The Effect Of Pitching With Underweight And Overweight Balls On Pitch Velocity In Collegiate Baseball Pitchers.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve overhand throw velocity in baseball pitchers, weighted implement training, which utilizes balls that are heavier or lighter than a competition ball, have been employed. Weighted ball programs have previously been used in baseball pitchers ranging from high school to professional with varying ball weights with mixed results (Straub, 1966; Brose and Hanson, 1967; DeRenne, 1985; DeRenne, 1990; van den Tillaar and Ettema, 2011). PURPOSE: To determine the effect of a commercially available weighted ball program on the throwing velocity of collegiate baseball pitchers over the course of an off-season. METHODS: This retrospective study examined pitch velocity for 56 varsity collegiate baseball pitchers at the University of Mississippi between 2012-2015. The weighted implement (WI) group (n=35) used weighted implement training in addition to normal throwing activities throughout the off-season while the normal throwing (NT) group (n=21) participated in normal throwing activities only. The WI group used baseballs that were 20% overweight (6 ounces), 20% underweight (4 ounces), and regulation weight (5 ounces) while the NT group used only the regulation weight baseball. A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. Statistical significance was set at p?0.05. RESULTS: Pitch velocity did not significantly increase from the beginning of the off-season to the end of the off-season (p=0.071) for either group and there was no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.271). CONCLUSION: In varsity collegiate pitchers currently involved in general and sport specific training, the current weighted implement throwing program is no more effective than a normal throwing protocol

Refining epigenetic prediction of chronological and biological age

Background Epigenetic clocks can track both chronological age (cAge) and biological age (bAge). The latter is typically defined by physiological biomarkers and risk of adverse health outcomes, including all-cause mortality. As cohort sample sizes increase, estimates of cAge and bAge become more precise. Here, we aim to develop accurate epigenetic predictors of cAge and bAge, whilst improving our understanding of their epigenomic architecture. Methods First, we perform large-scale (N = 18,413) epigenome-wide association studies (EWAS) of chronological age and all-cause mortality. Next, to create a cAge predictor, we use methylation data from 24,674 participants from the Generation Scotland study, the Lothian Birth Cohorts (LBC) of 1921 and 1936, and 8 other cohorts with publicly available data. In addition, we train a predictor of time to all-cause mortality as a proxy for bAge using the Generation Scotland cohort (1214 observed deaths). For this purpose, we use epigenetic surrogates (EpiScores) for 109 plasma proteins and the 8 component parts of GrimAge, one of the current best epigenetic predictors of survival. We test this bAge predictor in four external cohorts (LBC1921, LBC1936, the Framingham Heart Study and the Women’s Health Initiative study). Results Through the inclusion of linear and non-linear age-CpG associations from the EWAS, feature pre-selection in advance of elastic net regression, and a leave-one-cohort-out (LOCO) cross-validation framework, we obtain cAge prediction with a median absolute error equal to 2.3 years. Our bAge predictor was found to slightly outperform GrimAge in terms of the strength of its association to survival (HRGrimAge = 1.47 [1.40, 1.54] with p = 1.08 × 10−52, and HRbAge = 1.52 [1.44, 1.59] with p = 2.20 × 10−60). Finally, we introduce MethylBrowsR, an online tool to visualise epigenome-wide CpG-age associations. Conclusions The integration of multiple large datasets, EpiScores, non-linear DNAm effects, and new approaches to feature selection has facilitated improvements to the blood-based epigenetic prediction of biological and chronological age

A meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies of epigenetic age acceleration

Funding: Generation Scotland received core support from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates (CZD/16/6) and the Scottish Funding Council (HR03006). Genotyping and DNA methylation profiling of the GS samples was carried out by the Genetics Core Laboratory at the Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Facility, Edinburgh, Scotland and was funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the Wellcome Trust (Wellcome Trust Strategic Award “STratifying Resilience and Depression Longitudinally” ((STRADL) Reference 104036/Z/14/Z)). Funding details for the cohorts included in the study by Lu et al. (2018) can be found in their publication. HCW is supported by a JMAS SIM fellowship from the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and by an ESAT College Fellowship from the University of Edinburgh. AMM & HCW acknowledge the support of the Dr. Mortimer and Theresa Sackler Foundation. SH acknowledges support from grant 1U01AG060908-01. REM is supported by Alzheimer’s Research UK major project grant ARUK-PG2017B-10. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data Availability: Summary statistics from the research reported in the manuscript will be made available immediately following publication on the Edinburgh Data Share portal with a permanent digital object identifier (DOI). According to the terms of consent for Generation Scotland participants, requests for access to the individual-level data must be reviewed by the GS Access Committee ([email protected]). Individual-level data are not immediately available, due to confidentiality considerations and our legal obligation to protect personal information. These data will, however, be made available upon request and after review by the GS access committee, once ethical and data governance concerns regarding personal data have been addressed by the receiving institution through a Data Transfer Agreement.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health