No landslide for the human journalist : An empirical study of computer-generated election news in Finland

Peer reviewe

Twelve-month observational study of children with cancer in 41 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction Childhood cancer is a leading cause of death. It is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted childhood cancer mortality. In this study, we aimed to establish all-cause mortality rates for childhood cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the factors associated with mortality. Methods Prospective cohort study in 109 institutions in 41 countries. Inclusion criteria: children <18 years who were newly diagnosed with or undergoing active treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, retinoblastoma, Wilms tumour, glioma, osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, medulloblastoma and neuroblastoma. Of 2327 cases, 2118 patients were included in the study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 90 days and 12 months. Results All-cause mortality was 3.4% (n=71/2084) at 30-day follow-up, 5.7% (n=113/1969) at 90-day follow-up and 13.0% (n=206/1581) at 12-month follow-up. The median time from diagnosis to multidisciplinary team (MDT) plan was longest in low-income countries (7 days, IQR 3-11). Multivariable analysis revealed several factors associated with 12-month mortality, including low-income (OR 6.99 (95% CI 2.49 to 19.68); p<0.001), lower middle income (OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.96 to 5.61); p<0.001) and upper middle income (OR 3.49 (95% CI 2.02 to 6.03); p<0.001) country status and chemotherapy (OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.86); p=0.008) and immunotherapy (OR 0.27 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.91); p=0.035) within 30 days from MDT plan. Multivariable analysis revealed laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 5.33 (95% CI 1.19 to 23.84); p=0.029) was associated with 30-day mortality. Conclusions Children with cancer are more likely to die within 30 days if infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, timely treatment reduced odds of death. This report provides crucial information to balance the benefits of providing anticancer therapy against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with cancer

Camera Trapping Technology and Related Advances: into the New Millennium

Camera trapping has advanced significantly in Australia over the last two decades. These devices have become more versatile and the associated computer technology has also progressed dramatically since 2011. In the USA, the hunting industry drives most changes to camera traps; however the scientific fraternity has been instrumental in incorporating computational engineering, statistics and technology into camera trap use for wildlife research. New survey methods, analytical tools (including software for image processing and storage) and complex algorithms to analyse images have been developed. For example, pattern and texture analysis and species and individual facial recognition are now possible. In the next few decades, as technology evolves and ecological and computational sciences intertwine, new tools and devices will emerge into the market. Here we outline several projects that are underway to incorporate camera traps and associated technologies into existing and new tools for wildlife management. These also have significant implications for broader wildlife management and research. </jats:p

Global temporal changes in the proportion of children with advanced disease at the start of combination antiretroviral therapy in an era of changing criteria for treatment initiation

Introduction: The CD4 cell count and percent at initiation of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) are measures of advanced HIV disease and thus are important indicators of programme performance for children living with HIV. In particular, World Health Organization (WHO) 2017 guidelines on advanced HIV disease noted that &gt;80% of children aged &lt;5&nbsp;years started cART with WHO Stage 3 or 4 disease or severe immune suppression. We compared temporal trends in CD4 measures at cART start in children from low-, middle- and high-income countries, and examined the effect of WHO treatment initiation guidelines on reducing the proportion of children initiating cART with advanced disease. Methods: We included children aged &lt;16&nbsp;years from the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (IeDEA) Collaboration (Caribbean, Central and South America, Asia-Pacific, and West, Central, East and Southern Africa), the Collaboration of Observational HIV Epidemiological Research in Europe (COHERE), the North American Pediatric HIV/AIDS Cohort Study (PHACS) and International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials (IMPAACT) 219C study. Severe immunodeficiency was defined using WHO guidelines. We used generalized weighted additive mixed effect models to analyse temporal trends in CD4 measurements and piecewise regression to examine the impact of 2006 and 2010 WHO cART initiation guidelines. Results: We included 52,153 children from fourteen low-, eight lower middle-, five upper middle- and five high-income countries. From 2004 to 2013, the estimated percentage of children starting cART with severe immunodeficiency declined from 70% to 42% (low-income), 67% to 64% (lower middle-income) and 61% to 43% (upper middle-income countries). In high-income countries, severe immunodeficiency at cART initiation declined from 45% (1996) to 14% (2012). There were annual decreases in the percentage of children with severe immunodeficiency at cART initiation after the WHO guidelines revisions in 2006 (low-, lower middle- and upper middle-income countries) and 2010 (all countries). Conclusions: By 2013, less than half of children initiating cART had severe immunodeficiency worldwide. WHO treatment initiation guidelines have contributed to reducing the proportion of children and adolescents starting cART with advanced disease. However, considerable global inequity remains, in 2013, &gt;40% of children in low- and middle-income countries started cART with severe immunodeficiency compared to &lt;20% in high-income countries