A Survey of Bayesian Statistical Approaches for Big Data

The modern era is characterised as an era of information or Big Data. This has motivated a huge literature on new methods for extracting information and insights from these data. A natural question is how these approaches differ from those that were available prior to the advent of Big Data. We present a review of published studies that present Bayesian statistical approaches specifically for Big Data and discuss the reported and perceived benefits of these approaches. We conclude by addressing the question of whether focusing only on improving computational algorithms and infrastructure will be enough to face the challenges of Big Data

The ARID1B spectrum in 143 patients: from nonsyndromic intellectual disability to Coffin–Siris syndrome

Purpose: Pathogenic variants in ARID1B are one of the most frequent causes of intellectual disability (ID) as determined by large-scale exome sequencing studies. Most studies published thus far describe clinically diagnosed Coffin–Siris patients (ARID1B-CSS) and it is unclear whether these data are representative for patients identified through sequencing of unbiased ID cohorts (ARID1B-ID). We therefore sought to determine genotypic and phenotypic differences between ARID1B-ID and ARID1B-CSS. In parallel, we investigated the effect of different methods of phenotype reporting. Methods: Clinicians entered clinical data in an extensive web-based survey. Results: 79 ARID1B-CSS and 64 ARID1B-ID patients were included. CSS-associated dysmorphic features, such as thick eyebrows, long eyelashes, thick alae nasi, long and/or broad philtrum, small nails and small or absent fifth distal phalanx and hypertrichosis, were observed significantly more often (p < 0.001) in ARID1B-CSS patients. No other significant differences were identified. Conclusion: There are only minor differences between ARID1B-ID and ARID1B-CSS patients. ARID1B-related disorders seem to consist of a spectrum, and patients should be managed similarly. We demonstrated that data collection methods without an explicit option to report the absence of a feature (such as most Human Phenotype Ontology-based methods) tended to underestimate gene-related features

Residual effects of static stretching and self-myofascial-release exercises on flexibility and lower body explosive strength in well-trained combat athletes

BACKGROUND: The self-myofascial technique is a new exercise modality that is thought to improve muscular performance and restore soft tissue. However, there are limited empirical data demonstrating the efficacy of this technique on athletic performance. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of self-myofascial-releasing exercises on the residual characteristics of the sit and reach (S&R) and countermovement jump (CMJ) performance in well-trained combat athletes. METHODS: Sixteen well-trained male combat athletes (age: 23.9 ± 3.6 years, mass: 78.78 ± 10.41 kg, combat experience: 12.87 ± 5.23 years) performed three exercise sessions called "aerobic running (AR)", "aerobic running combined with static stretching (AR + SS)", and "aerobic running combined with self-myofascial release (AR + SMR)" at 48 hour intervals in a randomized crossover design. After each session, the subjects performed the S&R and CMJ tests successively with 30-s of rest between the tests at the 15th second and at the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 15th, and 30th minute during the recovery period. RESULTS: ANOVA and the post-hoc LSD (Least Significant Difference) test revealed that the AR + SMR treatment increased the flexibility greater than AR + SS (p = 0.029) at the 45th second. Additionally, the AR + SMR treatment resulted in less of a decrease in CMJ height compared to AR + SS at the 10th minute (p = 0.025). A larger decrease in the CMJ height was found after AR + SS compared to the AR and AR + SMR treatments at the 10th and 15th minute, respectively (p = 0.025 and p = 0.038). These results revealed that SMR had no advantage over AR and SS in terms of enhancing flexibility. A statistically insignificant inhibitory effect of SMR was detected on the CMJ performance. SS appeared to have an inhibitory effect on the CMJ performance for approximately 15 minutes. CONCLUSION: SMR may have a detrimental effect on CMJ performance. Trainers or athletes should consider using the SMR technique before training or competition to prevent possible power decrement. © 2017-IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

trial

Background: Cardioversion (CV), a painful procedure, requires sedation and analgesia. Although several sedation agents currently are in use for CV, data on age-specific efficacy and side effects of midazolam and propofol have been limited.Objectives: To compare the efficacy and side effects of midazolam and propofol in patients of two different age groups, younger than 65 years and 65 years and over, who were going through CV.Methods: Seventy consented patients with CV indications caused by atrial fibrillation were included in this clinical trial. The participants were placed into four groups by using a stratified randomization method: patients aged younger than 65 years who were receiving midazolam (n = 12) or propofol (n = 11) and patients 65 years and over who were receiving midazolam (n = 25) or propofol (n = 22). Medications were administered by slow intermittent bolus injections. During CV, time to reach Ramsay Sedation Scale level 5 (RSS-5; induction time); time to reach RSS-2 (recovery time); and side effects including desaturation, apnea, and changes in hemodynamic parameters were recorded by a person blinded to the patient treatment allocation.Results: Mean induction time was similar in all four groups. Mean recovery time (min +/- SD) was shorter in both propofol groups when compared with both midazolam groups: 18.8 (+/- 4.06) and 40.33 (+/- 20.8) in the group younger than 65 years and 18.2 ( +/- 5.12) and 54.2 (+/- 20.85) in the group 65 years or older, respectively (p < 0.001). Older participants in each medication group needed less medication than younger patients. There were no hemodynamic differences between the groups. Desaturation was higher in both midazolam groups as compared with individuals in the age-matched propofol groups (both p < 0.05). Patient reactions were less in propofol groups with similar joules during CV procedures than were those in the midazolam groups.Conclusions: Propofol appears to be a better choice for CV sedation in elders because of its short recovery time, fewer side effects, and its more comfortable sedative effect

Age effect on efficacy and side effects of two sedation and analgesia protocols on patients going through cardioversion: A randomized clinical trial

Background: Cardioversion (CV), a painful procedure, requires sedation and analgesia. Although several sedation agents currently are in use for CV, data on age-specific efficacy and side effects of midazolam and propofol have been limited.Objectives: To compare the efficacy and side effects of midazolam and propofol in patients of two different age groups, younger than 65 years and 65 years and over, who were going through CV.Methods: Seventy consented patients with CV indications caused by atrial fibrillation were included in this clinical trial. The participants were placed into four groups by using a stratified randomization method: patients aged younger than 65 years who were receiving midazolam (n = 12) or propofol (n = 11) and patients 65 years and over who were receiving midazolam (n = 25) or propofol (n = 22). Medications were administered by slow intermittent bolus injections. During CV, time to reach Ramsay Sedation Scale level 5 (RSS-5; induction time); time to reach RSS-2 (recovery time); and side effects including desaturation, apnea, and changes in hemodynamic parameters were recorded by a person blinded to the patient treatment allocation.Results: Mean induction time was similar in all four groups. Mean recovery time (min +/- SD) was shorter in both propofol groups when compared with both midazolam groups: 18.8 (+/- 4.06) and 40.33 (+/- 20.8) in the group younger than 65 years and 18.2 ( +/- 5.12) and 54.2 (+/- 20.85) in the group 65 years or older, respectively (p < 0.001). Older participants in each medication group needed less medication than younger patients. There were no hemodynamic differences between the groups. Desaturation was higher in both midazolam groups as compared with individuals in the age-matched propofol groups (both p < 0.05). Patient reactions were less in propofol groups with similar joules during CV procedures than were those in the midazolam groups.Conclusions: Propofol appears to be a better choice for CV sedation in elders because of its short recovery time, fewer side effects, and its more comfortable sedative effect