Can previously sedentary females use the feeling scale to regulate exercise intensity in a gym environment? an observational study

Background Recent research suggests that the Feeling Scale (FS) can be used as a method of exercise intensity regulation to maintain a positive affective response during exercise. However, research to date has been carried out in laboratories and is not representative of natural exercise environments. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether sedentary women can self-regulate their exercise intensity using the FS to experience positive affective responses in a gym environment using their own choice of exercise mode; cycling or treadmill. Methods Fourteen females (24.9 years ± 5.2; height 166.7 ± 5.7 cm; mass 66.3 ± 13.4 kg; BMI 24.1 ± 5.5)) completed a submaximal exercise test and each individual’s ventilatory threshold (V˙T) was identified. Following this, three 20 min gym-based exercise trials, either on a bike or treadmill were performed at an intensity that was self-selected and perceived to correspond to the FS value of +3 (good). Oxygen uptake, heart rate (HR) and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured during exercise at the participants chosen intensity. Results Results indicated that on average participants worked close to their V˙T and increased their exercise intensity during the 20-min session. Participants worked physiologically harder during cycling exercise. Consistency of oxygen uptake, HR and RPE across the exercise trials was high. Conclusion The data indicate that previously sedentary women can use the FS in an ecological setting to regulate their exercise intensity and that regulating intensity to feel ‘good’ should lead to individuals exercising at an intensity that would result in cardiovascular gains if maintained

BA in Photographic Media Graduate Show 2016

The work seen in this book relates to the students’ major final photographic project of 20 Credits, consisting of: Book/Folio, Written Visual Diary to support the project + Exhibition. Contributors: Alexksandra Isats, Charlotte Herron, Claudia Verdecchia, David Fogarty, Declan Kelly, Deirdre Fallon, Giselle Sanguino Romero, Hannah Tiernan, Joseph Chatham, John Carroll, Jozsef Kukola, Justina Brazauskalte, Lauren Gaynor, Pablo Jean, Paul Quigley, Simon Walsh, Sunniva Lervik, Tetyana Voloshyn

Typical investigational medicinal products follow relatively uniform regulations in 10 European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In order to facilitate multinational clinical research, regulatory requirements need to become international and harmonised. The EU introduced the Directive 2001/20/EC in 2004, regulating investigational medicinal products in Europe.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a survey in order to identify the national regulatory requirements for major categories of clinical research in ten European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) countries-Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom-covering approximately 70% of the EU population. Here we describe the results for regulatory requirements for typical investigational medicinal products, in the ten countries.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our results show that the ten countries have fairly harmonised definitions of typical investigational medicinal products. Clinical trials assessing typical investigational medicinal products require authorisation from a national competent authority in each of the countries surveyed. The opinion of the competent authorities is communicated to the trial sponsor within the same timelines, i.e., no more than 60 days, in all ten countries. The authority to which the application has to be sent to in the different countries is not fully harmonised.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Directive 2001/20/EC defined the term 'investigational medicinal product' and all regulatory requirements described therein are applicable to investigational medicinal products. Our survey showed, however, that those requirements had been adopted in ten European countries, not for investigational medicinal products overall, but rather a narrower category which we term 'typical' investigational medicinal products. The result is partial EU harmonisation of requirements and a relatively navigable landscape for the sponsor regarding typical investigational medicinal products.</p

Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

Phenomic and genomic prediction of yield on multiple locations in winter wheat

Genomic selection has recently become an established part of breeding strategies in cereals. However, a limitation of linear genomic prediction models for complex traits such as yield is that these are unable to accommodate Genotype by Environment effects, which are commonly observed over trials on multiple locations. In this study, we investigated how this environmental variation can be captured by the collection of a large number of phenomic markers using high-throughput field phenotyping and whether it can increase GS prediction accuracy. For this purpose, 44 winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) elite populations, comprising 2,994 lines, were grown on two sites over 2 years, to approximate the size of trials in a practical breeding programme. At various growth stages, remote sensing data from multi- and hyperspectral cameras, as well as traditional ground-based visual crop assessment scores, were collected with approximately 100 different data variables collected per plot. The predictive power for grain yield was tested for the various data types, with or without genome-wide marker data sets. Models using phenomic traits alone had a greater predictive value (R2 = 0.39–0.47) than genomic data (approximately R2 = 0.1). The average improvement in predictive power by combining trait and marker data was 6%–12% over the best phenomic-only model, and performed best when data from one full location was used to predict the yield on an entire second location. The results suggest that genetic gain in breeding programmes can be increased by utilisation of large numbers of phenotypic variables using remote sensing in field trials, although at what stage of the breeding cycle phenomic selection could be most profitably applied remains to be answered

Common definition for categories of clinical research: a prerequisite for a survey on regulatory requirements by the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN)

Abstract Background Thorough knowledge of the regulatory requirements is a challenging prerequisite for conducting multinational clinical studies in Europe given their complexity and heterogeneity in regulation and perception across the EU member states. Methods In order to summarise the current situation in relation to the wide spectrum of clinical research, the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) developed a multinational survey in ten European countries. However a lack of common classification framework for major categories of clinical research was identified, and therefore reaching an agreement on a common classification was the initial step in the development of the survey. Results The ECRIN transnational working group on regulation, composed of experts in the field of clinical research from ten European countries, defined seven major categories of clinical research that seem relevant from both the regulatory and the scientific points of view, and correspond to congruent definitions in all countries: clinical trials on medicinal products; clinical trials on medical devices; other therapeutic trials (including surgery trials, transplantation trials, transfusion trials, trials with cell therapy, etc.); diagnostic studies; clinical research on nutrition; other interventional clinical research (including trials in complementary and alternative medicine, trials with collection of blood or tissue samples, physiology studies, etc.); and epidemiology studies. Our classification was essential to develop a survey focused on protocol submission to ethics committees and competent authorities, procedures for amendments, requirements for sponsor and insurance, and adverse event reporting following five main phases: drafting, consensus, data collection, validation, and finalising. Conclusion The list of clinical research categories as used for the survey could serve as a contribution to the, much needed, task of harmonisation and simplification of the regulatory requirements for clinical research in Europe.</p