| 1. |
- Dahlin, Peter
(author)
-
- 2010
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 2. |
- Öberg, Christina, 1970-, et al.
(author)
-
- 2005
-
In: IMP Conference,2005. - Rotterdam : RSM Erasmus University. ; , s. 49-
-
Conference paper (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Glans, Martin, 1985-, et al.
(author)
-
The Relationship Between Generalised Joint Hypermobility and Autism Spectrum Disorder in Adults : A Large, Cross-Sectional, Case Control Comparison
- 2022
-
In: Frontiers in Psychiatry. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 1664-0640. ; 12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and generalised joint hypermobility (GJH) share a number of clinical manifestations including proprioceptive impairment, motor difficulties, sensory hypersensitivity, and autonomic dysfunction. Clinical observations suggest that GJH is overrepresented in ASD. However, there are currently few systematic studies available. Knowledge about comorbidities may unfold common aetiopathological pathways underlying the association and improve the clinical management. The aim of this large, cross-sectional comparative study is to evaluate the relationship between ASD and GJH in adults. Data on joint hypermobility, symptoms associated with both hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) and hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS), lifetime psychiatric diagnoses, psychiatric rating scales for ASD and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and socio-demographics was collected for 199 individuals with ASD and 419 non-ASD community controls. Logistic regression models adjusting for covariates (age, sex, ethnicity) revealed a significant relationship between ASD and GJH and between ASD and symptomatic GJH, with adjusted odds ratios of 3.1 (95% CI: 1.9, 5.2; p < 0.001) and 4.9 (95% CI: 2.6, 9.0; p < 0.001), respectively. However, the high prevalence of comorbid ADHD in the study sample reduces the generalizability of the results among individuals with ASD without comorbid ADHD. Possibly, an additional ADHD phenotype is the primary driver of the association between ASD and GJH. Furthermore, GJH with additional self-reported symptoms, suggestive of HSD/hEDS, showed a stronger association with ASD than did non-specified GJH, indicating that symptomatic GJH plays a greater role in the relationship than non-specified GJH does. Therefore, the current study underscores the need of careful sample subclassifications. ASD with GJH may represent a novel subgroup of ASD in terms of aetiopathology and clinical presentation. Future research should elucidate the aetiological factors behind the association between ASD and GJH and evaluate how the comorbidity of GJH affects ASD outcomes.
|
|
| 5. |
- Bett, Cheruioyt Rawlynce
(author)
-
Definition of breeding objectives and optimum crossbreeding levels for goats in the smallholder production systems
- 2011
-
In: Small Ruminant Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0921-4488. ; 96, s. 16-24
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The objective of this study was to define breeding objectives and consequently determine optimum crossbreeding levels for goats in the smallholder production systems. Profits and economic values (EVs) were estimated for four genotypes namely (a) original stock or local goat breeds with 0% German Alpine blood level (OS), (b) F1 with 50% German Alpine blood level (F1), (c) first backcross with 75% German Alpine blood level (B1) and (d) second backcross with 87.5% German Alpine blood level (B2). The EVs were estimated for average daily milk yield (DMY, kg), average post-weaning daily gain (ADC, kg), number of kids weaned (NKW), mature weight (MW, kg) and 12-month live weight (LW, kg). Profitability in Kenyan Shilling (KES) without risk was optimal (KES 6038.02) for the B1 genotype. Economic values without risk for most traits were highest for the F1 genotype, i.e., KES 64.85 (ADG), 24.02 (NKW), -27.55 (MW) and 84.51 (LW). There was, however, a 23% reduction in profits in the F1 genotype. It was evident that crossbreeding would improve the profitability of the smallholder farms, but not beyond the 75% grade level. A similar trend was observed when risk was incorporated. Differences in profitability with and without risk were less than 0.005% for all the genotypes. However, differences in EVs were large, ranging from -28% to +19%; DMY had the largest differences. Therefore, incorporation of risk in estimation of EVs for traits of importance is necessary. This study has also demonstrated that crossbreeding to a higher grade level is not necessarily compensated for by a high performance in most traits. Therefore, a crossbreeding program targeting B1 (75%) crossbreds would be desirable for implementation in the smallholder production systems. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
