| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
- Hollestelle, Antoinette, et al.
(författare)
-
No clinical utility of KRAS variant rs61764370 for ovarian or breast cancer
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Gynecologic Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0090-8258 .- 1095-6859. ; 141:2, s. 386-401
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective Clinical genetic testing is commercially available for rs61764370, an inherited variant residing in a KRAS 3′ UTR microRNA binding site, based on suggested associations with increased ovarian and breast cancer risk as well as with survival time. However, prior studies, emphasizing particular subgroups, were relatively small. Therefore, we comprehensively evaluated ovarian and breast cancer risks as well as clinical outcome associated with rs61764370. Methods Centralized genotyping and analysis were performed for 140,012 women enrolled in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (15,357 ovarian cancer patients; 30,816 controls), the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (33,530 breast cancer patients; 37,640 controls), and the Consortium of Modifiers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (14,765 BRCA1 and 7904 BRCA2 mutation carriers). Results We found no association with risk of ovarian cancer (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.94-1.04, p = 0.74) or breast cancer (OR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.94-1.01, p = 0.19) and results were consistent among mutation carriers (BRCA1, ovarian cancer HR = 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23, p = 0.14, breast cancer HR = 1.04, 95% CI 0.97-1.12, p = 0.27; BRCA2, ovarian cancer HR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.71-1.13, p = 0.34, breast cancer HR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.94-1.19, p = 0.35). Null results were also obtained for associations with overall survival following ovarian cancer (HR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.07, p = 0.38), breast cancer (HR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.87-1.06, p = 0.38), and all other previously-reported associations. Conclusions rs61764370 is not associated with risk of ovarian or breast cancer nor with clinical outcome for patients with these cancers. Therefore, genotyping this variant has no clinical utility related to the prediction or management of these cancers.
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
| 25. |
|
|
| 26. |
|
|
| 27. |
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
|
|
| 30. |
|
|
| 31. |
|
|
| 32. |
|
|
| 33. |
|
|
| 34. |
|
|
| 35. |
|
|
| 36. |
|
|
| 37. |
|
|
| 38. |
|
|
| 39. |
|
|
| 40. |
|
|
| 41. |
|
|
| 42. |
- Jones, Benedict C, et al.
(författare)
-
To which world regions does the valence-dominance model of social perception apply?
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature Human Behaviour. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2397-3374. ; 5:1, s. 159-169
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Over the past 10 years, Oosterhof and Todorov's valence-dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgements of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov's methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov's original analysis strategy, the valence-dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions, we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence-dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods and correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 5 November 2018. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7611443.v1 .
|
|
| 43. |
|
|
| 44. |
|
|
| 45. |
|
|
| 46. |
|
|
| 47. |
- Kulka, U., et al.
(författare)
-
Realising the European network of biodosimetry : RENEB-status quo
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Radiation Protection Dosimetry. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0144-8420 .- 1742-3406. ; 164:1-2, s. 42-45
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Creating a sustainable network in biological and retrospective dosimetry that involves a large number of experienced laboratories throughout the European Union (EU) will significantly improve the accident and emergency response capabilities in case of a large-scale radiological emergency. A well-organised cooperative action involving EU laboratories will offer the best chance for fast and trustworthy dose assessments that are urgently needed in an emergency situation. To this end, the EC supports the establishment of a European network in biological dosimetry (RENEB). The RENEB project started in January 2012 involving cooperation of 23 organisations from 16 European countries. The purpose of RENEB is to increase the biodosimetry capacities in case of large-scale radiological emergency scenarios. The progress of the project since its inception is presented, comprising the consolidation process of the network with its operational platform, intercomparison exercises, training activities, proceedings in quality assurance and horizon scanning for new methods and partners. Additionally, the benefit of the network for the radiation research community as a whole is addressed.
|
|
| 48. |
- Ainsbury, E A, et al.
(författare)
-
REVIEW OF RETROSPECTIVE DOSIMETRY TECHNIQUES FOR EXTERNAL IONISING RADIATION EXPOSURES.
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Radiation Protection Dosimetry. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0144-8420 .- 1742-3406. ; 147:4, s. 573-592
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The current focus on networking and mutual assistance in the management of radiation accidents or incidents has demonstrated the importance of a joined-up approach in physical and biological dosimetry. To this end, the European Radiation Dosimetry Working Group 10 on 'Retrospective Dosimetry' has been set up by individuals from a wide range of disciplines across Europe. Here, established and emerging dosimetry methods are reviewed, which can be used immediately and retrospectively following external ionising radiation exposure. Endpoints and assays include dicentrics, translocations, premature chromosome condensation, micronuclei, somatic mutations, gene expression, electron paramagnetic resonance, thermoluminescence, optically stimulated luminescence, neutron activation, haematology, protein biomarkers and analytical dose reconstruction. Individual characteristics of these techniques, their limitations and potential for further development are reviewed, and their usefulness in specific exposure scenarios is discussed. Whilst no single technique fulfils the criteria of an ideal dosemeter, an integrated approach using multiple techniques tailored to the exposure scenario can cover most requirements.
|
|
| 49. |
- Kulka, U., et al.
(författare)
-
Realising the European Network of Biodosimetry (RENEB)
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Radiation Protection Dosimetry. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0144-8420 .- 1742-3406. ; 151:4, s. 621-625
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In Europe, a network for biological dosimetry has been created to strengthen the emergency preparedness and response capabilities in case of a large-scale nuclear accident or radiological emergency. Through the RENEB (Realising the European Network of Biodosimetry) project, 23 experienced laboratories from 16 European countries will establish a sustainable network for rapid, comprehensive and standardised biodosimetry provision that would be urgently required in an emergency situation on European ground. The foundation of the network is formed by five main pillars: (1) the ad hoc operational basis, (2) a basis of future developments, (3) an effective quality-management system, (4) arrangements to guarantee long-term sustainability and (5) awareness of the existence of RENEB. RENEB will thus provide a mechanism for quick, efficient and reliable support within the European radiation emergency management. The scientific basis of RENEB will concurrently contribute to increased safety in the field of radiation protection.
|
|
| 50. |
- Mavaddat, Nasim, et al.
(författare)
-
Prediction of Breast Cancer Risk Based on Profiling With Common Genetic Variants
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1460-2105 .- 0027-8874. ; 107:5, s. 036-036
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Data for multiple common susceptibility alleles for breast cancer may be combined to identify women at different levels of breast cancer risk. Such stratification could guide preventive and screening strategies. However, empirical evidence for genetic risk stratification is lacking. Methods: We investigated the value of using 77 breast cancer-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for risk stratification, in a study of 33 673 breast cancer cases and 33 381 control women of European origin. We tested all possible pair-wise multiplicative interactions and constructed a 77-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS) for breast cancer overall and by estrogen receptor (ER) status. Absolute risks of breast cancer by PRS were derived from relative risk estimates and UK incidence and mortality rates. Results: There was no strong evidence for departure from a multiplicative model for any SNP pair. Women in the highest 1% of the PRS had a three-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer compared with women in the middle quintile (odds ratio [OR] = 3.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.95 to 3.83). The ORs for ER-positive and ER-negative disease were 3.73 (95% CI = 3.24 to 4.30) and 2.80 (95% CI = 2.26 to 3.46), respectively. Lifetime risk of breast cancer for women in the lowest and highest quintiles of the PRS were 5.2% and 16.6% for a woman without family history, and 8.6% and 24.4% for a woman with a first-degree family history of breast cancer. Conclusions: The PRS stratifies breast cancer risk in women both with and without a family history of breast cancer. The observed level of risk discrimination could inform targeted screening and prevention strategies. Further discrimination may be achievable through combining the PRS with lifestyle/environmental factors, although these were not considered in this report.
|
|
