Projeto de habitação de interesse social sustentável para comunidades pesqueiras e o aproveitamento dos resíduos da maricultura / Sustainable social housing project for fishing communities and the use of mariculture waste

Desenvolvida no Laboratório de Eco Soluções – LabEcoS do IFPE Campus Recife, esta pesquisa tem por objetivo desenvolver uma proposta de habitação de interesse social, sustentável. Para tanto, e entendendo que para ser sustentável, uma proposta deve ser apropriada às diferentes realidades, a pesquisa definiu como objeto de estudo, a elaboração de um projeto arquitetônico desenvolvido para uma localidade específica, no caso, a Povoação de São Lourenço de Tejucupapo, no município de Goiana, litoral norte de Pernambuco. A escolha do local se deu a partir de visitas exploratórias que identificaram a grande produção de resíduos de maricultura, base da subsistência das comunidades pesqueiras, bem como a receptividade para com o grupo de pesquisa. A utilização destes resíduos por sua vez é a base para o desenvolvimento dos materiais de construção aqui estudados

ANÁLISE COMPARATIVA DO USO DE INIBIDORES DA BOMBA DE PRÓTONS E DE ANTAGONISTAS DOS RECEPTORES H2 NO TRATAMENTO DA GASTRITE

Considering the high prevalence of gastritis and its significant impact on patients' quality of life, this research was justified to understand and compare the efficacy and safety of the two main groups of drugs used in the treatment of gastritis: proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs). The objectives were to review and synthesize the existing scientific literature on the efficacy and safety of PPIs and H2RAs, compare their mechanisms of action, side effects, and clinical outcomes, identify best practices for the use of each therapeutic class in different clinical scenarios, and provide evidence-based recommendations to guide the choice of the most appropriate treatment for patients with gastritis. To this end, a qualitative bibliographic review was conducted, utilizing databases such as Scielo, Google Scholar, scientific journals, academic repositories, and virtual libraries, including materials published in multiple languages. Thus, it was observed that PPIs demonstrated greater efficacy in suppressing acid secretion and healing gastric lesions, but with a long-term safety profile that includes potential serious side effects. H2 receptor antagonists, although less potent, presented a relatively better safety profile. It was concluded that, although PPIs are generally preferred for severe acid hypersecretion conditions, the choice between PPIs and H2RAs should consider the individual risks and benefits for each patient, in addition to their specific clinical conditions.Considerando a alta prevalência da gastrite e seu impacto significativo na qualidade de vida dos pacientes, justificou-se a realização desta pesquisa para compreender e comparar a eficácia e segurança dos dois principais grupos de medicamentos utilizados no tratamento da gastrite: os inibidores da bomba de prótons (IBPs) e os antagonistas dos receptores H2. Objetivou-se revisar e sintetizar a literatura científica existente sobre a eficácia e segurança dos IBPs e dos antagonistas dos receptores H2, comparar seus mecanismos de ação, efeitos colaterais e desfechos clínicos, identificar as melhores práticas para a utilização de cada classe terapêutica em diferentes cenários clínicos, e fornecer recomendações baseadas em evidências para guiar a escolha do tratamento mais apropriado para pacientes com gastrite. Para tanto, procedeu-se a uma revisão bibliográfica qualitativa, utilizando bases de dados como Scielo, Google Acadêmico, revistas científicas, repositórios acadêmicos e bibliotecas virtuais, incluindo materiais publicados em múltiplos idiomas. Desse modo, observou-se que os IBPs demonstraram maior eficácia na supressão da secreção ácida e na cicatrização de lesões gástricas, porém com um perfil de segurança a longo prazo que inclui potenciais efeitos colaterais graves. Os antagonistas dos receptores H2, embora menos potentes, apresentaram um perfil de segurança relativamente melhor. Concluiu-se que, embora os IBPs sejam geralmente preferidos para condições graves de hipersecreção ácida, a escolha entre IBPs e antagonistas H2 deve considerar os riscos e benefícios individuais para cada paciente, além de suas condições clínicas específicas

ANÁLISE COMPARATIVA DO USO DE LISDEXANFETAMINA E DE METILFENIDATO NO TRATAMENTO DO TDAH

  Considering the increasing prevalence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the need for effective and safe therapeutic interventions, this research aimed to conduct a comparative analysis between lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD. To this end, a comprehensive qualitative literature review was conducted, using sources such as Scielo, Google Scholar, scientific journals, institutional repositories, and virtual libraries, without specific time period limitations. Thus, it was observed that both medications demonstrated efficacy in reducing ADHD symptoms. Lisdexamfetamine showed a more prolonged and consistent effect on dopaminergic neurotransmission and a potentially more favorable side effect profile, with fewer reports of severe adverse effects compared to methylphenidate. Methylphenidate, in turn, showed significant efficacy, especially in the short term. It is concluded that both lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate are valid therapeutic options for the treatment of ADHD, with specific advantages in different clinical contexts. The choice between these medications should consider the individual characteristics of patients and the available evidence of efficacy and safety, contributing to the optimization of treatment and the improvement of the quality of life of patients with ADHD.Considerando a crescente prevalência do Transtorno de Déficit de Atenção e Hiperatividade (TDAH) e a necessidade de intervenções terapêuticas eficazes e seguras, esta pesquisa objetivou realizar uma análise comparativa entre lisdexanfetamina e metilfenidato no tratamento do TDAH. Para tanto, procedeu-se a uma revisão bibliográfica qualitativa abrangente, utilizando fontes como Scielo, Google Acadêmico, revistas científicas, repositórios institucionais e bibliotecas virtuais, sem limitação de período específico. Desse modo, observou-se que ambos os medicamentos demonstraram eficácia na redução dos sintomas do TDAH. A lisdexanfetamina apresentou um efeito mais prolongado e consistente na neurotransmissão dopaminérgica e um perfil de efeitos colaterais potencialmente mais favorável, com menos relatos de efeitos adversos graves em comparação ao metilfenidato. O metilfenidato, por sua vez, mostrou eficácia significativa, especialmente em curto prazo. Conclui-se que tanto a lisdexanfetamina quanto o metilfenidato são opções terapêuticas válidas para o tratamento do TDAH, com vantagens específicas em diferentes contextos clínicos. A escolha entre esses medicamentos deve considerar as características individuais dos pacientes e as evidências de eficácia e segurança disponíveis, contribuindo para a otimização do tratamento e a melhoria da qualidade de vida dos pacientes com TDAH

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

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

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding 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,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 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 underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities 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 organism 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 neglected 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 lost

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding 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,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 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 underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities 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 organism 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 neglected 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 lost

Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil: setting the baseline knowledge on the animal diversity in Brazil

The limited temporal completeness and taxonomic accuracy of species lists, made available in a traditional manner in scientific publications, has always represented a problem. These lists are invariably limited to a few taxonomic groups and do not represent up-to-date knowledge of all species and classifications. In this context, the Brazilian megadiverse fauna is no exception, and the Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil (CTFB) (http://fauna.jbrj.gov.br/), made public in 2015, represents a database on biodiversity anchored on a list of valid and expertly recognized scientific names of animals in Brazil. The CTFB is updated in near real time by a team of more than 800 specialists. By January 1, 2024, the CTFB compiled 133,691 nominal species, with 125,138 that were considered valid. Most of the valid species were arthropods (82.3%, with more than 102,000 species) and chordates (7.69%, with over 11,000 species). These taxa were followed by a cluster composed of Mollusca (3,567 species), Platyhelminthes (2,292 species), Annelida (1,833 species), and Nematoda (1,447 species). All remaining groups had less than 1,000 species reported in Brazil, with Cnidaria (831 species), Porifera (628 species), Rotifera (606 species), and Bryozoa (520 species) representing those with more than 500 species. Analysis of the CTFB database can facilitate and direct efforts towards the discovery of new species in Brazil, but it is also fundamental in providing the best available list of valid nominal species to users, including those in science, health, conservation efforts, and any initiative involving animals. The importance of the CTFB is evidenced by the elevated number of citations in the scientific literature in diverse areas of biology, law, anthropology, education, forensic science, and veterinary science, among others

Seminário de Dissertação (2024)

Página da disciplina de Seminário de Dissertação (MPPP, UFPE, 2022) Lista de participantes == https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mrULe1y04yPxHUBaF50jhaM1OY8QYJ3zva4N4yvm198/edit#gid=