A Model of the Tonal-Chromatic System and Its Application to Selected Works of Gustav Mahler

During the latter half of the twentieth century there was a marked shift in the way that many scholars approached analysis of late-nineteenth-century tonality. This shift in approach was motivated by the behavior and interaction of harmonic and melodic entities encountered in the music of the great composers of the nineteenth century, such as Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Mahler, Wagner, and Strauss. The question arose: did the diatonic system remain at the heart of tonality during the late nineteenth century, or—as some propose—did a new chromatic-based tonality emerge? The acceptance of this new chromatic-based tonality is at the heart of this project. In order to address the acceptance of this premise, this dissertation brings together two disparate strands of research and posits a system termed the tonal-chromatic scale. First, the writings of Mitchell, Marra, and Proctor help define the need for and structure of a chromatic scale that implies tonal function; second, the mechanics of transformational theory, stemming from the work of Lewin underpins the methodology of the system. The recent work of Rings is an influential aspect of the methodology. Throughout past century, different analysts have used a myriad of methodologies to explore the complex musical language of Gustav Mahler. Mahler’s work represents an important turning point in the evolution of tonal music. Specifically, his work contributed to the onset of and evolution toward the complete breakdown of tonality. The chromatic tendencies in Mahler’s music make it an especially relevant candidate for analysis using this type of system. Even though his music exhibits an inordinate amount of chromaticism, the pillars of functional tonality are still operative. Three selected works of Gustav Mahler serve as the examples of the analytical usefulness of the proposed system: 1) the first movement of the Piano Quartet in A minor, which was composed as a student at the Vienna conservatory; 2) the fourth movement of Symphony no. 5, Adagietto; and 3) Kindertotenlieder, no. 2, “Nun seh’ ich wohl, warum so dunkle Flammen.

Quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury in European intensive care units: a CENTER-TBI study.

BACKGROUND:The aim of this study is to validate a previously published consensus-based quality indicator set for the management of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) at intensive care units (ICUs) in Europe and to study its potential for quality measurement and improvement. METHODS:Our analysis was based on 2006 adult patients admitted to 54 ICUs between 2014 and 2018, enrolled in the CENTER-TBI study. Indicator scores were calculated as percentage adherence for structure and process indicators and as event rates or median scores for outcome indicators. Feasibility was quantified by the completeness of the variables. Discriminability was determined by the between-centre variation, estimated with a random effect regression model adjusted for case-mix severity and quantified by the median odds ratio (MOR). Statistical uncertainty of outcome indicators was determined by the median number of events per centre, using a cut-off of 10. RESULTS:A total of 26/42 indicators could be calculated from the CENTER-TBI database. Most quality indicators proved feasible to obtain with more than 70% completeness. Sub-optimal adherence was found for most quality indicators, ranging from 26 to 93% and 20 to 99% for structure and process indicators. Significant (p < 0.001) between-centre variation was found in seven process and five outcome indicators with MORs ranging from 1.51 to 4.14. Statistical uncertainty of outcome indicators was generally high; five out of seven had less than 10 events per centre. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, nine structures, five processes, but none of the outcome indicators showed potential for quality improvement purposes for TBI patients in the ICU. Future research should focus on implementation efforts and continuous reevaluation of quality indicators. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The core study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02210221, registered on August 06, 2014, with Resource Identification Portal (RRID: SCR_015582)

Guidance on noncorticosteroid systemic immunomodulatory therapy in noninfectious uveitis: fundamentals of care for uveitis (focus) initiative

Topic: An international, expert-led consensus initiative to develop systematic, evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of noninfectious uveitis in the era of biologics. Clinical Relevance: The availability of biologic agents for the treatment of human eye disease has altered practice patterns for the management of noninfectious uveitis. Current guidelines are insufficient to assure optimal use of noncorticosteroid systemic immunomodulatory agents. Methods: An international expert steering committee comprising 9 uveitis specialists (including both ophthalmologists and rheumatologists) identified clinical questions and, together with 6 bibliographic fellows trained in uveitis, conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol systematic reviewof the literature (English language studies from January 1996 through June 2016; Medline [OVID], the Central Cochrane library, EMBASE,CINAHL,SCOPUS,BIOSIS, andWeb of Science). Publications included randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective studies with sufficient follow-up, case series with 15 cases or more, peer-reviewed articles, and hand-searched conference abstracts from key conferences. The proposed statements were circulated among 130 international uveitis experts for review.Atotal of 44 globally representativegroupmembersmet in late 2016 to refine these guidelines using a modified Delphi technique and assigned Oxford levels of evidence. Results: In total, 10 questions were addressed resulting in 21 evidence-based guidance statements covering the following topics: when to start noncorticosteroid immunomodulatory therapy, including both biologic and nonbiologic agents; what data to collect before treatment; when to modify or withdraw treatment; how to select agents based on individual efficacy and safety profiles; and evidence in specific uveitic conditions. Shared decision-making, communication among providers and safety monitoring also were addressed as part of the recommendations. Pharmacoeconomic considerations were not addressed. Conclusions: Consensus guidelines were developed based on published literature, expert opinion, and practical experience to bridge the gap between clinical needs and medical evidence to support the treatment of patients with noninfectious uveitis with noncorticosteroid immunomodulatory agents

Evaluating the effect of a digital health intervention to enhance physical activity in people with chronic kidney disease (Kidney BEAM): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in the UK

BACKGROUND: Remote digital health interventions to enhance physical activity provide a potential solution to improve the sedentary behaviour, physical inactivity, and poor health-related quality of life that are typical of chronic conditions, particularly for people with chronic kidney disease. However, there is a need for high-quality evidence to support implementation in clinical practice. The Kidney BEAM trial evaluated the clinical effect of a 12-week physical activity digital health intervention on health-related quality of life. METHODS: In a single-blind, randomised controlled trial conducted at 11 centres in the UK, adult participants (aged ≥18 years) with chronic kidney disease were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to the Kidney BEAM physical activity digital health intervention or a waiting list control group. Randomisation was performed with a web-based system, in randomly permuted blocks of six. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the difference in the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form version 1.3 Mental Component Summary (KDQoL-SF1.3 MCS) between baseline and 12 weeks. The trial was powered to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 3 arbitrary units (AU) in KDQoL-SF1.3 MCS. Outcomes were analysed by an intention-to-treat approach using an analysis of covariance model, with baseline measures and age as covariates. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04872933. FINDINGS: Between May 6, 2021, and Oct 30, 2022, 1102 individuals were assessed for eligibility, of whom 340 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the Kidney BEAM intervention group (n=173) or the waiting list control group (n=167). 268 participants completed the trial (112 in the Kidney BEAM group and 156 in the waiting list control group). All 340 randomly assigned participants were included in the intention-to treat population. At 12 weeks, there was a significant improvement in KDQoL-SF.13 MCS score in the Kidney BEAM group (from mean 44·6 AU [SD 10·8] at baseline to 47·0 AU [10·6] at 12 weeks) compared with the waiting list control group (from 46·1 AU [10·5] to 45·0 AU [10·1]; between-group difference of 3·1 AU [95% CI 1·8-4·4]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The Kidney BEAM physical activity platform is an efficacious digital health intervention to improve mental health-related quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease. These findings could facilitate the incorporation of remote digital health interventions into clinical practice and offer a potential intervention worthy of investigation in other chronic conditions. FUNDING: Kidney Research UK

Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators. METHODS: A preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool. RESULTS: The expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N = 24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N = 7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N = 49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N = 41, 82%), benchmarking (N = 42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N = 41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N = 48, 98%). CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future

The Earth BioGenome Project 2020: Starting the clock

descripción no proporcionada por scopu

Evaluating the effect of a digital health intervention to enhance physical activity in people with chronic kidney disease (Kidney BEAM): A multi-centre, randomised controlled trial

BackgroundRemote digital health interventions to enhance physical activity provide a potential solution to improve the sedentary behaviour, physical inactivity, and poor health-related quality of life that are typical of chronic conditions, particularly for people with chronic kidney disease. However, there is a need for high-quality evidence to support implementation in clinical practice. The Kidney BEAM trial evaluated the clinical effect of a 12-week physical activity digital health intervention on health-related quality of life.MethodsIn a single-blind, randomised controlled trial conducted at 11 centres in the UK, adult participants (aged ≥18 years) with chronic kidney disease were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to the Kidney BEAM physical activity digital health intervention or a waiting list control group. Randomisation was performed with a web-based system, in randomly permuted blocks of six. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the difference in the Kidney Disease Quality of Life Short Form version 1.3 Mental Component Summary (KDQoL-SF1.3 MCS) between baseline and 12 weeks. The trial was powered to detect a clinically meaningful difference of 3 arbitrary units (AU) in KDQoL-SF1.3 MCS. Outcomes were analysed by an intention-to-treat approach using an analysis of covariance model, with baseline measures and age as covariates. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04872933.FindingsBetween May 6, 2021, and Oct 30, 2022, 1102 individuals were assessed for eligibility, of whom 340 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the Kidney BEAM intervention group (n=173) or the waiting list control group (n=167). 268 participants completed the trial (112 in the Kidney BEAM group and 156 in the waiting list control group). All 340 randomly assigned participants were included in the intention-to treat population. At 12 weeks, there was a significant improvement in KDQoL-SF.13 MCS score in the Kidney BEAM group (from mean 44·6 AU [SD 10·8] at baseline to 47·0 AU [10·6] at 12 weeks) compared with the waiting list control group (from 46·1 AU [10·5] to 45·0 AU [10·1]; between-group difference of 3·1 AU [95% CI 1·8–4·4]; p<0·0001).InterpretationThe Kidney BEAM physical activity platform is an efficacious digital health intervention to improve mental health-related quality of life in patients with chronic kidney disease. These findings could facilitate the incorporation of remote digital health interventions into clinical practice and offer a potential intervention worthy of investigation in other chronic conditions

The development and internal pilot trial of a digital physical activity and emotional well-being intervention (Kidney BEAM) for people with chronic kidney disease

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2023-09-15, registration 2023-12-20, accepted 2023-12-20, epub 2024-01-06, online 2024-01-06, collection 2024-12Acknowledgements: The authors acknowledge the work of the various research teams at each site and thank all the participants involved in this research. This research was prospectively registered NCT04872933.Publication status: PublishedPelagia Koufaki - ORCID: 0000-0002-1406-3729 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1406-3729This trial assessed the feasibility and acceptability of Kidney BEAM, a physical activity and emotional well-being self-management digital health intervention (DHI) for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD), which offers live and on-demand physical activity sessions, educational blogs and videos, and peer support. In this mixed-methods, multicentre randomised waitlist-controlled internal pilot, adults with established CKD were recruited from five NHS hospitals and randomised 1:1 to Kidney BEAM or waitlist control. Feasibility outcomes were based upon a priori progression criteria. Acceptability was primarily explored via individual semi-structured interviews (n = 15). Of 763 individuals screened, n = 519 (68%, 95% CI 65 to 71%) were eligible. Of those eligible, n = 303 (58%, 95% CI 54–63%) did not respond to an invitation to participate by the end of the pilot period. Of the 216 responders, 50 (23%, 95% CI 18–29%) consented. Of the 42 randomised, n = 22 (10 (45%) male; 49 ± 16 years; 14 (64%) White British) were allocated to Kidney BEAM and n = 20 (12 (55%) male; 56 ± 11 years; 15 (68%) White British) to the waitlist control group. Overall, n = 15 (30%, 95% CI 18–45%) withdrew during the pilot phase. Participants completed a median of 14 (IQR 5–21) sessions. At baseline, 90–100% of outcome data (patient reported outcome measures and a remotely conducted physical function test) were completed and 62–83% completed at 12 weeks follow-up. Interview data revealed that remote trial procedures were acceptable. Participants’ reported that Kidney BEAM increased their opportunity and motivation to be physically active, however, lack of time remained an ongoing barrier to engagement with the DHI. An randomised controlled trial of Kidney BEAM is feasible and acceptable, with adaptations to increase recruitment, retention and engagement. Trial registration NCT04872933. Date of first registration 05/05/2021.This trial was funded by a grant from Kidney Research UK. Funding for Kidney Beam is currently supported by the four major UK charities: Kidney Research UK, Kidney Care UK, National Kidney Federation and the UK Kidney Association. HMLY is funded by the NIHR [NIHR302926]. Part of this research was carried out at the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The funders had no role in the design, collection, analysis, interpretation of the data, or writing of this protocol.pubpu