158 research outputs found

    Cronoestratigrafía del Paleozoico Superior de América del Sur : Primera etapa de trabajo hacia una nueva propuesta

    Get PDF
    Fil: Azcuy, Carlos L.. Departamento de Geología. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Universidad de Buenos Aires. CABA; ArgentinaFil: Beri, Ángeles. Sección Paleontología. Departamento de Geología. Facultad de Ciencias. Montevideo; UruguayFil: Bernardes-de-Oliveira, Mary E.C.. Universidade Guarulhos. SP; BrasilFil: Carrizo, Hugo A.. Fundación Miguel Lillo. Dirección de Geología. San Miguel de Tucumán; ArgentinaFil: di Pasquo, Mercedes. Departamento de Geología. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Universidad de Buenos Aires. CABA; ArgentinaFil: Díaz Saravia, Pamela. Fil: González, Carlos R.. Fundación Miguel Lillo. Dirección de Geología. San Miguel de Tucumán; ArgentinaFil: Iannuzzi, Roberto. Instituto de Geociências. Universidad Federal Río Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Lemos, Valesca B.. Instituto de Geociências. Universidad Federal Río Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Melo, José Henrique G.. PETROBRAS/CENPES/PDEXP/BPA. Rio de Janeiro; BrasilFil: Pagani, María Alejandra. Museo Paleontológico Egidio Feruglio. Trelew. Chubut; ArgentinaFil: Rhon, Rosemarie. Departamento de Geologia Aplicada, IGCE/UNESP. Rio Claro; BrasilFil: Amenabar, Cecilia. Departamento de Geología. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. UBA. CABA; ArgentinaFil: Sabattini, Nora María. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo. Universidad Nacional de La Plata; ArgentinaFil: Souza, Paulo. Instituto de Geociências. Universidad Federal Río Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Taboada, Arturo C.. Laboratorio de Investigaciones en Evolución y Biodiversidad (LIEB). Facultad de Ciencias Naturales Sede Esquel. Universidad Nacional de La Patagonia San Juan Bosco. Chubut; ArgentinaFil: Vergel, María del Milagro. Fundación Miguel Lillo. Dirección de Geología. San Miguel de Tucumán; Argentin

    Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

    Get PDF
    Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

    Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

    Get PDF

    High levels of immunosuppression are related to unfavourable outcomes in hospitalised patients with rheumatic diseases and COVID-19 : first results of ReumaCoV Brasil registry

    Get PDF
    Objectives To evaluate risk factors associated with unfavourable outcomes: emergency care, hospitalisation, admission to intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation and death in patients with immune-mediated rheumatic disease (IMRD) and COVID-19. Methods Analysis of the first 8 weeks of observational multicentre prospective cohort study (ReumaCoV Brasil register). Patients with IMRD and COVID-19 according to the Ministry of Health criteria were classified as eligible for the study. Results 334 participants were enrolled, a majority of them women, with a median age of 45 years; systemic lupus erythematosus (32.9%) was the most frequent IMRD. Emergency care was required in 160 patients, 33.0% were hospitalised, 15.0% were admitted to the ICU and 10.5% underwent mechanical ventilation; 28 patients (8.4%) died. In the multivariate adjustment model for emergency care, diabetes (prevalence ratio, PR 1.38; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.73; p=0.004), kidney disease (PR 1.36; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.77; p=0.020), oral glucocorticoids (GC) (PR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.85; p50 years (PR 1.89; 95% CI 1.26 to 2.85; p=0.002), no use of tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (PR 2.51;95% CI 1.16 to 5.45; p=0.004) and methylprednisolone pulse therapy (PR 2.50; 95% CI 1.59 to 3.92; p<0.001); for ICU admission, oral GC (PR 2.24; 95% CI 1.36 to 3.71; p<0.001) and pulse therapy with methylprednisolone (PR 1.65; 95% CI 1.00 to 2.68; p<0.043); the two variables associated with death were pulse therapy with methylprednisolone or cyclophosphamide (PR 2.86; 95% CI 1.59 to 5.14; p<0.018). Conclusions Age >50 years and immunosuppression with GC and cyclophosphamide were associated with unfavourable outcomes of COVID-19. Treatment with TNFi may have been protective, perhaps leading to the COVID-19 inflammatory process

    Effects of early versus delayed initiation of antiretroviral treatment on clinical outcomes of HIV-1 infection: results from the phase 3 HPTN 052 randomised controlled trial

    Get PDF
    Use of antiretroviral treatment for HIV-1 infection has decreased AIDS-related morbidity and mortality and prevents sexual transmission of HIV-1. However, the best time to initiate antiretroviral treatment to reduce progression of HIV-1 infection or non-AIDS clinical events is unknown. We reported previously that early antiretroviral treatment reduced HIV-1 transmission by 96%. We aimed to compare the effects of early and delayed initiation of antiretroviral treatment on clinical outcomes
    corecore