The engineering and technological education of Black Americans : 1865-1950.

This study researches the history of black involvement in engineering and technological education from Emancipation to the year 1950. The educational opportunities that existed for black Americans during this period, and the lack of such opportunities, are examined. The progress of the former slave population into the technologically advanced twentieth century is followed. Tactics employed by individual states in reaction to black insistence for advanced learning are examined providing an understanding of black protests on the lack of access and the outright refusal of some states to field the question of black higher education. Voices from both sides of the racial bar address the question of educational parity. Teachers, politicians, and statesmen are prominent in this discussion, displaying a range of views that both astounded and empowered the forces that worked on either side of the controversy. Racism, institutional and individual, is a focal point. Tolerance is shown as a continuing thread throughout, often where one might least expect it, and alliances that forged a new era of cooperation between the races and among institutions are researched and reported. Institutions and individuals responsible for the racial and educational climate are examined: prominent spokespersons, both black and white, are included to give an overall feel for the struggle for parity in this area of the educational arena; institutions, their policies and practices, their willingness to look beyond the color of an applicant\u27s skin, and their efforts to include a diverse student body are examined. There is also a discussion of the emergence of a national policy\u27s broad guidelines that aided in the denial of access to black technological aspirants during this time period. The black struggle for opportunity and acceptance in the technological arena has been a struggle worthy of note. This struggle and the reporting of it is important because, despite the significance of the topic, it is one that has been minimally explored. This is a beginning

Whole-genome sequencing of patients with rare diseases in a national health system

Most patients with rare diseases do not receive a molecular diagnosis and the aetiological variants and causative genes for more than half such disorders remain to be discovered1. Here we used whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in a national health system to streamline diagnosis and to discover unknown aetiological variants in the coding and non-coding regions of the genome. We generated WGS data for 13,037 participants, of whom 9,802 had a rare disease, and provided a genetic diagnosis to 1,138 of the 7,065 extensively phenotyped participants. We identified 95 Mendelian associations between genes and rare diseases, of which 11 have been discovered since 2015 and at least 79 are confirmed to be aetiological. By generating WGS data of UK Biobank participants2, we found that rare alleles can explain the presence of some individuals in the tails of a quantitative trait for red blood cells. Finally, we identified four novel non-coding variants that cause disease through the disruption of transcription of ARPC1B, GATA1, LRBA and MPL. Our study demonstrates a synergy by using WGS for diagnosis and aetiological discovery in routine healthcare

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)