Cognitive Information Processing

Contains research objectives and summary of research.Madeline Moses FundNational Science Foundation (Grant GK-33736X1)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 PO1 GM19428-02)Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, Purchase Order G-33196Associated Press (Grant)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 PO1 GM14940-07

Cognitive Information Processing

Contains research objectives and summary of research on eight research projects.Joint Services Electronics Program (Contract DAAB07-74-C-0630)National Science Foundation (Grant GK-33736X2)National Science Foundation (Grant EPP74-12653)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 P01 GM19428-03)National Institutes of Health (Grant 3 PO1 GM19428-03S1)National Institutes of Health (Grant 5 PO1 GM14940-07)Peter Bent Brigham Hospital Purchase Order G-33196 #2Associated Press (Grant

Cognitive Information Processing

Contains reports on seven research projects.National Science Foundation (Grant SED76-81985)Graphic Arts Research Foundation (Grant)Providence Gravure, Inc. (Grant)Associated Press (Grant)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 RO1 GM22547-01)National Institutes of Health (Grant 1 PO1 AG00354-01)Health Sciences Fund (Grant 76-11

Cognitive Information Processing

Contains research objectives and summary of research on fourteen research projects and reports on four research projects.Joint Services Electronics Program (Contract DAAB07-75-C-1346)National Science Foundation (Grant EPP74-12653)National Science Foundation (Grant ENG74-24344)National Institutes of Health (Grant 2 PO1 GM19428-04)Swiss National Funds for Scientific ResearchM.I.T. Health Sciences Fund (Grant 76-11)National Institutes of Health (Grant F03 GM58698)National Institutes of Health (Biomedical Sciences Support Grant)Associated Press (Grant

Increased production of plaque-forming cells in mouse lymph nodes following regional injection of a second antigen

An analysis was made of the antibody response in the spleen and lymph nodes of mice to erythrocyte antigens injected under conditions which have been reported to cause antigenic competition. In the spleen, injection of a different erythrocyte antigen 2–4 days before the injection of a test antigen had little or no effect on the total number of cells or the number of plaque-forming cells (PFC) to the test antigen. Examination of the antibody response in opposite lymph nodes of a mouse made possible a comparison between two different conditions of antigen exposure within the same individual. In the lymph nodes, preceding the injection of the test antigen by an injection of a different erythrocyte antigen 2–4 days earlier led not to a decrease, but, on the contrary, to an increase in the number of plaque-forming cells to the test antigen. A similar increase in the number of plaque-forming cells per lymph node was observed for each of two test antigens, when these had been mixed and injected into the forefeet 24 hours after the injection of a different erythrocyte antigen

Radiation Fractionation Schedules Published During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of the Quality of Evidence and Recommendations for Future Development.

PURPOSE: Numerous publications during the COVID-19 pandemic recommended the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy. This project assessed aggregate changes in the quality of the evidence supporting these schedules to establish a comprehensive evidence base for future reference and highlight aspects for future study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Based on a systematic review of published recommendations related to dose fractionation during the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 expert panelists assigned to 14 disease groups named and graded the highest quality of evidence schedule(s) used routinely for each condition and also graded all COVID-era recommended schedules. The American Society for Radiation Oncology quality of evidence criteria were used to rank the schedules. Process-related statistics and changes in distributions of quality ratings of the highest-rated versus recommended COVID-19 era schedules were described by disease groups and for specific clinical scenarios. RESULTS: From January to May 2020 there were 54 relevant publications, including 233 recommended COVID-19-adapted dose fractionations. For site-specific curative and site-specific palliative schedules, there was a significant shift from established higher-quality evidence to lower-quality evidence and expert opinions for the recommended schedules (P = .022 and P < .001, respectively). For curative-intent schedules, the distribution of quality scores was essentially reversed (highest levels of evidence "pre-COVID" vs "in-COVID": high quality, 51.4% vs 4.8%; expert opinion, 5.6% vs 49.3%), although there was variation in the magnitude of shifts between disease sites and among specific indications. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of publications recommended hypofractionated radiation therapy schedules across numerous major disease sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, which were supported by a lower quality of evidence than the highest-quality routinely used dose fractionation schedules. This work provides an evidence-based assessment of these potentially practice-changing recommendations and informs individualized decision-making and counseling of patients. These data could also be used to support radiation therapy practices in the event of second waves or surges of the pandemic in new regions of the world