Showing papers by "University of Amsterdam published in 2021"
Monash University1, University of Amsterdam2, University of Paris3, Bond University4, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio5, University of Ottawa6, American University of Beirut7, Oregon Health & Science University8, University of York9, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute10, University of Southern Denmark11, Johns Hopkins University12, Brigham and Women's Hospital13, Indiana University14, University of Bristol15, University College London16, University of Toronto17
TL;DR: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement as discussed by the authors was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found.
Abstract: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
16,613 citations
Harvard University1, University of California, San Francisco2, University of Amsterdam3, Northwestern University4, International Agency for Research on Cancer5, Aix-Marseille University6, University of Toronto7, The Chinese University of Hong Kong8, German Cancer Research Center9, University of Düsseldorf10, University of Turin11, Heidelberg University12, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital13
TL;DR: The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (CNS), published in 2021, is the sixth version of the international standard for the classification of brain and spinal cord tumors as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (CNS), published in 2021, is the sixth version of the international standard for the classification of brain and spinal cord tumors. Building on the 2016 updated fourth edition and the work of the Consortium to Inform Molecular and Practical Approaches to CNS Tumor Taxonomy, the 2021 fifth edition introduces major changes that advance the role of molecular diagnostics in CNS tumor classification. At the same time, it remains wedded to other established approaches to tumor diagnosis such as histology and immunohistochemistry. In doing so, the fifth edition establishes some different approaches to both CNS tumor nomenclature and grading and it emphasizes the importance of integrated diagnoses and layered reports. New tumor types and subtypes are introduced, some based on novel diagnostic technologies such as DNA methylome profiling. The present review summarizes the major general changes in the 2021 fifth edition classification and the specific changes in each taxonomic category. It is hoped that this summary provides an overview to facilitate more in-depth exploration of the entire fifth edition of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System.
2,908 citations
Monash University1, University of Ottawa2, University of Amsterdam3, University of Paris4, Bond University5, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio6, American University of Beirut7, Oregon Health & Science University8, University of York9, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute10, University of Southern Denmark11, Johns Hopkins University12, Brigham and Women's Hospital13, Indiana University14, University of Bristol15, University College London16, University of Toronto17
TL;DR: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA 2020) as mentioned in this paper was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews, and has been updated to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology.
Abstract: The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.
2,217 citations
Monash University1, University of Amsterdam2, University of Paris3, Bond University4, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio5, University of Ottawa6, American University of Beirut7, Oregon Health & Science University8, University of York9, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute10, University of Southern Denmark11, Johns Hopkins University12, Brigham and Women's Hospital13, Indiana University14, University of Bristol15, University College London16, University of Toronto17
TL;DR: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement as discussed by the authors was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found.
Abstract: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
2,192 citations
Monash University1, University of Amsterdam2, University of Paris3, Bond University4, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio5, University of Ottawa6, American University of Beirut7, Oregon Health & Science University8, University of York9, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute10, University of Southern Denmark11, Johns Hopkins University12, Brigham and Women's Hospital13, Indiana University14, University of Bristol15, University College London16, University of Toronto17
TL;DR: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement as discussed by the authors was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found.
1,725 citations
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven1, University of Sheffield2, Charité3, Medical University of Vienna4, University of Bologna5, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University6, University of Lugano7, University of Manchester8, Netherlands Cancer Institute9, Monash University10, St James's University Hospital11, Erasmus University Medical Center12, University of Aberdeen13, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary14, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust15, Cardiff University16, University of Amsterdam17, University of Lyon18, Utrecht University19, University of Liverpool20
TL;DR: The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa guidelines summarise the most recent findings and advice for their use in clinical practice and include a strong recommendation to consider moderate hypofractionation in intermediate-risk patients.
1,369 citations
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz2, Sara Abdelfatah3, Mahmoud Abdellatif4 +2980 more•Institutions (777)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
1,129 citations
University of Washington1, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust2, McMaster University3, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic4, Emory University5, Federal University of São Paulo6, Ottawa Hospital7, St Thomas' Hospital8, University of Michigan9, Cooper University Hospital10, University of Kansas11, University of Amsterdam12, United Arab Emirates University13, University of Pittsburgh14, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences15, University of São Paulo16, University of Minnesota17, Population Health Research Institute18, University of Toronto19, Humanitas University20, University of Kentucky21, Ghent University Hospital22, University of Tokyo23, Peking Union Medical College Hospital24, Hebron University25, Monash University26, Copenhagen University Hospital27, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine28, Vanderbilt University29, Harvard University30, Brigham and Women's Hospital31, University of Ulsan32, University of Manitoba33, Makerere University34, Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto35, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto36, Medanta37, University of the Witwatersrand38, New York University39, Washington University in St. Louis40, University of Alberta41, Hennepin County Medical Center42, University of Pennsylvania43, Hadassah Medical Center44, Hebrew University of Jerusalem45, Hochschule Hannover46, Brown University47
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications as discussed by the authors, which are either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements.
Abstract: Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.
893 citations
Monash University1, University of Amsterdam2, University of Paris3, Bond University4, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio5, University of Ottawa6, American University of Beirut7, Oregon Health & Science University8, University of York9, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute10, University of Southern Denmark11, Johns Hopkins University12, Brigham and Women's Hospital13, Indiana University14, University of Bristol15, University College London16, University of Toronto17
TL;DR: The PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, was proposed by Page and colleagues as discussed by the authors, who describe the guidelines as "an updated reporting guidelines for systematic review and meta analysis".
Abstract: Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
824 citations
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev1, Population Health Research Institute2, McMaster University3, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill4, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences5, University of Gothenburg6, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven7, Iuliu Hațieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy8, Peking Union Medical College Hospital9, Tohoku University10, University of Sydney11, University of Jos12, Cornell University13, National Autonomous University of Mexico14, University of Manchester15, University of Ghana16, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences17, University of Amsterdam18, Ege University19, Wonkwang University20, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul21, Pontifical Xavierian University22, Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry23, Universiti Sains Malaysia24, Wrocław Medical University25, Dhaka Medical College and Hospital26, Autonomous University of Barcelona27, University of Cape Town28, University of Indonesia29, Queen's University30, National University of Singapore31, Rabin Medical Center32, University of Alberta33, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences34, Université de Montréal35
TL;DR: It is found that more than 40% of persons worldwide have FGIDs, which affect quality of life and healthcare use, and similar trends and relative distributions were found in people who completed internet vs personal interviews.
763 citations
TL;DR: The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews as discussed by the authors, which includes a survey conducted to inform the update, summarise decisions made at the PRISCMA update meeting, and describe and justify changes made to the guideline.
Hebrew University of Jerusalem1, Hospital for Sick Children2, University of Miami3, Humanitas University4, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center5, University of California, San Diego6, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai7, Medical University of Vienna8, University of Amsterdam9, University of Paris10, University of Chicago11, University of Lorraine12, Rabin Medical Center13, Goethe University Frankfurt14
TL;DR: In a recent survey of 89 members of the International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IOIBD), a systematic review of the literature and iterative surveys of 89 IOIBD members, recommendations were drafted and modified in 2 surveys and 2 voting rounds as mentioned in this paper.
University of Washington1, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust2, McMaster University3, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic4, Emory University5, Federal University of São Paulo6, Ottawa Hospital7, St Thomas' Hospital8, University of Michigan9, Cooper University Hospital10, University of Kansas11, University of Amsterdam12, United Arab Emirates University13, University of Pittsburgh14, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences15, University of São Paulo16, University of Minnesota17, Population Health Research Institute18, University of Toronto19, Humanitas University20, University of Kentucky21, Ghent University Hospital22, University of Tokyo23, Peking Union Medical College Hospital24, Hebron University25, Monash University26, Copenhagen University Hospital27, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine28, Vanderbilt University29, Brigham and Women's Hospital30, University of Ulsan31, University of Manitoba32, Makerere University33, Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto34, National Institutes of Health35, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto36, Medanta37, University of the Witwatersrand38, New York University39, Washington University in St. Louis40, University of Alberta41, Hennepin County Medical Center42, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital43, University of Pennsylvania44, Hebrew University of Jerusalem45, Hochschule Hannover46, Brown University47
TL;DR: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications as mentioned in this paper, which are either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements.
Abstract: Background
Sepsis poses a global threat to millions of lives. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the recognition and management of sepsis and its complications.
Methods
We formed a panel of 60 experts from 22 countries and 11 members of the public. The panel prioritized questions that are relevant to the recognition and management of sepsis and septic shock in adults. New questions and sections were addressed, relative to the previous guidelines. These questions were grouped under 6 subgroups (screening and early treatment, infection, hemodynamics, ventilation, additional therapies, and long-term outcomes and goals of care). With input from the panel and methodologists, professional medical librarians performed the search strategy tailored to either specific questions or a group of relevant questions. A dedicated systematic review team performed screening and data abstraction when indicated. For each question, the methodologists, with input from panel members, summarized the evidence assessed and graded the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The panel generated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice statements. When evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, the panel was surveyed to generate “in our practice” statements.
Results
The SSC panel issued 93 statements: 15 best practice statements, 15 strong recommendations, and 54 weak recommendations and no recommendation was provided for 9 questions. The recommendations address several important clinical areas related to screening tools, acute resuscitation strategies, management of fluids and vasoactive agents, antimicrobials and diagnostic tests and the use of additional therapies, ventilation management, goals of care, and post sepsis care.
Conclusion
The SSC panel issued evidence-based recommendations to help support key stakeholders caring for adults with sepsis or septic shock and their families.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors report chronic SARS-CoV-2 with reduced sensitivity to neutralizing antibodies in an immune suppressed individual treated with convalescent plasma, generating whole genome ultradeep sequences over 23 time points spanning 101 days.
Abstract: SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein is critical for virus infection via engagement of ACE21, and is a major antibody target. Here we report chronic SARS-CoV-2 with reduced sensitivity to neutralising antibodies in an immune suppressed individual treated with convalescent plasma, generating whole genome ultradeep sequences over 23 time points spanning 101 days. Little change was observed in the overall viral population structure following two courses of remdesivir over the first 57 days. However, following convalescent plasma therapy we observed large, dynamic virus population shifts, with the emergence of a dominant viral strain bearing D796H in S2 and ΔH69/ΔV70 in the S1 N-terminal domain NTD of the Spike protein. As passively transferred serum antibodies diminished, viruses with the escape genotype diminished in frequency, before returning during a final, unsuccessful course of convalescent plasma. In vitro, the Spike escape double mutant bearing ΔH69/ΔV70 and D796H conferred modestly decreased sensitivity to convalescent plasma, whilst maintaining infectivity similar to wild type. D796H appeared to be the main contributor to decreased susceptibility but incurred an infectivity defect. The ΔH69/ΔV70 single mutant had two-fold higher infectivity compared to wild type, possibly compensating for the reduced infectivity of D796H. These data reveal strong selection on SARS-CoV-2 during convalescent plasma therapy associated with emergence of viral variants with evidence of reduced susceptibility to neutralising antibodies.
Monash University1, University of Amsterdam2, University of Paris3, Bond University4, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio5, University of Ottawa6, American University of Beirut7, Oregon Health & Science University8, University of York9, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute10, University of Southern Denmark11, University of Colorado Denver12, Brigham and Women's Hospital13, Indiana University14, University of Bristol15, University College London16, University of Toronto17
TL;DR: The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement as discussed by the authors was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found.
Innsbruck Medical University1, The Catholic University of America2, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague3, Copenhagen University Hospital4, University of Cologne5, University College London6, Leiden University Medical Center7, Institut Gustave Roussy8, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic9, Imperial College London10, University of Navarra11, Johannes Kepler University of Linz12, Erasmus University Rotterdam13, Humboldt University of Berlin14, Medical University of Vienna15, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust16, University of Amsterdam17, Dresden University of Technology18, European Institute of Oncology19
TL;DR: A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multi-disciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions as mentioned in this paper, and the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncologies (ESTRO), and the EPSP jointly decided to update these evidence-base guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrium carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.
Abstract: A European consensus conference on endometrial carcinoma was held in 2014 to produce multi-disciplinary evidence-based guidelines on selected questions. Given the large body of literature on the management of endometrial carcinoma published since 2014, the European Society of Gynaecological Oncology (ESGO), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) jointly decided to update these evidence-based guidelines and to cover new topics in order to improve the quality of care for women with endometrial carcinoma across Europe and worldwide.
University of Liverpool1, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven2, University of Sheffield3, Charité4, Medical University of Vienna5, University of Bologna6, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University7, Netherlands Cancer Institute8, Monash University9, St James's University Hospital10, Erasmus University Medical Center11, University of Aberdeen12, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary13, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust14, Cardiff University15, University of Amsterdam16, University of Lyon17, Utrecht University18
TL;DR: The 2020 EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and advice for use in clinical practice and guide the clinician in the discussion with the patient on the treatment decisions to be taken.
TL;DR: In this article, the population of 47 compact binary mergers detected with a false-alarm rate of 0.614 were dynamically assembled, and the authors found that the BBH rate likely increases with redshift, but not faster than the star formation rate.
Abstract: We report on the population of 47 compact binary mergers detected with a false-alarm rate of 0.01 are dynamically assembled. Third, we estimate merger rates, finding RBBH = 23.9-+8.614.3 Gpc-3 yr-1 for BBHs and RBNS = 320-+240490 Gpc-3 yr-1 for binary neutron stars. We find that the BBH rate likely increases with redshift (85% credibility) but not faster than the star formation rate (86% credibility). Additionally, we examine recent exceptional events in the context of our population models, finding that the asymmetric masses of GW190412 and the high component masses of GW190521 are consistent with our models, but the low secondary mass of GW190814 makes it an outlier.
TL;DR: It is hypothesized that consequent reduction in the frequency of social contacts, personal losses and the experience of general threats in society reduced well-being, which was associated with increased mental health problems and especially emotional loneliness in this pandemic.
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: With the spread of COVID-19, the Netherlands implemented a policy to keep citizens physically distanced. We hypothesize that consequent reduction in the frequency of social contacts, personal losses and the experience of general threats in society reduced well-being. METHODS: Data were collected from 1,679 Dutch community-dwelling participants aged 65 to 102 years old comprising a longitudinal online panel. Social and emotional loneliness and mental health were measured in May 2020, i.e., two months after the implementation of the measures, and earlier in October and November 2019. RESULTS: In this pandemic, not only loneliness of older people increased, but mental health remained roughly stable. The policy measures for physical distancing did not cause much social isolation but personal losses, worries about the pandemic, and a decline in trust in societal institutions were associated with increased mental health problems and especially emotional loneliness. DISCUSSION: The consequences of long-term social isolation and well-being must be closely monitored.
TL;DR: These guidelines are geared towards analyses performed with the open-source statistical software JASP, and most guidelines extend to Bayesian inference in general.
Abstract: Despite the increasing popularity of Bayesian inference in empirical research, few practical guidelines provide detailed recommendations for how to apply Bayesian procedures and interpret the results. Here we offer specific guidelines for four different stages of Bayesian statistical reasoning in a research setting: planning the analysis, executing the analysis, interpreting the results, and reporting the results. The guidelines for each stage are illustrated with a running example. Although the guidelines are geared towards analyses performed with the open-source statistical software JASP, most guidelines extend to Bayesian inference in general.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors reported the observation of gravitational waves from two compact binary coalescences in LIGO's and Virgo's third observing run with properties consistent with neutron star-black hole (NSBH) binaries.
Abstract: We report the observation of gravitational waves from two compact binary coalescences in LIGO’s and Virgo’s third observing run with properties consistent with neutron star–black hole (NSBH) binaries. The two events are named GW200105_162426 and GW200115_042309, abbreviated as GW200105 and GW200115; the first was observed by LIGO Livingston and Virgo and the second by all three LIGO–Virgo detectors. The source of GW200105 has component masses 8.9−1.5+1.2 and 1.9−0.2+0.3M⊙ , whereas the source of GW200115 has component masses 5.7−2.1+1.8 and 1.5−0.3+0.7M⊙ (all measurements quoted at the 90% credible level). The probability that the secondary’s mass is below the maximal mass of a neutron star is 89%–96% and 87%–98%, respectively, for GW200105 and GW200115, with the ranges arising from different astrophysical assumptions. The source luminosity distances are 280−110+110 and 300−100+150Mpc , respectively. The magnitude of the primary spin of GW200105 is less than 0.23 at the 90% credible level, and its orientation is unconstrained. For GW200115, the primary spin has a negative spin projection onto the orbital angular momentum at 88% probability. We are unable to constrain the spin or tidal deformation of the secondary component for either event. We infer an NSBH merger rate density of 45−33+75Gpc−3yr−1 when assuming that GW200105 and GW200115 are representative of the NSBH population or 130−69+112Gpc−3yr−1 under the assumption of a broader distribution of component masses.
University of Amsterdam1, United States Naval Research Laboratory2, Columbia University3, Hoffmann-La Roche4, University of Toulouse5, University of Alberta6, ASTRON7, Goddard Space Flight Center8, Los Alamos National Laboratory9, Haverford College10, Stony Brook University11, University of Maryland, College Park12, California Institute of Technology13, University of New Hampshire14, Vassar College15, Cornell University16, National Radio Astronomy Observatory17, Eötvös Loránd University18, Max Planck Society19, University of British Columbia20, Centre national de la recherche scientifique21, University of Orléans22
TL;DR: In this article, the authors estimate the radius, mass, and hot surface regions of the massive millisecond pulsar PSR J0740$+$6620, conditional on pulse profile modeling of Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer X-ray Timing Instrument (NICER XTI) event data.
Abstract: We report on Bayesian estimation of the radius, mass, and hot surface regions of the massive millisecond pulsar PSR J0740$+$6620, conditional on pulse-profile modeling of Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer X-ray Timing Instrument (NICER XTI) event data. We condition on informative pulsar mass, distance, and orbital inclination priors derived from the joint NANOGrav and CHIME/Pulsar wideband radio timing measurements of arXiv:2104.00880. We use XMM European Photon Imaging Camera spectroscopic event data to inform our X-ray likelihood function. The prior support of the pulsar radius is truncated at 16 km to ensure coverage of current dense matter models. We assume conservative priors on instrument calibration uncertainty. We constrain the equatorial radius and mass of PSR J0740$+$6620 to be $12.39_{-0.98}^{+1.30}$ km and $2.072_{-0.066}^{+0.067}$ M$_{\odot}$ respectively, each reported as the posterior credible interval bounded by the 16% and 84% quantiles, conditional on surface hot regions that are non-overlapping spherical caps of fully-ionized hydrogen atmosphere with uniform effective temperature; a posteriori, the temperature is $\log_{10}(T$ [K]$)=5.99_{-0.06}^{+0.05}$ for each hot region. All software for the X-ray modeling framework is open-source and all data, model, and sample information is publicly available, including analysis notebooks and model modules in the Python language. Our marginal likelihood function of mass and equatorial radius is proportional to the marginal joint posterior density of those parameters (within the prior support) and can thus be computed from the posterior samples.
University of Göttingen1, Örebro University2, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust3, King's College London4, Charité5, Claude Bernard University Lyon 16, University of Jena7, Radboud University Nijmegen8, Agence Nationale de la Recherche9, University Hospital Heidelberg10, University of Duisburg-Essen11, University of Amsterdam12, Carlos III Health Institute13, University of Bern14, University of Barcelona15, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens16, Hebron University17, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia18, University of Bonn19, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova20
TL;DR: The authors reviewed the intricacies of COVID-19 pathophysiology, its various phenotypes, and the anti-SARS-CoV-2 host response at the humoral and cellular levels.
University of Manchester1, City University of New York2, Istanbul Technical University3, New York University4, Heidelberg University5, Niels Bohr Institute6, University of Edinburgh7, University of Bologna8, Academy of Athens9, Sapienza University of Rome10, University of Naples Federico II11, Stanford University12, Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris13, University of Portsmouth14, Cardiff University15, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo16, University of Michigan17, Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics18, University of New Mexico19, University of Barcelona20, University of St. Thomas (Minnesota)21, Princeton University22, National Autonomous University of Mexico23, California Institute of Technology24, INAF25, University of Chicago26, Michigan Technological University27, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory28, University of Cambridge29, Imperial College London30, Ruhr University Bochum31, University of Waterloo32, University of Oxford33, Johns Hopkins University34, University of Pennsylvania35, University of California, Davis36, Birla Institute of Technology and Science37, RWTH Aachen University38, Université libre de Bruxelles39, University of Padua40, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur41, Spanish National Research Council42, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill43, University of Arizona44, University of Oslo45, Jamia Millia Islamia46, University of Southern Denmark47, National Institute for Space Research48, Fermilab49, Presidency University, Kolkata50, Université Paris-Saclay51, University of Montpellier52, University of Szczecin53, Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute54, University of California, Los Angeles55, University of Paris56, Leiden University57, Swarthmore College58, University of Sheffield59, University of Amsterdam60, United College, Winnipeg61, Liaoning Normal University62
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on the 4.4σ tension between the Planck estimate of the Hubble constant H0 and the SH0ES collaboration measurements and discuss how the next decade's experiments will be crucial.
TL;DR: The data recorded by these instruments during their first and second observing runs are described, including the gravitational-wave strain arrays, released as time series sampled at 16384 Hz.
University of California, San Diego1, Northwestern University2, University of Zurich3, University of Amsterdam4, Washington University in St. Louis5, Claude Bernard University Lyon 16, University of Colorado Denver7, United States Department of Veterans Affairs8, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven9, University of Padua10, Queen Mary University of London11, Vanderbilt University12, University of Bordeaux13, Ege University14, University of Michigan15, Universidad del Desarrollo16, Flinders University17, University of Pisa18, University of Chile19, Case Western Reserve University20, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences21, Chulalongkorn University22, University of Melbourne23, University of Ulsan24, Cornell University25, Mayo Clinic26, New York University27, Monash University28, University of Alberta29, University of Bern30, Kosin University31, University of Milan32, University of South Florida33, Autonomous University of Barcelona34, University College Hospital35, University of Washington36, National University of Singapore37, The Chinese University of Hong Kong38, Sun Yat-sen University39
TL;DR: The Chicago Classification v4.4.0 as discussed by the authors is the most recent version of the Chicago Classification, which uses high-resolution manometry (HRM) for motility disorders.
Abstract: Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0) is the updated classification scheme for esophageal motility disorders using metrics from high-resolution manometry (HRM). Fifty-two diverse international experts separated into seven working subgroups utilized formal validated methodologies over two-years to develop CCv4.0. Key updates in CCv.4.0 consist of a more rigorous and expansive HRM protocol that incorporates supine and upright test positions as well as provocative testing, a refined definition of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), more stringent diagnostic criteria for ineffective esophageal motility and description of baseline EGJ metrics. Further, the CCv4.0 sought to define motility disorder diagnoses as conclusive and inconclusive based on associated symptoms, and findings on provocative testing as well as supportive testing with barium esophagram with tablet and/or functional lumen imaging probe. These changes attempt to minimize ambiguity in prior iterations of Chicago Classification and provide more standardized and rigorous criteria for patterns of disorders of peristalsis and obstruction at the EGJ.
University of Utah1, University of Colorado Denver2, Oregon Health & Science University3, Harvard University4, University of California, San Diego5, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston6, Medical College of Wisconsin7, Medical University of South Carolina8, Northwestern University9, Emory University10, University of Pennsylvania11, University of São Paulo12, Karolinska Institutet13, Ghent University14, Sun Yat-sen University15, University of Chicago16, Rush University Medical Center17, University of Barcelona18, University of California, Los Angeles19, Vanderbilt University20, University of Arizona21, University of Kansas22, Université de Montréal23, University of Auckland24, Rutgers University25, University of Amsterdam26, Columbia University27, Eastern Virginia Medical School28, University of New South Wales29, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven30, Guy's Hospital31, Stanford University32, University of British Columbia33, Mayo Clinic34, Johns Hopkins University35, Korea University36, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences37, Jikei University School of Medicine38, University of Washington39, University of Siena40, University of East Anglia41, University of Adelaide42, Pusan National University43, University of Calgary44, University of Cincinnati45, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill46, Cleveland Clinic47, University of Winnipeg48, Chulalongkorn University49, Cornell University50, National University of Singapore51, University of Alabama at Birmingham52, University of Alberta53, Capital Medical University54
TL;DR: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in the understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease.
Abstract: I. Executive summary BACKGROUND: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR-RS-2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence-based findings of the document. Methods ICAR-RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence-based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence-based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results ICAR-RS-2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence-based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion This ICAR-RS-2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.
State University of New York Upstate Medical University1, Heidelberg University2, University of Melbourne3, Capital Medical University4, Harvard University5, Monash University, Clayton campus6, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai7, Montreal Children's Hospital8, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul9, Peking University10, University of Southampton11, University of Toronto12, University of Washington13, King Khalid University14, King's College London15, Aga Khan University16, Karolinska Institutet17, Radboud University Nijmegen18, Vrije Universiteit Brussel19, University of Nottingham20, Aarhus University21, University of Cologne22, Trinity College, Dublin23, University of Würzburg24, University of Bergen25, University Medical Center Groningen26, University of Wyoming27, University of California, Berkeley28, University of California, San Francisco29, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust30, Duke University31, University of Amsterdam32, Örebro University33, Chongqing Medical University34, Tel Aviv University35, Washington University in St. Louis36, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro37, University College Cork38, University of British Columbia39, University of Pittsburgh40, Oregon Health & Science University41, University of Montpellier42, University of Ibadan43, University of São Paulo44, Hebrew University of Jerusalem45, University of Sydney46, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research47, University of Canterbury48, Autonomous University of Barcelona49, Stellenbosch University50, University of California, Davis51, National Medical College52, Hofstra University53, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston54, University of Southern Denmark55, University of California, Irvine56, Cardiff University57, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology58, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht59, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven60, University of the Free State61, Johns Hopkins University62, University of Turin63, University of Zurich64
TL;DR: In this article, the authors presented 208 empirically supported statements about ADHD using meta-analysis, which allow for firm statements about the nature, course, outcome causes and treatments for disorders that are useful for reducing misconceptions and stigma.
Kazunori Akiyama1, Kazunori Akiyama2, Kazunori Akiyama3, Juan-Carlos Algaba4 +291 more•Institutions (72)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a list of authors who have contributed to the work of the authors of this paper: Akiyama, Kazunori; Algaba, Juan Carlos; Alberdi, Antxon; Alef, Walter; Anantua, Richard; Asada, Keiichi; Azulay, Rebecca; Baczko, Anne-Kathrin; Ball, David; Balokovic, Mislav; Barrett, John; Benson, Bradford A.; Bintley, Dan; Blackburn, Lindy; Blundell
Abstract: Full list of authors: Akiyama, Kazunori; Algaba, Juan Carlos; Alberdi, Antxon; Alef, Walter; Anantua, Richard; Asada, Keiichi; Azulay, Rebecca; Baczko, Anne-Kathrin; Ball, David; Balokovic, Mislav; Barrett, John; Benson, Bradford A.; Bintley, Dan; Blackburn, Lindy; Blundell, Raymond; Boland, Wilfred; Bouman, Katherine L.; Bower, Geoffrey C.; Boyce, Hope Bremer, Michael; Brinkerink, Christiaan D.; Brissenden, Roger; Britzen, Silke; Broderick, Avery E.; Broguiere, Dominique; Bronzwaer, Thomas; Byun, Do-Young; Carlstrom, John E.; Chael, Andrew; Chan, Chi-kwan; Chatterjee, Shami; Chatterjee, Koushik; Chen, Ming-Tang; Chen, Yongjun; Chesler, Paul M.; Cho, Ilje; Christian, Pierre; Conway, John E.; Cordes, James M.; Crawford, Thomas M.; Crew, Geoffrey B.; Cruz-Osorio, Alejandro; Cui, Yuzhu; Davelaar, Jordy; De Laurentis, Mariafelicia; Deane, Roger; Dempsey, Jessica; Desvignes, Gregory; Dexter, Jason; Doeleman, Sheperd S.; Eatough, Ralph P.; Falcke, Heino; Farah, Joseph; Fish, Vincent L.; Fomalont, Ed; Ford, H. Alyson; Fraga-Encinas, Raquel; Friberg, Per; Fromm, Christian M.; Fuentes, Antonio; Galison, Peter; Gammie, Charles F.; Garcia, Roberto; Gelles, Zachary; Gentaz, Olivier; Georgiev, Boris; Goddi, Ciriaco; Gold, Roman; Gomez, Jose L.; Gomez-Ruiz, Arturo I.; Gu, Minfeng; Gurwell, Mark; Hada, Kazuhiro; Haggard, Daryl; Hecht, Michael H.; Hesper, Ronald; Himwich, Elizabeth; Ho, Luis C.; Ho, Paul; Honma, Mareki; Huang, Chih-Wei L.; Huang, Lei; Hughes, David H.; Ikeda, Shiro; Inoue, Makoto; Issaoun, Sara; James, David J.; Jannuzi, Buell T.; Janssen, Michael; Jeter, Britton; Jiang, Wu; Jimenez-Rosales, Alejandra; Johnson, Michael D.; Jorstad, Svetlana; Jung, Taehyun; Karami, Mansour; Karuppusamy, Ramesh; Kawashima, Tomohisa; Keating, Garrett K.; Kettenis, Mark; Kim, Dong-Jin; Kim, Jae-Young; Kim, Jongsoo; Kim, Junhan; Kino, Motoki; Koay, Jun Yi; Kofuji, Yutaro; Koch, Patrick M.; Koyama, Shoko; Kramer, Michael; Kramer, Carsten; Krichbaum, Thomas P.; Kuo, Cheng-Yu; Lauer, Tod R.; Lee, Sang-Sung; Levis, Aviad; Li, Yan-Rong; Li, Zhiyuan; Lindqvist, Michael; Lico, Rocco; Lindahl, Greg; Liu, Jun; Liu, Kuo; Liuzzo, Elisabetta; Lo, Wen-Ping; Lobanov, Andrei P.; Loinard, Laurent; Lonsdale, Colin; Lu, Ru-Sen; MacDonald, Nicholas R.; Mao, Jirong; Marchili, Nicola; Markoff, Sera; Marrone, Daniel P.; Marscher, Alan P.; Marti-Vidal, Ivan; Matsushita, Satoki; Matthews, Lynn D.; Medeiros, Lia; Menten, Karl M.; Mizuno, Izumi; Mizuno, Yosuke; Moran, James M.; Moriyama, Kotaro; Moscibrodzka, Monika; Muller, Cornelia; Musoke, Gibwa; Mus Mejias, Alejandro; Michalik, Daniel; Nadolski, Andrew; Nagai, Hiroshi; Nagar, Neil M.; Nakamura, Masanori; Narayan, Ramesh; Narayanan, Gopal; Natarajan, Iniyan; Nathanail, Antonios; Neilsen, Joey; Neri, Roberto; Ni, Chunchong; Noutsos, Aristeidis; Nowak, Michael A.; Okino, Hiroki; Olivares, Hector; Ortiz-Leon, Gisela N.; Oyama, Tomoaki; Ozel, Feryal; Palumbo, Daniel C. M.; Park, Jongho; Patel, Nimesh; Pen, Ue-Li; Pesce, Dominic W.; Pietu, Vincent; Plambeck, Richard; PopStefanija, Aleksandar; Porth, Oliver; Potzl, Felix M.; Prather, Ben; Preciado-Lopez, Jorge A.; Psaltis, Dimitrios; Pu, Hung-Yi; Ramakrishnan, Venkatessh; Rao, Ramprasad; Rawlings, Mark G.; Raymond, Alexander W.; Rezzolla, Luciano; Ricarte, Angelo; Ripperda, Bart; Roelofs, Freek; Rogers, Alan; Ros, Eduardo; Rose, Mel; Roshanineshat, Arash; Rottmann, Helge; Roy, Alan L.; Ruszczyk, Chet; Rygl, Kazi L. J.; Sanchez, Salvador; Sanchez-Arguelles, David; Sasada, Mahito; Savolainen, Tuomas; Schloerb, F. Peter; Schuster, Karl-Friedrich; Shao, Lijing; Shen, Zhiqiang; Small, Des; Sohn, Bong Won; SooHoo, Jason; Sun, He; Tazaki, Fumie; Tetarenko, Alexandra J.; Tiede, Paul; Tilanus, Remo P. J.; Titus, Michael; Toma, Kenji; Torne, Pablo; Trent, Tyler; Traianou, Efthalia; Trippe, Sascha; van Bemmel, Ilse; van Langevelde, Huib Jan; van Rossum, Daniel R.; Wagner, Jan; Ward-Thompson, Derek; Wardle, John; Weintroub, Jonathan; Wex, Norbert; Wharton, Robert; Wielgus, Maciek; Wong, George N.; Wu, Qingwen; Yoon, Doosoo; Young, Andre; Young, Ken; Younsi, Ziri; Yuan, Feng; Yuan, Ye-Fei; Zensus, J. Anton; Zhao, Guang-Yao; Zhao, Shan-Shan; Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration.-- This is an open access article, original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
University of Groningen1, Erasmus University Rotterdam2, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven3, Chinese Academy of Sciences4, University of Surrey5, King's College London6, University of Toronto7, Avera Health8, Karolinska Institutet9, University of Copenhagen10, University of Greifswald11, University of Kiel12, Yeshiva University13, Sungkyunkwan University14, University of Tartu15, Weizmann Institute of Science16, Copenhagen University Hospital17, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston18, University of Alabama at Birmingham19, Stockholm University20, University of Michigan21, VU University Amsterdam22, University of Oxford23, University of Bristol24, University of Amsterdam25, Maastricht University26, University of California, San Diego27, University of Eastern Finland28, National Institutes of Health29, University of California, Los Angeles30, Linköping University31, Harvard University32, Radboud University Nijmegen33, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill34, Ewha Womans University35, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center36, National Research Council37
TL;DR: In this article, the MiBioGen consortium curated and analyzed genome-wide genotypes and 16S fecal microbiome data from 18,340 individuals (24 cohorts) and found high variability across cohorts: only 9 of 410 genera were detected in more than 95% of samples.
Abstract: To study the effect of host genetics on gut microbiome composition, the MiBioGen consortium curated and analyzed genome-wide genotypes and 16S fecal microbiome data from 18,340 individuals (24 cohorts). Microbial composition showed high variability across cohorts: only 9 of 410 genera were detected in more than 95% of samples. A genome-wide association study of host genetic variation regarding microbial taxa identified 31 loci affecting the microbiome at a genome-wide significant (P < 5 × 10−8) threshold. One locus, the lactase (LCT) gene locus, reached study-wide significance (genome-wide association study signal: P = 1.28 × 10−20), and it showed an age-dependent association with Bifidobacterium abundance. Other associations were suggestive (1.95 × 10−10 < P < 5 × 10−8) but enriched for taxa showing high heritability and for genes expressed in the intestine and brain. A phenome-wide association study and Mendelian randomization identified enrichment of microbiome trait loci in the metabolic, nutrition and environment domains and suggested the microbiome might have causal effects in ulcerative colitis and rheumatoid arthritis.