Neoevolutionism : the new paradigm of the social sciences?

The neoevolutionary paradigm in the social sciences is in the initial stage of development, although the idea of social Darwinism having been discredited, this is actually its second beginning. It seems however, that neo-Darwinism, closely related to evolutionary psychology, has in the last few decades achieved significant cognitive successes, which make it more respected by philosophers of science. The paper analyses relations between the quickly-developing neoevolutionary paradigm and other paradigms of the social sciences. The basis for the analysis is the suggestion by G. Burell and G. Morgan to divide the social sciences into four paradigms

Concert recording 2022-11-20

[Track 1]. Golliwogg’s Cake Walk / Claude Debussy -- [Track 2]. Morning Mood / Edvard Grieg -- [Track 3]. Portraits of Josephine. IV. Thank You, Josephine / Valerie Coleman -- [Track 4]. Petite Offrande Musicale / Nino Rota -- [Track 5]. Variations / Cara Haxo -- [Track 6]. Suite for Wind Quintet / Amanda Harberg

Concert recording 2022-11-20

[Track 1]. Golliwogg’s Cake Walk / Claude Debussy -- [Track 2]. Morning Mood / Edvard Grieg -- [Track 3]. Portraits of Josephine. IV. Thank You, Josephine / Valerie Coleman -- [Track 4]. Petite Offrande Musicale / Nino Rota -- [Track 5]. Variations / Cara Haxo -- [Track 6]. Suite for Wind Quintet / Amanda Harberg

Early mortality from colorectal cancer in England: a retrospective observational study of the factors associated with death in the first year after diagnosis

Background: The United Kingdom performs poorly in international comparisons of colorectal cancer survival with much of the deficit owing to high numbers of deaths close to the time of diagnosis. This retrospective cohort study investigates the patient, tumour and treatment characteristics of those who die in the first year after diagnosis of their disease. Methods: Patients diagnosed with colon (n=65,733) or rectal (n=26,123) cancer in England between 2006 and 2008 were identified in the National Cancer Data Repository. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate the odds of death within 1 month, 1-3 months and 3-12 months after diagnosis. Results: In all, 11.5% of colon and 5.4% of rectal cancer patients died within a month of diagnosis: this proportion decreased significantly over the study period. For both cancer sites, older age, stage at diagnosis, deprivation and emergency presentation were associated with early death. Individuals who died shortly after diagnosis were also more likely to have missing data about important prognostic factors such as disease stage and treatment. Conclusion: Using routinely collected data, at no inconvenience to patients, we have identified some important areas relating to early deaths from colorectal cancer, which merit further research

Thin film-based sensors

publishersversionpublishe

Jazz Fest 1992

Guest artists: Bobby Shew (trumpet), Jane Ira Bloom (saxophone)https://digitalcommons.morris.umn.edu/jazzfest/1013/thumbnail.jp

A visual summary of the EUROCARE-4 results: a UK perspective.

BACKGROUND: This paper provides a one-page visual summary of the previously published relative survival estimates for 42 types of cancers in 23 countries in Europe. METHODS: The cancer patients in these analyses were 15 years or older at the time of their diagnosis in the period 1995-1999. Follow-up was to the end of 2003 and relative survival estimates were computed by the cohort method. RESULTS: The analysis of 1-year survival had good discriminatory power and visibly separated a group of countries with consistently high survival estimates (Switzerland, France, Sweden, Belgium and Italy) and another group of countries with lower estimates (Poland, Czech Republic, Ireland, Denmark and United Kingdom-Northern Ireland). After the first year, there was less variation between the countries. CONCLUSION: To more fully understand the UK situation, a rational comparison would select countries with data-quality, prosperity and healthcare systems that are similar to the United Kingdom. In otherwise comparable populations, a pronounced difference in 1-year survival is most likely to be due to variation in a strong prognostic factor, which exerts its effect in the short term. A likely explanation for the short-term survival deficit in the United Kingdom compared with the Nordic countries is a less favourable stage distribution in the United Kingdom. However, the present superficial analysis does not exclude possible functions for other factors relating to the organisation and quality of cancer care services