| 1. |
- Dar, Pe'er, et al.
(författare)
-
Cell-free DNA screening for trisomies 21, 18 and 13 in pregnancies at low and high risk for aneuploidy with genetic confirmation
- 2022
-
Ingår i: American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1097-6868 .- 0002-9378. ; 227:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) non-invasive prenatal screening for trisomy (T) 21, 18, and 13 has been rapidly adopted into clinical practice. However, prior studies are limited by lack of follow up genetic testing to confirm outcomes and accurately assess test performance, particularly in women at low-risk for aneuploidy.To compare the performance of cfDNA screening for T21, T18 and T13 between women at low and high-risk for aneuploidy in a large, prospective cohort with genetic confirmation of results.A multicenter prospective observational study at 21 centers in 6 countries. Women who had SNP-based cfDNA screening for T21, T18 and T13 were enrolled. Genetic confirmation was obtained from prenatal or newborn DNA samples. Test performance and test failure (no-call) rates were assessed for the cohort and women with low and high prior risk for aneuploidy were compared. An updated cfDNA algorithm, blinded to pregnancy outcome, was also assessed.20,194 were enrolled at median gestational age of 12.6 weeks (IQR:11.6, 13.9). Genetic outcomes were confirmed in 17,851 (88.4%): 13,043 (73.1%) low-risk and 4,808 (26.9%) high-risk for aneuploidy. Overall, 133 trisomies were diagnosed (100 T21; 18 T18; 15 T13). cfDNA screen positive rate was lower in low- vs. high-risk (0.27% vs. 2.2%, p<0.0001). Sensitivity and specificity were similar between groups. The positive predictive value (PPV) for the low and high-risk groups was 85.7% vs. 97.5%, p=0.058 for T21; 50.0% vs. 81.3%, p=0.283 for T18; and 62.5% vs. 83.3, p=0.58 for T13, respectively. Overall, 602 (3.4%) patients had no-call result after the first draw and 287 (1.61%) after including cases with a second draw. Trisomy rate was higher in the 287 with no-call results than patients with a result on a first draw (2.8% vs. 0.7%, p=0.001). The updated algorithm showed similar sensitivity and specificity to the study algorhitm with a lower no-call rate.In women at low-risk for aneuploidy, SNP-based cfDNA has high sensitivity and specificity, PPV of 85.7% for T21 and 74.3% for the three common trisomies. Patients who receive a no-call result are at increased risk of aneuploidy and require additional investigation.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lee, Bruce Y., et al.
(författare)
-
Research gaps and opportunities in precision nutrition : an NIH workshop report
- 2022
-
Ingår i: The American journal of clinical nutrition. - : Elsevier BV. - 1938-3207 .- 0002-9165. ; 116:6, s. 1877-1900
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Precision nutrition is an emerging concept that aims to develop nutrition recommendations tailored to different people's circumstances and biological characteristics. Responses to dietary change and the resulting health outcomes from consuming different diets may vary significantly between people based on interactions between their genetic backgrounds, physiology, microbiome, underlying health status, behaviors, social influences, and environmental exposures. On 11-12 January 2021, the National Institutes of Health convened a workshop entitled "Precision Nutrition: Research Gaps and Opportunities" to bring together experts to discuss the issues involved in better understanding and addressing precision nutrition. The workshop proceeded in 3 parts: part I covered many aspects of genetics and physiology that mediate the links between nutrient intake and health conditions such as cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer disease, and cancer; part II reviewed potential contributors to interindividual variability in dietary exposures and responses such as baseline nutritional status, circadian rhythm/sleep, environmental exposures, sensory properties of food, stress, inflammation, and the social determinants of health; part III presented the need for systems approaches, with new methods and technologies that can facilitate the study and implementation of precision nutrition, and workforce development needed to create a new generation of researchers. The workshop concluded that much research will be needed before more precise nutrition recommendations can be achieved. This includes better understanding and accounting for variables such as age, sex, ethnicity, medical history, genetics, and social and environmental factors. The advent of new methods and technologies and the availability of considerably more data bring tremendous opportunity. However, the field must proceed with appropriate levels of caution and make sure the factors listed above are all considered, and systems approaches and methods are incorporated. It will be important to develop and train an expanded workforce with the goal of reducing health disparities and improving precision nutritional advice for all Americans.
|
|
| 3. |
- Squires, Janet E., et al.
(författare)
-
The Implementation in Context (ICON) Framework: A meta-framework of context domains, attributes and features in healthcare
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Health Research Policy and Systems. - 1478-4505. ; 21:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background There is growing evidence that context mediates the effects of implementation interventions intended to increase healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. However, conceptual clarity about what comprises context is elusive. The purpose of this study was to advance conceptual clarity on context by developing the Implementation in Context Framework, a meta-framework of the context domains, attributes and features that can facilitate or hinder healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence and the effectiveness of implementation interventions in clinical practice.Methods We conducted a meta-synthesis of data from three interrelated studies: (1) a concept analysis of published literature on context (n = 70 studies), (2) a secondary analysis of healthcare professional interviews (n = 145) examining context across 11 unique studies and (3) a descriptive qualitative study comprised of interviews with heath system stakeholders (n = 39) in four countries to elicit their tacit knowledge on the attributes and features of context. A rigorous protocol was followed for the meta-synthesis, resulting in development of the Implementation in Context Framework. Following this meta-synthesis, the framework was further refined through feedback from experts in context and implementation science.Results In the Implementation in Context Framework, context is conceptualized in three levels: micro (individual), meso (organizational), and macro (external). The three levels are composed of six contextual domains: (1) actors (micro), (2) organizational climate and structures (meso), (3) organizational social behaviour (meso), (4) organizational response to change (meso), (5) organizational processes (meso) and (6) external influences (macro). These six domains contain 22 core attributes of context and 108 features that illustrate these attributes.Conclusions The Implementation in Context Framework is the only meta-framework of context available to guide implementation efforts of healthcare professionals. It provides a comprehensive and critically needed understanding of the context domains, attributes and features relevant to healthcare professionals’ use of research evidence in clinical practice. The Implementation in Context Framework can inform implementation intervention design and delivery to better interpret the effects of implementation interventions, and pragmatically guide implementation efforts that enhance evidence uptake and sustainability by healthcare professionals.
|
|
| 4. |
- Tesar, Marek, et al.
(författare)
-
Infantmethodologies
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Educational Philosophy and Theory. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0013-1857 .- 1469-5812.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Infantmethodologies is a concept that was playfully invented to gauge philosophical interestin the intersection between infants (or a chid; or infancy; or childhood) and methodologies(and philosophies, theories and concepts). This provocation aims to debate this intersection andweaves thinkers from around the world in order to generate discussion on the question, ‘Howdo we study a child’? Asking this question generates further questions: What processes, methodologies, and methods are in place, and when does such an interface occur? What theories,concepts and philosophies come to mind when such a question is asked?
|
|
