Expert range maps of global mammal distributions harmonised to three taxonomic authorities

AimComprehensive, global information on species' occurrences is an essential biodiversity variable and central to a range of applications in ecology, evolution, biogeography and conservation. Expert range maps often represent a species' only available distributional information and play an increasing role in conservation assessments and macroecology. We provide global range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species harmonised to the taxonomy of the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) mobilised from two sources, the Handbook of the Mammals of the World (HMW) and the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World (CMW).LocationGlobal.TaxonAll extant mammal species.MethodsRange maps were digitally interpreted, georeferenced, error-checked and subsequently taxonomically aligned between the HMW (6253 species), the CMW (6431 species) and the MDD taxonomies (6362 species).ResultsRange maps can be evaluated and visualised in an online map browser at Map of Life (mol.org) and accessed for individual or batch download for non-commercial use.Main conclusionExpert maps of species' global distributions are limited in their spatial detail and temporal specificity, but form a useful basis for broad-scale characterizations and model-based integration with other data. We provide georeferenced range maps for the native ranges of all extant mammal species as shapefiles, with species-level metadata and source information packaged together in geodatabase format. Across the three taxonomic sources our maps entail, there are 1784 taxonomic name differences compared to the maps currently available on the IUCN Red List website. The expert maps provided here are harmonised to the MDD taxonomic authority and linked to a community of online tools that will enable transparent future updates and version control

New directions for program evaluation

Publ. comme no 60, winter 1993 de la revue New directions for program evaluationBibliogr. à la fin des textesIndex: p. 97-10

New directions for program evaluation

Publ. comme no 57, spring 1993 de la revue New directions for program evaluationBibliogr. à la fin des textesIndex: p. 83-8

Magnitudes of Experimental Effects in Social Science Research

How the magnitude of an experimental effect may be measured has been a matter of concern for at least two decades. The phenomenon of effect size is still not well under stood, and it cannot be inferred from statistical significance. In recent years various ways of assessing the amount of variance accounted for have been proposed as measures of magnitude of effect. Other writers have proposed rulesfor standardizing effect size, with the interpretations of the measures depending largely on intuitions buttressed by some further general empirical norms. All the methods of assessing effect size have serious flaws that limit their usefulness. The various statistical procedures for estimating variance accounted for are based on different statistical models and can produce rather sharply differing results, depending on the model employed. All the methods suffer from the limitation that they reflect to too great an extent the particular characteristics of the study being reported and hence have limited generalizability.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/67520/2/10.1177_0193841X8200600501.pd

Liposomal Irinotecan Accumulates in Metastatic Lesions, Crosses the Blood-Tumor Barrier (BTB), and Prolongs Survival in an Experimental Model of Brain Metastases of Triple Negative Breast Cancer

Purpose—The blood-tumor barrier (BTB) limits irinotecan distribution in tumors of the central nervous system. However, given that the BTB has increased passive permeability we hypothesize that liposomal irinotecan would improve local exposure of irinotecan and its active metabolite SN-38 in brain metastases relative to conventional irinotecan due to enhanced-permeation and retention (EPR) effect. Methods—Female nude mice were intracardially or intracranially implanted with human brain seeking breast cancer cells (brain metastases of breast cancer model). Mice were administered vehicle, non-liposomal irinotecan (50 mg/kg), liposomal irinotecan (10 mg/kg and 50 mg/kg) intravenously starting on day 21. Drug accumulation, tumor burden, and survival were evaluated. Results—Liposomal irinotecan showed prolonged plasma drug exposure with mean residence time (MRT) of 17.7 ± 3.8 h for SN-38, whereas MRT was 3.67 ± 1.2 for non-liposomal irinotecan. Further, liposomal irinotecan accumulated in metastatic lesions and demonstrated prolonged exposure of SN-38 compared to non-liposomal irinotecan. Liposomal irinotecan achieved AUC values of 6883 ± 4149 ng-h/g for SN-38, whereas non-liposomal irinotecan showed significantly lower AUC values of 982 ± 256 ng-h/g for SN-38. Median survival for liposomal irinotecan was 50 days, increased from 37 days (