47 research outputs found
GPS Data Analytics in Football: A Spotlight on Deceleration
No full textBackground: As technology has improved, the ability to gain data from player monitoring devices has become more prevalent in sport science, especially with the introduction of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology. We know that the ability to rapidly increase velocity is a key element of field-based sports such as football, which require repeated sprint efforts throughout a game. What is less intuitive is the importance of negative acceleration or “deceleration” to team-sport performance. Deceleration is important because it affords players the ability to change direction and avoid collisions. Furthermore, deceleration may be a significant contributor to muscle fatigue and damage, which is an important consideration for performance and recovery. The two predominant metrics used to describe deceleration profiles are the frequency of deceleration efforts and the distance covered whilst decelerating; however, there are flaws with both metrics when considering the deceleration movement. Similarly, as deceleration is a secondary movement to a preceding acceleration, deceleration is opportunistic and cannot be analysed in isolation.
Methods: Activity profiles were collected from twenty male football players competing in the Australian Hyundai A-League during 58 matches throughout two seasons (N = 368 observations). Match data were organised into ten 9-minute periods (i.e., P1: 0 - 9 min) and the time spent accelerating at moderate (1 to 2 m·s−2) and high (> 2 m·s−2) acceleration (ACCM and ACCH, respectively) and the time spent decelerating at moderate (-1 to -2 m·s−2) and high (< -2 m·s−2) deceleration (DECM and DECH, respectively) were quantified. Additionally, deceleration:acceleration and deceleration:high-velocity running ratios were also quantified to interrogate the opportunistic nature of deceleration activity throughout match play. A linear mixed model was used to determine the effects of time on the duration spent accelerating and decelerating, as well as the effect of position and formation on the duration spent accelerating and decelerating.
Results: All four acceleration and deceleration metrics decreased between 23 – 26% from the first 9-min interval to the last 9-min interval. There was a significant effect of time on each metric and each displayed negative logarithmic curves within both halves of football match play. When examining the ratios of deceleration to acceleration and high-velocity running, there was no change in the ratio between DECH duration and total acceleration duration (ACCH + ACCM), while the ratios between DECM duration and total acceleration duration, DECM duration and high-velocity running distance (> 14.4 km·h1), and DECH duration and high-velocity running distance increased as the match progressed.
Discussion: Using negative logarithmic curves to illustrate the acceleration and deceleration decay provides a novel methodological approach to quantify the high-intensity actions during football match play. The decrease in the duration of deceleration efforts throughout match play could simply be attributed to a lack of opportunity, as evident by the increase in the ratio of deceleration:acceleration and deceleration:high-velocity running. This conflicts with the conclusions of previous studies which suggest that deceleration ability is compromised in the latter periods of match play.
Practical Applications: Researchers and practitioners should consider the frequency and intensity of deceleration before making inferences regarding a decrease in a player’s ability to decelerate. By utilising negative logarithmic curves, practitioners can model the decay in acceleration and decelerations profiles. Finally, researchers and practitioners must be aware of the opportunistic nature of deceleration and monitor changes in the ratios of deceleration:acceleration and deceleration:high-velocity running, rather than relying on deceleration values in isolation.Thesis (Masters)Master of Medical Research (MMedRes)School of Medical ScienceGriffith HealthFull Tex
Incidence of visual impairment due to cataract, diabetic retinopathy and trachoma in indigenous Australians within central Australia: the Central Australian Ocular Health Study
No full textAuthor version made available in accordance with the publisher's policy.Background: To estimate the incidence and causes of visual impairment for the purposes of service provision among the indigenous Australian population within central Australia from its most common causes, namely cataract, diabetic retinopathy and trachoma. Design: Clinic-based cohort study. Participants: One thousand eight hundred eighty four individuals aged =20 years living in one of 30 remote communities within the statistical local area of 'Central Australia'. Methods: From those initially recruited, 608 (32%) participants were reviewed again between 6 months and 3 years (median 2 years). Patients underwent Snellen visual acuity testing and subjective refraction. Following this, an assessment of their anterior and posterior segments was made. Baseline results were compared with those who were reviewed. Main Outcome Measures: The annual incidence rates and causes of visual impairment (vision worse than Snellen visual acuity 6/12 in at least one eye). Results: The incidence of visual impairment in at least one eye was 6.6%, 1.2% and 0.7% per year for cataract, diabetic retinopathy and trachoma, respectively (7.9%, 1.5% and 0.7% per year for those aged =40 years). Advancing age was the main risk factor common to all three. Conclusion: It is important to be mindful not only of the prevalence of disease in a community but also of the rate at which new cases are occurring when allocating resources to address the ocular health needs of this region. Compared with historical data, diabetic retinopathy is emerging as a new and increasing threat to vision in this population.Australian National Health & Medical Research Counci
Safety, soundness, and the evolution of the U.S. banking industry
No full textAlthough the banking system appears to be safer and sounder today than it was two decades ago, new risk challenges have arisen that could not have been anticipated in the 1980s. This article outlines the fundamental structural changes in the U.S. commercial banking industry since then. ; The author's strategic analysis of the current state of the industry compares the "transactions banking" business model practiced by large financial companies to the more traditional relationship-based banking business model. In particular, the author focuses on the different production technologies, product mixes, strategic behaviors, and risk-return trade-offs that characterize these two opposite approaches. In closing, the article discusses what these new developments may mean for the industry's ongoing safety and soundness.Banks and banking ; Bank supervision
Extended travelling fire method framework with an OpenSees‐based integrated tool SIFBuilder
No full textMany studies of the fire induced thermal and structural behaviour in large
compartments, carried out over the past two decades, show a great deal of non-uniformity,
unlike the homogeneous compartment temperature assumption in the
current fire safety engineering practice. Furthermore, some large compartment fires may
burn locally and they tend to move across entire floor plates over a period of time as the
fuel is consumed. This kind of fire scenario is beginning to be idealized as ‘travelling fires’
in the context of performance‐based structural and fire safety engineering.
However, the
previous research of travelling fires still relies on highly simplified travelling fire models
(i.e. Clifton’s model and Rein’s model); and no equivalent numerical tools can perform
such simulations, which involves analysis of realistic fire, heat transfer and thermo-mechanical
response in one single software package with an automatic coupled manner.
Both of these hinder the advance of the research on performance‐based structural fire
engineering. The author develops an extended travelling fire method (ETFM)
framework and an integrated comprehensive tool with high computational
expediency in this research, to address the above‐mentioned issues.
The experiments conducted for characterizing travelling fires over the past two
decades are reviewed, in conjunction with the current available travelling fire models. It
is found that no performed travelling fire experiment records both the structural response
and the mass loss rate of the fuel (to estimate the fire heat release rate) in a single test,
which further implies closer collaboration between the structural and the fire engineers’
teams are needed, especially for the travelling fire research topic. In addition, an overview
of the development of OpenSees software framework for modelling structures in fire is
presented, addressing its theoretical background, fundamental assumptions, and
inherent limitations. After a decade of development, OpenSees has modules including
fire, heat transfer, and thermo‐mechanical analysis. Meanwhile, it is one of the few
structural fire modelling software which is open source and free to the entire community,
allowing interested researchers to use and contribute with no expense.
An OpenSees‐based integrated tool called SIFBuilder is developed by the author and
co‐workers, which can perform fire modelling, heat transfer analysis, and thermo-mechanical analysis in one single software with an automatic coupled manner.
This
manner would facilitate structural engineers to apply fire loading on their design
structures like other mechanical loading types (e.g. seismic loading, gravity loading, etc.),
without transferring the fire and heat transfer modelling results to each structural element
manually and further assemble them to the entire structure. This feature would largely
free the structural engineers’ efforts to focus on the structural response for performance-based
design under different fire scenarios, without investigating the modelling details
of fire and heat transfer analysis. Moreover, the efficiency due to this automatic coupled
manner would become more superior, for modelling larger structures under more
realistic fire scenarios (e.g. travelling fires). This advantage has been confirmed by the
studies carried out in this research, including 29 travelling fire scenarios containing total
number of 696 heat transfer analysis for the structural members, which were undertaken
at very modest computational costs. In addition, a set of benchmark problems for
verification and validation of OpenSees/SIFBuilder are investigated, which demonstrates
good agreement against analytical solutions, ABAQUS, SAFIR, and the experimental
data. These benchmark problems can also be used for interested researchers to verify their
own numerical or analytical models for other purposes, and can be also used as an
induction guide of OpenSees/SIFBuilder.
Significantly, an extended travelling fire method (ETFM) framework is put forward in
this research, which can predict the fire severity considering a travelling fire concept with
an upper bound. This framework considers the energy and mass conservation, rather than
simply forcing other independent models to ‘travel’ in the compartment (i.e. modified
parametric fire curves in Clifton’s model, 800°C‐1200°C temperature block and the
Alpert’s ceiling jet in Rein’s model). It is developed based on combining Hasemi’s
localized fire model for the fire plume, and a simple smoke layer calculation by utilising
the FIRM zone model for the areas of the compartment away from the fire.
Different from
mainly investigating the thermal impact due to various ratios of the fire size to the
compartment size (e.g. 5%, 10%, 25%, 75%, etc.), as in Rein’s model, this research
investigates the travelling fire thermal impact through explicit representation of the
various fire spread rates and fuel load densities, which are the key input parameters in
the ETFM framework. To represent the far field thermal exposures, two zone models
(i.e. ASET zone model & FIRM zone model) and the ETFM framework are implemented
in SIFBuilder, in order to provide the community a ‘vehicle’ to try, test, and further
improve this ETFM framework, and also the SIFBuilder itself.
It is found that for ‘slow’ travelling fires (i.e. low fire spread rates), the near‐field fire
plume brings more dominant thermal impact compared with the impact from far‐field
smoke. In contrast, for ‘fast’ travelling fires (i.e. high fire spread rates), the far‐field smoke
brings more dominant thermal impact. Furthermore, the through depth thermal gradients
due to different travelling fire scenarios were explored, especially with regards to the
‘thermal gradient reversal’ due to the near‐field fire plume approaching and leaving the
design structural member. This ‘thermal gradient reversal’ would fundamentally reverse
the thermally‐induced bending moment from hogging to sagging. The modelling results
suggest that the peak thermal gradient due to near‐field approaching is more sensitive to
the fuel load density than fire spread rate, where larger peak values are captured with
lower fuel load densities. Moreover, the reverse peak thermal gradient due to near‐field
leaving is also sensitive to the fuel load density rather than the fire spread rate, but this
reverse peak value is inversely proportional to the fuel load densities. Finally, the key
assumptions of the ETFM framework are rationalised and its limitations are emphasized.
Design instructions with relevant information which can be readily used by the structural
fire engineers for the ETFM framework are also included. Hence more optimised and
robust structural design under such fire threat can be generated and guaranteed, where
we believe these efforts will advance the performance‐based structural and fire safety
engineering
The Federal Approach to FiscalDecentralisation: Conceptual Contours for Policy Makers
No full textChanchal Kumar Sharma,in his paper demonstrates that in order for fiscal decentralisation to be effective, it must be approached federally. A federal approach is not a decentralised approach but a dynamically balanced approach; one that constantly keeps on adjusting the contrasting forces of centralisation and decentralisation to create a system that can ensure good governance in accordance with the rapidly changing global and local scenario. According to the author, the good governance of the present time has to be federally flexible and dynamically decentralised and institutions of fiscal federalism are crucial for achieving such a dynamic equilibrium. Fiscal decentralisation cannot be detached from the broader principles of fiscal federalism if it is to be successful, irrespective of the fact of whether it is being carried out in a federal or non-federal country. He argues that too much decentralisation or an overly strong central federal government precludes the survival of a constitutional federal state.Federalism; Fiscal Decentralization; centralization
Grams ME, Sang Y, Ballew SH, et al, for the Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium. Predicting timing of clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and severely decreased glomerular filtration rate. Kidney Int. 2018;93:1442–1451
No full textThe Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Prognosis Consortium is a collaborative author of the above-mentioned article. The CKD Prognosis Consortium investigators/collaborators are as follows: • African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK): Brad Astor, Lawrence J. Appel; Canadian Study of Prediction of Death, Dialysis and Interim Cardiovascular Events (CanPREDDICT): Adeera Levin, Mila Tang, Ognjenka Djurdjev; Cleveland Clinic CKD Registry Study (CCF): Sankar D. Navaneethan, Stacey E. Jolly, Jesse D. Schold, Joseph V. Nally Jr.; Chronic Renal Impairment in Birmingham (CRIB): David C. Wheeler, Jonathan Emberson, John Townend, Martin Landray; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study (CRIC): Harold I. Feldman, Chi-yuan Hsu, James P. Lash, Lawrence J. Appel; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Standards Implementation Study (CRISIS): Philip A. Kalra, James P. Ritchie, Raman Maharajan, Rachel J. Middleton, Donal J. O'Donoghue; German Chronic Kidney Disease Study (GCKD): Kai-Uwe Eckardt, Markus P. Schneider, Anna Köttgen, Florian Kronenberg, Barbara Bärthlein; Geisinger Health System: Alex R. Chang, Jamie A. Green, H. Lester Kirchner, Kevin Ho; Grampian Laboratory Outcomes, Morbidity and Mortality Studies – 2 (GLOMMS2): Angharad Marks, Corri Black, Gordon J. Prescott, Nick Fluck; Gonryo Study: Masaaki Nakayama, Mariko Miyazaki, Tae Yamamoto, Gen Yamada; Hong Kong CKD Studies: Angela Yee-Moon Wang, Sharon Cheung, Sharon Wong, Jessie Chu, Henry Wu; Ontario Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Provincial Kidney, Dialysis and Transplantation program (ICES KDT): Amit X. Garg, Eric McArthur, Danielle M. Nash; Maccabi Health System: Varda Shalev, Gabriel Chodick; Multifactorial Approach and Superior Treatment Efficacy in Renal Patients with the Aid of a Nurse Practitioner (MASTERPLAN): Peter J. Blankestijn, Jack F.M. Wetzels, Arjan D. van Zuilen, Jan A. van den Brand; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD): Andrew S. Levey, Lesley A. Inker, Mark J. Sarnak, Hocine Tighiouart; Nanjing CKD Network Cohort Study (Nanjing CKD): Haitao Zhang; NephroTest Study (NephroTest): Benedicte Stengel, Marie Metzger, Martin Flamant, Pascal Houillier, Jean-Philippe Haymann; National Renal Healthcare Program – Uruguay (NRHP-URU): Pablo G. Rios, Nelson Mazzuchi, Liliana Gadola, Verónica Lamadrid, Laura Sola; New Zealand Diabetes Cohort Study (NZDCS): John F. Collins, C. Raina Elley, Timothy Kenealy; Parcours de Soins des Personnes Agées (PSPA): Olivier Moranne, Cecile Couchoud, Cecile Vigneau; Primary-Secondary Care Partnership to Prevent Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease (PSP CKD): Nigel J. Brunskill, Rupert W. Major, David Shepherd, James F. Medcalf; Racial and Cardiovascular Risk Anomalies in CKD Cohort (RCAV): Csaba P. Kovesdy, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, Miklos Z. Molnar, Keiichi Sumida, Praveen K. Potukuchi; Reduction of Endpoints in Non-insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL): Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Dick de Zeeuw, Barry Brenner; Stockholm CREAtinine Measurements Cohort (SCREAM): Juan Jesus Carrero, Alessandro Gasparini, Abdul Rashid Qureshi, Carl-Gustaf Elinder; Second Manifestations of ARTerial Disease Study (SMART): Frank L.J. Visseren, Yolanda van der Graaf; Swedish Renal Registry CKD Cohort (SRR CKD): Marie Evans, Maria Stendahl, Staffan Schön, Mårten Segelmark, Karl-Göran Prütz; Sunnybrook Cohort: David M. Naimark, Navdeep Tangri; West of Scotland CKD Study: Patrick B. Mark, Jamie P. Traynor, Colin C. Geddes, Peter C. Thomson.• CKD Prognosis Consortium Steering Committee: Alex R. Chang, Josef Coresh (Chair), Ron T. Gansevoort, Morgan E. Grams, Anna Köttgen, Andrew S. Levey, Kunihiro Matsushita, Mark Woodward, Luxia Zhang.• CKD Prognosis Consortium Data Coordinating Center: Shoshana H. Ballew (Assistant Project Director), Jingsha Chen (Programmer), Josef Coresh (Principal Investigator), Morgan E. Grams (Director of Nephrology Initiatives), Lucia Kwak (Programmer), Kunihiro Matsushita (Director), Yingying Sang (Lead Programmer), Aditya Surapaneni (Programmer), Mark Woodward (Senior Statistician).• Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference on Prognosis and Optimal Management of Patients with Advanced CKD: Kai-Uwe Eckardt (Conference Co-Chair), Brenda R. Hemmelgarn (Conference Co-Chair), David C. Wheeler (KDIGO Co-Chair), Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer (KDIGO Co-Chair), John Davis (CEO), Danielle Green (Managing Director), Michael Cheung (Chief Scientific Officer), Tanya Green (Communications Director), Melissa McMahan (Programs Director)
Erratum: Evans M, Grams ME, Sang Y, et al., for the Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium. Risk factors for prognosis in patients with severely decreased GFR.(Kidney International Reports (2018) 3(3) (625–637)(S246802491830007X)(10.1016/j.ekir.2018.01.002))
No full textThe Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Prognosis Consortium is a collaborative author of the above-mentioned article. The CKD Prognosis Consortium investigators/collaborators are as follows: • African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK): Brad Astor, Lawrence J. Appel; British Columbia CKD Study (BC CKD): Adeera Levin, Ognjenka Djurdjev; Canadian Study of Prediction of Death, Dialysis and Interim Cardiovascular Events (CanPREDDICT): Adeera Levin, Mila Tang, Ognjenka Djurdjev; Cleveland Clinic CKD Registry Study (CCF): Sankar D. Navaneethan, Stacey E. Jolly, Jesse D. Schold, Joseph V. Nally Jr; Chronic Renal Impairment in Birmingham (CRIB): David C. Wheeler, Jonathan Emberson, John Townend, Martin Landray; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study (CRIC): Harold I. Feldman, Chi-yuan Hsu, James P. Lash, Lawrence J. Appel; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Standards Implementation Study (CRISIS): Philip A. Kalra, James P. Ritchie, Raman Maharajan, Helen Alderson, Beverly Lane; German Chronic Kidney Disease Study (GCKD): Kai-Uwe Eckardt, Markus P. Schneider, Anna Köttgen, Florian Kronenberg, Barbara Bärthlein; Geisinger Health System: Alex R. Chang, Jamie A. Green, H. Lester Kirchner, Kevin Ho; Grampian Laboratory Outcomes, Morbidity and Mortality Studies – 2 (GLOMMS2): Angharad Marks, Corri Black, Gordon J. Prescott, Nick Fluck; Gonryo Study: Masaaki Nakayama, Mariko Miyazaki, Tae Yamamoto, Gen Yamada; Hong Kong CKD Studies: Angela Yee-Moon Wang, Sharon Cheung, Sharon Wong, Jessie Chu, Henry Wu; Maccabi Health System: Varda Shalev, Gabriel Chodick; Multifactorial Approach and Superior Treatment Efficacy in Renal Patients with the Aid of a Nurse Practitioner (MASTERPLAN): Peter J. Blankestijn, Jack F.M. Wetzels, Arjan D. van Zuilen, Jan A. van den Brand; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD): Andrew S. Levey, Lesley A. Inker, Mark J. Sarnak, Hocine Tighiouart; Nanjing CKD Network Cohort Study (Nanjing CKD): Haitao Zhang; NephroTest Study: Benedicte Stengel; National Renal Healthcare Program – Uruguay (NRHP-URU): Pablo G. Rios, Nelson Mazzuchi, Liliana Gadola, Verónica Lamadrid, Laura Sola; New Zealand Diabetes Cohort Study (NZDCS): John F. Collins, C. Raina Elley, Timothy Kenealy; Parcours de Soins des Personnes Agées (PSPA): Olivier Moranne, Cecile Couchoud, Cecile Vigneau; Primary-Secondary Care Partnership to Prevent Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease (PSP CKD): Nigel J. Brunskill, Rupert W. Major, David Shepherd, James F. Medcalf; Racial and Cardiovascular Risk Anomalies in CKD Cohort (RCAV): Csaba P. Kovesdy, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, Miklos Z. Molnar, Keiichi Sumida, Praveen K. Potukuchi; Reduction of Endpoints in Non-insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL): Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Dick de Zeeuw, Barry Brenner; Stockholm CREAtinine Measurements Cohort (SCREAM): Juan Jesus Carrero, Peter Barany, Abdul Rashid Qureshi, Carl-Gustaf Elinder; Second Manifestations of ARTerial Disease Study (SMART): Frank L.J. Visseren, Yolanda van der Graaf; Swedish Renal Registry CKD Cohort (SRR CKD): Marie Evans, Maria Stendahl, Staffan Schön, Mårten Segelmark, Karl-Göran Prütz; Sunnybrook Cohort: David M. Naimark, Navdeep Tangri; West of Scotland CKD Study: Patrick B. Mark, Jamie P. Traynor, Colin C. Geddes, Peter C. Thomson.• CKD Prognosis Consortium Steering Committee: Alex R. Chang, Josef Coresh (Chair), Ron T. Gansevoort, Morgan E. Grams, Anna Köttgen, Andrew S. Levey, Kunihiro Matsushita, Mark Woodward, Luxia Zhang.• CKD Prognosis Consortium Data Coordinating Center: Shoshana H. Ballew (Assistant Project Director), Jingsha Chen (Programmer), Josef Coresh (Principal Investigator), Morgan E. Grams (Director of Nephrology Initiatives), Lucia Kwak (Programmer), Kunihiro Matsushita (Director), Yingying Sang (Lead Programmer), Aditya Surapaneni (Programmer), Mark Woodward (Senior Statistician).• Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference on Prognosis and Optimal Management of Patients with Advanced CKD: Kai-Uwe Eckardt (Conference Co-Chair), Brenda R. Hemmelgarn (Conference Co-Chair), David C. Wheeler (KDIGO Co-Chair), Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer (KDIGO Co-Chair), John Davis (CEO), Danielle Green (Managing Director), Michael Cheung (Chief Scientific Officer), Tanya Green (Communications Director), Melissa McMahan (Programs Director)
Erratum: Grams ME, Sang Y, Ballew SH, et al, for the Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium. Predicting timing of clinical outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and severely decreased glomerular filtration rate. Kidney Int. 2018;93:1442–1451 (Kidney International (2018) 93(6) (1442–1451), (S0085253818300978) (10.1016/j.kint.2018.01.009))
No full textThe Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) Prognosis Consortium is a collaborative author of the above-mentioned article. The CKD Prognosis Consortium investigators/collaborators are as follows: • African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK): Brad Astor, Lawrence J. Appel; Canadian Study of Prediction of Death, Dialysis and Interim Cardiovascular Events (CanPREDDICT): Adeera Levin, Mila Tang, Ognjenka Djurdjev; Cleveland Clinic CKD Registry Study (CCF): Sankar D. Navaneethan, Stacey E. Jolly, Jesse D. Schold, Joseph V. Nally Jr.; Chronic Renal Impairment in Birmingham (CRIB): David C. Wheeler, Jonathan Emberson, John Townend, Martin Landray; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study (CRIC): Harold I. Feldman, Chi-yuan Hsu, James P. Lash, Lawrence J. Appel; Chronic Renal Insufficiency Standards Implementation Study (CRISIS): Philip A. Kalra, James P. Ritchie, Raman Maharajan, Rachel J. Middleton, Donal J. O'Donoghue; German Chronic Kidney Disease Study (GCKD): Kai-Uwe Eckardt, Markus P. Schneider, Anna Köttgen, Florian Kronenberg, Barbara Bärthlein; Geisinger Health System: Alex R. Chang, Jamie A. Green, H. Lester Kirchner, Kevin Ho; Grampian Laboratory Outcomes, Morbidity and Mortality Studies – 2 (GLOMMS2): Angharad Marks, Corri Black, Gordon J. Prescott, Nick Fluck; Gonryo Study: Masaaki Nakayama, Mariko Miyazaki, Tae Yamamoto, Gen Yamada; Hong Kong CKD Studies: Angela Yee-Moon Wang, Sharon Cheung, Sharon Wong, Jessie Chu, Henry Wu; Ontario Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Provincial Kidney, Dialysis and Transplantation program (ICES KDT): Amit X. Garg, Eric McArthur, Danielle M. Nash; Maccabi Health System: Varda Shalev, Gabriel Chodick; Multifactorial Approach and Superior Treatment Efficacy in Renal Patients with the Aid of a Nurse Practitioner (MASTERPLAN): Peter J. Blankestijn, Jack F.M. Wetzels, Arjan D. van Zuilen, Jan A. van den Brand; Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD): Andrew S. Levey, Lesley A. Inker, Mark J. Sarnak, Hocine Tighiouart; Nanjing CKD Network Cohort Study (Nanjing CKD): Haitao Zhang; NephroTest Study (NephroTest): Benedicte Stengel, Marie Metzger, Martin Flamant, Pascal Houillier, Jean-Philippe Haymann; National Renal Healthcare Program – Uruguay (NRHP-URU): Pablo G. Rios, Nelson Mazzuchi, Liliana Gadola, Verónica Lamadrid, Laura Sola; New Zealand Diabetes Cohort Study (NZDCS): John F. Collins, C. Raina Elley, Timothy Kenealy; Parcours de Soins des Personnes Agées (PSPA): Olivier Moranne, Cecile Couchoud, Cecile Vigneau; Primary-Secondary Care Partnership to Prevent Adverse Outcomes in Chronic Kidney Disease (PSP CKD): Nigel J. Brunskill, Rupert W. Major, David Shepherd, James F. Medcalf; Racial and Cardiovascular Risk Anomalies in CKD Cohort (RCAV): Csaba P. Kovesdy, Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, Miklos Z. Molnar, Keiichi Sumida, Praveen K. Potukuchi; Reduction of Endpoints in Non-insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL): Hiddo J.L. Heerspink, Dick de Zeeuw, Barry Brenner; Stockholm CREAtinine Measurements Cohort (SCREAM): Juan Jesus Carrero, Alessandro Gasparini, Abdul Rashid Qureshi, Carl-Gustaf Elinder; Second Manifestations of ARTerial Disease Study (SMART): Frank L.J. Visseren, Yolanda van der Graaf; Swedish Renal Registry CKD Cohort (SRR CKD): Marie Evans, Maria Stendahl, Staffan Schön, Mårten Segelmark, Karl-Göran Prütz; Sunnybrook Cohort: David M. Naimark, Navdeep Tangri; West of Scotland CKD Study: Patrick B. Mark, Jamie P. Traynor, Colin C. Geddes, Peter C. Thomson.• CKD Prognosis Consortium Steering Committee: Alex R. Chang, Josef Coresh (Chair), Ron T. Gansevoort, Morgan E. Grams, Anna Köttgen, Andrew S. Levey, Kunihiro Matsushita, Mark Woodward, Luxia Zhang.• CKD Prognosis Consortium Data Coordinating Center: Shoshana H. Ballew (Assistant Project Director), Jingsha Chen (Programmer), Josef Coresh (Principal Investigator), Morgan E. Grams (Director of Nephrology Initiatives), Lucia Kwak (Programmer), Kunihiro Matsushita (Director), Yingying Sang (Lead Programmer), Aditya Surapaneni (Programmer), Mark Woodward (Senior Statistician).• Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference on Prognosis and Optimal Management of Patients with Advanced CKD: Kai-Uwe Eckardt (Conference Co-Chair), Brenda R. Hemmelgarn (Conference Co-Chair), David C. Wheeler (KDIGO Co-Chair), Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer (KDIGO Co-Chair), John Davis (CEO), Danielle Green (Managing Director), Michael Cheung (Chief Scientific Officer), Tanya Green (Communications Director), Melissa McMahan (Programs Director)
Relapse prevention interventions for smoking cessation.
No full textBACKGROUND: A number of treatments can help smokers make a successful quit attempt, but many initially successful quitters relapse over time. Several interventions have been proposed to help prevent relapse. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether specific interventions for relapse prevention reduce the proportion of recent quitters who return to smoking. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register in May 2013 for studies mentioning relapse prevention or maintenance in title, abstracts or keywords. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of relapse prevention interventions with a minimum follow-up of six months. We included smokers who quit on their own, were undergoing enforced abstinence, or were participating in treatment programmes. We included trials that compared relapse prevention interventions with a no intervention control, or that compared a cessation programme with additional relapse prevention components with a cessation programme alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were screened and data extracted by one review author, and checked by a second. Disagreements were resolved by discussion or by referral to a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-three studies met inclusion criteria but were heterogeneous in terms of populations and interventions. We considered 41 studies that randomly assigned abstainers separately from studies that randomly assigned participants before their quit date.Upon looking at studies of behavioural interventions that randomly assigned abstainers, we detected no benefit of brief and 'skills-based' relapse prevention methods for women who had quit smoking because of pregnancy, or for smokers undergoing a period of enforced abstinence during hospitalisation or military training. We also failed to detect significant effects of behavioural interventions in trials in unselected groups of smokers who had quit on their own or through a formal programme. Amongst trials randomly assigning smokers before their quit date and evaluating the effects of additional relapse prevention components, we found no evidence of benefit of behavioural interventions or combined behavioural and pharmacotherapeutic interventions in any subgroup. Overall, providing training in skills thought to be needed for relapse avoidance did not reduce relapse, but most studies did not use experimental designs best suited to the task and had limited power to detect expected small differences between interventions. For pharmacological interventions, extended treatment with varenicline significantly reduced relapse in one trial (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.36). Pooling of six studies of extended treatment with bupropion failed to detect a significant effect (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35). Two small trials of oral nicotine replacement treatment (NRT) failed to detect an effect, but treatment compliance was low, and in two other trials of oral NRT in which short-term abstainers were randomly assigned, a significant effect of intervention was noted. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At the moment, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of any specific behavioural intervention to help smokers who have successfully quit for a short time to avoid relapse. The verdict is strongest for interventions focused on identifying and resolving tempting situations, as most studies were concerned with these. Little research is available regarding other behavioural approaches.Extended treatment with varenicline may prevent relapse. Extended treatment with bupropion is unlikely to have a clinically important effect. Studies of extended treatment with nicotine replacement are needed
Current Approaches to Syntax: A Comparative Handbook/ András Kertész, Edith Moravcsik, Csilla Rákosi.
No full textIn English.Includes bibliographical references and indexes.Even though the range of phenomena syntactic theories intend to account for is basically the same, the large number of current approaches to syntax shows how differently these phenomena can be interpreted, described, and explained. The goal of the volume is to probe into the question of how exactly these frameworks differ and what if anything they have in common.Descriptions of a sample of current approaches to syntax are presented by their major practitioners (Part I) followed by their metatheoretical underpinnings (Part II). Given that the goal is to facilitate a systematic comparison among the approaches, a checklist of issues was given to the contributors to address. The main headings are Data, Goals, Descriptive Tools, and Criteria for Evaluation. The chapters are structured uniformly allowing an item-by-item survey across the frameworks. The introduction lays out the parameters along which syntactic frameworks must be the same and how they may differ and a final paper draws some conclusions about similarities and differences.The volume is of interest to descriptive linguists, theoreticians of grammar, philosophers of science, and studies of the cognitive science of science.Moravcsik, Edith -- Broccias, Cristiano -- Chaves, Rui P. -- Culicover, Peter W. / Jackendoff, Ray -- Dalrymple, Mary / Findlay, Jamie Y. -- Featherston, Sam -- Hornstein, Norbert -- Jackendoff, Ray / Audring, Jenny -- Laury, Ritva / Ono, Tsuyoshi -- Legendre, Géraldine -- Mackenzie, J. Lachlan -- Müller, Stefan / Machicao y Priemer, Antonio -- Osborne, Timothy -- Steedman, Mark -- Carr, Philip -- Itkonen, Esa -- Kertész, András / Rákosi, Csilla -- Kornmesser, Stephan -- Ludlow, Peter -- Hacken, Pius ten -- Kertész, András / Rákosi, Csilla -- Frontmatter -- Acknowledgment -- Contents -- Biographical Sketches -- 1. Introduction / Part I: Approaches to syntax -- 2. Cognitive Grammar / 3. Construction Grammar / 4. Simpler Syntax / 5. Lexical Functional Grammar / 6. The Decathlon Model / 7. The Stupendous Success of the Minimalist Program / 8. The Parallel Architecture / 9. Usage-based Grammar / 10. Optimality-theoretic Syntax / 11. The Functional Discourse Grammar approach to syntax / 12. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar / 13. Dependency Grammar / 14. Combinatory Categorial Grammar / Part II: Metatheoretical foundations -- 15. Syntactic knowledge and intersubjectivity / 16. Hermeneutics and generative linguistics / 17. The uncertainty of syntactic theorizing / 18. The multiparadigmatic structure of science and generative grammar / 19. The philosophy of generative linguistics: best theory criteria / 20. The research programme of Chomskyan linguistics / 21. Conclusions: On the use of the comparison of syntactic theories / Author Index -- Language Index -- Subject Index1 online resource (616 p.)
