Carcass comparisons of mature and immature steers

Publication authorized March 30, 1928.Digitized 2007 AES.Includes bibliographical references (page 20)

The effects of management and sex on carcasses of yearling cattle

Publication authorized February 17, 1933.Digitized 2007 AES.Includes bibliographical references (page 20)

Formaldehyde exposure and the indoor environment

The average American spends the majority of their time indoors. Most people are aware of outdoor pollutants and the impact on their health, but many are not aware of the potential dangers in their own homes. The indoor environment is not only influenced by outdoor pollutants migrating into the indoor atmosphere, but also pollutants created indoors. Once we acknowledge that indoor air is just as important as outdoor air, we can begin to look at ways to improve guidelines, detection methods, and assessments of indoor air. The purpose of this essay is to look at formaldehyde and the indoor environment. Areas to be covered are chemical properties, applications, exposure and toxicity, health affects, indoor sources, detections methods, indoor concentrations, guidelines and remediation process of formaldehyde in the indoor environment. The public health significance of formaldehyde in the indoor environment is to protect the public from the dangers inside their homes, to improve the way formaldehyde is detected and develop prevention methods to control formaldehyde emission into our indoor environment

Randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 'Families for Health', a family-based childhood obesity treatment intervention delivered in a community setting for ages 6 to 11 years

Background: Effective programmes to help children manage their weight are required. ‘Families for Health’ focuses on a parenting approach, designed to help parents develop their parenting skills to support lifestyle change within the family. Families for Health version 1 showed sustained reductions in mean body mass index (BMI) z-score after 2 years in a pilot project. Objective: The aim was to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Design: The trial was a multicentre, investigator-blind RCT, with a parallel economic and process evaluation, with follow-up at 3 and 12 months. Randomisation was by family unit, using a 1 : 1 allocation by telephone registration, stratified by three sites, with a target of 120 families. Setting: Three sites in the West Midlands, England, UK. Participants: Children aged 6–11 years who were overweight (≥ 91st centile BMI) or obese (≥ 98th centile BMI), and their parents/carers. Recruitment was via referral or self-referral. Interventions: Families for Health version 2 is a 10-week, family-based community programme with parallel groups for parents and children, addressing parenting, lifestyle, social and emotional development. Usual care was the treatment for childhood obesity provided within each locality. Main outcome measures: Joint primary outcome measures were change in children’s BMI z-score and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 12 months’ follow-up (QALYs were calculated using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions Youth version). Secondary outcome measures included changes in children’s waist circumference, percentage body fat, physical activity, fruit/vegetable consumption and quality of life. Parents’ BMI and mental well-being, family eating/activity, parent–child relationships and parenting style were also assessed. The process evaluation documented recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity, using mixed methods. Results: The study recruited 115 families (128 children; 63 boys and 65 girls), with 56 families randomised to the Families for Health arm and 59 to the ‘usual-care’ control arm. There was 80% retention of families at 3 months (Families for Health, 46 families; usual care, 46 families) and 72% retention at 12 months (Families for Health, 44 families; usual care, 39 families). The change in BMI z-score at 12 months was not significantly different in the Families for Health arm and the usual-care arm [0.114, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.001 to 0.229; p = 0.053]. However, within-group analysis showed that the BMI z-score was significantly reduced in the usual-care arm (–0.118, 95% CI –0.203 to –0.034; p = 0.007), but not in the Families for Health arm (–0.005, 95% CI –0.085 to 0.078; p = 0.907). There was only one significant difference between groups for secondary outcomes. The economic evaluation, taking a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, showed that mean costs 12 months post randomisation were significantly higher for Families for Health than for usual care (£998 vs. £548; p < 0.001). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness of Families for Health was estimated at £552,175 per QALY gained. The probability that the Families for Health programme is cost-effective did not exceed 40% across a range of thresholds. The process evaluation demonstrated that the programme was implemented, as planned, to the intended population and any adjustments did not deviate widely from the handbook. Many families waited more than 3 months to receive the intervention. Facilitators’, parents’ and children’s experiences of Families for Health were largely positive and there were no adverse events. Further analysis could explore why some children show a clinically significant benefit while others have a worse outcome. Conclusions: Families for Health was neither effective nor cost-effective for the management of obesity in children aged 6–11 years, in comparison with usual care. Further exploration of the wide range of responses in BMI z-score in children following the Families for Health and usual-care interventions is warranted, focusing on children who had a clinically significant benefit and those who showed a worse outcome with treatment. Further research could focus on the role of parents in the prevention of obesity, rather than treatment. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45032201. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Incorporating biodopants into PEDOT conducting polymers: impact of biodopant on polymer properties and biocompatibility

Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) was polymerized with the biological dopants dextran sulphate and chondroitin sulphate. Polymer physical and mechanical properties were investigated using quartz crystal microgravimetry with dissipation monitoring and atomic force microscopy, revealing polymer shear modulus and interfacial roughness to be significantly altered as a function of the dopant species. The adsorption of fibronectin, an important extracellular protein that is critical for a range of cellular functions and processes, was investigated using QCM-D, revealing protein adsorption to be increased on the DS doped PEDOT film relative to the CS doped film. PEDOT films have traditionally been doped with synthetic counterions such as polystyrene sulphonate (PSS), however the incorporation of biological molecules as the counterion, which has been shown to improve polymer biofunctionality, has received far less attention. In particular, there has been little detailed study on the impact of incorporating polyelectrolyte biomolecules into the PEDOT polymer matrix on fundamental polymer properties which are critical for biomedical applications. This investigation provides a detailed characterization of the interfacial and mechanical properties of biologically doped PEDOT films, as well as the efficacy of the composite films to bind and retain extracellular proteins of the type that are critical to the biocompatibility of the polymeric material

Influence of biodopants on PEDOT biomaterial polymers: using QCM-D to characterize polymer interactions with proteins and living cells

Organic conducting polymers (OCPs) are currently the subject of intense research in the area of biomaterials and bioelectronics. Of the OCPs, poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDOT) has attracted significant interest, however there has been little work on investigating the incorporation of biological compounds as the dopant species in the polymer which are aimed at enhancing the biocompatibility and biofunctionality of the material. Here, we incorporate the biological dopants dextran sulphate, chondroitin sulphate, and alginate, into PEDOT polymers and investigate their influence on a suite of physicochemical and electrochemical properties. We employ QCM-D to study the mass of adsorption and the viscoelastic properties of the important extracellular matrix proteins fibronectin and collagen. Furthermore, we use QCM-D to study the adhesion of PC12 neural cells to the PEDOT-biodopant polymers with and without an adsorbed protein conditioning layer. QCM-D was found to be an excellent tool with which to study conducting polymer-biological interactions, with this report the first time that QCM-D has been used to study cell interactions with conducting polymer biomaterials

Comparing test-specific distress of susceptibility versus deterministic genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease

BACKGROUND: Genetic risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) may be conferred by the susceptibility polymorphism apolipoprotein E (APOE), where the ε4 allele increases the risk of developing late-onset Alzheimer’s disease but is not a definitive predictor of the disease, or by autosomal dominant mutations (e.g., the presenilins), which almost inevitably result in early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease. The purpose of this study was to compare the psychological impact of using these two different types of genetic information to disclose genetic risk for AD to family members of affected patients. METHODS: Data were compared from two separate protocols. The Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer’s Disease (REVEAL) Study is a randomized, multi-site clinical trial that evaluated the impact of susceptibility testing for Alzheimer’s disease with APOE in 101 adult children of Alzheimer’s disease patients. A separate study, conducted at the University of Washington, assessed the impact of deterministic genetic testing by disclosing presenilin-1, presenilin-2, or TAU genotype to 22 individuals at risk for familial Alzheimer’s disease or frontotemporal dementia. In both protocols, participants received genetic counseling and completed the Impact of Event Scale (IES), a measure of test-specific distress. Scores were analyzed at the time point closest to one year post-disclosure at which IES data were available. The role of genetic test result (positive vs. negative) and type of genetic testing (deterministic vs. susceptibility) in predicting log-transformed IES scores was assessed with linear regression, controlling for age, gender, and time from disclosure. RESULTS: Subjects from the REVEAL Study who learned that they were positive for the susceptibility gene APOE ε4+ experienced similar, low levels of test-specific distress compared to those who received positive results of deterministic testing in the University of Washington study (p= 0.78). APOE ε4+ individuals in the susceptibility protocol experienced more test-specific distress than those who tested ε4− in the same study (p= 0.04); however, among those receiving deterministic test disclosure, the subjects who received positive results did not experience significantly higher levels of distress when compared to those who received negative results (p= 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this preliminary study, with limited sample size, suggest that the test-related distress experienced by those receiving positive results for a deterministic mutation is similar to the distress experienced by those receiving positive results from genetic susceptibility testing, and that the majority of participants receiving genotype disclosure do not experience clinically significant distress as indicated by IES scores one year after learning of their test results