| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Gerkin, RC, et al.
(författare)
-
The best COVID-19 predictor is recent smell loss: a cross-sectional study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. - : Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- BackgroundCOVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19.MethodsThis preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery.ResultsBoth C19+ and C19-groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ∼50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset.ConclusionsAs smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4<OR<10), which can be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Yang, H., et al.
(författare)
-
Preliminary Characterization of Submarine Basalt Magnetic Mineralogy Using Amplitude-Dependence of Magnetic Susceptibility
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems. - 1525-2027. ; 25:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The past ∼200 million years of Earth's geomagnetic field behavior have been recorded within oceanic basalts, many of which are only accessible via scientific ocean drilling. Obtaining the best possible paleomagnetic measurements from such valuable samples requires an a priori understanding of their magnetic mineralogies when choosing the most appropriate protocol for stepwise demagnetization experiments (either alternating field or thermal). Here, we present a quick, and non-destructive method that utilizes the amplitude-dependence of magnetic susceptibility to screen submarine basalts prior to choosing a demagnetization protocol, whenever conducting a pilot study or other detailed rock-magnetic characterization is not possible. We demonstrate this method using samples acquired during International Ocean Discovery Program Expedition 391. Our approach is rooted in the observation that amplitude-dependent magnetic susceptibility is observed in basalt samples whose dominant magnetic carrier is multidomain titanomagnetite (∼TM60–65, (Ti0.60–0.65Fe0.35–0.40)Fe2O4). Samples with low Ti contents within titanomagnetite or samples that have experienced a high degree of oxidative weathering do not display appreciable amplitude dependence. Due to their low Curie temperatures, basalts that possess amplitude-dependence should ideally be demagnetized either using alternating fields or via finely-spaced thermal demagnetization heating steps below 300°C. Our screening method can enhance the success rate of paleomagnetic studies of oceanic basalt samples.
|
|
| 5. |
- Thoram, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Nature and Origin of Magnetic Lineations Within Valdivia Bank : Ocean Plateau Formation by Complex Seafloor Spreading
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Geophysical Research Letters. - 0094-8276. ; 50:13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Valdivia Bank (VB) is a Late Cretaceous oceanic plateau formed by volcanism from the Tristan-Gough hotspot at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (MAR). To better understand its origin and evolution, magnetic data were used to generate a magnetic anomaly grid, which was inverted to determine crustal magnetization. The magnetization model reveals quasi-linear polarity zones crossing the plateau and following expected MAR paleo-locations, implying formation by seafloor spreading over ∼4 Myr during the formation of anomalies C34n-C33r. Paleomagnetism and biostratigraphy data from International Ocean Discovery Program Expedition 391 confirm the magnetic interpretation. Anomaly C33r is split into two negative bands, likely by a westward ridge jump. One of these negative anomalies coincides with deep rift valleys, indicating their age and mechanism of formation. These findings imply that VB originated by seafloor spreading-type volcanism during a plate reorganization, not from a vertical stack of lava flows as expected for a large volcano.
|
|
| 6. |
- Parma, Valentina, et al.
(författare)
-
More Than Smell—COVID-19 Is Associated With Severe Impairment of Smell, Taste, and Chemesthesis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Chemical Senses. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0379-864X .- 1464-3553. ; 45:7, s. 609-622
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19–79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (−79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± standard deviation), taste (−69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (−37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.
|
|
| 7. |
- Gerkin, Richard C., et al.
(författare)
-
Recent Smell Loss Is the Best Predictor of COVID-19 Among Individuals With Recent Respiratory Symptoms
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Chemical Senses. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0379-864X .- 1464-3553. ; 46
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In a preregistered, cross-sectional study, we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0–100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n = 4148) or negative (C19−; n = 546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19− groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean ± SD, C19+: −82.5 ± 27.2 points; C19−: −59.8 ± 37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC = 0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0–10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Anand, K J S, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of morphine analgesia in ventilated preterm neonates : primary outcomes from the NEOPAIN randomised trial
- 2004
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 363:9422, s. 1673-82
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Opioid analgesia is commonly used during neonatal intensive care. We undertook the Neurologic Outcomes and Pre-emptive Analgesia in Neonates (NEOPAIN) trial to investigate whether pre-emptive morphine analgesia decreases the rate of a composite primary outcome of neonatal death, severe intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), and periventricular leucomalacia (PVL) in preterm neonates.METHODS: Ventilated preterm neonates (n=898) from 16 centres were randomly assigned masked placebo (n=449) or morphine (n=449) infusions. After a loading dose (100 microg/kg), morphine infusions (23-26 weeks of gestation 10 microg kg(-1) h(-1); 27-29 weeks 20 microg kg(-1) h(-1); 30-32 weeks 30 microg kg(-1) h(-1)) were continued as long as clinically justified (maximum 14 days). Open-label morphine could be given on clinical judgment (placebo group 242/443 [54.6%], morphine group 202/446 [45.3%]). Analyses were by intention to treat.FINDINGS: Baseline variables were similar in the randomised groups. The placebo and morphine groups had similar rates of the composite outcome (105/408 [26%] vs 115/419 [27%]), neonatal death (47/449 [11%] vs 58/449 [13%]), severe IVH (46/429 [11%] vs 55/411 [13%]), and PVL (34/367 [9%] vs 27/367 [7%]). For neonates who were not given open-label morphine, rates of the composite outcome (53/225 [24%] vs 27/179 [15%], p=0.0338) and severe IVH (19/219 [9%] vs 6/189 [3%], p=0.0209) were higher in the morphine group than the placebo group. Placebo-group neonates receiving open-label morphine had worse rates of the composite outcome than those not receiving open-label morphine (78/228 [34%] vs 27/179 [15%], p<0.0001). Morphine-group neonates receiving open-label morphine were more likely to develop severe IVH (36/190 [19%] vs 19/219 [9%], p=0.0024).INTERPRETATION: Pre-emptive morphine infusions did not reduce the frequency of severe IVH, PVL, or death in ventilated preterm neonates, but intermittent boluses of open-label morphine were associated with an increased rate of the composite outcome. The morphine doses used in this study decrease clinical signs of pain but can cause significant adverse effects in ventilated preterm neonates.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
