(E)-2-[4-(2-Chloro­phen­yl)but-3-en-2-yl­idene]malononitrile

There are two independent but virtually identical mol­ecules in the asymmetric unit of the title compound, C13H19ClN2. Each mol­ecular skeleton displays an approximately planar structure except for the methyl group [the r.m.s. deviations for all 16 non-H atoms are 0.039 (mol­ecule 1) and 0.056 Å (mol­ecule 2)]. An E configuration is found about each of the C=C bonds. The crystal packing is stabilized by C—H⋯N inter­actions that connect the independent mol­ecules into supra­molecular chains along the c-axis direction

2-(7-Methyl-3-oxo-1-phenyl­perhydro­naphthalen-4a-yl)malononitrile

In the title compound, C20H22N2O, both cyclo­hexane rings adopt chair conformations. Weak C—H⋯N and C—H⋯O hydrogen bonding is present in the crystal structure

(2R,3R)-3-(2-Chloro­phen­yl)-N-phenyl­oxirane-2-carboxamide

In the title compound, C15H12ClNO2, the two benzene rings adopt a syn configuration with respect to the ep­oxy ring; the dihedral angles between the ep­oxy ring and the two benzene rings are 59.71 (16) and 67.58 (15)°. There is a weak intra­molecular N—H⋯O bond, which may help to establish the conformation. In the crystal, the mol­ecules are linked into a chain parallel to the b axis through inter­molecular N—H⋯O hydrogen bonds

(E)-2-(1,3-Diphenyl­allyl­idene)malononitrile

The title compound, C18H12N2, adopts an E conformation with the benzyl­idenemalononitrile and phenyl groups located on opposite sides of the C=C bond. The two phenyl rings are oriented at a dihedral angle of 62.49 (7)°

(E)-2-[1-(4-Fluoro­phen­yl)pent-1-en-3-yl­idene]malononitrile

The title mol­ecule, C14H11FN2, is approximately planar except the ethyl group, the maximum atomic deviation being 0.105 (5) Å. The fluoro­phenyl ring and 2-propyl­idene­malononitrile unit are located on the opposite sides of the C=C double bond, showing an E configuration

(E)-N-Benzyl-2-cyano-3-phenyl­acryl­amide

In the title compound, C17H14N2O, the N-benzyl­formamide and phenyl groups are located on the opposite sides of the C=C bond, showing an E configuration; the terminal phenyl rings are twisted to each other at a dihedral angle of 63.61 (7)°. Inter­molecular classical N—H⋯N and weak C—H⋯O hydrogen bonds occur in the crystal structure

2-[(E)-4-(2-Bromo­phen­yl)but-3-en-2-yl­idene]malononitrile

The title compound, C13H19BrN2, is planar structure except for the methyl H atoms, the maximum atomic deviation for the non-H atoms being 0.100 (1) Å. The bromo­phenyl and isopropanylidenemalononitrile units are located on opposite sides of the C=C bond, showing an E configuration

2-[(E)-1-(4-Meth­oxy­phen­yl)pent-1-en-3-yl­idene]malononitrile

In the title compound, C15H14N2O, the mol­ecule skeleton displays an approximately planar structure except for the ethyl group [maximum deviation = 0.042 (1) Å]. The meth­oxy­phenyl ring and butanylidenemalononitrile groups are located on opposite sides of the C=C bond, showing an E configuration. Weak inter­molecular C—H⋯N hydrogen bonding is present in the crystal structure

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat