Investigation of the phase behaviour of the 1: 1 adduct of mesitylene and hexafluorobenzene

Variable temperature X-ray diffraction has been used to probe the structure and dynamics of the solid adducts of 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (mesitylene) and hexafluorobenzene. PXRD patterns and DSC traces of near equimolar mixtures reveal two solid-state phase-transitions at 179.2 K and 111.0 K. The crystal structures of all three solid phases of this material have been solved by SXD. In contrast to previous studies on the adduct benzene–hexafluorobenzene, there is pairing of the mesitylene and hexafluorobenzene molecules in all three phases, each consisting of close-packed parallel columns of alternating C6H3(CH3)3 and C6F6 molecules packed face to face in a staggered conformation. Differences in structure between the phases illustrate the subtle interplay of quadrupole versus bond-dipole electrostatic interactions

Look duration at the face as a developmental endophenotype: elucidating pathways to autism and ADHD.

Identifying developmental endophenotypes on the pathway between genetics and behavior is critical to uncovering the mechanisms underlying neurodevelopmental conditions. In this proof-of-principle study, we explored whether early disruptions in visual attention are a unique or shared candidate endophenotype of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We calculated the duration of the longest look (i.e., peak look) to faces in an array-based eye-tracking task for 335 14-month-old infants with and without first-degree relatives with ASD and/or ADHD. We leveraged parent-report and genotype data available for a proportion of these infants to evaluate the relation of looking behavior to familial (n = 285) and genetic liability (using polygenic scores, n = 185) as well as ASD and ADHD-relevant temperament traits at 2 years of age (shyness and inhibitory control, respectively, n = 272) and ASD and ADHD clinical traits at 6 years of age (n = 94).Results showed that longer peak looks at the face were associated with elevated polygenic scores for ADHD (β = 0.078, p = .023), but not ASD (β = 0.002, p = .944), and with elevated ADHD traits in mid-childhood (F(1,88) = 6.401, p = .013, $\eta _p^2$=0.068; ASD: F (1,88) = 3.218, p = .076), but not in toddlerhood (ps > 0.2). This pattern of results did not emerge when considering mean peak look duration across face and nonface stimuli. Thus, alterations in attention to faces during spontaneous visual exploration may be more consistent with a developmental endophenotype of ADHD than ASD. Our work shows that dissecting paths to neurodevelopmental conditions requires longitudinal data incorporating polygenic contribution, early neurocognitive function, and clinical phenotypic variation

An analysis of the relevance of off-balance sheet items in explaining productivity change in European banking

The 1990s have witnessed a significant growth in bank income generated through non-traditional activities, especially for large EU universal banking institutions. Using the non-parametric Malmquist methodology this study analyses the impact of the inclusion of off-balance sheet (OBS) business in the definition of banks' output when estimating total factor productivity change indexes. Whereas the results reinforce the prevalent view in the recent literature, indicating that the exclusion of non-traditional activities leads to a misspecification of banks' output, the impact of the inclusion of these activities varies. Overall, the inclusion of OBS items results in an increase in estimated productivity levels for all countries under study. However, the impact seems to be the biggest on technological change rather than efficiency change. © 2005 Taylor & Francis

Priming with recombinant auxotrophic BCG expressing HIV-1 Gag, RT and Gp120 and boosting with recombinant MVA induces a robust T cell response in mice

In previous studies we have shown that a pantothenate auxotroph of Myocbacterium bovis BCG (BCGΔ panCD ) expressing HIV-1 subtype C Gag induced Gag-specific immune responses in mice and Chacma baboons after prime-boost immunization in combination with matched rMVA and VLP vaccines respectively. In this study recombinant BCG (rBCG) expressing HIV-1 subtype C reverse transcriptase and a truncated envelope were constructed using both the wild type BCG Pasteur strain as a vector and the pantothenate auxotroph. Mice were primed with rBCG expressing Gag and RT and boosted with a recombinant MVA, expressing a polyprotein of Gag, RT, Tat and Nef (SAAVI MVA-C). Priming with rBCGΔ panCD expressing Gag or RT rather than the wild type rBCG expressing Gag or RT resulted in higher frequencies of total HIV-specific CD8 + T cells and increased numbers of T cells specific to the subdominant Gag and RT epitopes. Increasing the dose of rBCG from 10 5 cfu to 10 7 cfu also led to an increase in the frequency of responses to subdominant HIV epitopes. A mix of the individual rBCGΔ panCD vaccines expressing either Gag, RT or the truncated Env primed the immune system for a boost with SAAVI MVA-C and generated five-fold higher numbers of HIV-specific IFN-γ-spot forming cells than mice primed with rBCGΔ panCD containing an empty vector control. Priming with the individual rBCGΔ panCD vaccines or the mix and boosting with SAAVI MVA-C also resulted in the generation of HIV-specific CD4 + and CD8 + T cells producing IFN-γ and TNF-α and CD4 + cells producing IL-2. The rBCG vaccines tested in this study were able to prime the immune system for a boost with rMVA expressing matching antigens, inducing robust, HIV-specific T cell responses to both dominant and subdominant epitopes in the individual proteins when used as individual vaccines or in a mix

Pretreatment serum albumin as a predictor of cancer survival: A systematic review of the epidemiological literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are several methods of assessing nutritional status in cancer of which serum albumin is one of the most commonly used. In recent years, the role of malnutrition as a predictor of survival in cancer has received considerable attention. As a result, it is reasonable to investigate whether serum albumin has utility as a prognostic indicator of cancer survival in cancer. This review summarizes all available epidemiological literature on the association between pretreatment serum albumin levels and survival in different types of cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic search of the literature using the MEDLINE database (January 1995 through June 2010) to identify epidemiologic studies on the relationship between serum albumin and cancer survival. To be included in the review, a study must have: been published in English, reported on data collected in humans with any type of cancer, had serum albumin as <it>one of the </it>or <it>only </it>predicting factor, had survival as one of the outcome measures (primary or secondary) and had any of the following study designs (case-control, cohort, cross-sectional, case-series prospective, retrospective, nested case-control, ecologic, clinical trial, meta-analysis).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 29 studies reviewed on cancers of the gastrointestinal tract, all except three found higher serum albumin levels to be associated with better survival in multivariate analysis. Of the 10 studies reviewed on lung cancer, all excepting one found higher serum albumin levels to be associated with better survival. In 6 studies reviewed on female cancers and multiple cancers each, lower levels of serum albumin were associated with poor survival. Finally, in all 8 studies reviewed on patients with other cancer sites, lower levels of serum albumin were associated with poor survival.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Pretreatment serum albumin levels provide useful prognostic significance in cancer. Accordingly, serum albumin level could be used in clinical trials to better define the baseline risk in cancer patients. A critical gap for demonstrating causality, however, is the absence of clinical trials demonstrating that raising albumin levels by means of intravenous infusion or by hyperalimentation decreases the excess risk of mortality in cancer.</p

Economic Evaluations of Occupational Health Interventions from a Company’s Perspective: A Systematic Review of Methods to Estimate the Cost of Health-Related Productivity Loss

Objectives: To investigate the methods used to estimate the indirect costs of health-related productivity in economic evaluations from a company’s perspective. Methods: The primary literature search was conducted in Medline and Embase. Supplemental searches were conducted in the Cochrane NHS Economic Evaluation Database, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, the Ryerson International Labour, Occupational Safety and Health Index database, scans of reference lists and researcher’s own literature database. Article selection was conducted independently by two researchers based on title, keywords, and abstract, and if needed, full text. Differences were resolved by a consensus procedure. Articles were selected based on seven criteria addressing study population, type of intervention, comparative intervention, outcome, costs, language and perspective, respectively. Characteristics of the measurement and valuation of health-related productivity were extracted and analyzed descriptively. Results: A total of 34 studies were included. Costs of health-related productivity were estimated using (a combination of) data related to sick leave, compensated sick leave, light or modified duty or work presenteeism. Data were collected from different sources (e.g. administrative databases, worker self-report, supervisors) and by different methods (e.g. questionnaires, interviews). Valuation varied in terms of reported time units, composition and source of the corresponding price weights, and whether additional elements, such as replacement costs, were included. Conclusions: Methods for measuring and valuing health-related productivity vary widely, hindering comparability of results and decision-making. We provide suggestions for improvement

Multidisciplinary outpatient care program for patients with chronic low back pain: design of a randomized controlled trial and cost-effectiveness study [ISRCTN28478651]

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chronic low back pain (LBP) is a major public and occupational health problem, which is associated with very high costs. Although medical costs for chronic LBP are high, most costs are related to productivity losses due to sick leave. In general, the prognosis for return to work (RTW) is good but a minority of patients will be absent long-term from work. Research shows that work related problems are associated with an increase in seeking medical care and sick leave. Usual medical care of patients is however, not specifically aimed at RTW.</p> <p>The objective is to present the design of a randomized controlled trial, i.e. the BRIDGE-study, evaluating the effectiveness in improving RTW and cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary outpatient care program situated in both primary and outpatient care setting compared with usual clinical medical care for patients with chronic LBP.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The design is a randomized controlled trial with an economic evaluation alongside. The study population consists of patients with chronic LBP who are completely or partially sick listed and visit an outpatient clinic of one of the participating hospitals in Amsterdam (the Netherlands). Two interventions will be compared. 1. a multidisciplinary outpatient care program consisting of a workplace intervention based on participatory ergonomics, and a graded activity program using cognitive behavioural principles. 2. usual care provided by the medical specialist, the occupational physician, the patient's general practitioner and allied health professionals. The primary outcome measure is sick leave duration until full RTW. Sick leave duration is measured monthly by self-report during one year. Data on sick leave during one-year follow-up are also requested form the employers. Secondary outcome measures are pain intensity, functional status, pain coping, patient satisfaction and quality of life. Outcome measures are assessed before randomization and 3, 6, and 12 months later. All statistical analysis will be performed according to the intension-to-treat principle.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Usual care of primary and outpatient health services isn't directly aimed at RTW, therefor it is desirable to look for care which is aimed at RTW. Research shows that several occupational interventions in primary care are aimed at RTW. They have shown a significant reduction of sick leave for employee with LBP. If a comparable reduction of sick leave duration of patients with chronic LBP of who attend an outpatient clinic can be achieved, such reductions will be obviously substantial for the Netherlands and will have a considerable impact.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN28478651</p

Who leads research productivity growth? Guidelines for R&D policy-makers

[EN] This paper evaluates to what extent policy-makers have been able to promote the creation and consolidation of comprehensive research groups that contribute to the implementation of a successful innovation system. Malmquist productivity indices are applied in the case of the Spanish Food Technology Program, finding that a large size and a comprehensive multi-dimensional research output are the key features of the leading groups exhibiting high efficiency and productivity levels. While identifying these groups as benchmarks, we conclude that the financial grants allocated by the program, typically aimed at small-sized and partially oriented research groups, have not succeeded in reorienting them in time so as to overcome their limitations. We suggest that this methodology offers relevant conclusions to policy evaluation methods, helping policy-makers to readapt and reorient policies and their associated means, most notably resource allocation (financial schemes), to better respond to the actual needs of research groups in their search for excellence (micro-level perspective), and to adapt future policy design to the achievement of medium-long term policy objectives (meso and macro-level).Jiménez Saez, F.; Zabala Iturriagagoitia, JM.; Zofio, JL. (2013). Who leads research productivity growth? Guidelines for R&D policy-makers. Scientometrics. 94(1):273-303. doi:10.1007/s11192-012-0763-0S273303941Abbring, J. H., & Heckman, J. J. (2008). Dynamic policy analysis. In L. Mátyás & P. Sevestre (Eds.), The econometrics of panel data (3rd ed., pp. 795–863). Heidelberg: Springer.Acosta Ballesteros, J., & Modrego Rico, A. (2001). Public financing of cooperative R&D projects in Spain: the concerted projects under the national R&D plan. Research Policy, 30, 625–641.Arbel, A. (1981). Policy evaluation in the dynamic input–output model. International Journal of Systems Science, 12, 255–260.Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluation research and innovation policy: A systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation, 13, 3–17.Arrow, J. K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for inventions. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factor (pp. 609–625). Princeton: Princeton University Press and NBER.Autio, E. (1997). New, technology-based firms in innovation networks symplectic and generative impacts. Research Policy, 26, 263–281.Balk, B. (2001). Scale efficiency and productivity change. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 15, 153–183.Balzat, M., & Hanusch, H. (2004). Recent trends in the research on national innovation systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 197–210.Berg, S. A., Førsund, F. R., & Jansen, E. S. (1992). Malmquist indices of productivity growth during the deregulation of Norwegian banking. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, S211–S228.Bergek, A., Carlsson, B., Lindmark, S., Rickne, A., & Jacobsson, S. (2008). Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis. Research Policy, 37, 407–429.Bonaccorsi, A., & Daraio, C. (2005). Exploring size and agglomeration effects on public research productivity. Scientometrics, 63(1), 87–120.Buisseret, T. J., Cameron, H., & Georghiou, L. (1995). What difference does it make? Additionality in the public support of R&D in large firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 10, 587–600.Bustelo, M. (2006). The potential role of standards and guidelines in the development of an evaluation culture in Spain. Evaluation, 12, 437–453.Chavas, J. P., & Cox, T. M. (1999). A generalized distance function and the analysis of production efficiency. Southern Economic Journal, 66, 295–318.CICYT. (1987). Programa Nacional de Tecnología de los Alimentos. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia.CICYT (1988). Plan Nacional de Investigación Científica y Desarrollo Tecnológico 1988–1991. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Secretaría de Estado de Universidades e Investigación, Madrid.Cooper, W. W., Seiford, L. M., & Tone, K. (2000). Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references and DEA-software. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.David, P., Mowery, D., & Steinmueller, W. E. (1994). Analyzing the economic payoffs from basic research. In D. Mowery (Ed.), Science and technology policy in interdependent economies (pp. 57–78). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Dopfer, K., Foster, J., & Potts, J. (2004). Micro-meso-macro. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 263–279.Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (2008). Comparing national systems of innovation in Asia and Europe: Theory and comparative framework. In C. Edquist & L. Hommen (Eds.), Small country innovation systems: Globalisation, change and policy in Asia and Europe (pp. 1–28). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., & Zhang, Z. (1994). Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries. American Economic Review, 84, 66–83.Farrell, M. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, General, 120(3), 253–281.Førsund, F. R. (1993). Productivity growth in Norwegian ferries. In H. O. Fried, C. A. K. Lovell, & S. S. Schmidt (Eds.), The measurement of productive efficiency: Techniques and applications (pp. 352–373). New York: Oxford University Press.Førsund, F. R. (1997). The Malmquist productivity index, TFP and scale. University of Oslo, Oslo: Working Paper, Department of Economics and Business Administration.Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Printer Publishers.García-Martínez, M., & Briz, J. (2000). Innovation in the Spanish food & drink industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3, 155–176.Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.Grammatikopoulos, V., Kousteiios, A., Tsigilis, N., & Theodorakis, Y. (2004). Applying dynamic evaluation approach in education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30, 255–263.Grifell-Tatjé, E., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1999). A generalized Malmquist productivity index. Top, 7(1), 81–101.Grimpe, C., & Sofka, W. (2007). Search patterns and absorptive capacity: A comparison of low- and high-technology firms from thirteen European countries. Discussion paper no. 07-062. Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), Mannheim, Germany.Guan, J., & Wang, J. (2004). Evaluation and interpretation of knowledge production efficiency. Scientometrics, 59(1), 131–155.Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 413–432.Jiménez-Sáez, F. (2005). Una Evaluación del Programa Nacional de Tecnología de Alimentos: análisis de la articulación fomentada sobre el Sistema Alimentario de Innovación en España. PhD dissertation, Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Valencia.Jiménez-Sáez, F., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Zofío, J. L., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2011). Evaluating research efficiency within National R&D Programmes. Research Policy, 40, 230–241.Kao, C. (2008). Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study. OMEGA, 36, 653–664.Kuhlmann, S. (2003). Evaluation of research and innovation policies: A discussion of trends with examples from Germany. International Journal of Technology Management, 26, 131–149.Laitinen, E. K. (2002). A dynamic performance measurement system: Evidence from small Finnish technology companies. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18, 65–99.Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2008). Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Research Policy, 37(5), 823–835.Lee, T.-L., & von Tunzelman, N. (2005). A dynamic analytic approach to national innovation systems: The IC industry in Taiwan. Research Policy, 34, 425–440.Lipsey, R., & Carlaw, K. (1998). A structuralist assessment of technology policies: Taking Schumpeter seriously on policy. Ottawa: Industry Canada Research Publications Program.Lipsey, R., Carlaw, K., & Bekar, C. (2005). Economic transformations: General purpose technologies and long term economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Lundvall, B. Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Printer Publishers.Lundvall, B. Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31, 213–231.Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2008). Actor-oriented analysis of innovation systems: Exploring micro-meso level linkages in the case of stationary fuel cells. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20, 443–464.Metcalfe, J. S. (2002). Equilibrium and evolutionary foundations of competition and technology policy: New perspectives on the division of labour and the innovation process. CRIC Working Papers series, University of Manchester.Miettinen, R. (1999). The riddle of things. Activity theory and actor network theory as approaches of studying innovations. Mind, Culture and Activity, 6, 170–195.Molas-Gallart, J., & Davies, A. (2006). Toward theory-led evaluation: The experience of European science, technology, and innovation policies. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 64–82.Mytelka, L. K., & Smith, K. (2002). Policy learning and innovation theory: An interactive and co-evolving process. Research Policy, 31, 1467–1479.Olazarán, M., Lavía, C., & Otero, B. (2004). ¿Hacia una segunda transición en la ciencia? Política científica y grupos de investigación. Revista Española de Sociología, 4, 143–172.Potts, J. (2007). The innovation system & economic evolution. Productivity commission submission, public support for science & innovation, productivity commission, Camberra.Ray, S., & Desli, E. (1997). Productivity growth, technical progress, and efficiency change in industrialized countries: Comment. American Economic Review, 87(5), 1033–1039.Rip, A., & Nederhof, A. J. (1986). Between dirigism and laissez-faire: Effects of implementing the science policy priority for biotechnology in the Netherlands. Research Policy, 15, 253–268.Schmidt, E. K., Graversen, E. K., & Langberg, K. (2003). Innovation and dynamics in public research environments in Denmark: A research-policy perspective. Science and Public Policy, 30, 107–116.Schmoch, U., & Schubert, T. (2009). Sustainability of incentives for excellent research—The German case. Scientometrics, 81(1), 195–218.Shephard, R. (1970). Theory of cost and production functions. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (1998). Productivity growth in industrialized countries. Discussion paper 9810, Universite Catholique de Louvain, Belgium.Van Raan, A. F. J. (2000). R&D evaluation at the beginning of the new century. Research Evaluation, 8, 81–86.Zofio, J. L. (2007). Malmquist productivity index decompositions: A unifying framework. Applied Economics, 39, 2371–2387.Zofio, J. L., & Lovell, C. A. K. (1998). Yet another Malmquist productivity index decomposition. Working paper, Department of Economics, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.Zofio, J. L., & Lovell, C. A. K. (2001). Graph efficiency and productivity measures: An application to US agriculture. Applied Economics, 33(10), 1433–1442.Zofio, J. L., & Prieto, A. M. (2006). Return to dollar, generalized distance function and the Fisher productivity index. Spanish Economic Review, 8, 113–138