. Here we present G2P ( www.ebi.ac.uk/gene2phenotype ) as an online system to establish, curate and distribute datasets for diagnostic variant filtering via association of allelic requirement and mutational consequence at a defined locus with phenotypic terms, confidence level and evidence links. An extension to Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor (VEP), VEP-G2P was used to filter both disease-associated and control whole exome sequence (WES) with Developmental Disorders G2P (G2PDD; 2044 entries). VEP-G2PDD shows a sensitivity/precision of 97.3%/33% for de novo and 81.6%/22.7% for inherited pathogenic genotypes respectively. Many of the missing genotypes are likely false-positive pathogenic assignments. The expected number and discriminative features of background genotypes are defined using control WES. Using only human genetic data VEP-G2P performs well compared to other freely-available diagnostic systems and future phenotypic matching capabilities should further enhance performance

The 10th Biennial Hatter Cardiovascular Institute workshop: cellular protection—evaluating new directions in the setting of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and cardio-oncology

Due to its poor capacity for regeneration, the heart is particularly sensitive to the loss of contractile cardiomyocytes. The onslaught of damage caused by ischaemia and reperfusion, occurring during an acute myocardial infarction and the subsequent reperfusion therapy, can wipe out upwards of a billion cardiomyocytes. A similar program of cell death can cause the irreversible loss of neurons in ischaemic stroke. Similar pathways of lethal cell injury can contribute to other pathologies such as left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure caused by cancer therapy. Consequently, strategies designed to protect the heart from lethal cell injury have the potential to be applicable across all three pathologies. The investigators meeting at the 10th Hatter Cardiovascular Institute workshop examined the parallels between ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), ischaemic stroke, and other pathologies that cause the loss of cardiomyocytes including cancer therapeutic cardiotoxicity. They examined the prospects for protection by remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) in each scenario, and evaluated impasses and novel opportunities for cellular protection, with the future landscape for RIC in the clinical setting to be determined by the outcome of the large ERIC-PPCI/CONDI2 study. It was agreed that the way forward must include measures to improve experimental methodologies, such that they better reflect the clinical scenario and to judiciously select combinations of therapies targeting specific pathways of cellular death and injury

A produção sobre aprendizagem informal nas organizações no Brasil: mapeando o terreno e rastreando possibilidades futuras

A aprendizagem informal é entendida como aquela baseada na experiência intencional, mas não formalmente estruturada; induzida por um processo de reflexão crítica, ação, pró-atividade e criatividade; incrustada no contexto organizacional e nas práticas cotidianas. Pode ser planejada ou não, embora envolva algum grau de consciência de quem aprende. Sua relevância para o ambiente de trabalho tem sido atestada por vários autores. Este trabalho tem como objetivo identificar, descrever e analisar a produção a respeito dessa temática no Brasil, no período de 2006 a 2012. O conjunto de 21 artigos selecionados para fazer parte desta revisão reúne estudos teóricos e empíricos publicados em periódicos nacionais da área de Administração e avaliados com conceito B2 ou superior pelo WebQualis da CAPES. O estudo envolveu duas etapas. Numa primeira etapa definiram-se as fontes de dados e amostra a ser trabalhada. Uma segunda etapa consistiu na análise dos artigos a partir das seguintes dimensões: foco dos estudos (origem, tema e objetivos), nível de aprendizagem, autores referenciados, perspectivas teóricas, posicionamentos epistemológicos, tipos de pesquisa, dados de contexto da produção e principais achados. Os resultados mostram uma produção dispersa que ainda precisa ser aprimorada em relação aos arcabouços teóricos tomados como referência para o aprofundamento do tema

Compilation of a panel of informative single nucleotide polymorphisms for bovine identification in the Northern Irish cattle population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Animal identification is pivotal in governmental agricultural policy, enabling the management of subsidy payments, movement of livestock, test scheduling and control of disease. Advances in bovine genomics have made it possible to utilise inherent genetic variability to uniquely identify individual animals by DNA profiling, much as has been achieved with humans over the past 20 years. A DNA profiling test based on bi-allelic single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers would offer considerable advantages over current short tandem repeat (STR) based industry standard tests, in that it would be easier to analyse and interpret. In this study, a panel of 51 genome-wide SNPs were genotyped across panels of semen DNA from 6 common breeds for the purposes of ascertaining allelic frequency. For SNPs on the same chromosome, the extent of linkage disequilbrium was determined from genotype data by Expectation Maximization (EM) algorithm. Minimum probabilities of unique identification were determined for each breed panel. The usefulness of this SNP panel was ascertained by comparison to the current bovine STR Stockmarks II assay. A statistically representative random sampling of bovine animals from across Northern Ireland was assembled for the purposes of determining the population allele frequency for these STR loci and subsequently, the minimal probability of unique identification they conferred in sampled bovine animals from Northern Ireland.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>6 SNPs exhibiting a minor allele frequency of less than 0.2 in more than 3 of the breed panels were excluded. 2 Further SNPs were found to reside in coding areas of the cattle genome and were excluded from the final panel. The remaining 43 SNPs exhibited genotype frequencies which were in Hardy Weinberg Equilibrium. SNPs on the same chromosome were observed to have no significant linkage disequilibrium/allelic association. Minimal probabilities of uniquely identifying individual animals from each of the breeds were obtained and were observed to be superior to those conferred by the industry standard STR assay.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The 43 SNPs characterised herein may constitute a starting point for the development of a SNP based DNA identification test for European cattle.</p

Rapid, point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection

Background Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID‐19 pandemic. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Search methods Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included studies of people with either suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). Data collection and analysis Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS‐2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. Main results Seventy‐eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre‐prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 based on a single RT‐PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID‐19. Antigen tests Forty‐eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self‐testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer’s instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. Authors' conclusions Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID‐19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID‐19 diagnostics (‘acceptable’ sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory‐based RT‐PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT‐PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT‐PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self‐testing) are required

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2–4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease