Assessing exposure in epidemiologic studies to disinfection by-products in drinking water: report from an international workshop.

The inability to accurately assess exposure has been one of the major shortcomings of epidemiologic studies of disinfection by-products (DBPs) in drinking water. A number of contributing factors include a) limited information on the identity, occurrence, toxicity, and pharmacokinetics of the many DBPs that can be formed from chlorine, chloramine, ozone, and chlorine dioxide disinfection; b) the complex chemical interrelationships between DBPs and other parameters within a municipal water distribution system; and c) difficulties obtaining accurate and reliable information on personal activity and water consumption patterns. In May 2000, an international workshop was held to bring together various disciplines to develop better approaches for measuring DBP exposure for epidemiologic studies. The workshop reached consensus about the clear need to involve relevant disciplines (e.g., chemists, engineers, toxicologists, biostatisticians and epidemiologists) as partners in developing epidemiologic studies of DBPs in drinking water. The workshop concluded that greater collaboration of epidemiologists with water utilities and regulators should be encouraged in order to make regulatory monitoring data more useful for epidemiologic studies. Similarly, exposure classification categories in epidemiologic studies should be chosen to make results useful for regulatory or policy decision making

Hydrokinetic Turbine Effects on Fish Swimming Behaviour

Hydrokinetic turbines, targeting the kinetic energy of fast-flowing currents, are under development with some turbines already deployed at ocean sites around the world. It remains virtually unknown as to how these technologies affect fish, and rotor collisions have been postulated as a major concern. In this study the effects of a vertical axis hydrokinetic rotor with rotational speeds up to 70 rpm were tested on the swimming patterns of naturally occurring fish in a subtropical tidal channel. Fish movements were recorded with and without the rotor in place. Results showed that no fish collided with the rotor and only a few specimens passed through rotor blades. Overall, fish reduced their movements through the area when the rotor was present. This deterrent effect on fish increased with current speed. Fish that passed the rotor avoided the near-field, about 0.3 m from the rotor for benthic reef fish. Large predatory fish were particularly cautious of the rotor and never moved closer than 1.7 m in current speeds above 0.6 ms-1. The effects of the rotor differed among taxa and feeding guilds and it is suggested that fish boldness and body shape influenced responses. In conclusion, the tested hydrokinetic turbine rotor proved non-hazardous to fish during the investigated conditions. However, the results indicate that arrays comprising multiple turbines may restrict fish movements, particularly for large species, with possible effects on habitat connectivity if migration routes are exploited. Arrays of the investigated turbine type and comparable systems should therefore be designed with gaps of several metres width to allow large fish to pass through. In combination with further research the insights from this study can be used for guiding the design of hydrokinetic turbine arrays where needed, so preventing ecological impacts

Abstracts from the 8th International Conference on cGMP Generators, Effectors and Therapeutic Implications

This work was supported by a restricted research grant of Bayer AG

Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial

Background Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. Methods RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Findings Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61–69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1–10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688–1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4–82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6–83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population

Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial

Background Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. Methods RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00541047 . Findings Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60–69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0–10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612–0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6–75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2–81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society

Expert Example Standards but not Idea Unit Standards Help Learners Accurately Evaluate the Quality of Self-Generated Examples

Generating own examples for previously encountered new concepts is a common learning activity. Unfortunately, research has shown that students are not able to accurately evaluate the quality of their own examples. Instructional support measures such as idea unit standards have turned out to be ineffective in evaluating the quality of self-generated examples. In the present study, we investigated the benefits of a relatively parsimonious means to enhance judgment accuracy in example generation tasks, i.e. the provision of expert examples as external standards. For this purpose, we varied whether N = 131 university students were supported by expert example standards (with vs. without) and idea unit standards (with vs. without) in evaluating the quality of self-generated examples that illustrated new declarative concepts

Optimizing the effects of standards on self-assessment accuracy in tasks with many solutions

Selbsteinschätzungen können sich positiv auf selbst-regulierte Lernprozesse auswirken, sind allerdings häufig von Ungenauigkeit geprägt. Das Bereitstellen von Standards als korrekte Lösungen zu einer Aufgabe kann diesen Ungenauigkeiten entgegenwirken, insbesondere in Aufgaben mit nur einer korrekten Lösung. Weniger erforscht sind die Effekte von Standards in Aufgaben mit mehreren richtigen Lösungen, wie das Generieren von Beispielen. Mithilfe von vier Experimenten wurden in der vorliegenden Dissertation metakognitive und kognitive Effekte von Standards in Beispielgenerierungsaufgaben untersucht. Korrekte Lösungsstandards konnten die Urteilsgenauigkeit und den Lernerfolg fördern. Die unterstützte Verarbeitung dieser Standards verstärkte ihre metakognitiven Vorteile. Falsche Lösungsstandards zeigten dagegen keine positiven Effekte. Die Ergebnisse stellen einen vielversprechenden Ausgangspunkt für weitere Untersuchungen zur Wirksamkeit von Standards in unterschiedlichen Aufgabentypen dar

Expert example standards but not idea unit standards help learners accurately evaluate the quality of self-generated examples

Generating own examples for previously encountered new concepts is a common and highly effective learning activity, at least when the examples are of high quality. Unfortunately, however, students are not able to accurately evaluate the quality of their own examples and instructional support measures such as idea unit standards that have been found to enhance the accuracy of self-evaluations in other learning activities, have turned out to be ineffective in example generation. Hence, at least when learners generate examples in self-regulated learning settings in which they scarcely receive instructor feedback, they cannot take beneficial regulation decisions concerning when to continue and when to stop investing effort in example generation. The present study aimed at investigating the benefits of a relatively parsimonious means to enhance judgment accuracy in example generation tasks, i.e. the provision of expert examples as external standards. For this purpose, in a 2×2 factorial experiment we varied whether $\it N$ = 131 university students were supported by expert example standards (with vs. without) and idea unit standards (with vs. without) in evaluating the quality of self-generated examples that illustrated new declarative concepts. We found that the provision of expert example standards reduced bias and enhanced absolute judgment accuracy, whereas idea unit standards had no beneficial effects. We conclude that expert example standards are a promising means to enhance judgment accuracy in evaluating the quality of self-generated examples