Longitudinal double-spin asymmetry and cross section for inclusive neutral pion production at midrapidity in polarized proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 200 GeV

We report a measurement of the longitudinal double-spin asymmetry A_LL and the differential cross section for inclusive Pi0 production at midrapidity in polarized proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 200 GeV. The cross section was measured over a transverse momentum range of 1 < p_T < 17 GeV/c and found to be in good agreement with a next-to-leading order perturbative QCD calculation. The longitudinal double-spin asymmetry was measured in the range of 3.7 < p_T < 11 GeV/c and excludes a maximal positive gluon polarization in the proton. The mean transverse momentum fraction of Pi0's in their parent jets was found to be around 0.7 for electromagnetically triggered events.Comment: 6 pages, 3 figures, submitted to Phys. Rev. D (RC

Functional mechanisms underlying pleiotropic risk alleles at the 19p13.1 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility locus

A locus at 19p13 is associated with breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Here we analyse 438 SNPs in this region in 46,451 BC and 15,438 OC cases, 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 73,444 controls and identify 13 candidate causal SNPs associated with serous OC (P=9.2 × 10-20), ER-negative BC (P=1.1 × 10-13), BRCA1-associated BC (P=7.7 × 10-16) and triple negative BC (P-diff=2 × 10-5). Genotype-gene expression associations are identified for candidate target genes ANKLE1 (P=2 × 10-3) and ABHD8 (P<2 × 10-3). Chromosome conformation capture identifies interactions between four candidate SNPs and ABHD8, and luciferase assays indicate six risk alleles increased transactivation of the ADHD8 promoter. Targeted deletion of a region containing risk SNP rs56069439 in a putative enhancer induces ANKLE1 downregulation; and mRNA stability assays indicate functional effects for an ANKLE1 3′-UTR SNP. Altogether, these data suggest that multiple SNPs at 19p13 regulate ABHD8 and perhaps ANKLE1 expression, and indicate common mechanisms underlying breast and ovarian cancer risk

Genome-Wide Association Study in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers Identifies Novel Loci Associated with Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk

BRCA1-associated breast and ovarian cancer risks can be modified by common genetic variants. To identify further cancer risk-modifying loci, we performed a multi-stage GWAS of 11,705 BRCA1 carriers (of whom 5,920 were diagnosed with breast and 1,839 were diagnosed with ovarian cancer), with a further replication in an additional sample of 2,646 BRCA1 carriers. We identified a novel breast cancer risk modifier locus at 1q32 for BRCA1 carriers (rs2290854, P = 2.7×10-8, HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.09-1.20). In addition, we identified two novel ovarian cancer risk modifier loci: 17q21.31 (rs17631303, P = 1.4×10-8, HR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38) and 4q32.3 (rs4691139, P = 3.4×10-8, HR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.17-1.38). The 4q32.3 locus was not associated with ovarian cancer risk in the general population or BRCA2 carriers, suggesting a BRCA1-specific associat

Event-plane-dependent Dihadron Correlations With Harmonic Vn Subtraction In Au + Au Collisions At S Nn =200 Gev

STAR measurements of dihadron azimuthal correlations (Δφ) are reported in midcentral (20-60%) Au+Au collisions at sNN=200 GeV as a function of the trigger particle's azimuthal angle relative to the event plane, φs=|φt-ψEP|. The elliptic (v2), triangular (v3), and quadratic (v4) flow harmonic backgrounds are subtracted using the zero yield at minimum (ZYAM) method. The results are compared to minimum-bias d+Au collisions. It is found that a finite near-side (|Δφ|π/2) correlation shows a modification from d+Au data, varying with φs. The modification may be a consequence of path-length-dependent jet quenching and may lead to a better understanding of high-density QCD. © 2014 American Physical Society.894DOE; U.S. Department of EnergyArsene, I., (2005) Nucl. Phys. A, 757, p. 1. , (BRAHMS Collaboration), () NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.02. 130;Back, B.B., (2005) Nucl. Phys. A, 757, p. 28. , (PHOBOS Collaboration), () NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03. 084;Adams, J., (2005) Nucl. Phys. A, 757, p. 102. , (STAR Collaboration), () NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03. 085;Adcox, K., (2005) Nucl. Phys. A, 757, p. 184. , (PHENIX Collaboration),. NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.03.086Heinz, U., Kolb, P.F., (2002) Nucl. Phys. A, 702, p. 269. , NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/S0375-9474(02)00714-5Wang, X.-N., Gyulassy, M., (1992) Phys. Rev. Lett., 68, p. 1480. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.1480Adler, S., (2003) Phys. Rev. Lett., 91, p. 072301. , (PHENIX Collaboration), () PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91. 072301;Adams, J., (2003) Phys. Rev. Lett., 91, p. 072304. , (STAR Collaboration), () PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.072304;Adler, C., (2003) Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, p. 082302. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.082302Adams, J., (2005) Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, p. 152301. , (STAR Collaboration), () PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.152301;Aggarwal, M.M., (2010) Phys. Rev. C, 82, p. 024912. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.024912Adams, J., (2004) Phys. Rev. Lett., 93, p. 252301. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.252301Poskanzer, A.M., Voloshin, S.A., (1998) Phys. Rev. C, 58, p. 1671. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1671Alver, B., (2008) Phys. Rev. C, 77, p. 014906. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.014906Feng, A., (2008), Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Particle Physics, CCNU, (unpublished);Konzer, J., (2013), Ph.D. thesis, Purdue University, (unpublished)Agakishiev, H., (STAR Collaboration), arXiv:1010.0690Ackermann, K.H., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A499, p. 624. , (STAR Collaboration),. NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01960-5Ackermann, K.H., (1999) Nucl. Phys. A, 661, p. 681. , (STAR Collaboration),. NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/S0375-9474(99)85117-3Adams, J., (2004) Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, p. 112301. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.112301Borghini, N., Dinh, P.M., Ollitrault, J.Y., (2000) Phys. Rev. C, 62, p. 034902. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.62.034902Adams, J., (2005) Phys. Rev. C, 72, p. 014904. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.014904Abelev, B.I., (2009) Phys. Rev. C, 79, p. 034909. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.034909Bielcikova, J., (2004) Phys. Rev C, 69, p. 021901. , (R) () PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.69.021901;Konzer, J., Wang, F., (2009) Nucl. Instrum. Meth., A606, p. 713. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2009.05.011Mishra, A.P., (2008) Phys. Rev. C, 77, p. 064902. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.064902;Alver, B., Roland, G., (2010) Phys. Rev. C, 81, p. 054905. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.054905Alver, B., Roland, G., (2010) Phys. Rev. C, 82, p. 039903. , 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.039903Xu, J., Ko, C.M., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 84, p. 014903. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.014903Petersen, H., (2010) Phys. Rev. C, 82, p. 041901. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.041901Takahashi, J., (2009) Phys. Rev. Lett., 103, p. 242301. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.242301;Andrade, R.P.G., (2012) Phys. Lett. B, 712, p. 226. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.04.044;Qian, W.L., (2013) Phys. Rev. C, 87, p. 014904. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.87.014904Schenke, B., Jeon, S., Gale, C., (2011) Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, p. 042301. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.042301;Qiu, Z., Heinz, U.W., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 84, p. 024911. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024911;Song, H., (2011) Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, p. 192301. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.192301;Schenke, B., Jeon, S., Gale, C., (2012) Phys. Rev. C, 85, p. 024901. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.024901;Schenke, B., Tribedy, P., Venugopalan, R., (2012) Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, p. 252301. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.252301Adare, A., (2011) Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, p. 252301. , (PHENIX Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.252301Adamczyk, L., (2013) Phys. Rev. C, 88, p. 014904. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.014904Abelev, B.I., (2008) Phys. Rev. Lett., 101, p. 252301. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.252301Teaney, D., Yan, L., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 83, p. 064904. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.064904Pandit, Y., (2013) J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 446, p. 012012. , (STAR Collaboration),. 1742-6596 10.1088/1742-6596/446/1/012012Ajitanand, N.N., (2005) Phys. Rev. C, 72, p. 011902. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.011902Agakishiev, G., (2012) Phys. Rev. C, 86, p. 064902. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.86.064902Adler, C., (2002) Phys. Rev. C, 66, p. 034904. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.66.034904Abelev, B.I., (2009) Phys. Rev. C, 80, p. 064912. , (STAR Collaboration), () PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.064912;Abelev, B.I., (2010) Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, p. 022301. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.022301Adler, S.S., (2006) Phys. Rev. Lett., 97, p. 052301. , (PHENIX Collaboration), () PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97. 052301;Adare, A., (2008) Phys. Rev. C, 78, p. 014901. , (PHENIX Collaboration),. PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.78.014901Stoecker, H., (2005) Nucl. Phys. A, 750, p. 121. , NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2004.12.074;Casalderrey-Solana, J., Shuryak, E.V., Teaney, D., (2005) J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 27, p. 22. , 1742-6588 10.1088/1742-6596/27/1/003;Ruppert, J., Müller, B., (2005) Phys. Lett. B, 618, p. 123. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.04.075Betz, B., (2010) Phys. Rev. Lett., 105, p. 222301. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.222301;Ma, G.L., Wang, X.N., (2011) Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, p. 162301. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.162301Abelev, B.I., (2009) Phys. Rev. Lett., 102, p. 052302. , (STAR Collaboration),. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.052302Adamczyk, L., (2014) Phys. Rev. Lett., 112, p. 122301. , (STAR Collaboration),. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.12230

Fluctuations Of Charge Separation Perpendicular To The Event Plane And Local Parity Violation In S Nn = 200 Gev Au + Au Collisions At The Bnl Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider

Previous experimental results based on data (∼15×106 events) collected by the STAR detector at the BNL Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider suggest event-by-event charge-separation fluctuations perpendicular to the event plane in noncentral heavy-ion collisions. Here we present the correlator previously used split into its two component parts to reveal correlations parallel and perpendicular to the event plane. The results are from a high-statistics 200-GeV Au + Au collisions data set (57×106 events) collected by the STAR experiment. We explicitly count units of charge separation from which we find clear evidence for more charge-separation fluctuations perpendicular than parallel to the event plane. We also employ a modified correlator to study the possible P-even background in same- and opposite-charge correlations, and find that the P-even background may largely be explained by momentum conservation and collective motion. © 2013 American Physical Society.886NRF-2012004024; National Research FoundationLee, T.D., Yang, C.N., (1956) Phys. Rev., 104. , 1, 254. 0031-899X PHRVAO 10.1103/PhysRev.104.254Vafa, C., Witten, E., (1984) Phys. Rev. Lett., 53. , 2, 535. 0031-9007 PRLTAO 10.1103/PhysRevLett.53.535Lee, T.D., (1973) Phys. Rev. D, 8. , 3, 1226. 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.8.1226Lee, T.D., Wick, G.C., (1974) Phys. Rev. D, 9. , 4, 2291. 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.9.2291Kharzeev, D., Parity violation in hot QCD: Why it can happen, and how to look for it (2006) Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 633 (2-3), pp. 260-264. , DOI 10.1016/j.physletb.2005.11.075, PII S0370269305017430Kharzeev, D., Zhitnitsky, A., (2007) Nucl. Phys. A, 797. , 6, 67. 0375-9474 NUPABL 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2007.10.001Kharzeev, D., McLerran, L.D., Warringa, H.J., (2008) Nucl. Phys. A, 803. , 7, 227. 0375-9474 NUPABL 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2008.02.298Fukushima, K., Kharzeev, D.E., Warringa, H.J., (2008) Phys. Rev. D, 78. , 8, 074033. 1550-7998 PRVDAQ 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.074033Abelev, B.I., (2009) Phys. Rev. Lett., 103. , 9 (STAR Collaboration), 251601. 0031-9007 PRLTAO 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103. 251601Abelev, B.I., (2010) Phys. Rev. C, 81. , 10 (STAR Collaboration), 054908. 0556-2813 PRVCAN 10.1103/PhysRevC.81. 054908Abelev, B.I., (2013) Phys. Rev. Lett., 110. , 11 (ALICE Collaboration), 012301. 0031-9007 PRLTAO 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 110.012301Ackermann, K.H., Adams, N., Adler, C., Ahammed, Z., Ahmad, S., Allgower, C., Amonett, J., Harris, J.W., STAR detector overview (2003) Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 499 (2-3), pp. 624-632. , DOI 10.1016/S0168-9002(02)01960-5Adams, J., Aggarwal, M.M., Ahammed, Z., Amonett, J., Anderson, B.D., Arkhipkin, D., Averichev, G.S., Bai, Y., Directed flow in Au+Au collisions at sNN=62.4 GeV (2006) Physical Review C - Nuclear Physics, 73 (3), pp. 1-7. , http://oai.aps.org/oai?verb=GetRecord&Identifier=oai:aps.org: PhysRevC.73.034903&metadataPrefix=oai_apsmeta_2, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevC.73.034903, 034903Adamczyk, L., (2012) Phys. Rev. Lett., 108. , 14 (STAR Collaboration), 202301. 0031-9007 PRLTAO 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 108.202301Voloshin, S.A., Parity violation in hot QCD: How to detect it (2004) Physical Review C - Nuclear Physics, 70 (5), pp. 0579011-0579012. , DOI 10.1103/PhysRevC.70.057901, 057901Poskanzer, A.M., Voloshin, S.A., Methods for analyzing anisotropic flow in relativistic nuclear collisions (1998) Physical Review C - Nuclear Physics, 58 (3), pp. 1671-1678. , DOI 10.1103/PhysRevC.58.1671Ollitrault, J.-Y., Poskanzer, A.M., Voloshin, S.A., (2009) Phys. Rev. C, 80. , 17, 014904. 0556-2813 PRVCAN 10.1103/PhysRevC.80.014904Pratt, S., Schlichting, S., Gavin, S., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 84. , 18, 024909. 0556-2813 PRVCAN 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.024909Schlichting, S., Pratt, S., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 83. , 19, 014913. 0556-2813 PRVCAN 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.014913Selyuzhenkov, I., Voloshin, S., (2008) Phys. Rev. C, 77. , 20, 034904. 0556-2813 PRVCAN 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.034904Kisiel, A., (2006) Comput. Phys. Commun., 174. , 21, 669. 0010-4655 CPHCBZ 10.1016/j.cpc.2005.11.010Bzdak, A., Koch, V., Liao, J., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 83. , 22, 014905. 0556-2813 PRVCAN 10.1103/PhysRevC.83.014905Adams, J., Aggarwal, M.M., Ahammed, Z., Amonett, J., Anderson, B.D., Arkhipkin, D., Averichev, G.S., Grebenyuk, O., Azimuthal anisotropy in Au+Au collisions at sNN=200GeV (2005) Physical Review C - Nuclear Physics, 72 (1), pp. 1-23. , http://oai.aps.org/oai/?verb=ListRecords&metadataPrefix= oai_apsmeta_2&set=journal:PRC:72, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevC.72.014904, 014904Ray, R.L., Longacre, R.S., 24, arXiv:nucl-ex/0008009 and private communicationKopylov, G.I., Podgoretsky, M.I., Kopylov, G.I., Podgoretsky, M.I., (1972) Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 15. , 25a, 219 ()25b, Phys. Lett. B. 50, 472 (1974) 0370-2693 PYLBAJ 10.1016/0370-2693(74)90263-925c, Sov. J. Part. Nucl. 20, 266 (1989)Goldhaber, G., Goldhaber, S., Lee, W., Pais, A., (1960) Phys. Rev., 120. , 26, 325. 0031-899X PHRVAO 10.1103/PhysRev.120.32

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Factors Associated with Revision Surgery after Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

Background: Femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of revision surgery after management with internal fixation. Using data from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial evaluating methods of internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures, we investigated associations between baseline and surgical factors and the need for revision surgery to promote healing, relieve pain, treat infection or improve function over 24 months postsurgery. Additionally, we investigated factors associated with (1) hardware removal and (2) implant exchange from cancellous screws (CS) or sliding hip screw (SHS) to total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or another internal fixation device. Methods: We identified 15 potential factors a priori that may be associated with revision surgery, 7 with hardware removal, and 14 with implant exchange. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses in our investigation. Results: Factors associated with increased risk of revision surgery included: female sex, [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.50; P = 0.001], higher body mass index (fo

Spontaneous intracranial hypotension masquerading as frontotemporal dementia

F.D. exhibited the cognitive and behavioral profile of frontotemporal dementia in the context of spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH). Symptoms included orthostatic headache, as well as cognitive and personality changes. He underwent CT, EEG, and MRI as well as neuropsychological evaluations before and after corticosteroid treatment. The initial evaluation documented significant cognitive impairment with a predominance of executive dysfunction. Following treatment, a second evaluation revealed marked improvement in cognition and behavior. Rapid diagnosis and treatment can yield a favorable outcome. Both quantitative and qualitative information from measures of executive functioning were discussed, as well as their anatomical substrates

Deconstructing the symbol digit modalities test in multiple sclerosis: The role of memory

Background The Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) is a sensitive measure of impaired cognition in people with MS. While the SDMT is primarily considered a test of information processing speed, other components such as visual scanning and oral-motor ability have also been linked to performance. The objective of this study was to determine the role of memory in the performance of the SDMT. Methods Two version of a modified computerized SDMT (c-SDMT) were employed, a fixed and a variable. For each group 50 MS and 33 healthy control (HC) participants were recruited. In the fixed c-SDMT, the symbol-digit code is kept constant for the entire test whereas in the variable version, it changes eight times. Unlike the traditional SDMT which records the correct number of responses, the c-SDMT presented here measures the mean response time (in seconds) for the eight trials. Results MS participants were slower than HC on the fixed (p < 0.001) and variable (p = 0.005) c-SDMT. Trend analysis showed performance improvement on the fixed, but not on the variable c-SDMT in both MS and HC groups. Furthermore, immediate visual memory recall was associated with the fixed (β = −0.299, p = 0.017), but not variable (B = −0.057, p = 0.260) c-SDMT. Immediate verbal memory was not associated with either versions of the c-SDMT. Conclusions Given that the fixed and variable c-SDMTs are identical in every way apart from the fixity of the code, the ability of participants to speed up responses over the course of the fixed version only points to the contribution of incidental visual memory in test performance