67 research outputs found

    Genuine Personality Recognition from Highly Constrained Face Images

    Get PDF
    People are able to accurately estimate personality traits, merely on the basis of \u201cpassport\u201d-style neutral faces and, thus, cues must exist that allow for such estimation. However, up to date, there has been little progress in identifying the form and location of these cues. In this paper we address the problem of inferring true personality traits in highly constrained images using state of art machine learning techniques, in particular, deep networks and class activation maps analysis. The novelty of our work consists in that, differently from the vast majority of the current and past approaches (that refer to the problem of consensus personality rating prediction) we predict the genuine personality based on highly constrained images: the target\u2019s are self ratings on a validated personality inventory and we restrict to passport-like photos, in which so-called controllable cues are minimized. Our results show that self-reported personality traits can be accurately evaluated from facial features. A preliminar analysis on the features activation maps shows promising results for a deeper understanding on relevant facial cues for traits estimation

    Cyclin D1, cyclin E, and p21 have no apparent prognostic value in anal carcinomas treated by radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy

    Get PDF
    The purpose of this study was to assess the potential prognostic and/or predictive value of the expression of cyclin D1, cyclin E, and p21 protein in a series of 98 anal carcinomas (T1-4, N0-3) treated by radiotherapy with (51) or without (47) chemotherapy in one institution. Correlation with Mib1 index and p53 expression was also investigated. Median follow-up for surviving patients was 124 months (range: 30-266). Immunohistochemical staining was performed on pretreatment biopsies, applying a standard ABC technique for cyclin D1 (clone DSC6, DAKO, 1 : 300), cyclin E (clone 13A3, Novocastra, 1 : 100), p21(WAF/CIP1) (clone SX118, DAKO, 1 : 50), p53 (clone DO7, DAKO, 1 : 200), and Mib1 (Ki-67, Dianova, 1 : 20). Tumours were classified into low- or high-expression groups according to the expression level of the protein considered. High expression was found in 51% of tumours for cyclin E, in 33.7% for cyclin D1, and in 65% for p21. None of those factors were significantly associated with clinical variables such as advanced T or N categories. In a monovariate analysis, advanced T and N categories and longer overall treatment time were the only variables that correlated significantly with low rate of local control (LC) and disease-free survival. However, in a subgroup analysis, high p21 expression correlated with a trend for significantly higher 5-year LC (87 vs 68%, P=0.07) in the N0 patients. The results of this study suggest that the cell-cycle proteins investigated are unlikely to be clinically useful in predicting treatment response or prognosis in patients with anal carcinomas

    Phase I study of dose-escalated paclitaxel, ifosfamide, and cisplatin (PIC) combination chemotherapy in advanced solid tumours

    Get PDF
    Based on the already known in vitro synergy between paclitaxel (taxol), cisplatin and oxazophosphorine cytostatics and the broad spectrum of activity of the above drugs we sought to evaluate the paclitaxel (taxol)-ifosfamide-cisplatin (PIC) combination in the outpatient setting in individuals with a variety of advanced solid tumours. Cohorts of patients were entered into six successive dose levels (DLs) with drug doses ranging as follows: paclitaxel 135–215 mg m−2day 1 – (1 h infusion), ifosfamide 4.5–6.0 g m−2(total dose) – divided over days 1 and 2, and cisplatin 80–100 mg m−2(total) – divided over days 1 and 2. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was given from day 5 to 14. Forty-two patients were entered. Eighteen patients had 2–8 cycles of prior chemotherapy with no taxanes or ifosfamide (cisplatin was allowed). The regimen was tolerated with outpatient administration in 36/42 patients. Toxicities included: grade 4 neutropenia for ≤ 5 days in 27% of cycles; 5 episodes of febrile neutropenia in three patients at DL-III, -V and -VI. Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and cumulative grade 3 anaemia were seen in 7% and 13% of cycles respectively. Three cases of severe grade 3 neuromotor/sensory neuropathy were recorded at DL-II, -III, and -V, all after cycle 3. The maximum tolerated dose was not formally reached at DL-V, but because of progressive anaemia and asthenia/fatigue, it was decided to test a new DL-VI with doses of paclitaxel 200 mg m−2, ifosfamide 5.0 g m−2and cisplatin 100 mg m−2; this appeared to be tolerable and is recommended for further phase II testing. The response rate was 47.5% (complete response + partial response: 20/42). The PIC regimen appears to be feasible and safe in the outpatient setting. Care should be paid to neurotoxicity. Phase II studies are starting in non-small-cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer and head and neck cancer at DL-VI. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaig

    Proteomic Changes Resulting from Gene Copy Number Variations in Cancer Cells

    Get PDF
    Along the transformation process, cells accumulate DNA aberrations, including mutations, translocations, amplifications, and deletions. Despite numerous studies, the overall effects of amplifications and deletions on the end point of gene expression—the level of proteins—is generally unknown. Here we use large-scale and high-resolution proteomics combined with gene copy number analysis to investigate in a global manner to what extent these genomic changes have a proteomic output and therefore the ability to affect cellular transformation. We accurately measure expression levels of 6,735 proteins and directly compare them to the gene copy number. We find that the average effect of these alterations on the protein expression is only a few percent. Nevertheless, by using a novel algorithm, we find the combined impact that many of these regional chromosomal aberrations have at the protein level. We show that proteins encoded by amplified oncogenes are often overexpressed, while adjacent amplified genes, which presumably do not promote growth and survival, are attenuated. Furthermore, regulation of biological processes and molecular complexes is independent of general copy number changes. By connecting the primary genome alteration to their proteomic consequences, this approach helps to interpret the data from large-scale cancer genomics efforts

    Fluid Intelligence and Psychosocial Outcome: From Logical Problem Solving to Social Adaptation

    Get PDF
    While fluid intelligence has proved to be central to executive functioning, logical reasoning and other frontal functions, the role of this ability in psychosocial adaptation has not been well characterized.Lower fluid intelligence scores were associated with physical violence, both in the role of victim and victimizer. Drug intake, especially cannabis, cocaine and inhalants and lower self-esteem were also associated with lower fluid intelligence. Finally, scores on the perceived mental health assessment were better when fluid intelligence scores were higher.Our results show evidence of a strong association between psychosocial adaptation and fluid intelligence, suggesting that the latter is not only central to executive functioning but also forms part of a more general capacity for adaptation to social contexts

    Aromatase inhibitor-associated bone and musculoskeletal effects: new evidence defining etiology and strategies for management

    Get PDF
    Aromatase inhibitors are widely used as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. While the agents are associated with slightly improved survival outcomes when compared to tamoxifen alone, bone and musculoskeletal side effects are substantial and often lead to discontinuation of therapy. Ideally, the symptoms should be prevented or adequately treated. This review will focus on bone and musculoskeletal side effects of aromatase inhibitors, including osteoporosis, fractures, and arthralgias. Recent advances have been made in identifying potential mechanisms underlying these effects. Adequate management of symptoms may enhance patient adherence to therapy, thereby improving breast cancer-related outcomes

    Effective and safe proton pump inhibitor therapy in acid-related diseases – A position paper addressing benefits and potential harms of acid suppression

    Full text link

    Reactogenicity and immunogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in the UK: a substudy of two randomised controlled trials (COV001 and COV002)

    Get PDF
    Background COVID-19 vaccine supply shortages are causing concerns about compromised immunity in some countries as the interval between the first and second dose becomes longer. Conversely, countries with no supply constraints are considering administering a third dose. We assessed the persistence of immunogenicity after a single dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222), immunity after an extended interval (44–45 weeks) between the first and second dose, and response to a third dose as a booster given 28–38 weeks after the second dose. Methods In this substudy, volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in the phase 1/2 (COV001) controlled trial in the UK and had received either a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles were invited back for vaccination. Here we report the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of a delayed second dose (44–45 weeks after first dose) or a third dose of the vaccine (28–38 weeks after second dose). Data from volunteers aged 18–55 years who were enrolled in either the phase 1/2 (COV001) or phase 2/3 (COV002), single-blinded, randomised controlled trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and who had previously received a single dose or two doses of 5 × 1010 viral particles are used for comparison purposes. COV001 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and COV002 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04400838, and ISRCTN, 15281137, and both are continuing but not recruiting. Findings Between March 11 and 21, 2021, 90 participants were enrolled in the third-dose boost substudy, of whom 80 (89%) were assessable for reactogenicity, 75 (83%) were assessable for evaluation of antibodies, and 15 (17%) were assessable for T-cells responses. The two-dose cohort comprised 321 participants who had reactogenicity data (with prime-boost interval of 8–12 weeks: 267 [83%] of 321; 15–25 weeks: 24 [7%]; or 44–45 weeks: 30 [9%]) and 261 who had immunogenicity data (interval of 8–12 weeks: 115 [44%] of 261; 15–25 weeks: 116 [44%]; and 44–45 weeks: 30 [11%]). 480 participants from the single-dose cohort were assessable for immunogenicity up to 44–45 weeks after vaccination. Antibody titres after a single dose measured approximately 320 days after vaccination remained higher than the titres measured at baseline (geometric mean titre of 66·00 ELISA units [EUs; 95% CI 47·83–91·08] vs 1·75 EUs [1·60–1·93]). 32 participants received a late second dose of vaccine 44–45 weeks after the first dose, of whom 30 were included in immunogenicity and reactogenicity analyses. Antibody titres were higher 28 days after vaccination in those with a longer interval between first and second dose than for those with a short interval (median total IgG titre: 923 EUs [IQR 525–1764] with an 8–12 week interval; 1860 EUs [917–4934] with a 15–25 week interval; and 3738 EUs [1824–6625] with a 44–45 week interval). Among participants who received a third dose of vaccine, antibody titres (measured in 73 [81%] participants for whom samples were available) were significantly higher 28 days after a third dose (median total IgG titre: 3746 EUs [IQR 2047–6420]) than 28 days after a second dose (median 1792 EUs [IQR 899–4634]; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·0043). T-cell responses were also boosted after a third dose (median response increased from 200 spot forming units [SFUs] per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs; IQR 127–389] immediately before the third dose to 399 SFUs per milion PBMCs [314–662] by day 28 after the third dose; Wilcoxon signed rank test p=0·012). Reactogenicity after a late second dose or a third dose was lower than reactogenicity after a first dose. Interpretation An extended interval before the second dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 leads to increased antibody titres. A third dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 induces antibodies to a level that correlates with high efficacy after second dose and boosts T-cell responses. Funding UK Research and Innovation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Innovation Fund for Medical Science, Thames Valley and South Midlands NIHR Clinical Research Network, AstraZeneca, and Wellcome

    Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca
    corecore