31 research outputs found
How can the capability approach contribute to understanding provision for people with learning difficulties?
The capability approach suggests that well-being is fundamentally about the freedom that people have to be and do the things they have reason to value. This paper asks what freedom those adults who experience difficulties in learning have to be and do the things they have reason to value? It draws upon our recently completed literature review on theories of learning for adults with difficulties in learning (Dee, Devecchi and Florian, 2006) where the concepts of âbeingâ and âdoingâ were integrated with a new elaboration of âhavingâ. These three concepts are conceived as an integrated set of purposes for learning and it is argued that educational provision should be person-centred taking into consideration all three purposes. In this paper we show how a notion of having can result from an understanding of well-being that is not just about what people are and what they want to be able to do. It is also about the intrinsic and extrinsic resources that are available to them to be and become. This paper takes up Senâs insight that though individuals may differ in what well-being means to them, it is not how they differ (their functionings) that matters so much but the difference between their capability to choose and achieve different functionings(outcomes) that explains inequality. In this paper we consider the usefulness of focusing on the freedom people have to be and do the things they have reason to value in terms of our conceptualisation of being having and doing as foundational to provision that is more equitable than that which is currently available for adults with learning difficulties
Whose decision? A longitudinal study of influences on the decision-making process during the transition from school of twelve young people with special educational needs
Abstract\ud
This study explores the experiences of twelve young people with a range of special\ud
educational needs and their families during the transition from school, and the\ud
influences upon them. Despite a growing mainstream literature on the processes of\ud
career decision-making, little attention has been paid to the experiences of young\ud
people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities at this point in their lives. An\ud
interpretative, longitudinal approach to the research design was adopted and data were\ud
collected through a combination of interviews, questionnaires and observations. The\ud
author argues that rather than the logical model of decision-making assumed by much\ud
national policy, the process is often messy, complex and unpredictable. A typology of\ud
decision-making processes is proposed. The study goes on to explore both the\ud
influences on and influence of the main participants directly involved in the decisionmaking\ud
process: the young people, their parents or carers, the professionals. Of all\ud
those involved, young people with learning difficulties were least likely to have their\ud
views heard or responded to. Equally, the coping mechanisms of parents, who were\ud
often central to the decision-making process, were not well recognised or understood\ud
by the professionals charged with providing support. It appears that where young\ud
people or parents found difficulty in asserting their preferences, serendipitous or\ud
chance events provided the vehicles through which they could exercise their wills, so\ud
that decisions were made despite rather than because of the formal decision-making\ud
procedures. Overall, the influences on young people with learning difficulties and/or\ud
disabilities are similar to those that influence non-disabled young people, but\ud
insufficient account is taken of these in providing support and guidance
Impact of Different Mammography Systems on Artificial Intelligence Performance in Breast Cancer Screening
Peer reviewedPostprin
Priorities for synthesis research in ecology and environmental science
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the National Science Foundation grant #1940692 for financial support for this workshop, and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) and its staff for logistical support.Peer reviewedPublisher PD
Priorities for synthesis research in ecology and environmental science
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the National Science Foundation grant #1940692 for financial support for this workshop, and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) and its staff for logistical support.Peer reviewedPublisher PD
Recommended from our members
Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.
Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (nâ=â143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (nâ=â152), or no hydrocortisone (nâ=â108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (nâ=â137), shock-dependent (nâ=â146), and no (nâ=â101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707
Refined histopathological predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status : a large-scale analysis of breast cancer characteristics from the BCAC, CIMBA, and ENIGMA consortia
Abstract
Introduction
The distribution of histopathological features of invasive breast tumors in BRCA1 or BRCA2 germline mutation carriers differs from that of individuals with no known mutation. Histopathological features thus have utility for mutation prediction, including statistical modeling to assess pathogenicity of BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants of uncertain clinical significance. We analyzed large pathology datasets accrued by the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA) and the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC) to reassess histopathological predictors of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status, and provide robust likelihood ratio (LR) estimates for statistical modeling.
Methods
Selection criteria for study/center inclusion were estrogen receptor (ER) status or grade data available for invasive breast cancer diagnosed younger than 70Â years. The dataset included 4,477 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 2,565 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 47,565 BCAC breast cancer cases. Country-stratified estimates of the likelihood of mutation status by histopathological markers were derived using a Mantel-Haenszel approach.
Results
ER-positive phenotype negatively predicted BRCA1 mutation status, irrespective of grade (LRs from 0.08 to 0.90). ER-negative grade 3 histopathology was more predictive of positive BRCA1 mutation status in women 50Â years or older (LRâ=â4.13 (3.70 to 4.62)) versus younger than 50Â years (LRâ=â3.16 (2.96 to 3.37)). For BRCA2, ER-positive grade 3 phenotype modestly predicted positive mutation status irrespective of age (LRâ=â1.7-fold), whereas ER-negative grade 3 features modestly predicted positive mutation status at 50Â years or older (LRâ=â1.54 (1.27 to 1.88)). Triple-negative tumor status was highly predictive of BRCA1 mutation status for women younger than 50Â years (LRâ=â3.73 (3.43 to 4.05)) and 50Â years or older (LRâ=â4.41 (3.86 to 5.04)), and modestly predictive of positive BRCA2 mutation status in women 50Â years or older (LRâ=â1.79 (1.42 to 2.24)).
Conclusions
These results refine likelihood-ratio estimates for predicting BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status by using commonly measured histopathological features. Age at diagnosis is an important variable for most analyses, and grade is more informative than ER status for BRCA2 mutation carrier prediction. The estimates will improve BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant classification and inform patient mutation testing and clinical management
Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19
IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.
Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 nonâcritically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022).
INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (nâ=â257), ARB (nâ=â248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; nâ=â10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; nâ=â264) for up to 10 days.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ supportâfree days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes.
RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ supportâfree days among critically ill patients was 10 (â1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (nâ=â231), 8 (â1 to 17) in the ARB group (nâ=â217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (nâ=â231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ supportâfree days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570