The ocean sampling day consortium

Ocean Sampling Day was initiated by the EU-funded Micro B3 (Marine Microbial Biodiversity, Bioinformatics, Biotechnology) project to obtain a snapshot of the marine microbial biodiversity and function of the world’s oceans. It is a simultaneous global mega-sequencing campaign aiming to generate the largest standardized microbial data set in a single day. This will be achievable only through the coordinated efforts of an Ocean Sampling Day Consortium, supportive partnerships and networks between sites. This commentary outlines the establishment, function and aims of the Consortium and describes our vision for a sustainable study of marine microbial communities and their embedded functional traits

Multicentric study of cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus testing and assessment of triage methods in Latin America : the ESTAMPA screening study protocol

Q1Q1Introduction Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is replacing cytology in primary screening. Its limited specificity demands using a second (triage) test to better identify women at high-risk of cervical disease. Cytology represents the immediate triage but its low sensitivity might hamper HPV testing sensitivity, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where cytology performance has been suboptimal. The ESTAMPA (EStudio multicéntrico de TAMizaje y triaje de cáncer de cuello uterino con pruebas del virus del PApiloma humano; Spanish acronym) study will: (1) evaluate the performance of different triage techniques to detect cervical precancer and (2) inform on how to implement HPV-based screening programmes in LMIC. Methods and analysis Women aged 30–64 years are screened with HPV testing and Pap across 12 study centres in Latin America. Screened positives have colposcopy with biopsy and treatment of lesions. Women with no evident disease are recalled 18 months later for another HPV test; those HPV-positive undergo colposcopy with biopsy and treatment as needed. Biological specimens are collected in different visits for triage testing, which is not used for clinical management. The study outcome is histological high-grade squamous intraepithelial or worse lesions (HSIL+) under the lower anogenital squamous terminology. About 50 000 women will be screened and 500 HSIL+ cases detected (at initial and 18 months screening). Performance measures (sensitivity, specificity and predictive values) of triage techniques to detect HSIL+ will be estimated and compared with adjustment by age and study centre. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), of the Pan American Health Organisation (PAHO) and by those in each participating centre. A Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) has been established to monitor progress of the study, assure participant safety, advice on scientific conduct and analysis and suggest protocol improvements. Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings. Trial registration number NCT01881659Revista Internacional - Indexad

A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity.

BACKGROUND: In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) posted reports claiming that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. These claims clash with recommendations from the World Health Organization and World Federation of Chiropractic. We discuss the scientific validity of the claims made in these ICA reports. MAIN BODY: We reviewed the two reports posted by the ICA on their website on March 20 and March 28, 2020. We explored the method used to develop the claim that chiropractic adjustments impact the immune system and discuss the scientific merit of that claim. We provide a response to the ICA reports and explain why this claim lacks scientific credibility and is dangerous to the public. More than 150 researchers from 11 countries reviewed and endorsed our response. CONCLUSION: In their reports, the ICA provided no valid clinical scientific evidence that chiropractic care can impact the immune system. We call on regulatory authorities and professional leaders to take robust political and regulatory action against those claiming that chiropractic adjustments have a clinical impact on the immune system

The Ocean Sampling Day Consortium

Ocean Sampling Day was initiated by the EU-funded Micro B3 (Marine Microbial Biodiversity, Bioinformatics, Biotechnology) project to obtain a snapshot of the marine microbial biodiversity and function of the world’s oceans. It is a simultaneous global mega-sequencing campaign aiming to generate the largest standardized microbial data set in a single day. This will be achievable only through the coordinated efforts of an Ocean Sampling Day Consortium, supportive partnerships and networks between sites. This commentary outlines the establishment, function and aims of the Consortium and describes our vision for a sustainable study of marine microbial communities and their embedded functional traits

Euclid Near Infrared Spectrometer and Photometer instrument concept and first test results obtained for different breadboards models at the end of phase C

The Euclid mission objective is to understand why the expansion of the Universe is accelerating through by mapping the geometry of the dark Universe by investigating the distance-redshift relationship and tracing the evolution of cosmic structures. The Euclid project is part of ESA's Cosmic Vision program with its launch planned for 2020 (ref [1]). The NISP (Near Infrared Spectrometer and Photometer) is one of the two Euclid instruments and is operating in the near-IR spectral region (900- 2000nm) as a photometer and spectrometer. The instrument is composed of: - a cold (135K) optomechanical subsystem consisting of a Silicon carbide structure, an optical assembly (corrector and camera lens), a filter wheel mechanism, a grism wheel mechanism, a calibration unit and a thermal control system - a detection subsystem based on a mosaic of 16 HAWAII2RG cooled to 95K with their front-end readout electronic cooled to 140K, integrated on a mechanical focal plane structure made with molybdenum and aluminum. The detection subsystem is mounted on the optomechanical subsystem structure - a warm electronic subsystem (280K) composed of a data processing / detector control unit and of an instrument control unit that interfaces with the spacecraft via a 1553 bus for command and control and via Spacewire links for science data This presentation describes the architecture of the instrument at the end of the phase C (Detailed Design Review), the expected performance, the technological key challenges and preliminary test results obtained for different NISP subsystem breadboards and for the NISP Structural and Thermal model (STM)

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 non–critically 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 (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free 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 support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (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 support–free 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

Bruden of Proof and Theory of Judicial Control in EC Competition Law: for a Change of Perspective

Many authors have pointed to a lack of clarity in the existing case law of EC courts in the field of competition law regarding the allocation of the burden of proof, as well as the determination of the standard of proof. This article attempts to clarify the concepts underlying these questions, bearing in mind that the Court reasons in more than one language. It consists in three sections. The first section is of a theoretical nature. It shows how questions regarding the allocation of the burden of proof and judicial control are conceptualised differently in different legal traditions. It also attempts to clarify the notions of burden of proof, standard of proof and standard of control. With regard to these notions, as is often the case, EC case law appears to be a melting pot of different legal traditions. It is thus shown that notions originating both in the common law and in the civil law tradition are useful to understand EC case law in relation to the issues of proof and control. The second section is more descriptive. It states the current law and illustrates with examples from court cases the usefulness of the various notions defined in the first section. It leads to the conclusion that the common law notions of standard of proof and standard of control are not sufficient to understand the intensity of control applied by Community courts over Commission’s decisions. The third section proposes another description of judicial control, based on the notions of “scenario” (depicting the economic story line adduced by the Commission to account for anticompetitive effect) and “economic normality”, as perceived by judges.Le point de départ de cet article est le constat, dressé par de nombreux auteurs, d’une certaine confusion dans la jurisprudence communautaire récente en droit de la concurrence à propos de l’allocation de la charge de la preuve et de ce que certains auteurs appellent le « standard de preuve ». L’article s’efforce d’apporter une clarification conceptuelle de ces questions. Il se compose de trois parties. La première partie est théorique. Elle montre que les questions de preuve et de contrôle du juge sont conceptualisées différemment dans les traditions juridiques des États membres et fait le point sur les notions de charge de preuve, de « standard de preuve » et de « standard de contrôle ». Comme souvent, la jurisprudence communautaire se présente comme un creuset de différentes traditions juridiques, si bien que les concepts de common law et les concepts de droit civil apparaissent les uns et les autres utiles pour éclairer cette jurisprudence. La seconde partie est plus descriptive : elle fait le point sur le droit positif à travers la jurisprudence récente et illustre par des exemples précis l’intérêt des différentes notions qui ont été définies dans la première partie. Cette partie débouche sur le constat selon lequel les notions de « standard de preuve » et de « standard de contrôle », empruntées à la common law, sont insuffisantes pour comprendre l’intensité du contrôle qu’exerce le juge communautaire. La troisième partie propose une autre vision de ce contrôle, construite à partir de notions différentes, principalement la notion de « scénario » (qui désigne « l’histoire économique » élaborée par la Commission pour soutenir qu’un comportement ou une opération sont anticoncurrentiels) et la notion de «normalité économique» telle que perçue par le juge

L'expertise devant les juridictions communautaires

peer reviewedThe EC courts are regularly asked to rule on complex scientific and technical matters, as illustrated by cases concerning the foot and mouth crisis or conglomerate effects in merger control. In order to apprehend these technical issues, the EC courts may, like any other court, rely on experts who are appointed either by the courts themselves or by the parties. However, the law on the use of expert evidence by the EC courts is unclear on many aspects. The purpose of this article is therefore to set out briefly the law on expert evidence, to explore how the EC courts use it and to assess whether improvements are desirable. Section 2 of this article describes how the EC courts use “neutral” expert evidence (i.e., evidence obtained through an expert’s report commissioned by the court). An analysis of the case law reveals a paradox: while the status of neutral expert evidence is clearly defined by the rules of procedure governing the EC courts, such evidence is rarely used in practice. Section 2 therefore also endeavours to explain why the use of neutral expert evidence remains exceptional. Section 3 focuses on how the EC courts use “partisan” expert evidence (i.e., expert evidence that is voluntarily submitted by the parties). It shows that partisan expert evidence is the mirror image of neutral expert evidence: while its procedural status is unclear, it is widely used before the EC courts. Finally, in Section 4, it is argued that this situation is not wholly satisfactory. It is submitted inter alia that there is no convincing justification for systematic self-restraint over technical issues. Some changes are therefore explored which could be contemplated in order to improve the use of expert evidence by the EC courts.Les juridictions communautaires sont régulièrement amenées à trancher des questions complexes ayant une composante technique ou scientifique, ainsi que l’illustrent les affaires dites de la vache folle ou encore les effets d’une opération de concentration de conglomérat. Pour appréhender ces questions techniques, les juridictions communautaires, pourraient, comme d’autres, s’appuyer sur des experts nommés par elles ou bien engagés par les parties. Toutefois, les règles applicables à l’expertise devant les juridictions communautaires manquent à bien des égards de clarté. L’objet de cet article est donc de présenter le droit communautaire applicable à l’expertise, d’examiner l’usage qu’en font les juridictions communautaires et de se demander si des changements seraient souhaitables. La première partie de cet article décrit l’usage que font les juridictions communautaires de l’expertise neutre (l’expertise demandée par le juge). L’analyse de la jurisprudence révèle un paradoxe : alors que le statut de l’expertise neutre est clairement défini dans les règles de procédure applicables aux juridictions communautaires, ce type d’expertise est rarement ordonné. C’est pourquoi il faut tenter d’expliquer pourquoi le recours à l’expertise neutre reste exceptionnel, ce qui est également fait dans la première partie. La deuxième partie traite de l’utilisation des expertises partisanes (c’est-à-dire des expertises produites volontairement par les parties) devant les juridictions communautaires. Il y est démontré que l’expertise partisane est le reflet inversé de l’expertise neutre : alors que son statut procédural n’est pas clair, ce type d’expertise est abondamment utilisé dans le contentieux communautaire. Dans la troisième partie, une critique de l’état du droit positif est présentée. Il y est soutenu qu’il n’y a pas de justification convaincante de la parcimonie avec laquelle les juridictions communautaires ordonnent des expertises. Certains changements envisageables pour améliorer l’utilisation des expertises par les juridictions communautaires sont analysés