96 research outputs found

    More Than Fraud: Proving Fraud on the Court

    Get PDF
    (Excerpt) In all adversarial proceedings, litigants have a duty of full disclosure and honesty with the court. Typically, where a party obtains a judgment through fraudulent conduct, the only way to overturn that judgment is through a motion to vacate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). A final judgment can also be overturned by a motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3), as incorporated into the Bankruptcy Rules by Rule 9024, to vacate a judgment based upon fraud on the court. Fraud on the court is generally limited to instances where “the integrity of the judicial process ha[s] been fraudulently subverted” and does not include fraudulent conduct that only affects a party to the action. Fraud on the court is typically limited to the most egregious conduct that implicates an officer of the court. Courts must further balance the policy of upholding final judgments against the possibility the judgment was obtained by perpetrating a fraud on the court. Several courts have applied a lower standard for determining whether specific fraudulent conduct rises to the level of fraud on the court. This memorandum explores the standard necessary to establish a fraud on the court claim as well as what actions constitute fraud on the court. Part I discusses the majority standard for a fraud on the court claim. Part II discusses the minority standard for establishing fraud on the court

    SARS-CoV-2 Receptor ACE2 Is an Interferon-Stimulated Gene in Human Airway Epithelial Cells and Is Detected in Specific Cell Subsets across Tissues.

    Get PDF
    There is pressing urgency to understand the pathogenesis of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus clade 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes the disease COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein binds angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), and in concert with host proteases, principally transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2), promotes cellular entry. The cell subsets targeted by SARS-CoV-2 in host tissues and the factors that regulate ACE2 expression remain unknown. Here, we leverage human, non-human primate, and mouse single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) datasets across health and disease to uncover putative targets of SARS-CoV-2 among tissue-resident cell subsets. We identify ACE2 and TMPRSS2 co-expressing cells within lung type II pneumocytes, ileal absorptive enterocytes, and nasal goblet secretory cells. Strikingly, we discovered that ACE2 is a human interferon-stimulated gene (ISG) in vitro using airway epithelial cells and extend our findings to in vivo viral infections. Our data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 could exploit species-specific interferon-driven upregulation of ACE2, a tissue-protective mediator during lung injury, to enhance infection

    Serum screening with Down's syndrome markers to predict pre-eclampsia and small for gestational age: Systematic review and meta-analysis

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Reliable antenatal identification of pre-eclampsia and small for gestational age is crucial to judicious allocation of monitoring resources and use of preventative treatment with the prospect of improving maternal/perinatal outcome. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the accuracy of five serum analytes used in Down's serum screening for prediction of pre-eclampsia and/or small for gestational age.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The data sources included Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, Medion (inception to February 2007), hand searching of relevant journals, reference list checking of included articles, contact with experts. Two reviewers independently selected the articles in which the accuracy of an analyte used in Downs's serum screening before the 25<sup>th </sup>gestational week was associated with the occurrence of pre-eclampsia and/or small for gestational age without language restrictions. Two authors independently extracted data on study characteristics, quality and results.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Five serum screening markers were evaluated. 44 studies, testing 169,637 pregnant women (4376 pre-eclampsia cases) and 86 studies, testing 382,005 women (20,339 fetal growth restriction cases) met the selection criteria. The results showed low predictive accuracy overall. For pre-eclampsia the best predictor was inhibin A>2.79MoM positive likelihood ratio 19.52 (8.33,45.79) and negative likelihood ratio 0.30 (0.13,0.68) (single study). For small for gestational age it was AFP>2.0MoM to predict birth weight < 10<sup>th </sup>centile with birth < 37 weeks positive likelihood ratio 27.96 (8.02,97.48) and negative likelihood ratio 0.78 (0.55,1.11) (single study). A potential clinical application using aspirin as a treatment is given as an example.</p> <p>There were methodological and reporting limitations in the included studies thus studies were heterogeneous giving pooled results with wide confidence intervals.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Down's serum screening analytes have low predictive accuracy for pre-eclampsia and small for gestational age. They may be a useful means of risk assessment or of use in prediction when combined with other tests.</p

    Fc-Optimized Anti-CD25 Depletes Tumor-Infiltrating Regulatory T Cells and Synergizes with PD-1 Blockade to Eradicate Established Tumors

    Get PDF
    CD25 is expressed at high levels on regulatory T (Treg) cells and was initially proposed as a target for cancer immunotherapy. However, anti-CD25 antibodies have displayed limited activity against established tumors. We demonstrated that CD25 expression is largely restricted to tumor-infiltrating Treg cells in mice and humans. While existing anti-CD25 antibodies were observed to deplete Treg cells in the periphery, upregulation of the inhibitory Fc gamma receptor (FcγR) IIb at the tumor site prevented intra-tumoral Treg cell depletion, which may underlie the lack of anti-tumor activity previously observed in pre-clinical models. Use of an anti-CD25 antibody with enhanced binding to activating FcγRs led to effective depletion of tumor-infiltrating Treg cells, increased effector to Treg cell ratios, and improved control of established tumors. Combination with anti-programmed cell death protein-1 antibodies promoted complete tumor rejection, demonstrating the relevance of CD25 as a therapeutic target and promising substrate for future combination approaches in immune-oncology

    An Evaluation Schema for the Ethical Use of Autonomous Robotic Systems in Security Applications

    Full text link

    Pseudoacromegaly

    Get PDF
    © 2018 Elsevier Inc. Individuals with acromegaloid physical appearance or tall stature may be referred to endocrinologists to exclude growth hormone (GH) excess. While some of these subjects could be healthy individuals with normal variants of growth or physical traits, others will have acromegaly or pituitary gigantism, which are, in general, straightforward diagnoses upon assessment of the GH/IGF-1 axis. However, some patients with physical features resembling acromegaly – usually affecting the face and extremities –, or gigantism – accelerated growth/tall stature – will have no abnormalities in the GH axis. This scenario is termed pseudoacromegaly, and its correct diagnosis can be challenging due to the rarity and variability of these conditions, as well as due to significant overlap in their characteristics. In this review we aim to provide a comprehensive overview of pseudoacromegaly conditions, highlighting their similarities and differences with acromegaly and pituitary gigantism, to aid physicians with the diagnosis of patients with pseudoacromegaly.PM is supported by a clinical fellowship by Barts and the London Charity. Our studies on pituitary adenomas and related conditions received support from the Medical Research Council, Rosetrees Trust and the Wellcome Trust

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

    Get PDF
    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

    More Than Fraud: Proving Fraud on the Court

    No full text
    (Excerpt) In all adversarial proceedings, litigants have a duty of full disclosure and honesty with the court. Typically, where a party obtains a judgment through fraudulent conduct, the only way to overturn that judgment is through a motion to vacate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). A final judgment can also be overturned by a motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3), as incorporated into the Bankruptcy Rules by Rule 9024, to vacate a judgment based upon fraud on the court. Fraud on the court is generally limited to instances where “the integrity of the judicial process ha[s] been fraudulently subverted” and does not include fraudulent conduct that only affects a party to the action. Fraud on the court is typically limited to the most egregious conduct that implicates an officer of the court. Courts must further balance the policy of upholding final judgments against the possibility the judgment was obtained by perpetrating a fraud on the court. Several courts have applied a lower standard for determining whether specific fraudulent conduct rises to the level of fraud on the court. This memorandum explores the standard necessary to establish a fraud on the court claim as well as what actions constitute fraud on the court. Part I discusses the majority standard for a fraud on the court claim. Part II discusses the minority standard for establishing fraud on the court
    • 

    corecore