Threats of harm posted on Facebook: the viewing and response by friends

2013 Fall.Includes bibliographical references.This qualitative study explored how people define and respond to threatening language that is posted in Facebook. Basic Interpretive Qualitative Research was used to see how the 16 participants made meaning of threats that were posted in Facebook and how they responded to the posted threats. The data was collected through personal interviews with 16 traditional age college age men and women. The participants were asked a number of questions related to threatening language, including their personal definition as well as how they believed they would respond to threats and how they have responded to similar posts. The findings included how there is a large gap between how the user defines his or her friends and acquaintance as it relates to the electronic list of Facebook friends. How threats to social status was an identified fear via the use of Facebook. Threats were identified as directed toward others, and not toward oneself. The participants used Facebook for a variety of reasons ranging from academic, to social, to personal, but the use is in line with Facebook's mission, to connect people and not as much of a communication tool. Implications of this study may apply to threat assessment literature as well as working with bystander training

Phase II Study of Ifosfamide+Doxorubicin in Patients With Advanced Synovial Sarcomas (E1793): A Trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

Purpose Because we had observed in the synovial sarcoma subgroup of a broad phase III advanced soft tissue sarcoma study a significantly greater objective regression rate from ifosfamide+doxorubicin (88%) than from doxorubicin alone (20%) (P = 0.02), the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) decided to further assess this two drug combination in a subsequent Phase II study

Phase II study of IfosfamideþDoxorubicin in patients with advanced synovial sarcomas (E1793): a trial of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

Abstract Purpose Because we had observed in the synovial sarcoma subgroup of a broad phase III advanced soft tissue sarcoma study a significantly greater objective regression rate from ifosfamideþdoxorubicin (88%) than from doxorubicin alone (20%) ( P ¼ 0.02), the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) decided to further assess this two drug combination in a subsequent Phase II study. Patients Between 1994 and 1999, twelve adult patients with advanced synovial sarcomas were enrolled to receive, as their initial chemotherapy, ifosfamide 7.5 gm/m 2 plus doxorubicin 60 mg/m 2 , given intravenously over two consecutive days every 3 weeks. Methods Each day for 2 days doxorubicin 30 mg/m 2 was infused over 5 min through a running i.v., followed by ifosfamide 3750 mg/m 2 over 4 h. Continuous i.v. fluid was infused at 300 mL /h for 3 h on day 1, before chemotherapy was begun; then the infusion was continued at 100 mL /h for a total of 3 days. Mesna 750 mg/m 2 was given 15 min before ifosfamide and at 4 and 8 h after ifosfamide on days 1 and 2 of each treatment cycle. Filgrastim (G-CSF) 5 mg/kg was given subcutaneously each day for 14 days beginning on day 3 of each treatment cycle to limit the severity of neutropenia. Results Five of our 12 patients (42%) experienced partial regression of their advanced synovial sarcomas; however, this first stage result was borderline for proceeding to the second planned stage of accrual and our case accrual was quite poor. Thus, the study was closed after stage one accrual. Our patients received a median of four cycles of chemotherapy (range: 1 to 6). All patients experienced at least grade 3 neutropenia (grade 4 in nine of them), and one patient died of treatment-related sepsis following the initial cycle of chemotherapy. Median survival was 11 months

Differential Effects of Comorbidity on Antihypertensive and Glucose-Regulating Treatment in Diabetes Mellitus – A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity is often mentioned as interfering with "optimal" treatment decisions in diabetes care. It is suggested that diabetes- related comorbidity will increase adequate treatment, whereas diabetes- unrelated comorbidity may decrease this process of care. We hypothesized that these effects differ according to expected priority of the conditions. METHODS: We evaluated the relationship between comorbidity and treatment intensification in a study of 11,248 type 2 diabetes patients using the GIANTT (Groningen Initiative to Analyse type 2 diabetes Treatment) database. We formed a cohort of patients with a systolic blood pressure >/= 140 mmHg (6,820 hypertensive diabetics), and a cohort of patients with an HbA1c >/= 7% (3,589 hyperglycemic diabetics) in 2007. We differentiated comorbidity by diabetes-related or unrelated conditions and by priority. High priority conditions include conditions that are life- interfering, incident or requiring new medication treatment. We performed Cox regression analyses to assess association with treatment intensification, defined as dose increase, start, or addition of drugs. RESULTS: In both the hypertensive and hyperglycemic cohort, only patients with incident diabetes-related comorbidity had a higher chance of treatment intensification (HR 4.48, 2.33-8.62 (p<0.001) for hypertensives; HR 2.37, 1.09-5.17 (p = 0.030) for hyperglycemics). Intensification of hypertension treatment was less likely when a new glucose-regulating drug was prescribed (HR 0.24, 0.06-0.97 (p = 0.046)). None of the prevalent or unrelated comorbidity was significantly associated with treatment intensification. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes-related comorbidity induced better risk factor treatment only for incident cases, implying that appropriate care is provided more often when complications occur. Diabetes- unrelated comorbidity did not affect hypertension or hyperglycemia management, even when it was incident or life-interfering. Thus, the observed "undertreatment" in diabetes care cannot be explained by constraints caused by such comorbidity

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on four research projects.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126-02)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 K04 NS00113-03)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 ROI NS11153-02A1)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS10916-03)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 F32 NS05327)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROI NS12846-02)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 F32 NS05266)Edith E. Sturgis FoundationNational Institutes of Health (Grant 1 R01 NS11680-01)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 RO1 NS11080-04)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 T32 GIM107301-03)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 TOI GM01555-10

Communications Biophysics

Contains research objectives and summary of research on nine research projects split into four sections.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROI NS11000-03)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 P01 NS13126-01)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 RO1 NS11153-01)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 R01 NS10916-02)Harvard-M.I.T. Rehabilitation Engineering CenterU. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Grant 23-P-55854)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 ROl NS11680-01)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROI NS11080-03)M.I.T. Health Sciences Fund (Grant 76-07)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 T32 GM07301-02)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 TO1 GM01555-10

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on nine research projects split into four sections.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 PO1 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 KO4 NS00113)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS07047)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 1 T32 NS07099)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROI NS10916)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS12846)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 RO1 NS14092)Edith E. Sturgis FoundationHealth Sciences FundNational Institutes of Health (Grant 2 R01 NS11680)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 5 F32 NS05327)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 ROI NS11080)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 GM07301

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on eight research projects split into four sections.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 K04 NS00113)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS07047)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS80-06369)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS11153)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 F32 NS06544)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 R01 NS10916)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 RO1 NS12846)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 R01 NS14092)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 R01 NS11680)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl1 NS11080)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 GM07301

Communications Biophysics

Contains reports on nine research projects split into four sections.National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 NS13126)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 K04 NS00113)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 NS07047)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS11153-03)National Institutes of Health (Fellowship 1 T32 NS07099-01)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-16861)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS10916)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 ROl NS12846)National Science Foundation (Grant BNS77-21751)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 RO1 NS14092)Health Sciences FundNational Institutes of Health (Grant 2 R01 NS11680)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 RO1 NS11080)National Institutes of Health (Training Grant 5 T32 GM07301

Cross-Sectional Detection of Acute HIV Infection: Timing of Transmission, Inflammation and Antiretroviral Therapy

BACKGROUND: Acute HIV infection (AHI) is a critical phase of infection when irreparable damage to the immune system occurs and subjects are very infectious. We studied subjects with AHI prospectively to develop better treatment and public health interventions. METHODS: Cross-sectional screening was employed to detect HIV RNA positive, antibody negative subjects. Date of HIV acquisition was estimated from clinical history and correlated with sequence diversity assessed by single genome amplification (SGA). Twenty-two cytokines/chemokines were measured from enrollment through week 24. RESULTS: Thirty-seven AHI subjects were studied. In 7 participants with limited exposure windows, the median exposure to HIV occurred 14 days before symptom onset. Lack of viral sequence diversification confirmed the short duration of infection. Transmission dates estimated by SGA/sequencing using molecular clock models correlated with transmission dates estimated by symptom onset in individuals infected with single HIV variants (mean of 28 versus 33 days). Only 10 of 22 cytokines/chemokines were significantly elevated among AHI participants at enrollment compared to uninfected controls, and only 4 participants remained seronegative at enrollment. DISCUSSION: The results emphasize the difficulty in recruiting subjects early in AHI. Viral sequence diversity proved accurate in estimating time of infection. Regardless of aggressive screening, peak viremia and inflammation occurred before enrollment and potential intervention. Given the personal and public health importance, improved AHI detection is urgently needed