Severe hydrops in the infant of a Rhesus D-positive mother due to anti-c antibodies diagnosed antenatally: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Rhesus haemolytic disease of the newborn is a prototype of maternal isoimmunisation and fetal haemolytic disease. There are other rare blood group antigens capable of causing alloimmunisation and haemolytic disease such as c, C, E, Kell and Duffy. In India, after the confirmation of a newborn's blood group, antibodies are screened only if the mother is Rehsus D-negative negative and the father is Rhesus D-positive. Hydrops in Rhesus positive women are investigated along the lines of non-immune hydrops.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We report the case of a patient from India where irregular antibodies were requested for an O-positive 26-year-old mother in order to investigate fetal hydrops. Anti-c antibody was revealed and the fetus was treated successfully with compatible O negative and c negative intrauterine blood transfusions. The baby was treated postnatally with double volume exchange transfusion with the same compatible blood, and was discharged 30 days after birth.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We highlight the importance of conducting irregular antibody screening for women with significant obstetric history and fetal hydrops. This could assist in diagnosing and successfully treating the fetus with appropriate antigen negative cross-matched compatible blood. We note, however, that anti-c immunoglobulin is not yet readily available.</p

Bioavailability in soils

The consumption of locally-produced vegetables by humans may be an important exposure pathway for soil contaminants in many urban settings and for agricultural land use. Hence, prediction of metal and metalloid uptake by vegetables from contaminated soils is an important part of the Human Health Risk Assessment procedure. The behaviour of metals (cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, lead and zinc) and metalloids (arsenic, boron and selenium) in contaminated soils depends to a large extent on the intrinsic charge, valence and speciation of the contaminant ion, and soil properties such as pH, redox status and contents of clay and/or organic matter. However, chemistry and behaviour of the contaminant in soil alone cannot predict soil-to-plant transfer. Root uptake, root selectivity, ion interactions, rhizosphere processes, leaf uptake from the atmosphere, and plant partitioning are important processes that ultimately govern the accumulation ofmetals and metalloids in edible vegetable tissues. Mechanistic models to accurately describe all these processes have not yet been developed, let alone validated under field conditions. Hence, to estimate risks by vegetable consumption, empirical models have been used to correlate concentrations of metals and metalloids in contaminated soils, soil physico-chemical characteristics, and concentrations of elements in vegetable tissues. These models should only be used within the bounds of their calibration, and often need to be re-calibrated or validated using local soil and environmental conditions on a regional or site-specific basis.Mike J. McLaughlin, Erik Smolders, Fien Degryse, and Rene Rietr

Testimony and argument: a Bayesian perspective

Book synopsis: Relevant to, and drawing from, a range of disciplines, the chapters in this collection show the diversity, and applicability, of research in Bayesian argumentation. Together, they form a challenge to philosophers versed in both the use and criticism of Bayesian models who have largely overlooked their potential in argumentation. Selected from contributions to a multidisciplinary workshop on the topic held in Sweden in 2010, the authors count linguists and social psychologists among their number, in addition to philosophers. They analyze material that includes real-life court cases, experimental research results, and the insights gained from computer models. The volume provides, for the first time, a formal measure of subjective argument strength and argument force, robust enough to allow advocates of opposing sides of an argument to agree on the relative strengths of their supporting reasoning. With papers from leading figures such as Michael Oaksford and Ulrike Hahn, the book comprises recent research conducted at the frontiers of Bayesian argumentation and provides a multitude of examples in which these formal tools can be applied to informal argument. It signals new and impending developments in philosophy, which has seen Bayesian models deployed in formal epistemology and philosophy of science, but has yet to explore the full potential of Bayesian models as a framework in argumentation. In doing so, this revealing anthology looks destined to become a standard teaching text in years to come.