Medical conditions in autism spectrum disorders

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a behaviourally defined syndrome where the etiology and pathophysiology is only partially understood. In a small proportion of children with the condition, a specific medical disorder is identified, but the causal significance in many instances is unclear. Currently, the medical conditions that are best established as probable causes of ASD include Fragile X syndrome, Tuberous Sclerosis and abnormalities of chromosome 15 involving the 15q11-13 region. Various other single gene mutations, genetic syndromes, chromosomal abnormalities and rare de novo copy number variants have been reported as being possibly implicated in etiology, as have several ante and post natal exposures and complications. However, in most instances the evidence base for an association with ASD is very limited and largely derives from case reports or findings from small, highly selected and uncontrolled case series. Not only therefore, is there uncertainty over whether the condition is associated, but the potential basis for the association is very poorly understood. In some cases the medical condition may be a consequence of autism or simply represent an associated feature deriving from an underlying shared etiology. Nevertheless, it is clear that in a growing proportion of individuals potentially causal medical conditions are being identified and clarification of their role in etio-pathogenesis is necessary. Indeed, investigations into the causal mechanisms underlying the association between conditions such as tuberous sclerosis, Fragile X and chromosome 15 abnormalities are beginning to cast light on the molecular and neurobiological pathways involved in the pathophysiology of ASD. It is evident therefore, that much can be learnt from the study of probably causal medical disorders as they represent simpler and more tractable model systems in which to investigate causal mechanisms. Recent advances in genetics, molecular and systems biology and neuroscience now mean that there are unparalleled opportunities to test causal hypotheses and gain fundamental insights into the nature of autism and its development

Changes in fire regimes since the last glacial maximum: an assessment based on a global synthesis and analysis of charcoal data

Fire activity has varied globally and continuously since the last glacial maximum (LGM) in response to long-term changes in global climate and shorter-term regional changes in climate, vegetation, and human land use. We have synthesized sedimentary charcoal records of biomass burning since the LGM and present global maps showing changes in fire activity for time slices during the past 21,000 years (as differences in charcoal accumulation values compared to pre-industrial). There is strong broad-scale coherence in fire activity after the LGM, but spatial heterogeneity in the signals increases thereafter. In North America, Europe and southern South America, charcoal records indicate less-than-present fire activity during the deglacial period, from 21,000 to ?11,000 cal yr BP. In contrast, the tropical latitudes of South America and Africa show greater-than-present fire activity from ?19,000 to ?17,000 cal yr BP and most sites from Indochina and Australia show greater-than-present fire activity from 16,000 to ?13,000 cal yr BP. Many sites indicate greater-than-present or near-present activity during the Holocene with the exception of eastern North America and eastern Asia from 8,000 to ?3,000 cal yr BP, Indonesia and Australia from 11,000 to 4,000 cal yr BP, and southern South America from 6,000 to 3,000 cal yr BP where fire activity was less than present. Regional coherence in the patterns of change in fire activity was evident throughout the post-glacial period. These complex patterns can largely be explained in terms of large-scale climate controls modulated by local changes in vegetation and fuel load

Choosing a Voting Procedure for the GDSS GRUS

In group decision-making, the use of Group Decision Support Systems is increasing and in some groups, a facilitator is required to improve communication among participants. The facilitator has several roles in this situation, which include helping decision makers (DMs) to decide which type of aggregation they would prefer in each decision context. Whenever DMs have different objectives regarding the same problem, they might decide a consensual decision is no longer possible. Therefore, other types of aggregation are required. Voting rules are strongly applied in this type of situation. However, the question that arises is: who should decide the voting method? In this article, a framework for choice of a voting procedure in a business decision context is used. It takes the facilitator’s preferences into account while it seeks to choose which voting procedure best suits the environment of the Group Decision Support System GRoUp Support (GRUS)