bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Assessment of diversity of Indian aromatic rice germplasm collections for morphological, agronomical, quality traits and molecular characters to identify a core set for crop improvement
Authors: Prasad G. S. V. , Padmavathi G. , Suneetha K. , Madhav M. S. , Muralidharan K. 
Published: October 2020

Abstract

Background
Besides the Basmati, the aromatic rice germplasm (ARG) accessions are treasured for quality, medicinal value and aroma. The demand for aromatic rice is ever increasing. Genetic diversity is the source of variability to identify superior alleles controlling morphological, agronomic and quality traits, and molecular attributes. This study reports on the characterization of traits in ARG to identify a core set for breeding high-yielding varieties.

Methods

The genetic diversity was measured on the distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS) of 46 traits in 208 Indian ARG in field, greenhouse and laboratory tests. We performed individual and combined analysis of DUS traits and molecular data generated using 55 SSR markers. The genetic distances between genotypes were estimated using Mahalanobis D
2
analysis and clustering by standardized Euclidean
2
distances, Ward Minimum variance, Gowers’ similarity index and PowerMarker. The aim was to derive a core set of non-Basmati ARG using PowerCore to deploy in crop improvement.

Results
Eighty-two alleles were detected. Alleles per marker ranged from 2 (RM505) to 5 (RM276) with an average of 3.04 alleles. The markers are informative in analyzing the diversity as the PIC values estimated varied from 0.17 (RM577 on chromosome 1) to 0.72 (RM276 on chromosome 6) with an average of 0.54 per locus. RM276 with repeat motif of (AG)8A3(GA) 33 on chromosome 6 was the most informative (amplified 5 alleles). The combined analysis had shown genotypes in a few clusters to be more diverse than others. SSR markers RM289, RM505, RM577 and RM22866 were identified as genotype specific markers. With PowerCore, 46 genotypes (22%) were identified as a core set of ARG that represent all the alleles detected in the entire set investigated. 2-Acetyl-1-pyrroline is considered to impart aroma; it was not detected by GC–MS tests in many ARG.

Conclusions
Forty-six genotypes in the core set have different maturity periods, plant statures, grain types and grain quality traits. A parent can be selected from the core set to improve aromatic rice depending on the breeding objective. The olfactory sensing of strong aroma emitted by cooked kernels of all ARG was found more decisive than the costly GC–MS tests.
The W transform
Authors: Wang Yanghua 
Published: October 2020

Time-frequency spectral analysis methods such as the S transform cannot appropriately present low-frequency anomalies in seismic traces because they generate a time-frequency spectrum with a low resolution in time at low frequencies. I have developed the W transform to improve the time resolution of the spectrum at low frequencies, for an effective detection of seismic anomalies related to hydrocarbon reservoirs in petroleum exploration and abnormal features in near-surface geophysics. The W transform has three features: (1) the spectral energy is concentrated around the dominant frequency of a seismic waveform, rather than being shifted toward higher frequencies by the S transform; (2) the implementation is numerically stable because it avoids any potential frequency singularity in the S transform; (3) the Gaussian window function is defined using a nonstationary frequency weight, rather than using a stationary frequency weight in the S transform, because the dominant frequency is a time-dependent function. Therefore, the time-frequency spectrum generated by the W transform appropriately represents seismic properties varying with geologic depth, and it has an improved time resolution at low frequencies that makes it suitable for characterizing reservoirs in petroleum geophysics and for detecting karsts in construction engineering.
Physician-reported comorbidities and treatment management in patients with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.
Authors: Appukkuttan Sreevalsa , Patel Bindi , Parkin Jacqueline , Jaffe Dena H. , Wright Jonathon , Cyhaniuk Annissa 
Published: October 2020

149 Background: With the emergence of potent therapies in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) there is a need to understand the impact of nmCRPC treatments on patient comorbidities and concomitant medications. The goal of this study was to understand treatment management of nmCRPC in patients with pre-existing comorbidities from a physician perspective. Methods: Physicians who treated nmCRPC patients with systemic therapy were recruited from a US physician panel for an online survey (Sept-Oct 2019). Physician responses included physician treatment practice, demographic characteristics, and their 'typical' nmCRPC patient profile from the past 6 months (e.g., health profile, disease management, and quality of life [QOL]). Results: Fifty US physicians (56% urologists, 44% oncologists) with 21±6 years in practice, treated on average 30 nmCRPC patients in the past 6 months. The most common nmCRPC treatments were leuprolide acetate (82%), enzalutamide (80%) and apalutamide (70%). The most common comorbidities reported were hypertension (96%), sexual dysfunction (94%), diabetes (92%), myocardial infarction (88%) and urinary issues (88%). 78% of the physicians reported taking comorbidities and medications for comorbidities into consideration when prescribing nmCRPC treatments. Between 15%-28% of physicians reported a change in nmCRPC prostate treatment and 19%-26% reported a dose change in nmCRPC treatment for up to 1/3 of their patients due to comorbidities (Table). For QOL, urologists versus oncologists indicated more days with poor health status among nmCRPC patients (e.g., median poor mental health days 30-days prior to treatment: urologists=15 days vs oncologists=5 days). Conclusions: Many physicians take into account pre-existing comorbidities and their medications when prescribing nmCRPC treatments. Differences in perceived QOL were observed between physician specialty. These findings highlight the importance of considering therapies that lessen the treatment burden in nmCRPC. [Table: see text]
An evaluation of adult cancer-related neuropathic pain treatment at a large academic medical center.
Authors: Ko Elizabeth Kyung , Glode Ashley Elizabeth , Wright Garth C. 
Published: October 2020

168 Background: Cancer-related neuropathic pain (CNP) is a common comorbidity among patients due to treatment and/or tumors that can cause neuronal damage. At present, there is no proven method to prevent CNP and no published widely followed national guideline for CNP management with a defined treatment algorithm. Further evaluation of CNP treatment is needed to help guide the development of clinical algorithms for CNP management. Methods: Health Data Compass, a data mining warehouse, was used to identify adults treated at the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) who had a new diagnosis of cancer between January 1, 2014 and May 31, 2019 in addition to neuropathy during the same time frame. Individual patient electronic medical records were then reviewed for information unable to be obtained through Health Data Compass. The primary objective of the study was to describe CNP treatment at our facility. Descriptive statistics were used to define study population demographics and the primary outcome. Results: A total of 316 patients met study inclusion. The majority of the patients were white (86.7%) and female (67.4%). The most commonly included cancer types were breast (39.4%) and gastrointestinal (35.6%). Patients with all cancer stages were represented in the study. The majority of patients (n = 283) had a diagnosis code of neuropathy on or after the date of their cancer diagnosis; 33 patients had neuropathy documented prior to their cancer diagnosis. The most common CNP management strategies included: opioids only (37.7%), opioids, gabapentin or pregabalin, and an antidepressant (20.3%), opioids and antidepressants (19.6%), or opioids and gabapentin or pregabalin (17.7%). Nearly half of medications used in CNP were not prescribed prior to the patient’s neuropathy diagnosis date (47.3%). Approximately one-third of the patients (33%) had no dose changes from their initial CNP treatment dose. Conclusions: We completed a large single center study to identify the most commonly used medications for CNP treatment. The study included a wide variety of cancer types and all stages. Opioids were the most commonly used medication to treat CNP at UCH. Next steps will be to evaluate the efficacy of opioids compared to other treatment combinations for the management of CNP.
Shared decision-making attitudes and practices in multidisciplinary cancer care teams.
Authors: Mangir Christina , Boehmer Leigh , Kurtin Sandra E. , Wilfong Lalan S. , Kass Rena , Shockney Lillie D. , Politi Mary C. , Jagsi Reshma , LeBlanc Thomas William , Sonet Ellen , Studts Jamie L , Hutton Andrea , Plotkin Elana , Lucas Lorna , Copeland Amy 
Published: October 2020

180 Background: Patients who engage in decision making are more likely to experience confidence in treatment decisions, satisfaction with treatment, and trust in clinicians. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) conducted a survey to explore multidisciplinary team attitudes and practices around shared decision-making (SDM) and health literacy. Methods: ACCC convened a steering committee of multidisciplinary specialists and advocacy representatives to guide this research. The survey included 26 mostly closed-ended questions and was open to multidisciplinary cancer programs from 10/29/19 to 2/20/20. Exploratory analysis was performed on this data set of 305 complete responses. Results: While most respondents reported engaging patients in decision-making to some degree, only 50% reported that SDM is a top organizational priority. 33% reported organizational efforts to formally integrate SDM into the clinical workflow, with only 15% indicating staff opportunities for basic SDM training. The three most frequently cited perceived barriers to engaging in SDM were patients feeling overwhelmed (53%), wanting to defer decisions to clinicians (46%), and having limited health literacy (46%). Only 13% indicated that lack of time was a barrier. Less than half (41%) of respondents reported using patient decision aids to support SDM. Respondents represented a wide range of multidisciplinary team members, though surgical oncologists and general surgeons (20% and 16% respectively) are overrepresented in the results. Conclusions: SDM is commonly accepted as essential to patient engagement but clarity in terminology and prioritizing formal integration of SDM into practice is limited. Strategies to improve integration of SDM into oncology practice should include: 1) Educational initiatives and tools to overcome barriers to SDM, including patient decision aids and SDM training, 2) Initiatives to address health literacy as it relates to patient and caregiver engagement in decision making, 3) Psychosocial support for patients whose emotional upset is a barrier to SDM, 4) Healthcare policies that encourage and incentive providers to engage in SDM. Future analyses will require concurrent assessment of patient, caregiver, healthcare professional, and administrator perspectives.
Closing the gap in health care disparities by improving the rate of lung cancer screening in an intercity hospital.
Authors: Bhargava Anika , Kohli Akshay , Veytsman Irina 
Published: October 2020

195 Background: The National Lung Cancer Screening Trial showed reduced lung cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening. Although LDCT is generally covered by private and government insurance, the rate of LDCT screening has been reported to be very low (2-3%) in previous studies. One of the main barriers in adequate screening was assessment of smoking history to identify eligible populations. Purpose: To increase the rate of lung cancer screening in Medstar Washington Hospital Center Internal Medicine (WHCIM) clinics from a baseline rate of 2.88% by 50% over a 3-month period. Methods: Retrospective baseline data was collected over a 2-week period 01/06/2020–01/17/2020 from patients visits at WHCIM to assess the rate of lung cancer screening. A session was held with physicians and nursing staff to find the barriers in identifying eligible patients for lung cancer screening and to create a fishbone diagram. The first plan-do-study act cycle (PDSA) was initiated from 02/24/2020–03/13/2020 where we piloted a clinical reminder in the form of a print-out filled out by the medical assistants at check in and then given to physicians. The form included the patient's age and simple smoking questionnaire according to the lung cancer screening guidelines. Data was collected during this time period which included documentation of patient’s smoking history, lung cancer screening eligibility and referral to LDCT. Results: By retrospective analysis from the time period of 01/06/2020-01/17/2020 providers documented a smoking history in only 16% of patients seen and only 2.88% of all patients seen over the age of 55 were referred for lung cancer screening. Post intervention for the time period of 02/24/2020-03/13/2020 increased the amount of documented smoking history by providers to 26% and number of patients sent for lung cancer screening to 6.0%. Of patients who met the criteria for lung cancer screening, prior to the intervention only 42% of patients were referred. However, after the clinical reminder has been initiated, 86% of patients who did meet the criteria were sent for screening. Conclusions: The clinical reminder has increased documentation of smoking history by 62% and lung cancer screening for those who meet the criteria according to the guidelines by a relative increase of 105%. We are currently working on PDSA cycle 2 to incorporate education materials in the encounter room and PDSA cycle 3 to incorporate this clinical reminder into the electronic medical record and to implement hospital wide.
Pre-COVID-19 food insecurity prevalence and risk factors in caregivers of pediatric cancer patients at a children’s cancer hospital.
Authors: Wells Stephanie J. , Brown Brandon Douglas , Mahadeo Kris Michael , Schadler Keri L. , Chandra Joya , Swartz Michael D. , Swartz Maria Chang 
Published: October 2020

205 Background: Food insecurity (FI) affects 1 in 5 US households with children and is associated with malnutrition and poor diet quality in children. Malnutrition negatively impacts clinical trial outcomes, chemotherapy tolerance, and survival rate in cancer patients, who may be at higher FI risk given the financial toxicity of treatment. Thus, we aimed to assess FI prevalence and sociodemographics of pediatric patient caregivers at MD Anderson Cancer Center Children’s Cancer Hospital (MDACC-CCH) and to identify healthcare provider sociodemographics and FI practice considerations. Methods: We surveyed caregivers and providers at MDACC-CCH anonymously from December 2019 to January 2020. Caregiver surveys included sociodemographics and The Hunger Vital Sign FI screening tool. Oncologists and other providers were surveyed on FI-related practice considerations. Univariate relationships between known covariates and FI were explored using purposeful covariate selection and multivariable logistic regression to model variables associated with FI risk factors. Results: Baseline characteristics are listed in Table. Of 67 caregiver responses, 36% were positive for FI. Univariate analyses revealed that race, education level, spousal/child support, marital status, and household income were associated with FI status. Final logistic regression model indicated that race other than Non-Hispanic White and lower education level were positively associated with FI. Of 38 provider responses, 58% reported being knowledgeable about FI to some extent. No providers referred patients to community food access resources. Conclusions: In a small pilot study, FI is prevalent in families of pediatric cancer patients at MDACC-CCH and may be associated with race and education level. Further research is needed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on FI in this population and to determine appropriate interventions and clinical pathways to improve FI status. [Table: see text]
Prospectively assessing risk of acute care utilization for patients with an active cancer diagnosis.
Authors: Csik Valerie Pracilio , Binder Adam , Li Michael , Handley Nathan 
Published: October 2020

208 Background: Acute care utilization (ACU)--emergency department visits or hospitalizations--is common in patients with cancer. As many as 83% of all patients with cancer visit the emergency department annually; nearly three quarters of patients with advanced cancer are hospitalized in the year after diagnosis. Much of this ACU may be preventable. Identifying patients at risk for ACU using model-based approaches has shown potential for risk stratifying certain patient subgroups. However, a model applicable to any patient with an active cancer diagnosis is needed. We developed a real time clinical prediction model to assess risk for acute care utilization in patients with an active cancer diagnosis. Methods: We completed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with an active cancer diagnosis (defined as at least one medical oncology encounter in a 12 month period) at one health system. Clinical factors with potential to impact disease progression and ACU were identified through a clinical review. Significant variables were defined by multivariate logistic regression. Risk of ACU was further characterized through the development of a point scoring system to define the upper decile of patients at highest risk. Results: We included 8,246 patient records in the analysis. Seven variables were determined to be statistically significant: An emergency department visit in the last 90 days, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, chronic kidney disease, low hemoglobin, low albumin, and low absolute neutrophil count. The model produced an overall C-statistic of 0.726 Each significant variable was assigned a score of 0 or 1 (with the exception of ED visits, which were given one point for each visit, with three points maximum). Each patient received a total score, resulting from the summation of the individual variable scores. An evaluation of the distribution of points determined that 10% of the patients achieved a score of 2 or higher and contributed to 46% of ACU in the last 90 days. Patients receiving 0 points were defined as low risk (73% of patients contributing to 30% of ED/admissions). Patients receiving 1 point were deemed intermediate risk (17% of patients contributing to 24% of ED/admissions). Conclusions: Risk of acute care utilization for patients with an active cancer diagnosis can be prospectively assessed. This tool is currently integrated into our clinical practice and is updated every 14 days, or any time the chart is accessed. Assessment of efficacy is ongoing.
Moving palliative care upstream for patients diagnosed with head and neck cancers.
Authors: Day Tamara M 
Published: October 2020

227 Background: Adults with cancer face complex treatment choices and symptom burden that impact their quality of life. Goals of palliative care (PC) are to reduce symptom burden and improve quality of life. Strong evidence exists that PC helps reduce symptom burden, decreases hospital utilization, and improve quality of life. Yet, PC remains underutilized, especially in the context of cancer care. Methods: This descriptive longitudinal study evaluated whether use of a psychosocial distress screening tool would help identify patients eligible for PC. A convenience sample of adults with diagnosis of head and neck cancers presenting to an otolaryngology clinic, located in the cancer center of a Midwestern academic health system, were screened for eligibility for PC referral. If eligible, the provider was notified and introduced PC to the patient. Upon acceptance, a PC referral was ordered. The project consisted of baseline (n = 61) and follow-up chart reviews (n = 60) of patients seen in clinic during over a 3-month period. Results: We found an increase in PC referrals from 14.6% at baseline to 30.8% in follow-up, a 227% increase. Psychosocial distress screenings increased from 5% at baseline to 45% in follow-up, an increase of 200%. Of patients who received a PC referral, 85.6% accepted. There were statistically significant differences found between the pre- and post-intervention groups for marital status, χ2 (3) = 9.67, ( p = .02); and cancer stage χ2 (4) = 21.35, ( p = .00) with increased referrals for married patients at higher cancer stages in the prospective group. Conclusions: This study has shown physicians maybe more likely to offer PC referrals based on cancer stages, and not based on psychosocial distress symptoms. Potential barriers to early referral to PC were identified and could serve as useful information for future studies.
Improving care for patients with stage III/IV NSCLC: Learnings for multidisciplinary teams from the ACCC National Quality Survey.
Authors: Salgia Ravi , Boehmer Leigh , Celestin Catherine , Yu Judy , Spigel David R. 
Published: October 2020

228 Background: Refinement of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach continues to offer significant potential for improving the quality of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) care and adherence to guideline-recommended protocols. This opportunity arises, in part, from insufficient characterization of MDT practice patterns and barriers to optimal care provision within U.S. cancer programs. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC), therefore, conducted a national survey to improve understanding on how patients with stage III/IV NSCLC were diagnosed and managed across different practice settings, with the aim of informing the design and execution of process-improvement plans to address identified barriers. Methods: ACCC convened an expert steering committee of multidisciplinary specialists, including oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, pulmonologists, and representation from patient advocacy, for a comprehensive, double-blind, web-based survey (January–April 2019) to obtain insights on cancer care delivery for patients with NSCLC in a diverse set of U.S. community cancer programs. Results: Of 1211 questionnaires, 639 responses affiliated to 160 unique cancer programs across 44 U.S. states were suitable for analysis. In total, 41% (n = 261) of respondents indicated that their cancer program did not have a thoracic multidisciplinary clinic. Nurse navigators (P = 0.03) and radiation oncologists (P = 0.04) were significantly more likely to engage in shared decision-making practices than other disciplines. The average time to first therapeutic intervention in newly diagnosed patients was 4 weeks (range = 1–10 weeks; n = 298). A significant negative correlation between frequency of tumor board meetings and time to complete disease staging (P = 0.03) was observed. The most challenging barriers to delivering high-quality NSCLC care are listed (Table). Conclusions: Multiple opportunities exist to improve the delivery and quality of care for patients with stage III/IV NSCLC, including reducing barriers to effective care coordination and patient education, screening, diagnosis and biomarker testing, and adherence to evolving standards of care. [Table: see text]