Cyclin D1 and mammary carcinoma: new insights from transgenic mouse models

Cyclin D1 is one of the most commonly overexpressed oncogenes in breast cancer, with 45–50% of primary ductal carcinomas overexpressing this oncoprotein. Targeted deletion of the gene encoding cyclin D1 demonstrates an essential role in normal mammary gland development while transgenic studies provide evidence that cyclin D1 is a weak oncogene in mammary epithelium. In a recent exciting development, Yu et al. demonstrate that cyclin D1-deficient mice are resistant to mammary carcinomas induced by c-neu and v-Ha-ras, but not those induced by c-myc or Wnt-1. These findings define a pivotal role for cyclin D1 in a subset of mammary cancers in mice and imply a functional role for cyclin D1 overexpression in human breast cancer

The Relationship Between Belief and Credence

Sometimes epistemologists theorize about belief, a tripartite attitude on which one can believe, withhold belief, or disbelieve a proposition. In other cases, epistemologists theorize about credence, a fine-grained attitude that represents one’s subjective probability or confidence level toward a proposition. How do these two attitudes relate to each other? This article explores the relationship between belief and credence in two categories: descriptive and normative. It then explains the broader significance of the belief-credence connection and concludes with general lessons from the debate thus far

Whither Evidentialist Reliabilism?

Evidentialism and Reliabilism are two of the main contemporary theories of epistemic justification. Some authors have thought that the theories are not incompatible with each other, and that a hybrid theory which incorporates elements of both should be taken into account. More recently, other authors have argued that the resulting theory is well- placed to deal with fine-grained doxastic attitudes (credences). In this paper I review the reasons for adopting this kind of hybrid theory, paying attention to the case of credences and the notion of probability involved in their treatment. I argue that the notion of probability in question can only be an epistemic (or evidential) kind of probability. I conclude that the resulting theory will be incompatible with Reliabilism in one important respect: it cannot deliver on the reductivist promise of Reliabilism. I also argue that attention to the justification of basic beliefs reveals limitations in the Evidentialist framework as well. The theory that results from the right combination of Evidentialism and Reliabilism, therefore, is neither Evidentialist nor Reliabilist

Standing in a Garden of Forking Paths

According to the Path Principle, it is permissible to expand your set of beliefs iff (and because) the evidence you possess provides adequate support for such beliefs. If there is no path from here to there, you cannot add a belief to your belief set. If some thinker with the same type of evidential support has a path that they can take, so do you. The paths exist because of the evidence you possess and the support it provides. Evidential support grounds propositional justification. The principle is mistaken. There are permissible steps you may take that others may not even if you have the very same evidence. There are permissible steps that you cannot take that others can even if your beliefs receive the same type of evidential support. Because we have to assume almost nothing about the nature of evidential support to establish these results, we should reject evidentialism

Does improved functional performance help to reduce urinary incontinence in institutionalized older women? a multicenter randomized clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Urinary incontinence (UI) is a major problem in older women. Management is usually restricted to dealing with the consequences instead of treating underlying causes such as bladder dysfunction or reduced mobility.</p> <p>The aim of this multicenter randomized controlled trial was to compare a group-based behavioral exercise program to prevent or reduce UI, with usual care. The exercise program aimed to improve functional performance of pelvic floor muscle (PFM), bladder and physical performance of women living in homes for the elderly.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twenty participating Dutch homes were matched and randomized into intervention or control homes using a random number generator. Homes recruited 6–10 older women, with or without UI, with sufficient cognitive and physical function to participate in the program comprising behavioral aspects of continence and physical exercises to improve PFM, bladder and physical performance. The program consisted of a weekly group training session and homework exercises and ran for 6 months during which time the control group participants received care as usual. Primary outcome measures after 6 months were presence or absence of UI, frequency of episodes (measured by participants and caregivers (not blinded) using a 3-day bladder diary) and the Physical Performance Test (blinded). Linear and logistic regression analysis based on the Intention to Treat (ITT) principle using an imputed data set and per protocol analysis including all participants who completed the study and intervention (minimal attendance of 14 sessions).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>102 participants were allocated to the program and 90 to care as usual. ITT analysis (n = 85 intervention, n = 70 control) showed improvement of physical performance (intervention +8%; control −7%) and no differences on other primary and secondary outcome measures. Per protocol analysis (n = 51 intervention, n = 60 control) showed a reduction of participants with UI (intervention −40%; control −28%) and in frequency of episodes (intervention −51%; control −42%) in both groups; improvement of physical performance (intervention + 13%; control −4%) was related to participation in the exercise program.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study shows that improving physical performance is feasible in institutionalized older women by exercise. Observed reductions in UI were not related to the intervention. [Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN63368283]</p