Human surface anatomy terminology for dermatology: a Delphi consensus from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration

BackgroundThere is no internationally vetted set of anatomic terms to describe human surface anatomy.ObjectiveTo establish expert consensus on a standardized set of terms that describe clinically relevant human surface anatomy.MethodsWe conducted a Delphi consensus on surface anatomy terminology between July 2017 and July 2019. The initial survey included 385 anatomic terms, organized in seven levels of hierarchy. If agreement exceeded the 75% established threshold, the term was considered - accepted- and included in the final list. Terms added by the participants were passed on to the next round of consensus. Terms with <75% agreement were included in subsequent surveys along with alternative terms proposed by participants until agreement was reached on all terms.ResultsThe Delphi included 21 participants. We found consensus (- ¥75% agreement) on 361/385 (93.8%) terms and eliminated one term in the first round. Of 49 new terms suggested by participants, 45 were added via consensus. To adjust for a recently published International Classification of Diseases- Surface Topography list of terms, a third survey including 111 discrepant terms was sent to participants. Finally, a total of 513 terms reached agreement via the Delphi method.ConclusionsWe have established a set of 513 clinically relevant terms for denoting human surface anatomy, towards the use of standardized terminology in dermatologic documentation.Linked Commentary: R.J.G. Chalmers. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020; 34: 2456- 2457. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.16978.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163915/1/jdv16855_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163915/2/jdv16855-sup-0001-FigS1-S3.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163915/3/jdv16855.pd

A multi-targeted approach to suppress tumor-promoting inflammation

Cancers harbor significant genetic heterogeneity and patterns of relapse following many therapies are due to evolved resistance to treatment. While efforts have been made to combine targeted therapies, significant levels of toxicity have stymied efforts to effectively treat cancer with multi-drug combinations using currently approved therapeutics. We discuss the relationship between tumor-promoting inflammation and cancer as part of a larger effort to develop a broad-spectrum therapeutic approach aimed at a wide range of targets to address this heterogeneity. Specifically, macrophage migration inhibitory factor, cyclooxygenase-2, transcription factor nuclear factor-κB, tumor necrosis factor alpha, inducible nitric oxide synthase, protein kinase B, and CXC chemokines are reviewed as important antiinflammatory targets while curcumin, resveratrol, epigallocatechin gallate, genistein, lycopene, and anthocyanins are reviewed as low-cost, low toxicity means by which these targets might all be reached simultaneously. Future translational work will need to assess the resulting synergies of rationally designed antiinflammatory mixtures (employing low-toxicity constituents), and then combine this with similar approaches targeting the most important pathways across the range of cancer hallmark phenotypes

First observation of the decay Bˉs0→D0K∗0\bar{B}^0_s \to D^0 K^{*0} and a measurement of the ratio of branching fractions B(Bˉs0→D0K∗0)B(Bˉ0→D0ρ0)\frac{{\cal B}(\bar{B}^0_s \to D^0 K^{*0})}{{\cal B}(\bar{B}^0 \to D^0 \rho^0)}

The first observation of the decay $\bar{B}^0_s \to D^0 K^{*0}$ using $pp$ data collected by the LHCb detector at a centre-of-mass energy of 7 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36 pb$^{-1}$, is reported. A signal of $34.4 \pm 6.8$ events is obtained and the absence of signal is rejected with a statistical significance of more than nine standard deviations. The $\bar{B}^0_s \to D^0 K^{*0}$ branching fraction is measured relative to that of $\bar{B}^0 \to D^0 \rho^0$: $\frac{{\cal B}(\bar{B}^0_s \to D^0 K^{*0})}{{\cal B}(\bar{B}^0 \to D^0 \rho^0)} = 1.48 \pm 0.34 \pm 0.15 \pm 0.12$, where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second systematic and the third is due to the uncertainty on the ratio of the $B^0$ and $B^0_s$ hadronisation fractions.Comment: 10 pages, 3 figures, submitted to Phys. Lett. B; ISSN 0370-269

Have Superheavy Elements been Produced in Nature?

We discuss the possibility whether superheavy elements can be produced in Nature by the astrophysical rapid neutron capture process. To this end we have performed fully dynamical network r-process calculations assuming an environment with neutron-to-seed ratio large enough to produce superheavy nuclei. Our calculations include two sets of nuclear masses and fission barriers and include all possible fission channels and the associated fission yield distributions. Our calculations produce superheavy nuclei with A ~ 300 that however decay on timescales of days.Comment: 12 pages, 11 figure