Additional file 1 of A review of menopause nomenclature

Additional file 1: Table 1. Premenopause definition

Additional file 2 of A review of menopause nomenclature

Additional file 2: Table 2. Postmenopause definition

Understanding the FLASH effect to unravel the potential of ultra-high dose rate irradiation

A reemergence of research implementing radiation delivery at ultra-high dose rates (UHDRs) has triggered intense interest in the radiation sciences and has opened a new field of investigation in radiobiology. Much of the promise of UHDR irradiation involves the FLASH effect, an in vivo biological response observed to maintain anti-tumor efficacy without the normal tissue complications associated with standard dose rates. The FLASH effect has been validated primarily, using intermediate energy electron beams able to deliver high doses (>7 Gy) in a very short period of time (<200 ms), but has also been found with photon and proton beams. The clinical implications of this new area of research are highly significant, as FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) has the potential to enhance the therapeutic index, opening new possibilities for eradicating radio-resistant tumors without toxicity. As pioneers in this field, our group has developed a multidisciplinary research team focused on investigating the mechanisms and clinical translation of the FLASH effect. Here, we review the field of UHDR, from the physico-chemical to the biological mechanisms.</p

Final model for ADHD symptom–cognition analyses for OA cohort.

<p>Only paths significant at <i>p</i><0.01 are shown. Arrows reflect direction of relationships between variables. Standardised regression coefficients are shown. Factor loadings and covariance between the latent factors – <i>Inatt</i> and <i>Hyperact</i>, which were constrained equal across groups in the analyses, and correlation between cognitive test measures are not shown for the sake of simplicity. I: item; gen: gender; educ: education; <i>Inatt</i>: latent factor Inattention; <i>Hyperact</i>: latent factor Hyperactivity; DEP: depression symptom measure; ANX: anxiety symptom measure; STW: Spot-the-Word Test; TMT-A: Trail Making Test A; TMT-B: Trail Making Test B; SDMT: Symbol-Digit Modalities Test; CRT: Choice Reaction Time; DR: Delayed Recall; DSB: Digit Span Backwards.</p

Path coefficients from multi-group SEM analyses of ADHD symptom–cognition relationships.

<p>Coefficients for ASRS items, which were same for both cohorts are not shown.</p><p>Only paths significant at <i>p</i><0.1 are shown.</p>§<p>unstandardised estimate.</p>†<p>standard errors were computed from 2000 bootstrap-resampled datasets.</p><p>MA: middle-age cohort; OA: older-age cohort; <i>Inatt</i>: latent factor Inattention; <i>Hyperact</i>: latent factor Hyperactivity; STW: Spot-the-Word test; TMT-A: Trail Making Test A; TMT-B: Trail Making Test B; SDMT: Symbol-Digit Modalities Test; CRT: Choice Reaction Time; DR: Delayed Recall; DSB: Digit Span Backwards.</p

Goodness-of-fit statistics from single cohorts (MA, OA) and multi-group (MA+OA) SEMs assessing the ASRS factor structure.

<p>MA: middle-age cohort; OA: older-age cohort; FL: Factor loadings of ASRS items on <i>Inatt</i> and <i>Hyperact</i> latent factors; FV: Factor variance for <i>Inatt</i> and <i>Hyperact</i>; FC: Covariance between <i>Inatt</i> and <i>Hyperact</i>; V_Inatt: Variance of <i>Inatt</i>; V_Hyperact: Variance of <i>Hyperact</i>; RV: Residual Variance of ASRS items.</p><p>RMSEA: root-mean square error of approximation (optimal value <0.05); AGFI: adjusted goodness of fit index (optimal value >0.9); CFI: comparative fit index (optimal value >0.9); AIC: Akaike information criterion; BCC: Browne-Cudeck criterion. Models with the lowest values for AIC and BCC are considered to have the best fit to the data.</p>a<p>compared to Model 1;</p>b<p>compared to Model 2;</p>c<p>compared to Model 4.</p

Results from series of cross-sectional negative binomial regression models investigating the association between tertiles of prudent and western diet intake and number of depressive symptoms reported at baseline.

<p>*controlling for age & sex.</p

Data_sheet_1_Bridging Classical and Revised Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory Research: A Longitudinal Analysis of a Large Population Study.docx

The reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) proposes that neurobiological systems mediate protective and appetitive behaviours and the functioning of these systems is associated to personality traits. In this manner, the RST is a link between neuroscience, behaviour, and personality. The theory evolved to the present revised version describing three systems: fight-flight-freezing, behavioural approach/activation (BAS), and behavioural inhibition (BIS). However, the most widely available measure of the theory, the BIS/BAS scales, only investigates two systems. Using a large longitudinal community survey, we found that the BIS/BAS scales can be re-structured to investigate the three systems of the theory with a BIS scale, three BAS scales, and a separate fight-flight-freezing system (FFFS) scale. The re-structured scales were age, sex, and longitudinally invariant, and associations with personality and mental health measures followed theoretical expectations and previously published associations. The proposed framework can be used to investigate behavioural choices influencing physical and mental health and bridge historical with contemporary research.</p

Socio-demographic characteristics and measures of ADHD, anxiety and depression symptom and cognitive performance in the sample.

<p>MA: middle-age cohort; OA: older-age cohort; ASRS: adult ADHD Self-Report Scale; freq: frequency; Std. Res: standardised residuals.</p>a<p>number of correct responses;</p>b<p>time taken to complete.</p

Theoretical model for ADHD symptom–cognition relationships and the factor structure of the ASRS.

<p>A) The theoretical model for ADHD symptom–cognition relationships examined in multi-group SEM analysis. Demographic variables include gender, age and education. Anxiety and depression symptom measures are indicated as the mental health variable in the diagram. B) and C) Models representing the ASRS factor structure in MA cohort (B) and OA cohort (C). Standardised factor loadings and covariance between the latent factors – <i>Inatt</i> and <i>Hyperact</i> are shown. Arrows reflect direction of relationships between variables.</p