SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Extended search

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Niv Y) "

Search: WFRF:(Niv Y)

  • Result 1-6 of 6
Sort/group result
   
EnumerationReferenceCoverFind
1.
  • Gerkin, Richard C., et al. (author)
  • Recent Smell Loss Is the Best Predictor of COVID-19 Among Individuals With Recent Respiratory Symptoms
  • 2021
  • In: Chemical Senses. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0379-864X .- 1464-3553. ; 46
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
  •  
2.
  • Parma, Valentina, et al. (author)
  • More Than Smell—COVID-19 Is Associated With Severe Impairment of Smell, Taste, and Chemesthesis
  • 2020
  • In: Chemical Senses. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0379-864X .- 1464-3553. ; 45:7, s. 609-622
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
  •  
3.
  • Blanton, Michael R., et al. (author)
  • Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV : Mapping the Milky Way, Nearby Galaxies, and the Distant Universe
  • 2017
  • In: Astronomical Journal. - : IOP Publishing Ltd. - 0004-6256 .- 1538-3881. ; 154:1
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
    • We describe the Sloan Digital Sky Survey IV (SDSS-IV), a project encompassing three major spectroscopic programs. The Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment 2 (APOGEE-2) is observing hundreds of thousands of Milky Way stars at high resolution and. high signal-to-noise ratios in the near-infrared. The Mapping Nearby Galaxies at Apache Point Observatory (MaNGA) survey is obtaining spatially resolved spectroscopy for thousands of nearby galaxies (median z similar to 0.03). The extended Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (eBOSS) is mapping the galaxy, quasar, and neutral gas distributions between z similar to 0.6 and 3.5 to constrain cosmology using baryon acoustic oscillations, redshift space distortions, and the shape of the power spectrum. Within eBOSS, we are conducting two major subprograms: the SPectroscopic IDentification of eROSITA Sources (SPIDERS), investigating X-ray AGNs. and galaxies in X-ray clusters, and the Time Domain Spectroscopic Survey (TDSS), obtaining spectra of variable sources. All programs use the 2.5 m Sloan Foundation Telescope at the. Apache Point Observatory; observations there began in Summer 2014. APOGEE-2 also operates a second near-infrared spectrograph at the 2.5 m du Pont Telescope at Las Campanas Observatory, with observations beginning in early 2017. Observations at both facilities are scheduled to continue through 2020. In keeping with previous SDSS policy, SDSS-IV provides regularly scheduled public data releases; the first one, Data Release 13, was made available in 2016 July.
  •  
4.
  • Gerkin, RC, et al. (author)
  • The best COVID-19 predictor is recent smell loss: a cross-sectional study
  • 2020
  • In: medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. - : Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
  • Journal article (other academic/artistic)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.
  •  
5.
  •  
6.
  • Peri, Aviyah, et al. (author)
  • Combined presentation and immunogenicity analysis reveals a recurrent RAS.Q61K neoantigen in melanoma
  • 2021
  • In: Journal of Clinical Investigation. - 0021-9738. ; 131:20
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
    • Neoantigens are now recognized drivers of the antitumor immune response. Recurrent neoantigens, shared among groups of patients, have thus become increasingly coveted therapeutic targets. Here, we report on the data-driven identification of a robustly presented, immunogenic neoantigen that is derived from the combination of HLA-A*01:01 and RAS.Q61K. Analysis of large patient cohorts indicated that this combination applies to 3% of patients with melanoma. Using HLA peptidomics, we were able to demonstrate robust endogenous presentation of the neoantigen in 10 tumor samples. We detected specific reactivity to the mutated peptide within tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) from 2 unrelated patients, thus confirming its natural immunogenicity. We further investigated the neoantigen-specific clones and their T cell receptors (TCRs) via a combination of TCR sequencing, TCR overexpression, functional assays, and single-cell transcriptomics. Our analysis revealed a diverse repertoire of neoantigen-specific clones with both intra- and interpatient TCR similarities. Moreover, 1 dominant clone proved to cross-react with the highly prevalent RAS.Q61R variant. Transcriptome analysis revealed a high association of TCR clones with specific T cell phenotypes in response to cognate melanoma, with neoantigen-specific cells showing an activated and dysfunctional phenotype. Identification of recurrent neoantigens and their reactive TCRs can promote "off-theshelf" precision immunotherapies, alleviating limitations of personalized treatments.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Result 1-6 of 6
Type of publication
journal article (6)
Type of content
peer-reviewed (5)
other academic/artistic (1)
Author/Editor
Niv, Masha Y. (3)
Dibattista, Michele (2)
Menini, Anna (2)
Pereda-Loth, Veronic ... (2)
Pierron, Denis (2)
Hummel, Thomas (2)
show more...
Gerkin, Richard C. (2)
Olsson, Shannon B. (2)
Santamaría, Enrique (2)
Ohla, Kathrin (2)
Veldhuizen, Maria G. (2)
Kelly, Christine E. (2)
Bakke, Alyssa J. (2)
Farruggia, Michael C ... (2)
Pellegrino, Robert (2)
Pepino, Marta Y. (2)
Bouysset, Cedric (2)
Soler, Graciela M. (2)
Cooper, Keiland W. (2)
Di Pizio, Antonella (2)
Ozdener, Mehmet Haka ... (2)
Fjaeldstad, Alexande ... (2)
Lin, Cailu (2)
Saraiva, Luis R. (2)
Alwashahi, Mohammed ... (2)
Bhutani, Surabhi (2)
D'Errico, Anna (2)
Golebiowski, Jerome (2)
Hwang, Liang Dar (2)
Roura, Eugeni (2)
Whitcroft, Katherine ... (2)
Faraji, Farhoud (2)
Fischmeister, Floria ... (2)
Heinbockel, Thomas (2)
Hsieh, Julien W. (2)
Huart, Caroline (2)
Konstantinidis, Iord ... (2)
Morini, Gabriella (2)
Philpott, Carl M. (2)
Shields, Vonnie D. C ... (2)
Albayay, Javier (2)
Altundag, Aytug (2)
Bensafi, Moustafa (2)
Laudamiel, Christoph ... (2)
Lim, Juyun (2)
Macchi, Alberto (2)
Meyer, Pablo (2)
Dominguez, Paloma Ro ... (2)
Hayes, John E. (2)
Reed, Danielle R. (2)
show less...
University
Karolinska Institutet (4)
Stockholm University (2)
Lund University (1)
Malmö University (1)
Language
English (6)
Research subject (UKÄ/SCB)
Medical and Health Sciences (3)
Natural sciences (1)

Year

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view