Prospectus, March 28, 2012

APOCALYPSE UPON US; DR. RAMAGE FIRST TO FALL VICTIM, Happy Father\u27s Day!, Board Votes to Approve Condominium Development, What do you Think of Parkland\u27s Referendum to Ban Dubstep?, Procrastination Becoming Common Problem in Colleges, Students to Cook Own Food After Food Service Departure, Internet Stolen From Home of its Creator, Al Gore, Prospectus News Voted Best in World, Letter to the Editor, Zook to Coach New Parkland Football Program, Parkland Creates Dubstep Band, Bans Genre Same Weekhttps://spark.parkland.edu/prospectus_2012/1008/thumbnail.jp

Pharmacological evaluation of novel bioisosteres of an adamantanyl benzamide P2X7 receptor antagonist

Adamantanyl benzamide 1 was identified as a potent P2X7R antagonist but failed to progress further due to poor metabolic stability. We describe the synthesis and SAR of a series of bioisosteres of benzamide 1 to explore improvements in the pharmacological properties of this lead. Initial efforts investigated a series of heteroaromatic bioisosteres, which demonstrated improved physicochemical properties but reduced P2X7R antagonism. Installation of bioisosteric fluorine on the adamantane bridgeheads was well tolerated and led to a series of bioisosteres with improved physicochemical properties and metabolic stability. Trifluorinated benzamide 34 demonstrated optimal physicochemical parameters, superior metabolic stability (ten times longer than lead benzamide 1), and an improved physicokinetic profile and proved effective in the presence of several known P2X7R polymorphisms

Tephrochronology and its application: A review

Tephrochronology (from tephra, Gk ‘ashes’) is a unique stratigraphic method for linking, dating, and synchronizing geological, palaeoenvironmental, or archaeological sequences or events. As well as utilising the Law of Superposition, tephrochronology in practise requires tephra deposits to be characterized (or ‘fingerprinted’) using physical properties evident in the field together with those obtained from laboratory analyses. Such analyses include mineralogical examination (petrography) or geochemical analysis of glass shards or crystals using an electron microprobe or other analytical tools including laser-ablation-based mass spectrometry or the ion microprobe. The palaeoenvironmental or archaeological context in which a tephra occurs may also be useful for correlational purposes. Tephrochronology provides greatest utility when a numerical age obtained for a tephra or cryptotephra is transferrable from one site to another using stratigraphy and by comparing and matching inherent compositional features of the deposits with a high degree of likelihood. Used this way, tephrochronology is an age-equivalent dating method that provides an exceptionally precise volcanic-event stratigraphy. Such age transfers are valid because the primary tephra deposits from an eruption essentially have the same short-lived age everywhere they occur, forming isochrons very soon after the eruption (normally within a year). As well as providing isochrons for palaeoenvironmental and archaeological reconstructions, tephras through their geochemical analysis allow insight into volcanic and magmatic processes, and provide a comprehensive record of explosive volcanism and recurrence rates in the Quaternary (or earlier) that can be used to establish time-space relationships of relevance to volcanic hazard analysis. The basis and application of tephrochronology as a central stratigraphic and geochronological tool for Quaternary studies are presented and discussed in this review. Topics covered include principles of tephrochronology, defining isochrons, tephra nomenclature, mapping and correlating tephras from proximal to distal locations at metre- through to sub-millimetre-scale, cryptotephras, mineralogical and geochemical fingerprinting methods, numerical and statistical correlation techniques, and developments and applications in dating including the use of flexible depositional age-modelling techniques based on Bayesian statistics. Along with reference to wide-ranging examples and the identification of important recent advances in tephrochronology, such as the development of new geoanalytical approaches that enable individual small glass shards to be analysed near-routinely for major, trace, and rare-earth elements, potential problems such as miscorrelation, erroneous-age transfer, and tephra reworking and taphonomy (especially relating to cryptotephras) are also examined. Some of the challenges for future tephrochronological studies include refining geochemical analytical methods further, improving understanding of cryptotephra distribution and preservation patterns, improving age modelling including via new or enhanced radiometric or incremental techniques and Bayesian-derived models, evaluating and quantifying uncertainty in tephrochronology to a greater degree than at present, constructing comprehensive regional databases, and integrating tephrochronology with spatially referenced environmental and archaeometric data into 3-D reconstructions using GIS and geostatistics

Tree Planting in Prince George’s County, Maryland: Case Studies and Benefits Assessment in Four Parks

Final project for LARC452: Green Infrastructure and Community Greening (Fall 2019). University of Maryland, College Park.The benefits of trees and forests and the ecosystems services that they provide is well documented. Ecosystems services include carbon sequestration, stormwater retention, water pollution reduction, air pollution retention and others. In addition, tree planting efforts provide numerous social benefits including improvement of community cohesion, increase in social capital, and environmental stewardship and education. In order to provide a greater understanding of tree planting efforts and assessing tree benefits locally, two major project components were undertaken: 1) the research and documentation using case studies of individual tree planting efforts, and 2) assessment of benefits of recent and proposed trees for four selected parks in Prince George’s county.Prince George's Count

Exploring interaction differences in Microblogging Word of Mouth between entrepreneurial and conventional service providers

In this study, we explore the interaction network properties of Microblogging Word of Mouth (MWOM), and how it is utilized by two different types of service providers, namely entrepreneurial and conventional. We use social network analysis, involving network metrics, sentiment, content and semantic analysis of real time data collected via Twitter, to compare two providers in terms of how they leverage MWOM in their social interactions. Results demonstrate that MWOM is utilized in an inherently different manner by an entrepreneurial provider, compared to a conventional one. Based on the findings, the study identifies distinctions between the entrepreneurial and conventional service providers in how they utilize MWOM on social media. Specifically, the entrepreneurial provider capitalizes on the interactive nature and dialogic capabilities of Twitter; whereas the conventional provider mostly relies on focal information sharing, thus neglecting the network members’ content creation and relationship building capability of social media networks. The study has significant implications as it provides key insights and lessons in terms of how companies should respond to emerging digital opportunities in their online social interactions

Mice Deficient in GEM GTPase Show Abnormal Glucose Homeostasis Due to Defects in Beta-Cell Calcium Handling

Glucose-stimulated insulin secretion from beta-cells is a tightly regulated process that requires calcium flux to trigger exocytosis of insulin-containing vesicles. Regulation of calcium handling in beta-cells remains incompletely understood. Gem, a member of the RGK (Rad/Gem/Kir) family regulates calcium channel handling in other cell types, and Gem over-expression inhibits insulin release in insulin-secreting Min6 cells. The aim of this study was to explore the role of Gem in insulin secretion. We hypothesised that Gem may regulate insulin secretion and thus affect glucose tolerance in vivo

What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach

Ambiguity surrounding the effect of external engagement on academic research has raised questions about what motivates researchers to collaborate with third parties. We argue that what matters for society is research that can be absorbed by users. We define openness as a willingness by researchers to make research more usable by external partners by responding to external influences in their own research practices. We ask what kinds of characteristics define those researchers who are more open to creating usable knowledge. Our empirical study analyses a sample of 1583 researchers working at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). Results demonstrate that it is personal factors (academic identity and past experience) that determine which researchers have open behaviours. The paper concludes that policies to encourage external engagement should focus on experiences which legitimate and validate knowledge produced through user encounters, both at the academic formation career stage as well as through providing ongoing opportunities to engage with third parties.The data used for this study comes from the IMPACTO project funded by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research - CSIC (Ref. 200410E639). The work also benefited from a mobility grant awarded by Eu-Spri Forum to Julia Olmos Penuela & Paul Benneworth for her visiting research to the Center of Higher Education Policy Studies. Finally, Julia Olmos Penuela also benefited from a post-doctoral grant funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (APOSTD-2014-A-006).Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach. Minerva. 53(4):381-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4S381410534Abreu, Maria, Vadim Grinevich, Alan Hughes, and Michael Kitson. 2009. Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research and UK-IRC.Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2008. Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 39: 617–635.Ajzen, Icek. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 27–58.Alrøe, Hugo Fjelsted, and Erik Steen Kristensen. 2002. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19(1): 3–23.Audretsch, David B., Werner Bönte, and Stefan Krabel. 2010. Why do scientists in public research institutions cooperate with private firms. In DRUID Working Paper, 10–27.Baldini, Nicola, Rosa Grimaldi, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2007. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70(2): 333–354.Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barnett, R. 2009. Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 34(4): 429–440.Becher, Tony. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 19(2): 151–161.Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. McGraw-Hill International.Bekkers, Rudi, and Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37(10): 1837–1853.Belderbos, René, Martin Carree, Bert Diederen, Boris Lokshin, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22(8): 1237–1263.Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291–301.Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19(1): 69–89.Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2011. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press.Bleiklie, Ivar, and Roar Høstaker. 2004. Modernizing research training-education and science policy between profession, discipline and academic institution. Higher Education Policy 17(2): 221–236.Bozeman, Barry, Daniel Fay, and Catherine P. Slade. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer 38(1): 1–67.Collini, Stefan. 2009. Impact on humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen. The Times Literary Supplement 5563: 18–19.D’Este, Pablo, and Markus Perkmann. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(3): 316–339.D’Este, Pablo, Oscar Llopis, and Alfredo Yegros. 2013. Conducting pro-social research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research: INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series.Deem, Rosemary, and Lisa Lucas. 2007. Research and teaching cultures in two contrasting UK policy contexts: Academic life in education departments in five English and Scottish universities. Higher Education 54(1): 115–133.DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.Downing, David B. 2005. The knowledge contract: Politics and paradigms in the academic workplace. Lincoln: Nebraska University of Nebraska Press.Donovan, Claire. 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy 34(8): 585–597.Durning, Bridget. 2004. Planning academics and planning practitioners: Two tribes or a community of practice? Planning Practice and Research 19(4): 435–446.Edquist, Charles. 1997. System of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, ed. C. Edquist, 1–35. London: Pinter.Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.Fromhold-Eisebith, Martina, Claudia Werker, and Marcel Vojnic. 2014. Tracing the social dimension in innovation networks. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47(1): 93–114.Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Gläser, Jochen. 2012. How does Governance change research content? On the possibility of a sociological middle-range theory linking science policy studies to the sociology of scientific knowledge. Technical University Berlin. Technology Studies Working Papers. http://www.ts.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg226/TUTS/TUTS-WP-1-2012.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2015.Goethner, Maximilian, Martin Obschonka, Rainer K. Silbereisen, and Uwe Cantner. 2012. Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology 33(3): 628–641.Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932–950.Haeussler, Carolin, and Jeannette Colyvas. 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy 40(1): 41–54.Hessels, Laurens K., Harro van Lente, John Grin, and Ruud E.H.M. Smits. 2011. Changing struggles for relevance in eight fields of natural science. Industry and Higher Education 25(5): 347–357.Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro Van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37(4): 740–760.Hoye, Kate, and Fred Pries. 2009. ‘Repeat commercializers’, the ‘habitual entrepreneurs’ of university–industry technology transfer. Technovation 29(10): 682–689.Jacobson, Nora, Dale Butterill, and Paula Goering. 2004. Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication 25(3): 246–259.Jain, Sanjay, Gerard George, and Mark Maltarich. 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy 38(6): 922–935.Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2013. Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture 22(2): 189–196.Jensen, Pablo. 2011. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 26–36.Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Kronenberg, Kristin, and Marjolein Caniëls. 2014. Professional proximity in research collaborations. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Krueger, Rob, and David Gibbs. 2010. Competitive global city regions and sustainable development’: An interpretive institutionalist account in the South East of England. Environment and planning A 42: 821–837.Lam, Alice. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy 40(10): 1354–1368.Landry, Réjean, Malek Saïhi, Nabil Amara, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2010. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy 39(10): 1387–1403.Lee, Alison, and David Boud. 2003. Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education 28(2): 187–200.Lee, Yong S. 1996. ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy 25(6): 843–863.Lee, Yong S. 2000. The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer 25(2): 111–133.Leisyte, Liudvika, Jürgen Enders, and Harry De Boer. 2008. The freedom to set research agendas—illusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch Universities. Higher Education Policy 21(3): 377–391.Louis, Karen Seashore, David Blumenthal, Michael E. Gluck, and Michael A. Stoto. 1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1): 110–131.Lowe, Philip, Jeremy Phillipson, and Katy Wilkinson. 2013. Why social scientists should engage with natural scientists. Contemporary Social Science 8(3): 207–222.Martín-Sempere, María José, Belén Garzón-García, and Jesús Rey-Rocha. 2008. Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349–367.Martin, Ben. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. A. Geuna, A.J. Salter, and W.E. Steinmueller, 7–29. Cheltenhan: Edward Elgar.Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Miller, Thaddeus R., and Mark W. Neff. 2013. De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva 51(3): 295–315.Muthén, Bengt O. 1998–2004. Mplus Technical Appendices. Muthén & Muthén. Los Angeles, CA.: Muthén & Muthén.Nedeva, Maria. 2013. Between the global and the national: Organising European science. Research Policy 42(1): 220–230.Neff, Mark William. 2014. Research prioritization and the potential pitfall of path dependencies in coral reef science. Minerva 52(2): 213–235.Nelson, Richard R. 2001. Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1): 13–19.Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Paul Benneworth, and Elena Castro-Martínez. 2014a. Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’? Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value. Science and Public Policy 41: 384–400.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Elena Castro-Martínez, and Manuel Fernández-Esquinas. 2014b. Diferencias entre áreas científicas en las prácticas de divulgación de la investigación: un estudio empírico en el CSIC. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. doi: 10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096 .Ouimet, Mathieu, Nabil Amara, Réjean Landry, and John Lavis. 2007. Direct interactions medical school faculty members have with professionals and managers working in public and private sector organizations: A cross-sectional study. Scientometrics 72(2): 307–323.Perkmann, Markus, Valentina Tartari, Maureen McKelvey, Erkko Autio, Anders Brostrom, Pablo D’Este, Riccardo Fini, et al. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy 42(2): 423–442.Philpott, Kevin, Lawrence Dooley, Caroline O’Reilly, and Gary Lupton. 2011. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31(4): 161–170.Rutten, Roel, and Frans Boekema. 2012. From learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context. Regional Studies 46(8): 981–992.Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger A. Pielke. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 10(1): 5–16.Sauermann, Henry, and Paula Stephan. 2013. Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science 24(3): 889–909.Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Shane, Scott. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4): 448–469.Spaapen, Jack, and Leonie van Drooge. 2011. Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation 20(3): 211–218.Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Tartari, Valentina, and Stefano Breschi. 2012. Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change 21(5): 1117–1147.Tinker, Tony, and Rob Gray. 2003. Beyond a critique of pure reason: From policy to politics to praxis in environmental and social research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(5): 727–761.van Rijnsoever, Frank J., Laurens K. Hessels, and Rens L.J. Vandeberg. 2008. A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy 37(8): 1255–1266.Venkataraman, Sankaran. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth 3: 119–138.Verspagen, Bart. 2006. University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Surveys 20(4): 607–632.Villanueva-Felez, Africa, Jordi Molas-Gallart, and Alejandro Escribá-Esteve. 2013. Measuring personal networks and their relationship with scientific production. Minerva 51(4): 465–483.Watermeyer, Richard. 2015. Lost in the ‘third space’: the impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. European Journal of Higher Education (online first, doi: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044546 ).Weingart, Peter. 2009. Editorial for Issue 47/3. Minerva 47(3): 237–239.Ziman, John. 1996. ‘Postacademic science’: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 1: 67–80.Zomer, Arend H., Ben W.A. Jongbloed, and Jürgen Enders. 2010. Do spin-offs make the academics’ heads spin? The impacts of spin-off companies on their parent research organisation. Minerva 48(3): 331–353

Insights into hominid evolution from the gorilla genome sequence.

Gorillas are humans' closest living relatives after chimpanzees, and are of comparable importance for the study of human origins and evolution. Here we present the assembly and analysis of a genome sequence for the western lowland gorilla, and compare the whole genomes of all extant great ape genera. We propose a synthesis of genetic and fossil evidence consistent with placing the human-chimpanzee and human-chimpanzee-gorilla speciation events at approximately 6 and 10 million years ago. In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other; this is rarer around coding genes, indicating pervasive selection throughout great ape evolution, and has functional consequences in gene expression. A comparison of protein coding genes reveals approximately 500 genes showing accelerated evolution on each of the gorilla, human and chimpanzee lineages, and evidence for parallel acceleration, particularly of genes involved in hearing. We also compare the western and eastern gorilla species, estimating an average sequence divergence time 1.75 million years ago, but with evidence for more recent genetic exchange and a population bottleneck in the eastern species. The use of the genome sequence in these and future analyses will promote a deeper understanding of great ape biology and evolution

Epidemiology of injuries from fire, heat and hot substances : global, regional and national morbidity and mortality estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study

Background Past research has shown how fires, heat and hot substances are important causes of health loss globally. Detailed estimates of the morbidity and mortality from these injuries could help drive preventative measures and improved access to care. Methods We used the Global Burden of Disease 2017 framework to produce three main results. First, we produced results on incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, deaths, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life years from 1990 to 2017 for 195 countries and territories. Second, we analysed these results to measure mortality-to-incidence ratios by location. Third, we reported the measures above in terms of the cause of fire, heat and hot substances and the types of bodily injuries that result. Results Globally, there were 8 991 468 (7 481 218 to 10 740 897) new fire, heat and hot substance injuries in 2017 with 120 632 (101 630 to 129 383) deaths. At the global level, the age-standardised mortality caused by fire, heat and hot substances significantly declined from 1990 to 2017, but regionally there was variability in age-standardised incidence with some regions experiencing an increase (eg, Southern Latin America) and others experiencing a significant decrease (eg, High-income North America). Conclusions The incidence and mortality of injuries that result from fire, heat and hot substances affect every region of the world but are most concentrated in middle and lower income areas. More resources should be invested in measuring these injuries as well as in improving infrastructure, advancing safety measures and ensuring access to care.Peer reviewe

Burden of injury along the development spectrum : associations between the Socio-demographic Index and disability-adjusted life year estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Background The epidemiological transition of non-communicable diseases replacing infectious diseases as the main contributors to disease burden has been well documented in global health literature. Less focus, however, has been given to the relationship between sociodemographic changes and injury. The aim of this study was to examine the association between disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from injury for 195 countries and territories at different levels along the development spectrum between 1990 and 2017 based on the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 estimates. Methods Injury mortality was estimated using the GBD mortality database, corrections for garbage coding and CODEm-the cause of death ensemble modelling tool. Morbidity estimation was based on surveys and inpatient and outpatient data sets for 30 cause-of-injury with 47 nature-of-injury categories each. The Socio-demographic Index (SDI) is a composite indicator that includes lagged income per capita, average educational attainment over age 15 years and total fertility rate. Results For many causes of injury, age-standardised DALY rates declined with increasing SDI, although road injury, interpersonal violence and self-harm did not follow this pattern. Particularly for self-harm opposing patterns were observed in regions with similar SDI levels. For road injuries, this effect was less pronounced. Conclusions The overall global pattern is that of declining injury burden with increasing SDI. However, not all injuries follow this pattern, which suggests multiple underlying mechanisms influencing injury DALYs. There is a need for a detailed understanding of these patterns to help to inform national and global efforts to address injury-related health outcomes across the development spectrum.Peer reviewe