cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.29571965.v1
title: An umbrella review of systematic evidence on the Low Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening

description: Despite lung cancer’s high mortality rate, many countries still lack organized lung cancer screening programs. This review aims to evaluate the impact of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening on lung cancer diagnosis, mortality, and overall clinical outcomes. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for umbrella reviews, a comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for reviews published between January 2013 and December 2023. Eligible meta-analyses included studies comparing LDCT screening with chest X-ray (CXR) or no screening, reporting outcomes such as sensitivity, specificity, and lung cancer mortality. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2. Out of 801 citations, 14 meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria. LDCT demonstrated high sensitivity (0.97, 95% CI: 0.94–0.98) and specificity (0.87, 95% CI: 0.82–0.91). It significantly increased early-stage lung cancer detection (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.18–1.45) and reduced lung cancer mortality by 18% (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.75–0.90). However, the reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.75–1.06) was not statistically significant. Overdiagnosis and false positives remain essential challenges. This umbrella review confirms that LDCT screening effectively reduces lung cancer mortality, particularly in high-risk populations. Lung cancer was the most commonly diagnosed cancer worldwide in 2022, leading to over 2.5 million new cases and 1.8 million deaths. Although lung cancer has a high death rate, many countries still do not have screening programs in place to detect it early. This review examined the effectiveness of a special type of scan, known as low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), in detecting lung cancer early and saving lives. Researchers searched several major medical databases for studies published between 2013 and 2023. They focused on studies that compared LDCT scans with regular chest X-rays or no screening and checked the quality of the studies they included. Out of 801 studies found, 14 high-quality reviews were selected. The results showed that LDCT scans are very good at correctly detecting lung cancer. They helped find cancer earlier and reduced deaths from lung cancer by 18%. There were also concerns about finding cancers that may not have caused problems (overdiagnosis) and false alarms (false positives). In conclusion, LDCT screening can help save lives by detecting lung cancer early, especially in people at high risk, but some challenges need to be carefully managed.
DOI: 10.3535/hhh-ybk-ewa
title: Nucula proxima Say, 1822

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/qwk-t21-77h
title: Lehmannia marginata (O. F. Müller, 1774)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.29859225
title: Access to treatment-guiding biomarkers in the UK: surveys of cancer patients and healthcare professionals

description: To understand current barriers to treatment-guiding biomarker testing in cancer patients in the UK. A literature search, interviews with healthcare professionals, and a focus group of cancer patients were used to identify current challenges and barriers to treatment guiding biomarker testing. These were followed by online surveys of healthcare professionals and patients designed to further explore and quantify challenges to biomarker testing within the UK. Challenges were identified across the entire biomarker testing pathway, the most common being insufficient workforce, long turnaround times, and lack of specific training. These challenges had a negative impact on patient access to targeted cancer therapies. Challenges to accessing treatment-guiding biomarker testing of cancer patients within the UK are impacting clinical decision-making. There is a requirement to improve awareness and training of healthcare professionals, particularly nurses and advanced clinical practitioners, with opportunities to improve outdated and fragmented ordering and reporting processes. Steps should also be taken to improve the availability of plain-language information materials for patients, to promote understanding and self-advocacy. <b>Why did we perform this research?</b> To identify the best treatment options for cancer patients, it is important to test the patient’s tumor for the presence of specific genetic variants or proteins (also known as biomarkers). Previous publications have suggested that many UK patients do not receive such tests, even when NHS guidelines state they should. This research aimed to understand what proportion of patients are not getting tested, and why biomarker testing is not occurring in all patients. <b>What did we do?</b> Patients and healthcare professionals, including oncologists, nurses, and lab scientists, were interviewed and/or surveyed to identify any barriers in the NHS to treatment-guiding biomarker testing. <b>What were the results?</b> In total, 47.5% of the cancer patients stated they had not received treatment guiding-biomarker tests or were unsure if they had received such tests. NHS professionals told us that there were many challenges to implementing biomarker testing, the most common being insufficient staffing levels and lack of tailored training about genetic and biomarker testing, particularly among nurses. Also, test results took too long, with more than half of patients waiting longer than the recommended 2 weeks for a test result. <b>What are the implications?</b> Our findings indicate that broad reforms and additional resources are needed within the NHS to ensure cancer patients have access to the right treatments.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.29859225.v1
title: Access to treatment-guiding biomarkers in the UK: surveys of cancer patients and healthcare professionals

description: To understand current barriers to treatment-guiding biomarker testing in cancer patients in the UK. A literature search, interviews with healthcare professionals, and a focus group of cancer patients were used to identify current challenges and barriers to treatment guiding biomarker testing. These were followed by online surveys of healthcare professionals and patients designed to further explore and quantify challenges to biomarker testing within the UK. Challenges were identified across the entire biomarker testing pathway, the most common being insufficient workforce, long turnaround times, and lack of specific training. These challenges had a negative impact on patient access to targeted cancer therapies. Challenges to accessing treatment-guiding biomarker testing of cancer patients within the UK are impacting clinical decision-making. There is a requirement to improve awareness and training of healthcare professionals, particularly nurses and advanced clinical practitioners, with opportunities to improve outdated and fragmented ordering and reporting processes. Steps should also be taken to improve the availability of plain-language information materials for patients, to promote understanding and self-advocacy. <b>Why did we perform this research?</b> To identify the best treatment options for cancer patients, it is important to test the patient’s tumor for the presence of specific genetic variants or proteins (also known as biomarkers). Previous publications have suggested that many UK patients do not receive such tests, even when NHS guidelines state they should. This research aimed to understand what proportion of patients are not getting tested, and why biomarker testing is not occurring in all patients. <b>What did we do?</b> Patients and healthcare professionals, including oncologists, nurses, and lab scientists, were interviewed and/or surveyed to identify any barriers in the NHS to treatment-guiding biomarker testing. <b>What were the results?</b> In total, 47.5% of the cancer patients stated they had not received treatment guiding-biomarker tests or were unsure if they had received such tests. NHS professionals told us that there were many challenges to implementing biomarker testing, the most common being insufficient staffing levels and lack of tailored training about genetic and biomarker testing, particularly among nurses. Also, test results took too long, with more than half of patients waiting longer than the recommended 2 weeks for a test result. <b>What are the implications?</b> Our findings indicate that broad reforms and additional resources are needed within the NHS to ensure cancer patients have access to the right treatments.
DOI: 10.3535/cqg-pav-4s8
title: Deroceras panormitanum (Lessona & Pollonera, 1882)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.15468/dl.b7bzz5
title: Occurrence Download

description: A dataset containing 132695 species occurrences available in GBIF matching the query:
{
 "and" : [
 "HasCoordinate is true",
 "TaxonKey is Calla palustris"
 ]
}

 The dataset includes 132695 records from 386 constituent datasets; see https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/download/0003390-250811113504898/datasets/export for details.
 
Data from some individual datasets included in this download may be licensed under less restrictive terms.
DOI: 10.3535/47l-5r8-aps
title: Limaria hians (Gmelin, 1791)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/hb7-c00-mvn
title: Streptostele Dohrn, 1866

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/9s3-a33-ey4
title: Scaphopoda Bronn, 1862

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/zyq-9jp-x7k
title: Cadulus R. A. Philippi, 1844

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.29553007
title: Efficacy of PD-1/PDL-1 inhibitors for ovarian cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

description: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed the efficacy of anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD- 1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), alone or combined with other therapies, for ovarian cancer. However, the optimal strategy remains unclear. This study evaluated their effectiveness as monotherapy and in combination. We conducted a systematic review and Frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases. This analysis included RCTs comparing PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitors, alone or in combination with other therapies. Six studies involving 3,895 patients and eight treatment combinations were included. PD1/PDL1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy and PD1/PDL1 inhibitors plus ipilimumab showed the greatest progression-free survival (PFS) benefit (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52–1.07; HR = 0.82, 95% CI:0.51–1.33) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.85, 95% CI:0.64–1.14; HR = 0.83, 95% CI:0.45–1.54). These combinations also improved overall response rates (ORR), especially with chemotherapy (OR = 3.06; 95% CI:1.42–6.60). Subgroup analysis suggested that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy provided the best PFS and OS in PD-L1-positive patients. Combining PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy or ipilimumab improved survival in ovarian cancer. However, PD-L1 expression may be a valuable biomarker for predicting the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors. This systematic review was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42022342057). Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022347967. Ovarian cancer is a serious disease that is often discovered too late. In recent years, researchers have developed new treatments called immune checkpoint inhibitors, including programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors. These medicines help the body’s immune system fight cancer more effectively. Although they work well in other types of cancer, it is still unclear how effective they are in ovarian cancer.This study looked at six clinical trials that tested these treatments in women with ovarian cancer. Researchers have compared different combinations to determine which one works best. They found that combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy or with another medicine called ipilimumab helped patients live longer and slowed the growth of the cancer. These combinations worked better than chemotherapy alone.Women whose tumors had high levels of a protein called PD-L1 showed even better results. These findings indicate that testing for PD-L1 could help doctors choose the best treatment for each patient. Overall, this study suggests that combining immune-based treatments with other therapies could help some women with ovarian cancer. The results are promising, but more research is needed.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.29553007.v1
title: Efficacy of PD-1/PDL-1 inhibitors for ovarian cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

description: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed the efficacy of anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD- 1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1), alone or combined with other therapies, for ovarian cancer. However, the optimal strategy remains unclear. This study evaluated their effectiveness as monotherapy and in combination. We conducted a systematic review and Frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases. This analysis included RCTs comparing PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitors, alone or in combination with other therapies. Six studies involving 3,895 patients and eight treatment combinations were included. PD1/PDL1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy and PD1/PDL1 inhibitors plus ipilimumab showed the greatest progression-free survival (PFS) benefit (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52–1.07; HR = 0.82, 95% CI:0.51–1.33) and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.85, 95% CI:0.64–1.14; HR = 0.83, 95% CI:0.45–1.54). These combinations also improved overall response rates (ORR), especially with chemotherapy (OR = 3.06; 95% CI:1.42–6.60). Subgroup analysis suggested that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemotherapy provided the best PFS and OS in PD-L1-positive patients. Combining PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with chemotherapy or ipilimumab improved survival in ovarian cancer. However, PD-L1 expression may be a valuable biomarker for predicting the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors. This systematic review was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42022342057). Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42022347967. Ovarian cancer is a serious disease that is often discovered too late. In recent years, researchers have developed new treatments called immune checkpoint inhibitors, including programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors. These medicines help the body’s immune system fight cancer more effectively. Although they work well in other types of cancer, it is still unclear how effective they are in ovarian cancer.This study looked at six clinical trials that tested these treatments in women with ovarian cancer. Researchers have compared different combinations to determine which one works best. They found that combining immune checkpoint inhibitors with chemotherapy or with another medicine called ipilimumab helped patients live longer and slowed the growth of the cancer. These combinations worked better than chemotherapy alone.Women whose tumors had high levels of a protein called PD-L1 showed even better results. These findings indicate that testing for PD-L1 could help doctors choose the best treatment for each patient. Overall, this study suggests that combining immune-based treatments with other therapies could help some women with ovarian cancer. The results are promising, but more research is needed.
DOI: 10.3535/65w-r69-fpw
title: Neopycnodonte cochlear (Poli, 1795)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/r5e-f1c-3mr
title: Chama Linnaeus, 1758

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/d5w-pyc-kkx
title: Kurtiella bidentata (Montagu, 1803)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/8a2-l1b-443
title: Ostrea edulis Linnaeus, 1758

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/v6x-t9m-lnd
title: Amphibola crenata (Gmelin, 1791)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/862-ymj-bsl
title: Helicodonta obvoluta (O. F. Müller, 1774)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/p0r-egw-sxy
title: Ocenebra erinaceus (Linnaeus, 1758)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/38q-0dr-vlp
title: Bradybaena similaris (A. Férussac, 1822)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/6yb-xts-x65
title: Gastropoda Cuvier, 1795

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/808-nee-ljf
title: Cochlicella acuta (O. F. Müller, 1774)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/h5z-a76-s4w
title: Secusana cerasina (Gredler, 1892)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/4my-498-7qb
title: Ondina divisa (J. Adams, 1797)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/4d5-n54-q66
title: Cepaea nemoralis (Linnaeus, 1758)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/7je-67x-st8
title: Arca Linnaeus, 1758

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/4tr-44k-mg3
title: Litigiella glabra (P. Fischer, 1873)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/zc2-pcs-9rt
title: Amusium pleuronectes (Linnaeus, 1758)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/n4r-eht-wc1
title: Flexopecten hyalinus (Poli, 1795)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/s0f-xry-ls6
title: Gryphaeidae Vialov, 1936

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/lps-67l-2rz
title: Amygdalum politum (A. E. Verrill & S. Smith, 1880)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/hzf-8g5-pvk
title: †Serratorotula acarinata (Hemmen & Groh, 1985)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/ydv-826-40b
title: Limaria loscombi (G. B. Sowerby I, 1823)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/fwd-yap-f98
title: Nucella lapillus (Linnaeus, 1758)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/ket-f3n-f3j
title: Cadulus R. A. Philippi, 1844

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/4cq-j7k-gba
title: Cochlicella conoidea (Draparnaud, 1801)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/dge-0zb-dhw
title: Cepaea nemoralis (Linnaeus, 1758)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/bq9-hcf-71l
title: Peracle reticulata (A. d'Orbigny, 1835)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/nh5-chq-x2d
title: Cepaea nemoralis (Linnaeus, 1758)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/018-d2y-97y
title: Lambis lambis (Linnaeus, 1758)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/f2b-1yv-cpf
title: Scaphopoda Bronn, 1862

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/b2m-y45-nvt
title: Malleus albus Lamarck, 1819

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/qze-vbk-lgv
title: Manupecten pesfelis (Linnaeus, 1758)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/0j5-80v-6rn
title: Mercenaria Schumacher, 1817

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/w3v-r2s-hw9
title: Mytilidae Rafinesque, 1815

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/0n7-0ew-edq
title: Naria erosa (Linnaeus, 1758)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/sf0-3xr-0x9
title: Clanculus cruciatus (Linnaeus, 1758)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/m53-z5y-3s5
title: Thyasira Lamarck, 1818

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/vtx-ftf-z6f
title: Isognomon perna (Linnaeus, 1767)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/f7e-beg-7m9
title: Karnekampia sulcata (O. F. Müller, 1776)

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.3535/y13-j1v-nje
title: Bractechlamys Iredale, 1939

description: Digital Specimen for the physical specimen hosted at Naturalis Biodiversity Center.
DOI: 10.15468/dl.5k4s2v
title: Occurrence Download

description: A dataset containing 198 species occurrences available in GBIF matching the query:
{
 "and" : [
 "TaxonKey is Esenbeckia flava Brandegee",
 "BasisOfRecord is one of (Specimen, Fossil, Material sample, Material citation)"
 ]
}

 The dataset includes 198 records from 27 constituent datasets; see https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/download/0010653-250515123054153/datasets/export for details.
 
Data from some individual datasets included in this download may be licensed under less restrictive terms.
DOI: 10.15468/dl.6qabkd
title: Occurrence Download

description: A dataset containing 0 species occurrences available in GBIF matching the query:
{
 "and" : [
 "HasGeospatialIssue is false",
 "HasCoordinate is true",
 "OccurrenceStatus is Present",
 "BasisOfRecord is one of (Human Observation, Machine Observation, Occurrence evidence, Observation)",
 "TaxonKey is one of (Pternistis rufopictus)",
 "Country is one of (American Samoa, Australia, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Heard Island and McDonald Islands, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Norfolk Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States Minor Outlying Islands, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna)"
 ]
}

 The dataset includes 0 records from 0 constituent datasets; see https://api.gbif.org/v1/occurrence/download/0084246-250717081556266/datasets/export for details.