Placing community at the heart of community sport development: introducing the community sport development framework (CSDF)

It is widely accepted that the primary purpose of community sport development (CSD) is to increase participation rates in sport and build capacity to facilitate sporting opportunities. However, in England, Government funding for community sport has often been legitimised on the basis that it can also address a range of broader policy concerns. Despite this, there remains a lack of clarity regarding the precise bound-aries of CSD, which has led to a variety of frameworks being presented to conceptualise and illustrate how CSD delivery might best occur. The aim of this paper is to reconceptualise CSD by proposing a model that places community at the heart of efforts to utilise sport to address wider social concerns. Our aim is to highlight the social, political, and eco-nomic interconnections that impact contemporary CSD work, and to underline the importance of maintaining a central focus on communities as the basis for CSD

Reweaving urban water-community relations: Creative, participatory river “daylighting” and local hydrocitizenship

Framed by questions about ‘hydrocitizenship’ in the 21st century, this co-produced, interdisciplinary arts and humanities-centred research explores the (re)weaving of local knowledges, experiences, perceptions and values of water and place through the concept, process and practice of ‘daylighting hidden rivers’. Located at the nexus of three theoretical frames – ‘participation’, ‘hydrocitizenship’, and ‘daylighting’, it engages reflexively with strong and weak ‘hydrocitizenship’ and with paradigms of ‘daylighting’. Working with diverse communities and organisations in South Bristol (UK), this eco-social research project discovered community concerns and needs, and positioned itself in relation to these in co-production. This involved older people, children and professional stakeholders in a place-specific, ‘catchment’ setting, using novel arts-led, creative, narrative mapping processes. We critically examined the value, opportunities and tensions of this multi-method approach to people’s past, present and future connections and relationships with their local (water) environment, their senses of self and community. Our iterative processes of seeking out ‘lesser heard’ voices were conceived and played out around a braided cascade of ‘openings’: emerging, connecting, enacting, imagining and reflecting. Thinking critically about our oblique, emergent processes, we identify fifteen ‘top tips’ concerning the creative participatory daylighting of lay knowledges and values, and ‘River Visioning’. These can inform co-working with communities to enable and empower citizen engagement with places and local water issues for resilient futures. Our findings contribute new understandings of ‘hydrocitizenship’ and creative participatory ‘daylighting’ in combination, when urban spaces are construed as ‘Water Cities’, cascading both water and narratives. Importantly, our co-production processes with lesser heard groups also exemplify ‘higher-order participation’ in co-visioning resilient futures, with all the messiness, complexity and conflicts exposed

Strength in diversity: enhancing learning in vocationally-orientated, master's level courses

Postgraduate education in geography, especially at the Master’s level, is undergoing significant changes in the developed world. There is an expansion of vocationally-oriented degree programmes, increasing recruitment of international students, integration of work place skills, and the engagement of non-traditional postgraduate students as departments respond to policies for a more ‘inclusive’ higher education. This paper sets the context by outlining some programmatic changes in selected countries (Australia, the UK, and the USA). We briefly reflect on how postgraduate ‘bars’ or ‘levels’ are defined and explore in detail what ‘diversity’ or ‘heterogeneity’ means in these new postgraduate settings. The paper then explores some examples of practice drawn from our own experiences, whilst recognising that relevance will vary in other contexts. Finally we consider how diversity can be harnessed as a strength that has potential to enhance taught elements of contemporary postgraduate education in and beyond the discipline

Antitumor activity and safety of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in patients with high grade ovarian carcinoma and a germline or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: integrated analysis of data from Study 10 and ARIEL2

Objective: An integrated analysis was undertaken to characterize the antitumor activity and safety profile of the oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rucaparib in patients with relapsed high-grade ovarian carcinoma (HGOC). Methods: Eligible patients from Study 10 (NCT01482715) and ARIEL2 (NCT01891344) who received a starting dose of oral rucaparib 600 mg twice daily (BID) with or without food were included in these analyses. The integrated efficacy population included patients with HGOC and a deleterious germline or somatic BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation who received at least two prior chemotherapies and were sensitive, resistant, or refractory to platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR) and progression-free survival (PFS). The integrated safety population included patients with HGOC who received at least one dose of rucaparib 600 mg BID, irrespective of BRCA1/2 mutation status and prior treatments. Results: In the efficacy population (n = 106), ORR was 53.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.8–63.5); 8.5% and 45.3% of patients achieved complete and partial responses, respectively. Median DOR was 9.2 months (95% CI, 6.6–11.6). In the safety population (n = 377), the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were nausea, asthenia/fatigue, vomiting, and anemia/hemoglobin decreased. The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent AE was anemia/hemoglobin decreased. Treatment-emergent AEs led to treatment interruption, dose reduction, and treatment discontinuation in 58.6%, 45.9%, and 9.8% of patients, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred. Conclusions: Rucaparib has antitumor activity in advanced BRCA1/2-mutated HGOC and a manageable safety profile

Energetic costs of cellular and therapeutic control of stochastic mitochondrial DNA populations.

The dynamics of the cellular proportion of mutant mtDNA molecules is crucial for mitochondrial diseases. Cellular populations of mitochondria are under homeostatic control, but the details of the control mechanisms involved remain elusive. Here, we use stochastic modelling to derive general results for the impact of cellular control on mtDNA populations, the cost to the cell of different mtDNA states, and the optimisation of therapeutic control of mtDNA populations. This formalism yields a wealth of biological results, including that an increasing mtDNA variance can increase the energetic cost of maintaining a tissue, that intermediate levels of heteroplasmy can be more detrimental than homoplasmy even for a dysfunctional mutant, that heteroplasmy distribution (not mean alone) is crucial for the success of gene therapies, and that long-term rather than short intense gene therapies are more likely to beneficially impact mtDNA populations

Oral abstracts 3: RA Treatment and outcomesO13. Validation of jadas in all subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis in a clinical setting

Background: Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) is a 4 variable composite disease activity (DA) score for JIA (including active 10, 27 or 71 joint count (AJC), physician global (PGA), parent/child global (PGE) and ESR). The validity of JADAS for all ILAR subtypes in the routine clinical setting is unknown. We investigated the construct validity of JADAS in the clinical setting in all subtypes of JIA through application to a prospective inception cohort of UK children presenting with new onset inflammatory arthritis. Methods: JADAS 10, 27 and 71 were determined for all children in the Childhood Arthritis Prospective Study (CAPS) with complete data available at baseline. Correlation of JADAS 10, 27 and 71 with single DA markers was determined for all subtypes. All correlations were calculated using Spearman's rank statistic. Results: 262/1238 visits had sufficient data for calculation of JADAS (1028 (83%) AJC, 744 (60%) PGA, 843 (68%) PGE and 459 (37%) ESR). Median age at disease onset was 6.0 years (IQR 2.6-10.4) and 64% were female. Correlation between JADAS 10, 27 and 71 approached 1 for all subtypes. Median JADAS 71 was 5.3 (IQR 2.2-10.1) with a significant difference between median JADAS scores between subtypes (p < 0.01). Correlation of JADAS 71 with each single marker of DA was moderate to high in the total cohort (see Table 1). Overall, correlation with AJC, PGA and PGE was moderate to high and correlation with ESR, limited JC, parental pain and CHAQ was low to moderate in the individual subtypes. Correlation coefficients in the extended oligoarticular, rheumatoid factor negative and enthesitis related subtypes were interpreted with caution in view of low numbers. Conclusions: This study adds to the body of evidence supporting the construct validity of JADAS. JADAS correlates with other measures of DA in all ILAR subtypes in the routine clinical setting. Given the high frequency of missing ESR data, it would be useful to assess the validity of JADAS without inclusion of the ESR. Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Table 1Spearman's correlation between JADAS 71 and single markers DA by ILAR subtype ILAR Subtype Systemic onset JIA Persistent oligo JIA Extended oligo JIA Rheumatoid factor neg JIA Rheumatoid factor pos JIA Enthesitis related JIA Psoriatic JIA Undifferentiated JIA Unknown subtype Total cohort Number of children 23 111 12 57 7 9 19 7 17 262 AJC 0.54 0.67 0.53 0.75 0.53 0.34 0.59 0.81 0.37 0.59 PGA 0.63 0.69 0.25 0.73 0.14 0.05 0.50 0.83 0.56 0.64 PGE 0.51 0.68 0.83 0.61 0.41 0.69 0.71 0.9 0.48 0.61 ESR 0.28 0.31 0.35 0.4 0.6 0.85 0.43 0.7 0.5 0.53 Limited 71 JC 0.29 0.51 0.23 0.37 0.14 -0.12 0.4 0.81 0.45 0.41 Parental pain 0.23 0.62 0.03 0.57 0.41 0.69 0.7 0.79 0.42 0.53 Childhood health assessment questionnaire 0.25 0.57 -0.07 0.36 -0.47 0.84 0.37 0.8 0.66 0.4

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

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

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570