A Comparison of the Ovulation Method With the CUE Ovulation Predictor in Determining the Fertile Period

The purpose of this study was to compare the CUE Ovulation Predictor with the ovulation method in determining the fertile period. Eleven regularly ovulating women measured their salivary and vaginal electrical resistance (ER) with the CUE, observed their cervical-vaginal mucus, and measured their urine for a luteinizing hormone (LH) surge on a daily basis. Data from 21 menstrual cycles showed no statistical difference (T= 0.33, p= 0.63) between the CUE fertile period, which ranged from 5 to 10 days (mean = 6.7 days, SD = 1.6), and the fertile period of the ovulation method, which ranged from 4 to 9 days (mean = 6.5 days, SD = 2.0). The CUE has potential as an adjunctive device in the learning and use of natural family planning methods

Measuring Coverage in MNCH:A Validation Study Linking Population Survey Derived Coverage to Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health Care Records in Rural China

Accurate data on coverage of key maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) interventions are crucial for monitoring progress toward the Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5. Coverage estimates are primarily obtained from routine population surveys through self-reporting, the validity of which is not well understood. We aimed to examine the validity of the coverage of selected MNCH interventions in Gongcheng County, China.We conducted a validation study by comparing women's self-reported coverage of MNCH interventions relating to antenatal and postnatal care, mode of delivery, and child vaccinations in a community survey with their paper- and electronic-based health care records, treating the health care records as the reference standard. Of 936 women recruited, 914 (97.6%) completed the survey. Results show that self-reported coverage of these interventions had moderate to high sensitivity (0.57 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50-0.63] to 0.99 [95% CI: 0.98-1.00]) and low to high specificity (0 to 0.83 [95% CI: 0.80-0.86]). Despite varying overall validity, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) ranging between 0.49 [95% CI: 0.39-0.57] and 0.90 [95% CI: 0.88-0.92], bias in the coverage estimates at the population level was small to moderate, with the test to actual positive (TAP) ratio ranging between 0.8 and 1.5 for 24 of the 28 indicators examined. Our ability to accurately estimate validity was affected by several caveats associated with the reference standard. Caution should be exercised when generalizing the results to other settings.The overall validity of self-reported coverage was moderate across selected MNCH indicators. However, at the population level, self-reported coverage appears to have small to moderate degree of bias. Accuracy of the coverage was particularly high for indicators with high recorded coverage or low recorded coverage but high specificity. The study provides insights into the accuracy of self-reports based on a population survey in low- and middle-income countries. Similar studies applying an improved reference standard are warranted in the future

The melanoma-specific graded prognostic assessment does not adequately discriminate prognosis in a modern population with brain metastases from malignant melanoma

The melanoma-specific graded prognostic assessment (msGPA) assigns patients with brain metastases from malignant melanoma to 1 of 4 prognostic groups. It was largely derived using clinical data from patients treated in the era that preceded the development of newer therapies such as BRAF, MEK and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Therefore, its current relevance to patients diagnosed with brain metastases from malignant melanoma is unclear. This study is an external validation of the msGPA in two temporally distinct British populations.Performance of the msGPA was assessed in Cohort I (1997-2008, n=231) and Cohort II (2008-2013, n=162) using Kaplan-Meier methods and Harrell's c-index of concordance. Cox regression was used to explore additional factors that may have prognostic relevance.The msGPA does not perform well as a prognostic score outside of the derivation cohort, with suboptimal statistical calibration and discrimination, particularly in those patients with an intermediate prognosis. Extra-cerebral metastases, leptomeningeal disease, age and potential use of novel targeted agents after brain metastases are diagnosed, should be incorporated into future prognostic models.An improved prognostic score is required to underpin high-quality randomised controlled trials in an area with a wide disparity in clinical care

Localized modes at a D-brane--O-plane intersection and heterotic Alice strings

We study a system of $N_c$ $D3$-branes intersecting $D7$-branes and $O7$-planes in 1+1-dimensions. We use anomaly cancellation and string dualities to argue that there must be chiral fermion zero-modes on the $D3$-branes which are localized near the $O7$-planes. Away from the orientifold limit we verify this by using index theory as well as explicit construction of the zero-modes. This system is related to F-theory on K3 and heterotic matrix string theory, and the heterotic strings are related to Alice string defects in $\mathcal{N}=4$ Super-Yang-Mills. In the limit of large $N_c$ we find an $AdS_3$ dual of the heterotic matrix string CFT.Comment: 44 pages, typos corrected, version published in JHE

Testing many treatments within a single protocol over 10 years at MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL: Multi-arm, multi-stage platform, umbrella and basket protocols

There is real need to change how we do some of our clinical trials, as currently the testing and development process is too slow, too costly and too failure-prone often we find that a new treatment is no better than the current standard. Much of the focus on the development and testing pathway has been in improving the design of phase I and II trials. In this article, we present examples of new methods for improving the design of phase III trials (and the necessary lead up to them) as they are the most time-consuming and expensive part of the pathway. Key to all these methods is the aim to test many treatments and/or pose many therapeutic questions within one protocol

Random field sampling for a simplified model of melt-blowing considering turbulent velocity fluctuations

In melt-blowing very thin liquid fiber jets are spun due to high-velocity air streams. In literature there is a clear, unsolved discrepancy between the measured and computed jet attenuation. In this paper we will verify numerically that the turbulent velocity fluctuations causing a random aerodynamic drag on the fiber jets -- that has been neglected so far -- are the crucial effect to close this gap. For this purpose, we model the velocity fluctuations as vector Gaussian random fields on top of a k-epsilon turbulence description and develop an efficient sampling procedure. Taking advantage of the special covariance structure the effort of the sampling is linear in the discretization and makes the realization possible

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of an adapted intervention for preschoolers with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities displaying behaviours that challenge: the EPICC-ID RCT

Background: Stepping Stones Triple P is an adapted intervention for parents of young children with developmental disabilities who display behaviours that challenge, aiming at teaching positive parenting techniques and promoting a positive parent-child relationship. Objective: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P in reducing behaviours that challenge in children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Design, setting, participants: A parallel two-arm pragmatic multisite single-blind randomised controlled trial recruited a total of 261 dyads (parent and child). The children were aged 30-59 months and had moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Participants were randomised, using a 3 : 2 allocation ratio, into the intervention arm (Stepping Stones Triple P; n = 155) or treatment as usual arm (n = 106). Participants were recruited from four study sites in Blackpool, North and South London and Newcastle. Intervention: Level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P consists of six group sessions and three individual phone or face-to-face contacts over 9 weeks. These were changed to remote sessions after 16 March 2020 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Main outcome measure: The primary outcome measure was the parent-reported Child Behaviour Checklist, which assesses the severity of behaviours that challenge. Results: We found a small non-significant difference in the mean Child Behaviour Checklist scores (-4.23, 95% CI -9.98 to 1.52, p = 0.146) in the intervention arm compared to treatment as usual at 12 months. Per protocol and complier average causal effect sensitivity analyses, which took into consideration the number of sessions attended, showed the Child Behaviour Checklist mean score difference at 12 months was lower in the intervention arm by -10.77 (95% CI -19.12 to -2.42, p = 0.014) and -11.53 (95% CI -26.97 to 3.91, p = 0.143), respectively. The Child Behaviour Checklist mean score difference between participants who were recruited before and after the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was estimated as -7.12 (95% CI -13.44 to -0.81) and 7.61 (95% CI -5.43 to 20.64), respectively (p = 0.046), suggesting that any effect pre-pandemic may have reversed during the pandemic. There were no differences in all secondary measures. Stepping Stones Triple P is probably value for money to deliver (-\ua31057.88; 95% CI -\ua33218.6 to -\ua346.67), but decisions to roll this out as an alternative to existing parenting interventions or treatment as usual may be dependent on policymaker willingness to invest in early interventions to reduce behaviours that challenge. Parents reported the intervention boosted their confidence and skills, and the group format enabled them to learn from others and benefit from peer support. There were 20 serious adverse events reported during the study, but none were associated with the intervention. Limitations: There were low attendance rates in the Stepping Stones Triple P arm, as well as the coronavirus disease 2019-related challenges with recruitment and delivery of the intervention. Conclusions: Level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P did not reduce early onset behaviours that challenge in very young children with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. However, there was an effect on child behaviours for those who received a sufficient dose of the intervention. There is a high probability of Stepping Stones Triple P being at least cost neutral and therefore worth considering as an early therapeutic option given the long-term consequences of behaviours that challenge on people and their social networks. Future work: Further research should investigate the implementation of parenting groups for behaviours that challenge in this population, as well as the optimal mode of delivery to maximise engagement and subsequent outcomes. Study registration: This study is registered as NCT03086876 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03086876?term=Hassiotis\ub1Angela&draw=1&rank=1). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: HTA 15/162/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.Research shows that in children without learning disabilities, parenting groups which support parents to develop skills to manage behaviours that challenge in their child can be helpful. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommended that more research was needed to strengthen the evidence for such interventions for children with moderate to severe learning disability who are more likely to display behaviours that challenge in England. In this study, we tested in real-world conditions a programme called level 4 Stepping Stones Triple P, which has shown positive results in trials outside of the United Kingdom. Trained therapists delivered six groups and three individual sessions over 9 weeks to parents of children aged 30–59 months with moderate to severe learning disabilities. Two hundred and sixty-one parents were allocated to one of two arms by chance (randomisation): one received Stepping Stones Triple P and treatment as usual and the other treatment as usual only. Treatment as usual included support and advice by general practitioners or community child development teams. Our primary outcome was parent-reported child behaviour at 12 months after randomisation. We also collected data on other outcomes and carried out interviews with parents, service managers and therapists to find out their views about Stepping Stones Triple P. We did not find that Stepping Stones Triple P reduces behaviours that challenge in the child more than treatment as usual at 12 months. However, when we looked at people who received more than half of the sessions, there was a larger reduction in behaviours which suggests that Stepping Stones Triple P works for families if they attend the full programme. Stepping Stones Triple P seems to be good value for money, as we found that at 12 months (covering 10 months of costs), the Stepping Stones Triple P cost \ua31058 less than treatment as usual from a health and social care perspective. As such, Stepping Stones Triple P is fairly cheap to deliver and a suitable early intervention for behaviours that challenge especially because of positive feedback from parents. Throughout the trial, we included a Parent Advisory Group that oversaw study materials, interview topic guides and promotion of the study

Scalar soliton quantization with generic moduli

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credArticle funded by SCOAP3. CP is a Royal Society Research Fellow and partly supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under grants DOE-SC0010008, DOE-ARRA-SC0003883 and DOE-DE-SC0007897. ABR is supported by the Mitchell Family Foundation. We would like to thank the Mitchell Institute at Texas A&M and the NHETC at Rutgers University respectively for hospitality during the course of this work. We would also like to acknowledge the Aspen Center for Physics and NSF grant 1066293 for a stimulating research environment which led to questions addressed in this paper

Improving the Prognostic Ability through Better Use of Standard Clinical Data - The Nottingham Prognostic Index as an Example

Background Prognostic factors and prognostic models play a key role in medical research and patient management. The Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) is a well-established prognostic classification scheme for patients with breast cancer. In a very simple way, it combines the information from tumor size, lymph node stage and tumor grade. For the resulting index cutpoints are proposed to classify it into three to six groups with different prognosis. As not all prognostic information from the three and other standard factors is used, we will consider improvement of the prognostic ability using suitable analysis approaches. Methods and Findings Reanalyzing overall survival data of 1560 patients from a clinical database by using multivariable fractional polynomials and further modern statistical methods we illustrate suitable multivariable modelling and methods to derive and assess the prognostic ability of an index. Using a REMARK type profile we summarize relevant steps of the analysis. Adding the information from hormonal receptor status and using the full information from the three NPI components, specifically concerning the number of positive lymph nodes, an extended NPI with improved prognostic ability is derived. Conclusions The prognostic ability of even one of the best established prognostic index in medicine can be improved by using suitable statistical methodology to extract the full information from standard clinical data. This extended version of the NPI can serve as a benchmark to assess the added value of new information, ranging from a new single clinical marker to a derived index from omics data. An established benchmark would also help to harmonize the statistical analyses of such studies and protect against the propagation of many false promises concerning the prognostic value of new measurements. Statistical methods used are generally available and can be used for similar analyses in other diseases