“There\u27s always people in the room for whom this is not merely theory”: emergent pedagogies

Colleges and universities are generally regarded as a place for students to expand their skill sets and knowledge in preparation for specific fields of work. Many academic institutions and disciplines are also focused on recruiting and retaining students from socially marginalized communities in the name of equity, inclusion, and diversity. Despite this, some institutions in practice prioritize image, status, and wealth while deprioritizing resources, care, and support for students and their learning conditions. Often within these institutions are educators who challenge these systems in their courses, on campus, and across the country, encouraging and empowering students to directly confront those systems, alongside their ongoing efforts to make meaning of their lives. These faculty offer an entry point into the evolving pedagogies (methods of teaching and learning) that emerge from the confines of capitalist institutions. These pedagogies hold space for grief, joy, celebration, and rage; they are concerned with addressing violence and trauma caused by these systems, institutions, and practices. This research project, situated at two state universities on the west coast, studies 14 faculty across humanities and social science disciplines and how they address these issues within their pedagogies, which emerge from these realities. These interviews and analyses offer a deeper understanding into the limitations of capitalist-driven learning, and the possibilities of education as a practice for liberation

Marshall University Music Department Presents the MU Guitar Ensemble

https://mds.marshall.edu/music_perf/1280/thumbnail.jp

Telling Our Story with Data: From Numbers to a Narrative

In this session we will share our story about moving from quantitative reference statistics to qualitative data. Our journey involved both in-person and online reference transactions prior to the pandemic and moved to 100% virtual reference service during the pandemic. We will describe how our approaches evolved due to changes in software options and how we have continued to tell our story during the pandemic. We will identify opportunities to use qualitative reference statistics to demonstrate library value and we will articulate how qualitative and quantitative reference statistics can be used for internal library planning. We will offer library professionals the opportunity to consider how they can use qualitative and quantitative data collection practices to increase internal and external communication, demonstrate how librarians impact student success, allow for better follow through when problems arise, and increase opportunities to analyze reference transactions and improve resource management

The Northern Ireland Baby Hearts Study: A Case-Control study using a hybrid data linkage method

Background The Northern Ireland (NI) Baby Hearts study aimed to investigate risk factors for congenital heart defects (CHD), and to investigate the health behaviours of a representative sample of NI pregnant women. Methods We performed a case-control study with hybrid data collection methods, including self-administered iPad questionnaire or postal questionnaire, information held in maternity records and linkage to prescription records. Cases (n=286) were recruited following diagnosis prenatally or postnatally, controls (n=966) were recruited during recruitment months in each maternity unit at 18-20 weeks gestation. Findings Refusal rates for questionnaire completion were low (7-8%). Among those recruited, consent for access and linkage to medical records was high (98%). Recruitment of both cases and controls was closely representative of the NI population in terms of age, area of residence and deprivation. There was considerable discordance between self-report questionnaires, maternity records and prescription records regarding medications taken in the first trimester, and between self-report questionnaires and maternity records regarding behaviours such as preconceptional folic acid, pregnancy planning, and smoking. However, there were no differences between cases and controls that would indicate recall bias. Conclusions Our results suggest that hybrid data collection approaches are a useful way forward for aetiological studies

The Baby Hearts Study – A case-control protocol with data linkage to evaluate risk and protective factors for congenital heart disease

Introduction The Baby Hearts study aimed to investigate risk and protective factors for congenital heart disease (CHD), and to investigate the health behaviours of a representative sample of pregnant women in Northern Ireland. Objectives We describe and evaluate the population-based case-control design enhanced with data linkage to administrative health data. Methods Cases (mothers of babies with CHD, n=286) were recruited following diagnosis prenatally or postnatally. Controls (mothers of babies without CHD, n=966) were recruited at 18-22 weeks gestation, from all women attending each maternity unit during a designated month. Hybrid data collection methods were used, including a self-administered iPad/postal questionnaire, and linkage to maternity and prescription records. Results Refusal rates were low (8%). iPad questionnaire completion at clinic or home visit had high acceptability whereas postal questionnaires were poorly returned leading to a further 9-10% loss of eligible cases/controls. In total, 61% of eligible cases and 68% of eligible controls were recruited, closely representative of the Northern Ireland population, with no evidence of selection bias. Of those recruited, 97% gave consent for linkage to medical records. Thirty-three percent of women had an unplanned pregnancy and 76% suspected they were pregnant by 5 weeks gestation, with no significant differences between cases and controls. There was considerable discordance between self-report, maternity and prescription records regarding medications obtained/taken in the first trimester, but no evidence of differences between cases and controls that would indicate substantial recall bias. Although there was high concordance between self-report and maternity records regarding folic acid supplementation, cases had significantly lower concordance than controls. Conclusions Our results suggest hybrid data collection approaches are a useful way forward for aetiological studies to reduce responder burden and address and estimate recall bias, and that the Baby Hearts study protocol is suitable for replication in other populations, modified to the local context

Risk Factors for Congenital Heart Disease: the Baby Hearts Study, a population-based case-control study

We investigated the role of maternal environmental factors in the aetiology of congenital heart disease (CHD). A population-based case-control study (242 CHD cases, 966 controls) was conducted using an iPad questionnaire for mother with linkage to maternity and first trimester prescription records. Risk of CHD was associated with low maternal education (OR adjusted for confounders 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.49), pregestational diabetes (OR 4.04; 95% CI 1.00-16.28), self-reported maternal clotting disorders (adjOR 8.55, 95%CI 1.51-48.44), prescriptions for the anticlotting medication enoxaparin (adjOR 3.22, 95%CI 1.01-10.22) and self-reported vaginal infections (adjOR 1.69, 95%CI 1.01-2.80). There was no strong support for the hypothesis that periconceptional folic acid supplements have a protective effect, but there was a protective effect of frequent consumption of folate rich fruits (adjOR 0.64, 95%CI 0.47-0.89). Compared to the most common pre-pregnancy dietary pattern, CHD risk was associated with a poor diet low in fruit and vegetables (adjOR 1.56, 95%CI 1.05-2.34). Mothers of cases reported more pregnancy related stress (adjOR 1.69; 95% CI 1.22-2.34) and multiple stressors (adjOR 1.94, 95%CI 0.83-4.53). We found no supportive evidence for CHD risk being associated with obesity, smoking, depression or antidepressant use in this population. Our findings add to the previous evidence base to show potential for public health approaches to help prevent CHD in future by modifying environmental factors. Independent confirmation should be sought regarding elevated CHD risk associated with maternal blood clotting disorders and their treatment, since we are the first to report this

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

The impact of viral mutations on recognition by SARS-CoV-2 specific T cells.

We identify amino acid variants within dominant SARS-CoV-2 T cell epitopes by interrogating global sequence data. Several variants within nucleocapsid and ORF3a epitopes have arisen independently in multiple lineages and result in loss of recognition by epitope-specific T cells assessed by IFN-γ and cytotoxic killing assays. Complete loss of T cell responsiveness was seen due to Q213K in the A∗01:01-restricted CD8+ ORF3a epitope FTSDYYQLY207-215; due to P13L, P13S, and P13T in the B∗27:05-restricted CD8+ nucleocapsid epitope QRNAPRITF9-17; and due to T362I and P365S in the A∗03:01/A∗11:01-restricted CD8+ nucleocapsid epitope KTFPPTEPK361-369. CD8+ T cell lines unable to recognize variant epitopes have diverse T cell receptor repertoires. These data demonstrate the potential for T cell evasion and highlight the need for ongoing surveillance for variants capable of escaping T cell as well as humoral immunity.This work is supported by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC); Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences(CAMS) Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (CIFMS), China; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and UK Researchand Innovation (UKRI)/NIHR through the UK Coro-navirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC). Sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 samples and collation of data wasundertaken by the COG-UK CONSORTIUM. COG-UK is supported by funding from the Medical ResearchCouncil (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI),the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR),and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. T.I.d.S. is supported by a Well-come Trust Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (110058/Z/15/Z). L.T. is supported by the Wellcome Trust(grant number 205228/Z/16/Z) and by theUniversity of Liverpool Centre for Excellence in Infectious DiseaseResearch (CEIDR). S.D. is funded by an NIHR GlobalResearch Professorship (NIHR300791). L.T. and S.C.M.are also supported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Medical Countermeasures Initiative contract75F40120C00085 and the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) inEmerging and Zoonotic Infections (NIHR200907) at University of Liverpool inpartnership with Public HealthEngland (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford.L.T. is based at the University of Liverpool. M.D.P. is funded by the NIHR Sheffield Biomedical ResearchCentre (BRC – IS-BRC-1215-20017). ISARIC4C is supported by the MRC (grant no MC_PC_19059). J.C.K.is a Wellcome Investigator (WT204969/Z/16/Z) and supported by NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centreand CIFMS. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or MRC

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

SARS-CoV-2-specific nasal IgA wanes 9 months after hospitalisation with COVID-19 and is not induced by subsequent vaccination

BACKGROUND: Most studies of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 focus on circulating antibody, giving limited insights into mucosal defences that prevent viral replication and onward transmission. We studied nasal and plasma antibody responses one year after hospitalisation for COVID-19, including a period when SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was introduced. METHODS: In this follow up study, plasma and nasosorption samples were prospectively collected from 446 adults hospitalised for COVID-19 between February 2020 and March 2021 via the ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. IgA and IgG responses to NP and S of ancestral SARS-CoV-2, Delta and Omicron (BA.1) variants were measured by electrochemiluminescence and compared with plasma neutralisation data. FINDINGS: Strong and consistent nasal anti-NP and anti-S IgA responses were demonstrated, which remained elevated for nine months (p < 0.0001). Nasal and plasma anti-S IgG remained elevated for at least 12 months (p < 0.0001) with plasma neutralising titres that were raised against all variants compared to controls (p < 0.0001). Of 323 with complete data, 307 were vaccinated between 6 and 12 months; coinciding with rises in nasal and plasma IgA and IgG anti-S titres for all SARS-CoV-2 variants, although the change in nasal IgA was minimal (1.46-fold change after 10 months, p = 0.011) and the median remained below the positive threshold determined by pre-pandemic controls. Samples 12 months after admission showed no association between nasal IgA and plasma IgG anti-S responses (R = 0.05, p = 0.18), indicating that nasal IgA responses are distinct from those in plasma and minimally boosted by vaccination. INTERPRETATION: The decline in nasal IgA responses 9 months after infection and minimal impact of subsequent vaccination may explain the lack of long-lasting nasal defence against reinfection and the limited effects of vaccination on transmission. These findings highlight the need to develop vaccines that enhance nasal immunity. FUNDING: This study has been supported by ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. ISARIC4C is supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre provided infrastructure support for this research. The PHOSP-COVD study is jointly funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute of Health and Care Research. The funders were not involved in the study design, interpretation of data or the writing of this manuscript