Data gathering, surveillance and human rights: recasting the debate

The nature and depth of internet surveillance has been revealed to be very different from what had previously been publically acknowledged or politically debated. There are critical ways in which the current debate is miscast, misleading and confused. Privacy is portrayed as an individual right, in opposition to a collective need for security. Data gathering and surveillance are portrayed as having an impact only on this individual right to privacy, rather than on a broad spectrum of rights, including freedom of expression, of assembly and association, the prohibition of discrimination and more. The gathering and surveillance of ‘content’ is intrinsically more intrusive than that of ‘communications’ data or ‘metadata’. The impact of data gathering and surveillance is often portrayed as happening only at when data are examined by humans rather than when gathered, or when examined algorithmically. Commercial and governmental data gathering and surveillance are treated as separate and different, rather than intrinsically and inextricably linked. This miscasting has critical implications. When the debate is recast taking into account these misunderstandings, the bar for the justification of surveillance is raised and a new balance needs to be found, in political debate, in law, and in decision-making on the ground

Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: the MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Despite being a core business of medicine, end of life care (EoLC) is neglected. It is hampered by research that is difficult to conduct with no common standards. We aimed to develop evidence-based guidance on the best methods for the design and conduct of research on EoLC to further knowledge in the field. METHODS: The Methods Of Researching End of life Care (MORECare) project built on the Medical Research Council guidance on the development and evaluation of complex circumstances. We conducted systematic literature reviews, transparent expert consultations (TEC) involving consensus methods of nominal group and online voting, and stakeholder workshops to identify challenges and best practice in EoLC research, including: participation recruitment, ethics, attrition, integration of mixed methods, complex outcomes and economic evaluation. We synthesised all findings to develop a guidance statement on the best methods to research EoLC. RESULTS: We integrated data from three systematic reviews and five TECs with 133 online responses. We recommend research designs extending beyond randomised trials and encompassing mixed methods. Patients and families value participation in research, and consumer or patient collaboration in developing studies can resolve some ethical concerns. It is ethically desirable to offer patients and families the opportunity to participate in research. Outcome measures should be short, responsive to change and ideally used for both clinical practice and research. Attrition should be anticipated in studies and may affirm inclusion of the relevant population, but careful reporting is necessitated using a new classification. Eventual implementation requires consideration at all stages of the project. CONCLUSIONS: The MORECare statement provides 36 best practice solutions for research evaluating services and treatments in EoLC to improve study quality and set the standard for future research. The statement may be used alongside existing statements and provides a first step in setting common, much needed standards for evaluative research in EoLC. These are relevant to those undertaking research, trainee researchers, research funders, ethical committees and editors.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Identifying flares in rheumatoid arthritis: Reliability and construct validation of the OMERACT RA Flare Core Domain Set

Objective: To evaluate the reliability of concurrent flare identification using 3 methods (patient, rheumatologist and Disease Activity Score (DAS)28 criteria), and construct validity of candidate items representing the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) RA Flare Core Domain Set. Methods: Candidate flare questions and legacy measures were administered at consecutive visits to Canadian Early Arthritis Cohort (CATCH) patients between November 2011 and November 2014. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set indicators were recorded. Concordance to identify flares was assessed using the agreement coefficient. Construct validity of flare questions was examined: convergent (Spearman's r); discriminant (mean differences between flaring/non-flaring patients); and consequential (proportions with prior treatment reductions and intended therapeutic change postflare). Results: The 849 patients were 75% female, 81% white, 42% were in remission/low disease activity (R/LDA), and 16-32% were flaring at the second visit. Agreement of flare status was low-strong (κ's 0.17-0.88) and inversely related to RA disease activity level. Flare domains correlated highly (r's≥0.70) with each other, patient global (r's≥0.66) and corresponding measures (r's 0.49-0.92); and moderately highly with MD and patient-reported joint counts (r's 0.29-0.62). When MD/patients agreed the patient was flaring, mean flare domain between-group differences were 2.1-3.0; 36% had treatment reductions prior to flare, with escalation planned in 61%. Conclusions: Flares are common in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and are often preceded by treatment reductions. Patient/MD/DAS agreement of flare status is highest in patients worsening from R/LDA. OMERACT RA flare questions can discriminate between patients with/without flare and have strong evidence of construct and consequential validity. Ongoing work will identify optimal scoring and cut points to identify RA flares

Crop Updates 2009 - Genetically Modified Crops, Nutrition, Soils, & Others

This session covers fifteen papers from different authors: 1. Performance of Canola Breeders Roundup Ready® canola hybrid CHYB-166 in 2008, Wallace Cowling, Canola Breeders Western Australia Pty Ltd 2. The implications of GM glyphosate resistant lupin, Art Diggle, Caroline Peek, Frank D’Emden, Fiona Evans, Bob French, Rob Grima, Sam Harburg, Abul Hashem,, John Holmes, Jeremy Lemon, Peter Newman, Janet Paterson, Steve Penny,Department of Agriculture and Food, Peter Portmann, Agriconnect 3. Nufarm Roundup Ready® Canola Systems Trials— 2008 Mark Slatter, Research and Development Officer, Victoria, Nufarm (0438 064 845) Angus MacLennan, Business Development Manager, New South Wales, Nufarm (0408 358 024) Cooperators: Monsanto, Nuseed, Pacific Seeds, Pioneer Seeds 4. Roundup Ready® canola—2008 Limited Commercial Release. Getting the system right, Andrew Wells and Mark Slatter, Nufarm Australia Limited (Reprint from 2008 GRDC Cropping Updates with Introductory note) NUTRITION 5. Fertilising in a changing price environment, Bill Bowden1, Wayne Pluske2 and Jeremy Lemon1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Back Paddock Company 6. Making better fertiliser for Western Australian cropping systems, Wen Chen1 2, Geoff Anderson1, Ross Brennan1and Richard Bell2 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2School of Environmental Science, Murdoch University 7. The nitrogen fertiliser replacement value of biosolids from wastewater treatment, Hannah Rigby1, Deborah Pritchard1, David Collins1, Katrina Walton2, David Allen2 and Nancy Penney31School of Agriculture and Environment,Curtin University of Technology, Muresk Campus, 2Chemistry Centre of Western Australia 3Water Corporation of Western Australia 8. Fertilising to soil type (usually) pays, Michael Robertson, Bill Bowden and Roger Lawes, CSIRO, Floreat and Department of Agriculture and Food SOILS 9. Management of subsoil acidity and compaction using a combination of lime, deep ripping and controlled traffic, Stephen Davies, Chris Gazey, Breanne Best and David Gartner, Department of Agriculture and Food 10. Optimising gypsum applications through remote sensing and Variable Rate Technology, Frank D’Emden, Department of Agriculture and Food and Quenten Knight,Precision Agronomics Australia 11. Case study of a 17 year agricultural lime trial, Chris Gazey1, Joel Andrew2and Ryan Pearce3 1Department of Agriculture and Food; 2Precision SoilTech; 3ConsultAg 12. Soil organic carbon in WA agricultural soils, FC Hoyle and A Bennett, Department of Agriculture and Food OTHER 13. Is the no-till revolution complete in WA? Frank D’Emden1, Rick Llewellyn2 and Ken Flower3 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 3University of Western Australia 14. Progression Planning (The Concept), Julian Krieg and Owen Catto, Wheatbelt Men’s Health 15. Is the Department of Agriculture and Food still a primary source of cropping information? Cindy Parsons, Department of Agriculture and Foo

Prioritization of knowledge-needs to achieve best practices for bottom trawling in relation to seabed habitats

Management and technical approaches that achieve a sustainable level of fish production while at the same time minimizing or limiting the wider ecological effects caused through fishing gear contact with the seabed might be considered to be ‘best practice’. To identify future knowledge-needs that would help to support a transition towards the adoption of best practices for trawling, a prioritization exercise was undertaken with a group of 39 practitioners from the seafood industry and management, and 13 research scientists who have an active research interest in bottom-trawl and dredge fisheries. A list of 108 knowledge-needs related to trawl and dredge fisheries was developed in conjunction with an ‘expert task force’. The long list was further refined through a three stage process of voting and scoring, including discussions of each knowledge-need. The top 25 knowledge-needs are presented, as scored separately by practitioners and scientists. There was considerable consistency in the priorities identified by these two groups. The top priority knowledge-need to improve current understanding on the distribution and extent of different habitat types also reinforced the concomitant need for the provision and access to data on the spatial and temporal distribution of all forms of towed bottom-fishing activities. Many of the other top 25 knowledge-needs concerned the evaluation of different management approaches or implementation of different fishing practices, particularly those that explore trade-offs between effects of bottom trawling on biodiversity and ecosystem services and the benefits of fish production as food.Fil: Kaiser, Michel J.. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Hilborn, Ray. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Jennings, Simon. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino UnidoFil: Amaroso, Ricky. University of Washington; Estados UnidosFil: Andersen, Michael. Danish Fishermen; DinamarcaFil: Balliet, Kris. Sustainable Fisheries Partnership; Estados UnidosFil: Barratt, Eric. Sanford Limited; Nueva ZelandaFil: Bergstad, Odd A. Institute of Marine Research; NoruegaFil: Bishop, Stephen. Independent Fisheries Ltd; Nueva ZelandaFil: Bostrom, Jodi L. Marine Stewardship Council; Reino UnidoFil: Boyd, Catherine. Clearwater Seafoods; CanadáFil: Bruce, Eduardo A. Friosur S.A.; ChileFil: Burden, Merrick. Marine Conservation Alliance; Estados UnidosFil: Carey, Chris. Independent Fisheries Ltd.; Estados UnidosFil: Clermont, Jason. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Collie, Jeremy S. University of Rhode Island,; Estados UnidosFil: Delahunty, Antony. National Federation of Fishermen; Reino UnidoFil: Dixon, Jacqui. Pacific Andes International Holdings Limited; ChinaFil: Eayrs, Steve. Gulf of Maine Research Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Edwards, Nigel. Seachill Ltd.; Reino UnidoFil: Fujita, Rod. Environmental Defense Fund; Reino UnidoFil: Gauvin, John. Alaska Seafood Cooperative; Estados UnidosFil: Gleason, Mary. The Nature Conservancy; Estados UnidosFil: Harris, Brad. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: He, Pingguo. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth; Estados UnidosFil: Hiddink, Jan G. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Hughes, Kathryn M. Bangor University; Reino UnidoFil: Inostroza, Mario. EMDEPES; ChileFil: Kenny, Andrew. Fisheries and Aquaculture Science; Reino UnidoFil: Kritzer, Jake. Environmental Defense Fund; Estados UnidosFil: Kuntzsch, Volker. Sanford Limited; Estados UnidosFil: Lasta, Mario. Diag. Montegrande N° 7078. Mar del Plata; ArgentinaFil: Lopez, Ivan. Confederacion Española de Pesca; EspañaFil: Loveridge, Craig. South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation; Nueva ZelandaFil: Lynch, Don. Gorton; Estados UnidosFil: Masters, Jim. Marine Conservation Society; Reino UnidoFil: Mazor, Tessa. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; AustraliaFil: McConnaughey, Robert A. US National Marine Fisheries Service; Estados UnidosFil: Moenne, Marcel. Pacificblu; ChileFil: Francis. Marine Scotland Science; Reino UnidoFil: Nimick, Aileen M. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: Olsen, Alex. A. Espersen; DinamarcaFil: Parker, David. Young; Reino UnidoFil: Parma, Ana María. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Nacional Patagónico; ArgentinaFil: Penney, Christine. Clearwater Seafoods; CanadáFil: Pierce, David. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries; Estados UnidosFil: Pitcher, Roland. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research; AustraliaFil: Pol, Michael. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries; Estados UnidosFil: Richardson, Ed. Pollock Conservation Cooperative; Estados UnidosFil: Rijnsdorp, Adriaan D. Wageningen IMARES; Países BajosFil: Rilatt, Simon. A. Espersen; DinamarcaFil: Rodmell, Dale P. National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations; Reino UnidoFil: Rose, Craig. FishNext Research; Estados UnidosFil: Sethi, Suresh A. Alaska Pacific University; Estados UnidosFil: Short, Katherine. F.L.O.W. Collaborative; Nueva ZelandaFil: Suuronen, Petri. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department; ItaliaFil: Taylor, Erin. New England Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Wallace, Scott. The David Suzuki Foundation; CanadáFil: Webb, Lisa. Gorton's Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Wickham, Eric. Unit four –1957 McNicoll Avenue; CanadáFil: Wilding, Sam R. Monterey Bay Aquarium; Estados UnidosFil: Wilson, Ashley. Department for Environment; Reino UnidoFil: Winger, Paul. Memorial University Of Newfoundland; CanadáFil: Sutherland, William J. University of Cambridge; Reino Unid

Significant benefits of AIP testing and clinical screening in familial isolated and young-onset pituitary tumors

Context Germline mutations in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor-interacting protein (AIP) gene are responsible for a subset of familial isolated pituitary adenoma (FIPA) cases and sporadic pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs). Objective To compare prospectively diagnosed AIP mutation-positive (AIPmut) PitNET patients with clinically presenting patients and to compare the clinical characteristics of AIPmut and AIPneg PitNET patients. Design 12-year prospective, observational study. Participants & Setting We studied probands and family members of FIPA kindreds and sporadic patients with disease onset ≤18 years or macroadenomas with onset ≤30 years (n = 1477). This was a collaborative study conducted at referral centers for pituitary diseases. Interventions & Outcome AIP testing and clinical screening for pituitary disease. Comparison of characteristics of prospectively diagnosed (n = 22) vs clinically presenting AIPmut PitNET patients (n = 145), and AIPmut (n = 167) vs AIPneg PitNET patients (n = 1310). Results Prospectively diagnosed AIPmut PitNET patients had smaller lesions with less suprasellar extension or cavernous sinus invasion and required fewer treatments with fewer operations and no radiotherapy compared with clinically presenting cases; there were fewer cases with active disease and hypopituitarism at last follow-up. When comparing AIPmut and AIPneg cases, AIPmut patients were more often males, younger, more often had GH excess, pituitary apoplexy, suprasellar extension, and more patients required multimodal therapy, including radiotherapy. AIPmut patients (n = 136) with GH excess were taller than AIPneg counterparts (n = 650). Conclusions Prospectively diagnosed AIPmut patients show better outcomes than clinically presenting cases, demonstrating the benefits of genetic and clinical screening. AIP-related pituitary disease has a wide spectrum ranging from aggressively growing lesions to stable or indolent disease course

Fine-mapping of prostate cancer susceptibility loci in a large meta-analysis identifies candidate causal variants

Prostate cancer is a polygenic disease with a large heritable component. A number of common, low-penetrance prostate cancer risk loci have been identified through GWAS. Here we apply the Bayesian multivariate variable selection algorithm JAM to fine-map 84 prostate cancer susceptibility loci, using summary data from a large European ancestry meta-analysis. We observe evidence for multiple independent signals at 12 regions and 99 risk signals overall. Only 15 original GWAS tag SNPs remain among the catalogue of candidate variants identified; the remainder are replaced by more likely candidates. Biological annotation of our credible set of variants indicates significant enrichment within promoter and enhancer elements, and transcription factor-binding sites, including AR, ERG and FOXA1. In 40 regions at least one variant is colocalised with an eQTL in prostate cancer tissue. The refined set of candidate variants substantially increase the proportion of familial relative risk explained by these known susceptibility regions, which highlights the importance of fine-mapping studies and has implications for clinical risk profiling. © 2018 The Author(s).Prostate cancer is a polygenic disease with a large heritable component. A number of common, low-penetrance prostate cancer risk loci have been identified through GWAS. Here we apply the Bayesian multivariate variable selection algorithm JAM to fine-map 84 prostate cancer susceptibility loci, using summary data from a large European ancestry meta-analysis. We observe evidence for multiple independent signals at 12 regions and 99 risk signals overall. Only 15 original GWAS tag SNPs remain among the catalogue of candidate variants identified; the remainder are replaced by more likely candidates. Biological annotation of our credible set of variants indicates significant enrichment within promoter and enhancer elements, and transcription factor-binding sites, including AR, ERG and FOXA1. In 40 regions at least one variant is colocalised with an eQTL in prostate cancer tissue. The refined set of candidate variants substantially increase the proportion of familial relative risk explained by these known susceptibility regions, which highlights the importance of fine-mapping studies and has implications for clinical risk profiling. © 2018 The Author(s).Peer reviewe

Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI): a single-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. METHODS: We did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91-1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed. INTERPRETATION: Remote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden