| 1. |
- Bischoff M. M. J., Fang C. M. , De Groot R. A. , Heijnen G. M. M. , Katsnelson M. I. , Kolesnychenko O. Yu. , De Kort R. , Lichtenstein A. I. , Quinn A. J. , de Parma A. L. V. , Yamada T. K. , and Van Kempen H.
(författare)
-
Scanning tunneling spectroscopy study of surface states of 3d metals: Chemical identification, magnetic contrast and orbital Kondo resonance states
- 2003
-
Ingår i: Acta Physica Polonica A. ; , s. 231-
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Lee, C.K., et al.
(författare)
-
Prognostic nomogram to predict progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer
- 2011
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Cancer. - : Cancer Research UK. - 0007-0920 .- 1532-1827. ; 105:8, s. 1144-1150
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer are a heterogeneous group, and it is not possible to accurately predict the progression-free survival (PFS) in these patients. We developed and validated a nomogram to help improve prediction of PFS in patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. METHODS: The nomogram was developed in a training cohort (n = 955) from the CALYPSO trial and validated in the AGO-OVAR 2.5 Study (n = 340). The proportional-hazards model (nomogram) was based on pre-treatment characteristics. RESULTS: The nomogram had a concordance index (C-index) of 0.645. Significant predictors were tumour size platinum-chemotherapy-free interval, CA-125, number of organ metastatic sites and white blood count. When the nomogram was applied without CA-125 (CA-125 was not available in validation cohort), the C-indices were 0.624 (training) and 0.594 (validation). When classification was based only on the platinum-chemotherapy-free interval, the indices were 0.571 (training) and 0.560 (validation). The calibration plot in the validation cohort based on four predictors (without CA-125) suggested good agreement between actual and nomogram-predicted 12-month PFS probabilities. CONCLUSION: This nomogram, using five pre-treatment characteristics, improves prediction of PFS in patients with platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer having platinum-based chemotherapy. It will be useful for the design and stratification of patients in clinical trials and also for counselling patients.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Parma, L., et al.
(författare)
-
Bis(maltolato)oxovanadium(IV) Induces Angiogenesis via Phosphorylation of VEGFR2
- 2020
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Molecular Sciences. - : MDPI AG. - 1422-0067. ; 21:13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- VEGFR2 and VEGF-A play a pivotal role in the process of angiogenesis. VEGFR2 activation is regulated by protein tyrosine phosphatases (PTPs), enzymes that dephosphorylate the receptor and reduce angiogenesis. We aim to study the effect of PTPs blockade using bis(maltolato)oxovanadium(IV) (BMOV) on in vivo wound healing and in vitro angiogenesis. BMOV significantly improves in vivo wound closure by 45% in C57BL/6JRj mice. We found that upon VEGFR2 phosphorylation induced by endogenously produced VEGF-A, the addition of BMOV results in increased cell migration (45%), proliferation (40%) and tube formation (27%) in HUVECs compared to control. In a mouse ex vivo, aortic ring assay BMOV increased the number of sprouts by 3 folds when compared to control. However, BMOV coadministered with exogenous VEGF-A increased ECs migration, proliferation and tube formation by only 41%, 18% and 12% respectively and aortic ring sprouting by only 1-fold. We also found that BMOV enhances VEGFR2 Y951 and p38MAPK phosphorylation, but not ERK1/2. The level of phosphorylation of these residues was the same in the groups treated with BMOV supplemented with exogenous VEGF-A and exogenous VEGF-A only. Our study demonstrates that BMOV is able to enhance wound closure in vivo. Moreover, in the presence of endogenous VEGF-A, BMOV is able to stimulate in vitro angiogenesis by increasing the phosphorylation of VEGFR2 and its downstream proangiogenic enzymes. Importantly, BMOV had a stronger proangiogenic effect compared to its effect in coadministration with exogenous VEGF-A.
|
|
