| 1. |
- Aad, G, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2015
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 3. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Cornwallis, Charlie K., et al.
(författare)
-
Cooperation facilitates the colonization of harsh environments
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Nature Ecology and Evolution. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2397-334X. ; 1:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Animals living in harsh environments, where temperatures are hot and rainfall is unpredictable, are more likely to breed in cooperative groups. As a result, harsh environmental conditions have been accepted as a key factor explaining the evolution of cooperation. However, this is based on evidence that has not investigated the order of evolutionary events, so the inferred causality could be incorrect. We resolved this problem using phylogenetic analyses of 4,707 bird species and found that causation was in the opposite direction to that previously assumed. Rather than harsh environments favouring cooperation, cooperativebreeding has facilitated the colonization of harsh environments. Cooperative breeding was, in fact, more likely to evolve from ancestors occupying relatively cool environmental niches with predictable rainfall, which had low levels of polyandry and hence high within-group relatedness. We also found that polyandry increased after cooperative breeders invaded harsh environments,suggesting that when helpers have limited options to breed independently, polyandry no longer destabilizes cooperation. This provides an explanation for the puzzling cases of polyandrous cooperative breeding birds. More generally, this illustrates how cooperation can play a key role in invading ecological niches, a pattern observed across all levels of biological organization from cells to animal societies.
|
|
| 9. |
- de Vries, Claire E. E., et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes of the first global multidisciplinary consensus meeting including persons living with obesity to standardize patient-reported outcome measurement in obesity treatment research
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Obesity Reviews. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1467-7881 .- 1467-789X. ; 23:8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Quality of life is a key outcome that is not rigorously measured in obesity treatment research due to the lack of standardization of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs). The S.Q.O.T. initiative was founded to Standardize Quality of life measurement in Obesity Treatment. A first face-to-face, international, multidisciplinary consensus meeting was conducted to identify the key PROs and preferred PROMs for obesity treatment research. It comprised of 35 people living with obesity (PLWO) and healthcare providers (HCPs). Formal presentations, nominal group techniques, and modified Delphi exercises were used to develop consensus-based recommendations. The following eight PROs were considered important: self-esteem, physical health/functioning, mental/psychological health, social health, eating, stigma, body image, and excess skin. Self-esteem was considered the most important PRO, particularly for PLWO, while physical health was perceived to be the most important among HCPs. For each PRO, one or more PROMs were selected, except for stigma. This consensus meeting was a first step toward standardizing PROs (what to measure) and PROMs (how to measure) in obesity treatment research. It provides an overview of the key PROs and a first selection of the PROMs that can be used to evaluate these PROs.
|
|
| 10. |
- Lambregts, Doenja M. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Current controversies in TNM for the radiological staging of rectal cancer and how to deal with them : results of a global online survey and multidisciplinary expert consensus
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Radiology. - : Springer Nature. - 0938-7994 .- 1432-1084. ; 32:7, s. 4991-5003
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives To identify the main problem areas in the applicability of the current TNM staging system (8(th) ed.) for the radiological staging and reporting of rectal cancer and provide practice recommendations on how to handle them. Methods A global case-based online survey was conducted including 41 image-based rectal cancer cases focusing on various items included in the TNM system. Cases reaching < 80% agreement among survey respondents were identified as problem areas and discussed among an international expert panel, including 5 radiologists, 6 colorectal surgeons, 4 radiation oncologists, and 3 pathologists. Results Three hundred twenty-one respondents (from 32 countries) completed the survey. Sixteen problem areas were identified, related to cT staging in low-rectal cancers, definitions for cT4b and cM1a disease, definitions for mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement, evaluation of lymph nodes versus tumor deposits, and staging of lateral lymph nodes. The expert panel recommended strategies on how to handle these, including advice on cT-stage categorization in case of involvement of different layers of the anal canal, specifications on which structures to include in the definition of cT4b disease, how to define MRF involvement by the primary tumor and other tumor-bearing structures, how to differentiate and report lymph nodes and tumor deposits on MRI, and how to anatomically localize and stage lateral lymph nodes. Conclusions The recommendations derived from this global survey and expert panel discussion may serve as a practice guide and support tool for radiologists (and other clinicians) involved in the staging of rectal cancer and may contribute to improved consistency in radiological staging and reporting.
|
|
