Foot Posture Index Does Not Correlate with Dynamic Foot Assessment Performed via Baropodometric Examination: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background. Clinicians employ foot morphology assessment to evaluate the functionality of the method and anticipate possible injuries. This study aims to correlate static foot posture and the dynamic barefoot evaluation in a sample of healthy adult participants. Methods. The foot posture was evaluated using the Foot Posture Index-6 (FPI-6) and the dynamics were evaluated through baropodometric examination. Two operators independently assessed the participants’ foot posture through FPI-6, and then a dynamic evaluation was performed by asking them to walk 8 times across a platform. One hundred participants (mean age: 32.15 ± 7.49) were enrolled. Results. The inter-rater agreement between the two assessors was found to be excellent. The majority of the feet belonged to the 0 < FPI < 4 class (32%), followed by the 4 < FPI < 8 (31%) and the FPI > 8 ranges (19.5%). Our “area of contact” analysis showed a significant poor correlation between FPI and total foot, midfoot, and the second metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) (−0.3 < r < 0). Regarding “force” parameters, the analysis showed a poor correlation between the midfoot, hallux, and the second toe (−0.2 < r < 2); finally the “pressure” analysis showed a poor correlation between FPI, the fourth MTPJ, and the second toe (−0.2 < rs < 0.3) and a moderate correlation between the hallux (r = 0.374) and the fifth MTPJ (r = 0.427). Conclusions. This study emphasizes the constrained correlation between static foot posture observation and dynamic barefoot examination

Vibrotactile-based rehabilitation on balance and gait in patients with neurological diseases: A systematic review and metanalysis

Postural instability and fear of falling represent two major causes of decreased mobility and quality of life in cerebrovascular and neurologic diseases. In recent years, rehabilitation strategies were carried out considering a combined sensorimotor intervention and an active involvement of the patients during the rehabilitation sessions. Accordingly, new technological devices and paradigms have been developed to increase the effectiveness of rehabilitation by integrating multisensory information and augmented feedback promoting the involvement of the cognitive paradigm in neurorehabilitation. In this context, the vibrotactile feedback (VF) could represent a peripheral therapeutic input, in order to provide spatial proprioceptive information to guide the patient during task-oriented exercises. The present systematic review and metanalysis aimed to explore the effectiveness of the VF on balance and gait rehabilitation in patients with neurological and cerebrovascular diseases. A total of 18 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. Due to the lack of high-quality studies and heterogeneity of treatments protocols, clinical practice recommendations on the efficacy of VF cannot be made. Results show that VF-based intervention could be a safe complementary sensory-motor approach for balance and gait rehabilitation in patients with neurological and cerebrovascular diseases. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed

Camtrap DP: an open standard for the FAIR exchange and archiving of camera trap data

Camera trapping has revolutionized wildlife ecology and conservation by providing automated data acquisition, leading to the accumulation of massive amounts of camera trap data worldwide. Although management and processing of camera trap-derived Big Data are becoming increasingly solvable with the help of scalable cyber-infrastructures, harmonization and exchange of the data remain limited, hindering its full potential. There is currently no widely accepted standard for exchanging camera trap data. The only existing proposal, “Camera Trap Metadata Standard” (CTMS), has several technical shortcomings and limited adoption. We present a new data exchange format, the Camera Trap Data Package (Camtrap DP), designed to allow users to easily exchange, harmonize and archive camera trap data at local to global scales. Camtrap DP structures camera trap data in a simple yet flexible data model consisting of three tables (Deployments, Media and Observations) that supports a wide range of camera deployment designs, classification techniques (e.g., human and AI, media-based and event-based) and analytical use cases, from compiling species occurrence data through distribution, occupancy and activity modeling to density estimation. The format further achieves interoperability by building upon existing standards, Frictionless Data Package in particular, which is supported by a suite of open software tools to read and validate data. Camtrap DP is the consensus of a long, in-depth, consultation and outreach process with standard and software developers, the main existing camera trap data management platforms, major players in the field of camera trapping and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Under the umbrella of the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), Camtrap DP has been developed openly, collaboratively and with version control from the start. We encourage camera trapping users and developers to join the discussion and contribute to the further development and adoption of this standard. Biodiversity data, camera traps, data exchange, data sharing, information standardspublishedVersio

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. Interpretation: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

Mammal responses to global changes in human activity vary by trophic group and landscape

Wildlife must adapt to human presence to survive in the Anthropocene, so it is critical to understand species responses to humans in different contexts. We used camera trapping as a lens to view mammal responses to changes in human activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Across 163 species sampled in 102 projects around the world, changes in the amount and timing of animal activity varied widely. Under higher human activity, mammals were less active in undeveloped areas but unexpectedly more active in developed areas while exhibiting greater nocturnality. Carnivores were most sensitive, showing the strongest decreases in activity and greatest increases in nocturnality. Wildlife managers must consider how habituation and uneven sensitivity across species may cause fundamental differences in human–wildlife interactions along gradients of human influence.Peer reviewe