Do You Think Your Group Thinks?

“Do You Think Your Group Thinks?” An Examination of the Relationship between Groupthink and Small Group Type The intent of our research was to analyize the six main groups in our culture and to determine which group, if any, suffers from groupthink more than the others. Groupthink is defined as “a strong concurrence-seeking tendency among members within a group that leads to a deterioration in the decision making process.” There are six main types of groups, primary groups, social groups, educational/theraputic groups, decision making/problem solving groups, work groups and mediated communication groups. A literature review was conducted on previous studies about various aspects of small group and groupthink research. In 1972, Irving L. Janis studied political disasters and developed “groupthink theory”. Eight symptoms were developed to assess group think. We determined that surveys were the best, and most efficient way to calculate these queries. Entitled, “Group Interaction Survey” our group composed a survey which consists of twelve close-ended (yes or no) questions. Each question was designed to detect one of the eight symptoms of groupthink Janis outlined. The purpose of asking these surveys was to gauge what groups are more susceptible to groupthink. Twenty surveys were passed out to each group totalling 120 surveys. According to our research, determined by the survey, primary groups had the highest amount of groupthink. Of the people we surveyed 55% of the answers indicated group think. Problem solving groups had the lowest amount of accumulated groupthink with an outcome of only 40% of the answers indicating groupthink. There are other ways the study could have been conducted, several other factors that could have been considered such as a wider variety of ages, greater number of surveys, or wider geographical area covered. Other methods could have been used as well to evaluate each individaul symptom

Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil: setting the baseline knowledge on the animal diversity in Brazil

The limited temporal completeness and taxonomic accuracy of species lists, made available in a traditional manner in scientific publications, has always represented a problem. These lists are invariably limited to a few taxonomic groups and do not represent up-to-date knowledge of all species and classifications. In this context, the Brazilian megadiverse fauna is no exception, and the Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil (CTFB) (http://fauna.jbrj.gov.br/), made public in 2015, represents a database on biodiversity anchored on a list of valid and expertly recognized scientific names of animals in Brazil. The CTFB is updated in near real time by a team of more than 800 specialists. By January 1, 2024, the CTFB compiled 133,691 nominal species, with 125,138 that were considered valid. Most of the valid species were arthropods (82.3%, with more than 102,000 species) and chordates (7.69%, with over 11,000 species). These taxa were followed by a cluster composed of Mollusca (3,567 species), Platyhelminthes (2,292 species), Annelida (1,833 species), and Nematoda (1,447 species). All remaining groups had less than 1,000 species reported in Brazil, with Cnidaria (831 species), Porifera (628 species), Rotifera (606 species), and Bryozoa (520 species) representing those with more than 500 species. Analysis of the CTFB database can facilitate and direct efforts towards the discovery of new species in Brazil, but it is also fundamental in providing the best available list of valid nominal species to users, including those in science, health, conservation efforts, and any initiative involving animals. The importance of the CTFB is evidenced by the elevated number of citations in the scientific literature in diverse areas of biology, law, anthropology, education, forensic science, and veterinary science, among others

Infections in liver and lung transplant recipients: a national prospective cohort

Infections are a major complication of solid organ transplants (SOTs). This study aimed to describe recipients\ue2\u80\u99 characteristics, and the frequency and etiology of infections and transplant outcome in liver and lung SOTs, and to investigate exposures associated to infection and death in liver transplant recipients. The study population included recipients of SOTs performed in Italy during a 1-year period in ten Italian lung transplant units and eight liver transplant units. Data on comorbidities, infections, retransplantation, and death were prospectively collected using a web-based system, with a 6-month follow-up. The cumulative incidence of infection was 31.7% and 47.8% in liver and lung transplants, respectively, with most infections occurring within the first month after transplantation. Gram-negatives, which were primarily multidrug-resistant, were the most frequent cause of infection. Death rates were 0.42 per 1000 recipient-days in liver transplants and 1.41 per 1000 recipient-days in lung transplants. Infection after SOT in adult liver recipients is associated to an increased risk of death (OR = 13.25; p-value < 0.001). Given the frequency of infection caused by multidrug-resistant microorganisms in SOT recipients in Italy and the heavy impact of infections on the transplant outcome, the reinforcement of surveillance and control activities to prevent the transmission of multidrug-resistant microorganisms in SOT recipients represents a priority. The implementation of the study protocol in liver and lung transplant units and the sharing of results have increased the awareness about the threat due to antimicrobial resistance in the country

Familial aggregation of MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery scores in a large sample of outpatients with schizophrenia and their unaffected relatives

Background: The increased use of the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) to investigate cognitive dysfunctions in schizophrenia fostered interest in its sensitivity in the context of family studies. As various measures of the same cognitive domains may have different power to distinguish between unaffected relatives of patients and controls, the relative sensitivity of MCCB tests for relativeâ\u80\u93control differences has to be established. We compared MCCB scores of 852 outpatients with schizophrenia (SCZ) with those of 342 unaffected relatives (REL) and a normative Italian sample of 774 healthy subjects (HCS). We examined familial aggregation of cognitive impairment by investigating within-family prediction of MCCB scores based on probandsâ\u80\u99 scores. Methods: Multivariate analysis of variance was used to analyze group differences in adjusted MCCB scores. Weighted least-squares analysis was used to investigate whether probandsâ\u80\u99 MCCB scores predicted REL neurocognitive performance. Results: SCZ were significantly impaired on all MCCB domains. REL had intermediate scores between SCZ and HCS, showing a similar pattern of impairment, except for social cognition. Proband's scores significantly predicted REL MCCB scores on all domains except for visual learning. Conclusions: In a large sample of stable patients with schizophrenia, living in the community, and in their unaffected relatives, MCCB demonstrated sensitivity to cognitive deficits in both groups. Our findings of significant within-family prediction of MCCB scores might reflect disease-related genetic or environmental factors

Comparison of clinical features between patients with anti-synthetase syndrome and dermatomyositis : results from the MYONET registry

Objectives: To compare clinical characteristics, including the frequency of cutaneous, extramuscular manifestations and malignancy, between adults with anti-synthetase syndrome (ASyS) and DM. Methods: Using data regarding adults from the MYONET registry, a cohort of DM patients with anti-Mi2/-TIF1 gamma/-NXP2/-SAE/-MDA5 autoantibodies, and a cohort of ASyS patients with anti-tRNA synthetase autoantibodies (anti-Jo1/-PL7/-PL12/-OJ/-EJ/-Zo/-KS) were identified. Patients with DM sine dermatitis or with discordant dual autoantibody specificities were excluded. Sub-cohorts of patients with ASyS with or without skin involvement were defined based on presence of DM-type rashes (heliotrope rash, Gottron's papules/sign, violaceous rash, shawl sign, V-sign, erythroderma, and/or periorbital rash). Results: In total 1054 patients were included (DM, n = 405; ASyS, n = 649). In the ASyS cohort, 31% (n = 203) had DM-type skin involvement (ASyS-DMskin). A higher frequency of extramuscular manifestations, including Mechanic's hands, Raynaud's phenomenon, arthritis, interstitial lung disease and cardiac involvement differentiated ASyS-DMskin from DM (all P < 0.001), whereas higher frequency of any of four DM-type rashes-heliotrope rash (n = 248, 61% vs n = 90, 44%), violaceous rash (n = 166, 41% vs n = 57, 9%), V-sign (n = 124, 31% vs n = 28, 4%), and shawl sign (n = 133, 33% vs n = 18, 3%)-differentiated DM from ASyS-DMskin (all P < 0.005). Cancer-associated myositis (CAM) was more frequent in DM (n = 67, 17%) compared with ASyS (n = 21, 3%) and ASyS-DMskin (n = 7, 3%) cohorts (both P < 0.001). Conclusion: DM-type rashes are frequent in patients with ASyS; however, distinct clinical manifestations differentiate these patients from classical DM. Skin involvement in ASyS does not necessitate increased malignancy surveillance. These findings will inform future ASyS classification criteria and patient management