\u3ci\u3eMylanodon rosei\u3c/i\u3e, a New Metacheiromyid (Mammalia: Palaeanodonta) from the Late Tiffanian (Late Paleocene) of Northwestern Wyoming

Mylanodon rosei is a new genus and species of late Paleocene metacheiromyid palaeanodont from a new late Tiffanian locality, Y2K Quarry, in the Clarks Fork Basin, Wyoming. The type is an adult dentary with P4 and a molariform double-rooted M1. This provides the first evidence that molariform teeth were retained in early Metacheiromyidae. A second specimen is a juvenile dentary with a partial P3 and an unerupted P4. This is the first juvenile dentition known for a Paleocene metacheiromyid. The new specimens enable determination of dental homologies. Reduction of teeth in early metacheiromyids took place from back to front, opening the characteristic posterior diastema. Both Mylanodon and Propalaeanodon, a slightly older metacheiromyid, are intermediate morphologically and temporally between the older Tiffanian epoicotheriid Amelotabes and the younger Clarkforkian and Wasatchian metacheiromyid Palaeanodon. Propalaeanodon has a single-rooted M1, a derived characteristic not found in Mylanodon, suggesting that two lineages are involved and Propalaeanodon was not ancestral to Mylanodon

Mylanodon rosei, a new metacheiromyid (Mammalia, Palaeanodonta) from the late Tiffinian (late Paleocene) of northwestern Wyoming

385-399http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/48666/2/ID533.pd

Systematics and Phylogeny of Late Paleocene and Early Eocene Palaeoryctinae (Mammalia, Insectivora) from the Clarks Fork and Bighorn Basins, Wyoming

p. 119-154http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/41252/1/C31-5.pd

A Randomized Phase II Trial of Epigenetic Priming with Guadecitabine and Carboplatin in Platinum-resistant, Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

© 2020 American Association for Cancer Research Inc.. All rights reserved. Purpose: Platinum resistance in ovarian cancer is associated with epigenetic modifications. Hypomethylating agents (HMA) have been studied as carboplatin resensitizing agents in ovarian cancer. This randomized phase II trial compared guadecitabine, a second-generation HMA, and carboplatin (GþC) against second-line chemotherapy in women with measurable or detectable platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Patients and Methods: Patients received either GþC (guadecitabine 30 mg/m2 s.c. once-daily for 5 days and carboplatin) or treatment of choice (TC; topotecan, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine) in 28-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were RECIST v1.1 and CA-125 response rate, 6-month PFS, and overall survival (OS). Results: Of 100 patients treated, 51 received GþC and 49 received TC, of which 27 crossed over to GþC. The study did not meet its primary endpoint as the median PFS was not statistically different between arms (16.3 weeks vs. 9.1 weeks in the GþC and TC groups, respectively; P ¼ 0.07). However, the 6-month PFS rate was significantly higher in the GþC group (37% vs. 11% in TC group; P ¼ 0.003). The incidence of grade 3 or higher toxicity was similar in GþC and TC groups (51% and 49%, respectively), with neutropenia and leukopenia being more frequent in the GþC group. Conclusions: Although this trial did not show superiority for PFS of GþC versus TC, the 6-month PFS increased in GþC treated patients. Further refinement of this strategy should focus on identification of predictive markers for patient selection

Introduction: looking beyond the walls

In its consideration of the remarkable extent and variety of non-university researchers, this book takes a broader view of ‘knowledge’ and ‘research’ than in the many hot debates about today’s knowledge society, ‘learning age’, or organisation of research. It goes beyond the commonly held image of ‘knowledge’ as something produced and owned by the full-time experts to take a look at those engaged in active knowledge building outside the university walls

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

The rhetoric of “excellence” is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organisations, from art history to zoology. But does “excellence” actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of “excellence” do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate “excellence” as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hypercompetition that arises from the performance of “excellence” is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that “excellence” is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship