KIR haplotypes are associated with late-onset type 1 diabetes in European-American families.

Classical human leukocyte antigens (HLA) genes confer the strongest, but not the only, genetic susceptibility to type 1 diabetes. Killer cell immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIR), on natural killer (NK) cells, bind ligands including class I HLA. We examined presence or absence, with copy number, of KIR loci in 1698 individuals, from 339 multiplex type 1 diabetes families, from the Human Biological Data Interchange, previously genotyped for HLA. Combining family data with KIR copy number information allowed assignment of haplotypes using identity by descent. This is the first disease study to use KIR copy number typing and unambiguously define haplotypes by gene transmission. KIR A1 haplotypes were positively associated with T1D in the subset of patients without the high T1D risk HLA genotype, DR3/DR4 (odds ratio=1.29, P=0.0096). The data point to a role for KIR in type 1 diabetes risk in late-onset patients. In the top quartile (age of onset>14), KIR A2 haplotype was overtransmitted (63.4%, odds ratio=1.73, P=0.024) and KIR B haplotypes were undertransmitted (41.1%, odds ratio=0.70, P=0.0052) to patients. The data suggest that inhibitory 'A' haplotypes are predisposing and stimulatory 'B' haplotypes confer protection in both DR3/DR4-negative and late-onset patient groups.This work was supported in part by National Institutes of Health award R01 DK61722 (J.A.N.). Research in the Trowsdale lab is supported by the MRC and Wellcome Trust with part funding from the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Nature Publishing Group via http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/gene.2015.4

A third trial oversight committee: Functions, benefits and issues

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Clinical trial oversight is central to the safety of participants and production of robust data. The United Kingdom Medical Research Council originally set out an oversight structure comprising three committees in 1998. The first committee, led by the trial team, is hands-on with trial conduct/operations (‘Trial Management Group’) and essential. The second committee (Data Monitoring Committee), usually completely independent of the trial, reviews accumulating trial evidence and is used by most later phase trials. The Independent Data Monitoring Committee makes recommendations to the third oversight committee. The third committee, (‘Trial Steering Committee’), facilitates in-depth interactions of independent and non-independent trial members and gives broader oversight (blinded to comparative analysis). We investigated the roles and functioning of the third oversight committee with multiple research methods. We reflect upon these findings to standardise the committee’s remit and operation and to potentially increase its usage. METHODS: We utilised findings from our recent published suite of research on the third oversight committee to inform guideline revision. In brief, we conducted a survey of 38 United Kingdom–registered Clinical Trials Units, reviewed a cohort of 264 published trials, observed 8 third oversight committee meetings and interviewed 52 trialists. We convened an expert panel to discuss third oversight committees. Subsequently, we interviewed nine patient/lay third committee members and eight committee Chairs. RESULTS: In the survey, most Clinical Trials Units required a third committee for all their trials (27/38, 71%) with independent members (ranging from 1 to 6). In the survey and interviews, the independence of the third committee was valued to make unbiased consideration of Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommendations and to advise on trial progress, protocol changes and recruitment issues in conjunction with the trial leadership. The third committee also advised funders and sponsors about trial continuation and represented patients and the public by including lay members. Of the cohort of 264 published trials, 144 reported a ‘steering’ committee (55%), but the independence of these members was not described so these may have been internal Trial Management Groups. Around two thirds of papers (60%) reported having an Independent Data Monitoring Committee and 26.9% neither a steering nor an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. However, before revising the third committee charter (Terms of Reference), greater standardisation is needed around defining member independence, composition, primacy of decision-making, interactions with other committees and the lifespan. CONCLUSION: A third oversight committee has benefits for trial oversight and conduct, and a revised charter will facilitate greater standardisation and wider adoption

AMADEOS SysML Profile for SoS Conceptual Modeling

International audienc

Solving Tree Problems with Category Theory

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has long pursued models, theories, and techniques to imbue machines with human-like general intelligence. Yet even the currently predominant data-driven approaches in AI seem to be lacking humans' unique ability to solve wide ranges of problems. This situation begs the question of the existence of principles that underlie general problem-solving capabilities. We approach this question through the mathematical formulation of analogies across different problems and solutions. We focus in particular on problems that could be represented as tree-like structures. Most importantly, we adopt a category-theoretic approach in formalising tree problems as categories, and in proving the existence of equivalences across apparently unrelated problem domains. We prove the existence of a functor between the category of tree problems and the category of solutions. We also provide a weaker version of the functor by quantifying equivalences of problem categories using a metric on tree problems.Comment: 10 pages, 4 figures, International Conference on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) 201

The value of source data verification in a cancer clinical trial

Background Source data verification (SDV) is a resource intensive method of quality assurance frequently used in clinical trials. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that SDV would impact on comparative treatment effect results from a clinical trial. Methods Data discrepancies and comparative treatment effects obtained following 100% SDV were compared to those based on data without SDV. Overall survival (OS) and Progression-free survival (PFS) were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests and Cox models. Tumour response classifications and comparative treatment Odds Ratios (ORs) for the outcome objective response rate, and number of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) were compared. OS estimates based on SDV data were compared against estimates obtained from centrally monitored data. Findings Data discrepancies were identified between different monitoring procedures for the majority of variables examined, with some variation in discrepancy rates. There were no systematic patterns to discrepancies and their impact was negligible on OS, the primary outcome of the trial (HR (95% CI): 1.18(0.99 to 1.41), p = 0.064 with 100% SDV; 1.18(0.99 to 1.42), p = 0.068 without SDV; 1.18(0.99 to 1.40), p = 0.073 with central monitoring). Results were similar for PFS. More extreme discrepancies were found for the subjective outcome overall objective response (OR (95% CI): 1.67(1.04 to 2.68), p = 0.03 with 100% SDV; 2.45(1.49 to 4.04), p = 0.0003 without any SDV) which was mostly due to differing CT scans. Interpretation Quality assurance methods used in clinical trials should be informed by empirical evidence. In this empirical comparison, SDV was expensive and identified random errors that made little impact on results and clinical conclusions of the trial. Central monitoring using an external data source was a more efficient approach for the primary outcome of OS. For the subjective outcome objective response, an independent blinded review committee and tracking system to monitor missing scan data could be more efficient than SDV

Community Member Perspectives from Transgender Women and Men Who Have Sex with Men on Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis as an HIV Prevention Strategy: Implications for Implementation

Background: An international randomized clinical trial (RCT) on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as an human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-prevention intervention found that taken on a daily basis, PrEP was safe and effective among men who have sex with men (MSM) and male-to-female transgender women. Within the context of the HIV epidemic in the United States (US), MSM and transgender women are the most appropriate groups to target for PrEP implementation at the population level; however, their perspectives on evidenced-based biomedical research and the results of this large trial remain virtually unknown. In this study, we examined the acceptability of individual daily use of PrEP and assessed potential barriers to community uptake. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with an ethnoracially diverse sample of thirty HIV-negative and unknown status MSM (n = 24) and transgender women (n = 6) in three California metropolitan areas. Given the burden of disease among ethnoracial minorities in the US, we purposefully oversampled for these groups. Thematic coding and analysis of data was conducted utilizing an approach rooted in grounded theory. Results: While participants expressed general interest in PrEP availability, results demonstrate: a lack of community awareness and confusion about PrEP; reservations about PrEP utilization, even when informed of efficacious RCT results; and concerns regarding equity and the manner in which a PrEP intervention could be packaged and marketed in their communities. Conclusions: In order to effectively reduce HIV health disparities at the population level, PrEP implementation must take into account the uptake concerns of those groups who would actually access and use this biomedical intervention as a prevention strategy. Recommendations addressing these concerns are provided

FACS-sorted putative oogonial stem cells from the ovary are neither DDX4-positive nor germ cells

Whether the adult mammalian ovary contains oogonial stem cells (OSCs) is controversial. They have been isolated by a live-cell sorting method using the germ cell marker DDX4, which has previously been assumed to be cytoplasmic, not surface-bound. Furthermore their stem cell and germ cell characteristics remain disputed. Here we show that although OSC-like cells can be isolated from the ovary using an antibody to DDX4, there is no good in silico modelling to support the existence of a surface-bound DDX4. Furthermore these cells when isolated were not expressing DDX4 and did not initially possess germline identity. Despite these unremarkable beginnings, they acquired some pre-meiotic markers in culture, including DDX4, but critically never expressed oocyte-specific markers and furthermore were not immortal but died after a few months. Our results suggest that freshly isolated OSCs are not germ stem cells and are not being isolated by their DDX4 expression. However it may be that culture induces some pre-meiotic markers. In summary the present study offers weight to the dogma that the adult ovary is populated by a fixed number of oocytes and that adult de novo production is a rare or insignificant event

Understanding and optimising patient and public involvement in trial oversight: an ethnographic study of eight clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Trial oversight is important for trial governance and conduct. Patients and/or lay members of the public are increasingly included in trial oversight committees, influenced by international patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake PPI in trial oversight and tokenistic PPI remains an issue. This paper explores how PPI functions in existing trial oversight committees and provides recommendations to optimise PPI in future trials. This was part of a larger study investigating the role and function of oversight committees in trials facing challenges. METHODS: Using an ethnographic study design, we observed oversight meetings of eight UK trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of their trial steering committees (TSCs) and trial management groups (TMGs) including public contributors, trial sponsors and funders. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken, with findings integrated to provide a multi-perspective account of how PPI functions in trial oversight. RESULTS: Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled oversight group members, including three public contributors. PPI was reported as beneficial in trial oversight, with public members contributing a patient voice and fulfilling a patient advocacy role. However, public contributors were not always active at oversight meetings and were sometimes felt to have a tokenistic role, with trialists reporting a lack of understanding of how to undertake PPI in trial oversight. To optimise PPI in trial oversight, the following areas were highlighted: the importance of planning effective strategies to recruit public contributors; considering the level of oversight and stage(s) of trial to include PPI; support for public contributors by the trial team between and during oversight meetings. CONCLUSIONS: We present evidence-based recommendations to inform future PPI in trial oversight. Consideration should be given at trial design stage on how to recruit and involve public contributors within trial oversight, as well as support and mentorship for both public contributors and trialists (in how to undertake PPI effectively). Findings from this study further strengthen the evidence base on facilitating meaningful PPI within clinical trials