http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Identifiability and Privacy in Pluripotent Stem Cell Research
Isasi, R.,Andrews, Peter W.,Baltz, Jay M.,Bredenoord, Annelien L.,Burton, P.,Chiu, I.M.,Hull, S.,Jung, J.W.,Kurtz, A.,Lomax, G.,Ludwig, T.,McDonald, M.,Morris, C.,Ng, H.,Rooke, H.,Sharma, A.,Stacey, G Cell Press 2014 Cell stem cell Vol.14 No.4
Data sharing is an essential element of research; however, recent scientific and social developments have challenged conventional methods for protecting privacy. Here we provide guidance for determining data sharing thresholds for human pluripotent stem cell research aimed at a wide range of stakeholders, including research consortia, biorepositories, policy-makers, and funders.
Prashant Singh,Yoonjin Seo,Sarah Ballou,Andrew Ludwig,William Hirsch,Vikram Rangan,Johanna Iturrino,Anthony Lembo,Judy W Nee 대한소화기 기능성질환∙운동학회 2019 Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (JNM Vol.25 No.1
Background/Aims Although symptoms related to the pelvic floor, such as pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), are common in patients with chronic constipation (CC), its impact is not clear. Our aims were to investigate the following (1) compare pelvic floor symptom related dysfunction in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) and functional constipation (FC), and (2) symptom correlation with findings on anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion test. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of patients with CC undergoing ARM. IBS-C and FC were diagnosed by Rome III criteria. Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) was used to measure pelvic floor symptom distress. Constipation Severity Scale was used to assess constipation severity. Results A total of 107 patients underwent ARM (64 FC, 43 IBS-C). The overall PFDI-20 score in IBS-C was higher compared with FC patients (118.0 vs 79.2, P = 0.001). In those with IBS-C, POP, LUTS, and colorectal symptoms subscales were all higher compared with FC patients (P < 0.05 for each). On multivariable regression, IBS-C (P = 0.001) and higher constipation severity (P = 0.001) were both independently associated with higher PFDI scores. ARM parameters and abnormal balloon expulsion test did not correlate with PFDI scores. Conclusions Compared with FC patients, those with IBS-C have significantly higher distress from pelvic floor specific symptoms including POP and LUTS. Higher abdominal pain among IBS-C patients did not entirely explain these findings. A diagnosis of IBS-C and higher constipation severity correlated with PFDI-20 scores, but dyssynergia did not. Background/Aims Although symptoms related to the pelvic floor, such as pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), are common in patients with chronic constipation (CC), its impact is not clear. Our aims were to investigate the following (1) compare pelvic floor symptom related dysfunction in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) and functional constipation (FC), and (2) symptom correlation with findings on anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion test. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of patients with CC undergoing ARM. IBS-C and FC were diagnosed by Rome III criteria. Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) was used to measure pelvic floor symptom distress. Constipation Severity Scale was used to assess constipation severity. Results A total of 107 patients underwent ARM (64 FC, 43 IBS-C). The overall PFDI-20 score in IBS-C was higher compared with FC patients (118.0 vs 79.2, P = 0.001). In those with IBS-C, POP, LUTS, and colorectal symptoms subscales were all higher compared with FC patients (P < 0.05 for each). On multivariable regression, IBS-C (P = 0.001) and higher constipation severity (P = 0.001) were both independently associated with higher PFDI scores. ARM parameters and abnormal balloon expulsion test did not correlate with PFDI scores. Conclusions Compared with FC patients, those with IBS-C have significantly higher distress from pelvic floor specific symptoms including POP and LUTS. Higher abdominal pain among IBS-C patients did not entirely explain these findings. A diagnosis of IBS-C and higher constipation severity correlated with PFDI-20 scores, but dyssynergia did not.
Facon, Thierry,Dimopoulos, Meletios A.,Dispenzieri, Angela,Catalano, John V.,Belch, Andrew,Cavo, Michele,Pinto, Antonello,Weisel, Katja,Ludwig, Heinz,Bahlis, Nizar J.,Banos, Anne,Tiab, Mourad,Delforge American Society of Hematology 2018 Blood Vol.131 No.3
<P>This FIRST trial final analysis examined survival outcomes in patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) treated with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone until disease progression (Rd continuous), Rd for 72 weeks (18 cycles; Rd18), or melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide (MPT; 72 weeks). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; primary comparison: Rd continuous vs MPT). Overall survival (OS) was a key secondary endpoint (final analysis prespecified >= 60 months' follow-up). Patientswere randomized to Rd continuous (n = 535), Rd18 (n = 541), or MPT (n = 547). At a median follow-up of 67 months, PFS was significantly longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.79; P < .00001) andwas similarly extended vs Rd18. Median OS was 10 months longer with Rd continuous vs MPT (59.1 vs 49.1 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.92; P = .0023), and similar with Rd18 (62.3 months). In patients achieving complete or very good partial responses, Rd continuous had an approximate to 30-month longer median time to next treatment vs Rd18 (69.5 vs 39.9 months). Over half of all patients who received second-line treatment were given a bortezomib-based therapy. Second-line outcomes were improved in patients receiving bortezomib after Rd continuous and Rd18 vs after MPT. No new safety concerns, including risk for secondary malignancies, were observed. Treatment with Rd continuous significantly improved survival outcomes vsMPT, supporting Rd continuous as a standard of care for patients with transplant-ineligible NDMM.</P>