dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Measurement of covariates As covariates, we included calendar year, gender, age, cohabitation, ethnicity, number of children, employment status, education, years of non-employment, years of work experience, income, number of health services used in the year before workforce entry, childhood socioeconomic position, and maternal and paternal psychiatric and somatic diagnoses before the cohort member entered the workforce. All covariates were included from National Danish Registers  (Andersen et al. , 2011; Baadsgaard and Quitzau, 2011; Jensen and Rasmussen, 2011; Lynge et al. , 2011; Mors et al. , 2011; Pedersen, 2011). Childhood socioeconomic position was measured by maternal and paternal educational level and labour market status when the cohort member was 15 years. Linkage to parental data was available from 1980 onwards and only for individuals with parents residing in Denmark and 11.
3% of individuals had missing maternal data and 12. 6% had missing paternal data. To ensure cohort completeness, we retained these individuals in the analysis but adjusted for missing data. Data on number of health services used was included from the Danish National Health services register, encompassing mainly primary health care services  (Andersen et al. , 2011). Age, cohabitation, number of children, education, income, employment status, years of non-employment, and years of work experience were included as annual time-varying variables, while remaining covariates were considered time-invariant.
Statistical modeling We analyzed data using Cox regression with time-to-first diagnosis of depressive disorder as the outcome, modelling past year and cumulated exposures concurrently. We used calendar time as the time-axis to account for period effects on psychiatric treatment  (Mors et al. , 2011)  and analyzed data longitudinally with a one year time-lag, relating exposure during year t to events during year t+1. Individuals were followed from workforce entry until first depressive disorder diagnosis, death, emigration, receipt of disability pension, or end of follow-up 31 December 2010, whichever came first. We limited follow-up to 2010 because exposures could not be updated after 2009 due to changes in the occupational classification. The main analysis (model 1) adjusted for gender, age, cohabitation, ethnicity, number of children, employment status (employed vs.
Acknowledgements None. Fig. 1. Incident depressive disorder for employees with high risk of work-related violence compared to low within industries for men and women separately. Morawska, L. , Mori,  R. , Morrison , S. D. , Moses, M. ,  Mountjoy-Venning , C. , Mruts,  K. B. , Mueller ,  U. O. , Muller, K. , Murdoch, M. E. , Murthy, G. V. S. , Murthy, S. , Musa, K. I. , Nachega, J. B. , Nagel, G. , Naghavi, M. , Naheed, A. , Naidoo, K. S. , Nangia, V. , Nasher, J. T. , Natarajan, G. , Negasa, D. E. , Negoi, R. I. , Negoi, I. , Newton, C. R. , Ngunjiri, J. W. , Nguyen, C. T. , Nguyen, Q. L. , Nguyen, T. H. , Nguyen, G. , Nguyen, M. , Nichols, E. , Ningrum, D. N. A. , Nong , V. M. , Norheim, O. F. , Norrving, B. , Noubiap,  J. J. N. , Nyandwi ,  A. , Obermeyer ,  C. M. ,  O'Donnell, M. J. , Ogbo, F.
Study design This was a phase 3b, randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled, parallel-group, multicenter study (study VX16-661-114; ClinicalTrials. gov identifier, NCT03150719; EudraCT number, 2017-0 0 0540-18). The study included a screening period (days -28 through -1), a treatment period (days 1 through 56 ± 5 days), and a safety follow-up period (28 ± 7 days after the last dose of study drug). The treatment-emergent period included the time from the first dose of the study drug to the safety follow-up contact. Participants were stratified by age ( < 18 vs ≥18 years), sex, and ppFEV 1 severity ( < 40% vs ≥40%) at screening and then randomized 1:1 to receive either placebo or the fixed-dose combination tablet of tezacaftor 100 mg/ivacaftor 150 mg in the morning and an ivacaftor 150-mg tablet in the evening for 56 days ( Supplementary Fig.
Acknowledgments We thank the patients and their families for participating in this trial and the trial investigators and coordinators for their contributions to the trial. A list of investigators and trial sites is included in the supplement. Editorial coordination and support were provided by  Thomas Pickette, PharmD ,  MBA , of  Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated , who may own stock or stock options in that company. Writing and editorial support was provided under the direction of the authors by  Apurva Davé, PhD ;  Christopher Edwards , PhD; and  Michelle Yochum, PhD , with support from  Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated. Data quality control was provided by  Robyn Neitzschman  of  Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated , who may own stock or stock options in that company.
Funding The Advisory Board was financially supported by  Upjohn, UK , a division of  Pfizer. The writing of this paper was commercially funded by  Upjohn, UK , in the form of a payment for professional scientific writing support to  Oliba, Rome, Italy. No products or services of Upjohn UK or Viatris UK have been discussed or promoted within this manuscript. All Advisory Board members ( Alessandro Monaco ,  Amaia Casteig Blanco ,  Mark Cobain ,  Elisio Costa ,  Nick Guldemond ,  Christine Hancock ,  Graziano Onder ,  Mitchell Silva ,  Caterina Trevisan ,  Mariano Votta ,  Jos Tournoy ,  John Yfantopoulos ,  Stecy Yghemonos ) were provided with an honorarium for participating in the Advisory Board.
The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders. FINDINGS The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys.
Numerous trials that were underway prior to the COVID-19 pandemic faced unavoidable modifications in response to the pandemic, such as changes to methods of recruitment, intervention delivery, outcome assessment (eg, substituting virtual visits for in-person ones), statistical analysis, and sometimes study design. As of January 29, 2021, 2043 trials registered with ClinicalTrials. gov had been terminated, withdrawn, or suspended because of COVID-19, affecting more than 129 000 participants and interrupting plans to recruit more than 4 million future participants. 4 ] [7] [8]  Reporting guidelines can improve the completeness and transparency of research reports by defining a minimum set of items to address. While CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 guide reporting for completed trials and trial protocols, respectively, there is limited guidance for reporting trial modifications.
Rapid Review Panelists conducted a rapid review of guidance on modifications to trials. 14 A review protocol and search strategy was registered through the Open Science Framework. 15 n brief, a search was conducted for guidance and processes for reporting on modifications to trials and trial protocols, including any type of document from 2003 through August 2020 indexed in the OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, or EBSCO CINAHL databases and gray literature sources including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the UK National Health Service's Health Research Authority, the US National Institutes of Health, and the UK National Institute for Health Research in any language. Reference lists of included articles were manually screened to identify additional documents. Searches were conducted by a health research librarian and peer reviewed using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) guideline.
16  Reports on circumstances in which modifications had been prespecified in the protocol, such as adaptive trial designs, were excluded. Reports that involved analysis techniques for missing data were also excluded. Database searches were updated on February 26, 2021; gray literature searches were updated to March 10, 2021 (Supplement 1). The search yielded 41 673 citations, of which 3735 were duplicates, and panelists conducted independent and duplicate screening of titles and abstracts using Covidence software, yielding 38 relevant titles (Supplement 1). The rapid review identified no comprehensive guidance overlapping with the purpose and intent of CONSERVE. All searches are available in Supplement 1.
Isanaka et al  22  was affected by extenuating circumstances when the threat of local terrorism prevented participants from being transported to regional health centers for outcome assessments, precluding some follow-up visits from occurring per protocol (Table ). In this case, the extenuating circumstance was terrorism, which affected the outcomes, data collection methods, and participant flow (SPIRIT items 12 and 18; CONSORT items 13 and 17). The trial by Vaillancourt et al  20  on out-of-hospital cervical spine immobilization was stopped early when regional authorities enacted a new policy mandating a modified immobilization rule and adopting many aspects of the trial's experimental intervention as standard of care (Table ). In this example, the extenuating circumstance was regional policy change, and the impacts affected both the interventions (SPIRIT item 11; CONSORT item 5) and the numbers analyzed (SPIRIT item 20; CONSORT item 16).
Mitigating strategies refer to the aspects of the trial that are modified by the study investigators, sponsor, or funder in response to the extenuating circumstances or to manage the impacts on the trial. For example, in the rotavirus vaccine trial,  22  investigators were unable to implement mitigating strategies that would enable data collection and therefore reported the cases in which participants could not access outcome assessments or laboratories as protocol deviations (Table ). Had security concerns worsened, alternative mitigating strategies might have included revised sample size calculations (SPIRIT item 14; CONSORT item 7), revised outcome assessment procedures for participants facing security concerns (SPIRIT item 18A; CONSORT item 6), or changes to the analysis plan including new ancillary analyses (SPIRIT item 20; CONSORT items 16 and 18).
(Golub);  Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, Ottawa ,  Ontario ,  Canada (Khan) ;  University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio (Mulrow) ; Alcohol, Tobacco, and  Other Drugs Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council ,  Cape Town ,  South Africa  (Siegfried);  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California (Heber) ; The Lancet,  London, England (Lee) ;  Office of Extramural Research, Division of Human Subjects Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (Kearney) ;  Department of Disease Control and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda (Wanyenze) ;  Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO)  and  Cochrane Denmark, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark (Hróbjartsson) ; ClinicalTrials.
Dr Ross  reported receipt of grants from  Johnson & Johnson , the  FDA , the  Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality , the  Laura and John Arnold Foundation , the  National Institutes of Health/ National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute , and the  Medical Devices Innovation Consortium  and being a current US research and outreach editor at The BMJ. Dr Khan  reported being scientific director of the  CIHR Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. Dr Jüni  reported serving as unpaid member of the steering group of trials funded by  Appili Therapeutics ,  Astra Zeneca ,  Biotronik ,  Biosensors ,  St Jude Medical , and  The Medicines Company ; receiving research grants to his institution from  AstraZeneca ,  Biotronik ,  Biosensors International ,  Eli Lilly & Co , and  The Medicines Company ; and receiving honoraria to his institution for participation in advisory boards and/or consulting from  Amgen ,  Ava , and Fresenius; he has not received personal payments from any pharmaceutical company or device manufacturer.
Therefore, capitalizing on our previous study  [27] , the purpose of the present experiment is to compare the effects on physical and cognitive capacities of the NW training program and those of two different circuit training, based on TwM and MwT task conditions, respectively. In the circuit training based on TwM conditions (henceforth, CT-c), cognitive processes are loaded thanks to the inclusion of complex whole-body and interlimb coordinated movements performed in single or dual-task situations. In the circuit training based on MwT conditions (henceforth, CT-fit), the cognitive processes are directly incorporated into complex goal-directed motor tasks, thanks to the use of a fitness gaming technology (i. e. , the Fitlight Trainer™; Fitlight Sports Corp. , Canada). This technology is currently used in sports training  [36]  and rehabilitation to improve physical and cognitive skills (e.
Study Design The study is a monocentric randomized trial. Training interventions will be carried out at the "Stade Marseillais Université Club" (SMUC, Marseille, France) that is, a multisport club proposing programs of physical activity adapted to older adults. All subjects must give their informed consent for inclusion before they participate in the study. The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol has been approved by the French National Ethics Committee (CPP IDF10 no. 2019-A03263-54) (registered also on ClinicalTrials. gov ID: NCT04504643). Pre-and post-tests will be carried out before and after the training period to evaluate the cognitive, physical, and motor benefits of each program. An evaluation will be done at the Institute of Movement Science (ISM) (Marseille, France).
For each group of 6 lamps, we use a specific program proposed by the Fitlight trainer™ (the visuomotor program), which is based on random lighting of 1 to 6 possible different colors (red, blue, light blue, green, yellow, and magenta) during a fixed time period (e. g. , 45 s), which represent the time allowed for completing the response. The use of different colors is a means to make the cognitive and motor component embodied one to another. For instance, by choosing two colors from 6 (e. g. , red referring to the left hand and blue to the right one), the participant has to inhibit all the automatic responses when a lamp is turned on and to discriminate the color lightened and perform the corresponding motor response. Then, a number of parameters can be set, for instance, the distance of impact (i.
Data Management The included participants will be registered with an identification number, and all the data collected will be anonymized. Data will be collected and saved on a separate hard disk and treated anonymously or, for each identification code, a logbook will be started in which test results from baseline and post-intervention assessments will be collected as well as the documentation on each training session. In terms of data quality, a trained project-assistant will verify the data entries and check the digitalized version after all training and assessments are finished.
Statistical Analysis Data will be analyzed with SPSS (SPSS Inc. , Chicago, IL, USA). The statistical analysis will allow us to determine the effects of the three different training programs on the cognitive, motor, and physical variables. The analysis will include subjects who completed all the pre-and post-tests. Data of the pre-test and post-test will be presented using descriptive statistics: mean, standard deviation, and percentage to describe the participants' characteristics and performance on assessments. Comparisons within and between groups at baseline and post-intervention will be done using repeated measures ANOVA, and Newman-Keuls tests as post hoc analyses. The global Anova carried out between groups will allow testing the existence of a training effect (pre/post) for the different groups.
Indeed, it has been previously demonstrated that coordination training specifically impacts visuospatial capacities  [12, 14]. With respect to physical fitness, reflected by cardiovascular capacities, in accordance with Temprado and colleagues'  [27]  study, it is expected that all three groups will improve their cardiovascular capacities. This could occur if the mean level of effort, indexed by mean heart rate calculated during the different sessions for the three training programs, is roughly equivalent  [27]. If not the case, a difference could be observed between the three groups in the relative test. In case of differences between the three groups, we will analyze heart rate and data from the Borg scale to determine whether one of three training protocols was (at least perceived) of higher intensity, relative to the others.
Study population & data collection Adults living in camps that accommodate refugees were asked to participate in this study. Inclusion criteria for the displaced group were Syrians and Palestinians displaced from Syria, > 18-year-old adults, living in a Palestinian camp, and having experienced displacement. For Palestinians born in Lebanon (i. e. non-displaced group), inclusion criteria were: > 18-year-old adults, and living in a Palestinian camp. The study aims, methods, and procedure were explained to each participant. After signature of the informed consent, each participant completed the ASSIST (5-10 min) during a face-to-face interview. Country of origin for displaced persons, age, sex, education level, marital status, employment status, number of family members, and presence of chronic illnesses were recorded.
Participants' characteristics Among the 478 refugees interviewed, 400 completed the questionnaire (response rate of 85. 9%). Indeed, many interviewees refused to answer some questions or stopped completing the questionnaire for personal reasons despite having given their consent  ( AAPOR, 2015 ). The sample included 208 Palestinians born in Lebanon (non-displaced), and 192 Syrians and Palestinians displaced from Syria (displaced group). Participants lived in three camps in Mount Lebanon and South Lebanon. Based on the latest UNRWA data from June 2018, our sample represented approximately 0. 5% from the estimated number of refugees living in the three camps. 3 Analysis of their demographic characteristics ( Table  1  ) showed that overall, participants were mainly men (81. 5%), with a mean age of 29.
Acknowledgment I express my sincere gratitude to my research project supervisors for their professional guidance and valuable support as well as their constructive recommendations that allowed me to build such a powerful research. A special thank you for Doctor  Dany Khalaf  for his medical backup during the data collection phase; for  Dr. Marie-Therese Matar  and  Dr. Rana Itani  for their support; and for all the personnel inside the camps who were facilitating our entry for data collection.
Theoretical frameworks such as the theory of planned behavior (TPB) can be applied to design and evaluate smoking behavior interventions. The present systematic review aimed to: (i) determine the characteristics of TPB-based interventions and their reported impact on smoking behavior and TPB variables, (ii) evaluate the level of methodological quality in the included studies, and (iii) assess the quality of the theoretical implementation. Studies were eligible for inclusion if the intervention targeted smoking behavior, was explicitly based on the TPB, and if smoking behavior or intention was measured at least at post-intervention. Relevant articles were identified through searches on databases and internet search engines, responses to messages sent on thematic forums, consultation of prominent authors, and manual searches on key websites and key TPB-publications.
However, information concerning the efficacy of TPB-based interventions specifically in the domain of smoking behavior remains sparse. Hardeman et al. (2002)   reported impact on smoking behavior and TPB variables (i. e. , attitude, subjective norm, PBC, intention). Regarding the existing reviews and meta-analyses (e. g. ,  Hardeman et al. , 2002; Steinmetz et al. , 2016) , this work appears as the first to inform on the efficacy of TPB-based interventions specifically on smoking behavior. Moreover, the present review will also provide a detailed insight into the ways and contexts in which the TPB was used to change smoking behavior. Second, to evaluate the level of methodological quality of the included studies (e. g. , design, data collection methods). This point appears of particular importance as it gives some crucial information about the validity of the results presented and the robustness of the conclusions that can be drawn from this review.
Search strategies A comprehensive investigation was completed using four search strategies. First, studies were identified by searching through the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES, Academic Search Premier, Eric, Francis, Pascal, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and SocIndex databases (last search November 19, 2019). Mesh and text-words were used in MEDLINE. Additional searches were carried out on the search engines of Google Scholar (scholar. google. com), Researchgate (researchgate. net), and the National Institute of Health (nih. gov) (more details in Supplementary File 1). Second, additional manual searches were also carried out. More precisely, references were screened in the bibliography section of Ajzen's website, in the registry of clinical trials website, in Cochrane Reviews related to tobacco retrieved from the Cochrane Library, and in relevant published TPB reviews, metaanalyses, books, and book chapters (more details in Supplementary File 2).
Third, messages were sent on thematic forums of the American Psychological Association, on the listserv of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and on Researchgate forum discussion. Fourth, e-mails were sent to prominent authors of the TPB (i. e. , Armitage,  Ajzen, Conner, Godin, Hardeman, McEachan, Rhodes, Taylor, West). References of articles retrieved from thematic forums and e-mails sent by prominent authors were also screened manually. The titles and abstracts found in the electronic databases were initially and independently screened by two trained reviewers (OL, Ph. D. ; MG, Ph. D. ) to determine their adequacy with this systematic review. Similarly, those two reviewers also independently screened references from the additional manual searches and from articles retrieved from thematic forums and emails sent by prominent authors.
Coding procedure Descriptive data were extracted by (i) study population and design: Year, country of the intervention, number of participants analyzed, gender, sample characteristics (e. g. , smokers, university students), (ii) characteristics of the intervention: Objective (i. e. , prevention to maintain non-smoking, treatment to reduce, abstain or quit smoking, combined intervention to reduce smoking prevalence in a group), components implemented (e. g. , education/information, skill training), mode of delivery (e. g. , internet, face to face), length, number of sessions, (iii) outcomes: Presence of a measure of smoking behavior and/or TPB variables, significant impact of the intervention (i. e. , ps <. 05 for the statistical tests performed) on smoking behavior and/or TPB variables. Additionally, the methodological quality of each study was examined using the 14 items from the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP)  (Thomas et al.