26 research outputs found
Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research
Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4
While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge
of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In
the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of
Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus
crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced
environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian
Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by
2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status,
much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
Rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high in-hospital mortality. Alveolar recruitment followed by ventilation at optimal titrated PEEP may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury and improve oxygenation in patients with ARDS, but the effects on mortality and other clinical outcomes remain unknown. This article reports the rationale, study design, and analysis plan of the Alveolar Recruitment for ARDS Trial (ART). Methods/Design: ART is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized (concealed), controlled trial, which aims to determine if maximum stepwise alveolar recruitment associated with PEEP titration is able to increase 28-day survival in patients with ARDS compared to conventional treatment (ARDSNet strategy). We will enroll adult patients with ARDS of less than 72 h duration. The intervention group will receive an alveolar recruitment maneuver, with stepwise increases of PEEP achieving 45 cmH(2)O and peak pressure of 60 cmH2O, followed by ventilation with optimal PEEP titrated according to the static compliance of the respiratory system. In the control group, mechanical ventilation will follow a conventional protocol (ARDSNet). In both groups, we will use controlled volume mode with low tidal volumes (4 to 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight) and targeting plateau pressure <= 30 cmH2O. The primary outcome is 28-day survival, and the secondary outcomes are: length of ICU stay; length of hospital stay; pneumothorax requiring chest tube during first 7 days; barotrauma during first 7 days; mechanical ventilation-free days from days 1 to 28; ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month survival. ART is an event-guided trial planned to last until 520 events (deaths within 28 days) are observed. These events allow detection of a hazard ratio of 0.75, with 90% power and two-tailed type I error of 5%. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion: If the ART strategy with maximum recruitment and PEEP titration improves 28-day survival, this will represent a notable advance to the care of ARDS patients. Conversely, if the ART strategy is similar or inferior to the current evidence-based strategy (ARDSNet), this should also change current practice as many institutions routinely employ recruitment maneuvers and set PEEP levels according to some titration method.Hospital do Coracao (HCor) as part of the Program 'Hospitais de Excelencia a Servico do SUS (PROADI-SUS)'Brazilian Ministry of Healt
Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research
Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost
Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study
Summary
Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally.
Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies
have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of
the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income
countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality.
Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to
hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis,
exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a
minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical
status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary
intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause,
in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status.
We did a complete case analysis.
Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital
diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal
malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome
countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male.
Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3).
Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income
countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups).
Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome
countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries;
p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients
combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11],
p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20
[1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention
(ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety
checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed
(ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of
parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65
[0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality.
Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome,
middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will
be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger
than 5 years by 2030
Circulating tumor markers: a guide to their appropriate clinical use | Comparative summary of recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (PART 2).
Insufficient uptake of systematic search methods in oncological clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND
The use of systematic review methods are widely recognized to be essential in the development of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines to prove their trustworthiness. The objective of this study was to assess the use of systematic search methods by authors of guidelines published in the oncology field.
METHODS
We analyzed 590 guidance documents identified in PubMed, NGC, GIN and web sites for guidelines in 2009-2015 in oncology. The main outcome measure used was incidence of guidance documents supported by a systematic search of the literature. In addition to descriptive analyses, logistic regression was used to evaluate if adequate search methods were explained by guideline characteristics.
RESULTS
Of 590 guidance documents included in the study, 305 (51.7%) declared the use of systematic search methods but only 168 (28.5%) applied methods meeting minimum standards for quality and provided sufficient details to allow classification. 164 (27.8%) guidance documents did not report any use of literature evaluation. Guidance documents produced by a Government Agency in North America (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.16-4.17) and those with a focused scope (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.97-5.56) were positively associated with the use of systematic search methods. We found no association between the year of publication and use of systematic search methods.
CONCLUSIONS
A relatively small number of guidance documents was informed by scientific evidence identified through adequate systematic search methods. We observed substantial room for improvement of applied methods and reporting, especially in documents with a broad focus, or those produced by professional societies or independent expert panels in other continents than North America
Circulating tumor markers: a guide to their appropriate clinical use | Comparative summary of recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (PART 2).
Phenomapping of Patients with Primary Breast Cancer Using Machine Learning-Based Unsupervised Cluster Analysis
Primary breast cancer (PBC) is a heterogeneous disease at the clinical, histopathological, and molecular levels. The improved classification of PBC might be important to identify subgroups of the disease, relevant to patient management. Machine learning algorithms may allow a better understanding of the relationships within heterogeneous clinical syndromes. This work aims to show the potential of unsupervised learning techniques for improving classification in PBC. A dataset of 712 women with PBC is used as a motivating example. A set of variables containing biological prognostic parameters is considered to define groups of individuals. Four different clustering methods are used: K-means, self-organising maps, hierarchical agglomerative (HAC), and Gaussian mixture models clustering. HAC outperforms the other clustering methods. With an optimal partitioning parameter, the methods identify two clusters with different clinical profiles. Patients in the first cluster are younger and have lower values of the oestrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) than patients in the second cluster. Moreover, cathepsin D values are lower in the first cluster. The three most important variables identified by the HAC are: age, ER, and PgR. Unsupervised learning seems a suitable alternative for the analysis of PBC data, opening up new perspectives in the particularly active domain of dissecting clinical heterogeneity