Securing Birth Certificate Documents with DNA Profiles

The birth certificate is a document used by a person to obtain identification and licensing documents throughout their lifetime. For identity verification, the birth certificate provides limited information to support a person’s claim of identity. Authentication to the birth certificate is strictly a matter of possession. DNA profiling is becoming a commodity analysis that can be done accurately in under two hours with little human intervention. The DNA profile is a superior biometric to add to a birth record because it is stable throughout a person’s life and beyond. Acceptability of universal DNA profiling will depend heavily on privacy and safety concerns. This paper uses the U.S. FBI CODIS profile as a basis to discuss the effectiveness of DNA profiling and to provide a practical basis for a discussion of potential privacy and authenticity controls. As is discussed, adopting DNA profiles to improve document security should be done cautiously

Smoking and health-related quality of life in English general population: Implications for economic evaluations

Copyright @ 2012 Vogl et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund.Background: Little is known as to how health-related quality of life (HRQoL) when measured by generic instruments such as EQ-5D differ across smokers, ex-smokers and never-smokers in the general population; whether the overall pattern of this difference remain consistent in each domain of HRQoL; and what implications this variation, if any, would have for economic evaluations of tobacco control interventions. Methods: Using the 2006 round of Health Survey for England data (n = 13,241), this paper aims to examine the impact of smoking status on health-related quality of life in English population. Depending upon the nature of the EQ-5D data (i.e. tariff or domains), linear or logistic regression models were fitted to control for biology, clinical conditions, socio-economic background and lifestyle factors that an individual may have regardless of their smoking status. Age- and gender-specific predicted values according to smoking status are offered as the potential 'utility' values to be used in future economic evaluation models. Results: The observed difference of 0.1100 in EQ-5D scores between never-smokers (0.8839) and heavy-smokers (0.7739) reduced to 0.0516 after adjusting for biological, clinical, lifestyle and socioeconomic conditions. Heavy-smokers, when compared with never-smokers, were significantly more likely to report some/severe problems in all five domains - mobility (67%), self-care (70%), usual activity (42%), pain/discomfort (46%) and anxiety/depression (86%) -. 'Utility' values by age and gender for each category of smoking are provided to be used in the future economic evaluations. Conclusion: Smoking is significantly and negatively associated with health-related quality of life in English general population and the magnitude of this association is determined by the number of cigarettes smoked. The varying degree of this association, captured through instruments such as EQ-5D, may need to be fed into the design of future economic evaluations where the intervention being evaluated affects (e.g. tobacco control) or is affected (e.g. treatment for lung cancer) by individual's (or patients') smoking status

Diagnosis and treatment of neurogenic dysphagia - S1 guideline of the German Society of Neurology.

INTRODUCTION Neurogenic dysphagia defines swallowing disorders caused by diseases of the central and peripheral nervous system, neuromuscular transmission, or muscles. Neurogenic dysphagia is one of the most common and at the same time most dangerous symptoms of many neurological diseases. Its most important sequelae include aspiration pneumonia, malnutrition and dehydration, and affected patients more often require long-term care and are exposed to an increased mortality. Based on a systematic pubmed research of related original papers, review articles, international guidelines and surveys about the diagnostics and treatment of neurogenic dysphagia, a consensus process was initiated, which included dysphagia experts from 27 medical societies. RECOMMENDATIONS This guideline consists of 53 recommendations covering in its first part the whole diagnostic spectrum from the dysphagia specific medical history, initial dysphagia screening and clinical assessment, to more refined instrumental procedures, such as flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing, the videofluoroscopic swallowing study and high-resolution manometry. In addition, specific clinical scenarios are captured, among others the management of patients with nasogastric and tracheotomy tubes. The second part of this guideline is dedicated to the treatment of neurogenic dysphagia. Apart from dietary interventions and behavioral swallowing treatment, interventions to improve oral hygiene, pharmacological treatment options, different modalities of neurostimulation as well as minimally invasive and surgical therapies are dealt with. CONCLUSIONS The diagnosis and treatment of neurogenic dysphagia is challenging and requires a joined effort of different medical professions. While the evidence supporting the implementation of dysphagia screening is rather convincing, further trials are needed to improve the quality of evidence for more refined methods of dysphagia diagnostics and, in particular, the different treatment options of neurogenic dysphagia. The present article is an abridged and translated version of the guideline recently published online ( https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/030-111l_Neurogene-Dysphagie_2020-05.pdf )

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Detecting preferences based on eye movement using combinatorial fusion

When tasked with comparing two images on a screen, a subject's eye movement can be captured and analyzed in order to understand the process of preference formation. The process of comparing two images and developing a preference is analyzed based on a sample dataset. Although it is known in general that our preferences are shaped by our past experiences, a systemic understanding of the factors which lead to preference decision making remains a challenging problem. In this paper, we propose a set of five attributes which are extracted from the temporal eye movement sequence: last duration, total duration, gaze count, interest sustainability, and region change. Each of these five attributes is a scoring system (ranking system). We then use the combinatorial fusion algorithm (CFA) framework to combine pairs of attributes using the rank-score characteristic (RSC) function and cognitive diversity (CD). Our results demonstrate that combination of two attributes can improve individual attributes if the attribute pair has a higher cognitive diversity. Our work represents a new paradigm to use combinatorial fusion for preference detection based on eye movement

Preference Prediction Based on Eye Movement Using Multi-layer Combinatorial Fusion

Face image preference is influenced by many factors and can be detected by analyzing eye movement data. When comparing two face images, our gaze shifts within and between the faces. Eye tracking data can give us insights into the cognitive processes involved in forming a preference. In this paper, a gaze tracking dataset is analyzed using three machine learning algorithms (MLA): AdaBoost, Random Forest, and Mixed Group Ranks (MGR) as well as a newly developed machine learning framework called Multi-Layer Combinatorial Fusion (MCF) to predict a subject’s face image preference. Attributes constructed from the dataset are treated as input scoring systems. MCF involves a series of layers that consist of expansion and reduction processes. The expansion process involves performing exhaustive score and rank combinations, while the reduction process uses performance and diversity to select a subset of systems that will be passed onto the next layer of analysis. Performance and cognitive diversity are used in weighted scoring system combinations and system selection. The results outperform the Mixed Group Ranks algorithm, as well as our previous work using pairwise scoring system combinations