Efectos clínicos y microbiológicos del uso adicional de probióticos en el tratamiento de la gingivitis: un ensayo clínico aleatorizado controlado

Objetivo: Evaluar la eficacia de un producto probiótico en la reducción de la gingivitis y su impacto sobre la microbiota subgingival. Material y métodos: Se realizó un ensayo clínico aleatorizado controlado en 56 sujetos durante 6 semanas. Los sujetos se asignaron aleatoriamente a un grupo test, tratado con comprimidos que contenían las cepas probióticas Lactobacillus plantarum CECT 7481 (AB15), Lactobacillus brevis CECT 7480 (AB38) y Pediococcus acidilactici CECT 8633 (AB30), y a un grupo control, tratado con placebo. La variable respuesta primaria fue la variación del índice gingival (GI). Las muestras subgingivales se analizaron para cinco patógenos periodontales, mediante la Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa cuantitativa (qPCR). Se realizaron comparaciones intra- e intergrupo entre las variables clínicas y microbiológicas y se efectuó un análisis de regresión múltiple. Resultados: En ambos grupos se observó una mejoría clínica significativa, sin embargo, no se detectaron diferencias intergrupo en cuanto a valores promedios de GI, índice de placa (PlI) o índice de sangrado angulado (AngBS). El grupo test experimentó una reducción significativamente más alta de las localizaciones asociadas a GI=3 en el día 0. Las muestras subgingivales revelaron una reducción significativa de Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans en los dos grupos, mientras que sólo en el grupo test se observó una reducción significativa de Tannerella forsythia. Conclusiones: Los comprimidos con L. plantarum CECT7481, L. brevis CECT7480 y P. acidilactici CECT8633 redujeron el número de localizaciones con inflamación severa en pacientes con gingivitis, tras una profilaxis profesional. Además, el uso adicional de los probióticos reveló un impacto microbiológico significativo, reduciendo los recuentos de T. forsythia

Multilingual log analysis: LogCLEF

The current lack of recent and long-term query logs makes the verifiability and repeatability of log analysis experiments very limited. A first attempt in this direction has been made within the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum in 2009 in a track named LogCLEF which aims to stimulate research on user behaviour in multilingual environments and promote standard evaluation collections of log data. We report on similarities and differences of the most recent activities for LogCLEF

LogCLEF: Enabling research on multilingual log files

Interactions between users and information access systems can be analyzed and studied to gather user preferences and to learn what a user likes the most, and to use this information to adapt the search to users and personalize the presentation of results. The LogCLEF lab - ”A benchmarking activity on Multilingual Log File Analysis: Language identification, query classification, success of a query” deals with information contained in query logs of search engines and digital libraries from which knowledge can be mined to understand search behavior in multilingual context. LogCLEF has created the first long-term standard collection for evaluation purposes in the area of log analysis. The LogCLEF 2011 lab is the continuation of the past two editions: as a pilot task in CLEF 2009, and a workshop in CLEF 2010. The Cross-Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF) promotes research and development in multilingual information access and is an activity of the PROMISE Network of Excellence

The Italy-Libya Memorandum: stripping away the right of asylum in the Italian legal system

On the 2nd of November 2022, the Italy-Libya Memorandum on migration was renewed for the following 3 years, giving continuity to the close collaboration between the two countries to stem the flow of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers onto the Italian territory. Libya, in fact, is the main point of departure for migrants and refugees wishing to reach the Italian shores. This paper argues that, with the Memorandum, Italy adopts a ’pullbacks’ strategy which essentially translates into the practice of collective expulsion and refoulment. Nevertheless, it is in the prohibition of such practices that lies the indispensable premises to guarantee the effectiveness of the protection of the right to asylum, as safeguarded by international, European and national legislation. In fact, the Memorandum externalises the border across the Mediterranean and empties the right to asylum of its meaning, since it is structured in such a way as to make it impossible for people to reach European territory. It also denies the reality of mixed migration flows, precluding, a priori, the possibility for some migrants to be recognised as beneficiaries of international protection, while relying on the actions of a country, Libya, which has not signed the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, has no functioning national asylum system and cannot be considered a ‘Place of Safety’ due to proven human rights violations perpetrated in its migrant detention centres. This paper further argues that the Italy Libya Memorandum is in line with the securitarian migration policies and the strategy of borders’ externalisation by the European Union (EU), which entrenches itself in a fortress on whose borders violence is carried out. In this context, bilateral agreements such as the Memorandum risk creating legal black holes whose purpose seems to be to circumvent the responsibilities stipulated at different levels of legislation. The jurisprudence of the Italian legislative system and of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) seems to be paving the way for a more conscious approach to migrants and might fill in the void created by the solidarity crisis of the European approach to immigration, but not without the support of a policy approach focused on restoring the Italian constitutional structure of the right to asylum

The crisis of the common European asylum system: rethinking solidarity in light of human rights

In 2015, the unprecedented arrival of refugees and irregular migrants in the European Union (EU) put a strain on the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), thus exposing a number of deficiencies in EU external border, asylum and migration policy. The need to reform the system became urgent and the EU was presented with both a challenge and an opportunity to further advance towards a much-needed consensual and long-term solution for the harmonisation of the asylum system, standing on the basis of solidarity and responsibility-sharing. This paper argues that the new comprehensive approach to migration and asylum praised by the European Commission (EC) is still missing in the recent Pact on Migration and Asylum of 2020, which represents more a missed opportunity than the real reform that the CEAS needs. The chosen legislative path, the dualistic understanding concerning the approach to migrants, and the new solidarity mechanism envisioned in the Pact show how the lack of consensus among Member States, the tendency towards the creation of a “Fortress Europe”, and an asymmetric idea of inter-state solidarity prevail, preventing the development of a common European framework for migration management that is both effective and in line with the EU’s values and objectives. This paper further argues that, if the EU fails to shift the paradigm of solidarity, the system is at risk of remaining fractured and incapable of withstanding the future challenges of migration. A new framework must be grounded on the principle of solidarity, as defined in the Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which, in turn, needs to move from a state-centred approach to a concept of solidarity based on affected individuals, thus setting its foundations on a human rights basis. The EU needs, in fact, to strongly step up as a humanitarian actor and place protection and responsibility-sharing at the centre of its agenda: the protection of fundamental human rights in its territory and beyond is at stake.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The crisis of the Common European Asylum System: rethinking solidarity in light of Human Rights

In 2015, the unprecedented arrival of refugees and irregular migrants in the European Union (EU) put a strain on the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), thus exposing a number of deficiencies in EU external border, asylum and migration policy. The need to reform the system became urgent and the EU was presented with both a challenge and an opportunity to further advance towards a much-needed consensual and long-term solution for the harmonisation of the asylum system, standing on the basis of solidarity and responsibility-sharing. This paper argues that the new comprehensive approach to migration and asylum praised by the European Commission (EC) is still missing in the recent Pact on Migration and Asylum of 2020, which represents more a missed opportunity than the real reform that the CEAS needs. The chosen legislative path, the dualistic understanding concerning the approach to migrants, and the new solidarity mechanism envisioned in the Pact show how the lack of consensus among Member States, the tendency towards the creation of a “Fortress Europe”, and an asymmetric idea of inter-state solidarity prevail, preventing the development of a common European framework for migration management that is both effective and in line with the EU’s values and objectives. This paper further argues that, if the EU fails to shift the paradigm of solidarity, the system is at risk of remaining fractured and incapable of withstanding the future challenges of migration. A new framework must be grounded on the principle of solidarity, as defined in the Article 80 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which, in turn, needs to move from a state-centred approach to a concept of solidarity based on affected individuals, thus setting its foundations on a human rights basis. The EU needs, in fact, to strongly step up as a humanitarian actor and place protection and responsibility-sharing at the centre of its agenda: the protection of fundamental human rights in its territory and beyond is at stake

BETWEEN PHILOLOGY AND CRITICISM IN LITERARY TRANSLATION: LA COSCIENZA DI ZENO BY ITALO SVEVO

The aim of this article is to present some theoretical reflections on the matter of literary translation by referring to two different methodological approaches: philology and criticism. The analysis is conducted on La coscienza di Zeno by Italo Svevo, one of the most relevant novels of Italian Modernism, and focuses on two paratextual aspects that, in connection with the translation of a literary text, are of particular significance: the choice of the reference text, which is linked to philology; and the strategy for title translation, which is linked to criticism

A Relation Extraction Approach for Clinical Decision Support

In this paper, we investigate how semantic relations between concepts extracted from medical documents can be employed to improve the retrieval of medical literature. Semantic relations explicitly represent relatedness between concepts and carry high informative power that can be leveraged to improve the effectiveness of retrieval functionalities of clinical decision support systems. We present preliminary results and show how relations are able to provide a sizable increase of the precision for several topics, albeit having no impact on others. We then discuss some future directions to minimize the impact of negative results while maximizing the impact of good results.Comment: 4 pages, 1 figure, DTMBio-KMH 2018, in conjunction with ACM 27th Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM), October 22-26 2018, Lingotto, Turin, Ital