Unconstraining Graph-Constrained Group Testing

In network tomography, one goal is to identify a small set of failed links in a network using as little information as possible. One way of setting up this problem is called graph-constrained group testing. Graph-constrained group testing is a variant of the classical combinatorial group testing problem, where the tests that one is allowed are additionally constrained by a graph. In this case, the graph is given by the underlying network topology. The main contribution of this work is to show that for most graphs, the constraints imposed by the graph are no constraint at all. That is, the number of tests required to identify the failed links in graph-constrained group testing is near-optimal even for the corresponding group testing problem with no graph constraints. Our approach is based on a simple randomized construction of tests. To analyze our construction, we prove new results about the size of giant components in randomly sparsified graphs. Finally, we provide empirical results which suggest that our connected-subgraph tests perform better not just in theory but also in practice, and in particular perform better on a real-world network topology

Subsequent Surgery After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Rates and Risk Factors From a Multicenter Cohort

BACKGROUND: While revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be performed to restore knee stability and improve patient activity levels, outcomes after this surgery are reported to be inferior to those after primary ACLR. Further reoperations after revision ACLR can have an even more profound effect on patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, there is a current lack of information regarding the rate and risk factors for subsequent surgery after revision ACLR. PURPOSE: To report the rate of reoperations, procedures performed, and risk factors for a reoperation 2 years after revision ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACLR were enrolled in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) between 2006 and 2011, composing the prospective cohort. Two-year questionnaire follow-up was obtained for 989 patients (82%), while telephone follow-up was obtained for 1112 patients (92%). If a patient reported having undergone subsequent surgery, operative reports detailing the subsequent procedure(s) were obtained and categorized. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for a reoperation. RESULTS: Of the 1112 patients included in the analysis, 122 patients (11%) underwent a total of 172 subsequent procedures on the ipsilateral knee at 2-year follow-up. Of the reoperations, 27% were meniscal procedures (69% meniscectomy, 26% repair), 19% were subsequent revision ACLR, 17% were cartilage procedures (61% chondroplasty, 17% microfracture, 13% mosaicplasty), 11% were hardware removal, and 9% were procedures for arthrofibrosis. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients aged <20 years had twice the odds of patients aged 20 to 29 years to undergo a reoperation. The use of an allograft at the time of revision ACLR (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; P = .007) was a significant predictor for reoperations at 2 years, while staged revision (bone grafting of tunnels before revision ACLR) (OR, 1.93; P = .052) did not reach significance. Patients with grade 4 cartilage damage seen during revision ACLR were 78% less likely to undergo subsequent operations within 2 years. Sex, body mass index, smoking history, Marx activity score, technique for femoral tunnel placement, and meniscal tearing or meniscal treatment at the time of revision ACLR showed no significant effect on the reoperation rate. CONCLUSION: There was a significant reoperation rate after revision ACLR at 2 years (11%), with meniscal procedures most commonly involved. Independent risk factors for subsequent surgery on the ipsilateral knee included age <20 years and the use of allograft tissue at the time of revision ACLR

Genome sequence of the arctic methanotroph Methylobacter tundripaludum SV96.

International audienceMethylobacter tundripaludum SV96(T) (ATCC BAA-1195) is a psychrotolerant aerobic methane-oxidizing gammaproteobacterium (Methylococcales, Methylococcaceae) living in High Arctic wetland soil. The strain was isolated from soil harvested in July 1996 close to the settlement Ny-Ålesund, Svalbard, Norway (78°56'N, 11°53'E), and described as a novel species in 2006. The genome includes pmo and pxm operons encoding copper membrane monooxygenases (Cu-MMOs), genes required for nitrogen fixation, and the nirS gene implicated in dissimilatory nitrite reduction to NO but no identifiable inventory for further processing of nitrogen oxides. These genome data provide the basis to investigate M. tundripaludum SV96, identified as a major player in the biogeochemistry of Arctic environments

Caenorhabditis elegans SAND-1 is essential for RAB-7 function in endosomal traffic

The small rab-GTPase RAB-7 acts in endosome and endosome to lysosome traffic. We identified SAND-1 as a protein required for RAB-7 function based on similarities between SAND-1 and RAB-7 RNAi phenotypes. Although the initial uptake of yolk protein in oocytes, or of soluble secreted (ss) GFP in coelomocytes, appeared normal, further transport along the endocytic traffic route was delayed in the absence of SAND-1 function, and yolk proteins failed to reach yolk granules efficiently. Moreover, in coelomocytes, ssGFP and BSA-Texas-Red were endocytosed but not transported to lysosomes. We show that SAND-1 is essential for RAB-7 function at the transition from early to late endosomes, but not for RAB-7 function at lysosomes

Multirater Agreement of the Causes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failure

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure occurs in up to 10% of cases. Technical errors are considered the most common cause of graft failure despite the absence of validated studies. Limited data are available regarding the agreement among orthopaedic surgeons regarding the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure and accuracy of graft tunnel placement.HypothesisExperienced knee surgeons have a high level of interobserver reliability in the agreement about the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure, anatomic graft characteristics, and tunnel placement.Study designCohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.MethodsTwenty cases of revision ACL reconstruction were randomly selected from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) database. Each case included the patient's history, standardized radiographs, and a concise 30-second arthroscopic video taken at the time of revision demonstrating the graft remnant and location of the tunnel apertures. All 20 cases were reviewed by 10 MARS surgeons not involved with the primary surgery. Each surgeon completed a 2-part questionnaire dealing with each surgeon's training and practice, as well as the placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels, condition of the primary graft, and the surgeon's opinion as to the causes of graft failure. Interrater agreement was determined for each question with the kappa coefficient and the prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK).ResultsThe 10 reviewers have been in practice an average of 14 years and have performed at least 25 ACL reconstructions per year, and 9 were fellowship trained in sports medicine. There was wide variability in agreement among knee experts as to the specific causes of ACL graft failure. When participants were specifically asked about technical error as the cause for failure, interobserver agreement was only slight (PABAK = 0.26). There was fair overall agreement on ideal femoral tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.55) but only slight agreement on whether a femoral tunnel was too anterior (PABAK = 0.24) and fair agreement on whether it was too vertical (PABAK = 0.46). There was poor overall agreement for ideal tibial tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.17).ConclusionThis study suggests that more objective criteria are needed to accurately determine the causes of primary ACL graft failure as well as the ideal femoral and tibial tunnel placement in patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction

Multirater Agreement of the Causes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failure

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure occurs in up to 10% of cases. Technical errors are considered the most common cause of graft failure despite the absence of validated studies. Limited data are available regarding the agreement among orthopaedic surgeons regarding the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure and accuracy of graft tunnel placement.HypothesisExperienced knee surgeons have a high level of interobserver reliability in the agreement about the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure, anatomic graft characteristics, and tunnel placement.Study designCohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.MethodsTwenty cases of revision ACL reconstruction were randomly selected from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) database. Each case included the patient's history, standardized radiographs, and a concise 30-second arthroscopic video taken at the time of revision demonstrating the graft remnant and location of the tunnel apertures. All 20 cases were reviewed by 10 MARS surgeons not involved with the primary surgery. Each surgeon completed a 2-part questionnaire dealing with each surgeon's training and practice, as well as the placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels, condition of the primary graft, and the surgeon's opinion as to the causes of graft failure. Interrater agreement was determined for each question with the kappa coefficient and the prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK).ResultsThe 10 reviewers have been in practice an average of 14 years and have performed at least 25 ACL reconstructions per year, and 9 were fellowship trained in sports medicine. There was wide variability in agreement among knee experts as to the specific causes of ACL graft failure. When participants were specifically asked about technical error as the cause for failure, interobserver agreement was only slight (PABAK = 0.26). There was fair overall agreement on ideal femoral tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.55) but only slight agreement on whether a femoral tunnel was too anterior (PABAK = 0.24) and fair agreement on whether it was too vertical (PABAK = 0.46). There was poor overall agreement for ideal tibial tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.17).ConclusionThis study suggests that more objective criteria are needed to accurately determine the causes of primary ACL graft failure as well as the ideal femoral and tibial tunnel placement in patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction