dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Grant sponsor:  National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation ; Grant number:  NIH R01 GM60595  and  NSF   DBI1356193  (to GLH and PCB); Grant sponsor: the project " Integration of Data from Multiple Sources" (IntDaMus ), which is implemented under the " ARISTEIA II" Action of the "OPERATIONAL PRO-GRAMME EDUCATION AND LIFELONG LEARNING " and cofunded by the  European Social Fund (ESF) and National Resources  (to PGB); Grant number:  ANR-10-BLAN-1216  (to AC); Grant sponsor:  National Health & Medical Research Council (Australia) ; Grant numbers:  APP1026501  and  APP1028509 ; Grant sponsors:  Australian Research Council ; Grant number:  LP130100550  (to DJC); Grant sponsor:  European Molecular Biology Laboratory ,  European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI ; to AB and RDF); Grant sponsor:  Agence Nationale de la Recherche (CAZy database)-BIOMINES and BIP:BIP ; Grant number:  ANR-12-BIME-0006  and  ANR-10-BINF-0304 ; Grant sponsor:  Intramural Research Program  of the  National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine  (DL Histone Database; KDP RefSeq; work performed at NCBI); Grant sponsors:  Grant-in-Aid for Publication of Scientific Research Results ; Grant number:  248047  (to NN); Grant sponsor: NN was organized by the  Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) , and also has been supported by  Commission  for the  Development of Artificial Gene Synthesis Technology for Creating Innovative Biomaterial  from the  Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Japan ; Grant sponsor:  National Institutes of Health (NIH) ; Grant number:  U41HG007822  (to UniProtKB); Grant sponsor:  EMBL-EBI 's involvement in UniProtKB comes from  European Molecular Biology Laboratory  (EMBL), the  British Heart Foundation (BHF) ; Grant number:  RG/13/5/30112 ; Grant sponsor:  Parkinson's Disease United Kingdom (PDUK) ; Grant number:  G-1307 ; Grant sponsor:  NIH ; Grant number:  U41HG02273 ; Grant sponsor: UniProtKB activities at the SIB are additionally supported by the  Swiss Federal Government  through the  State Secretariat for Education, Research, and Innovation SERI ; Grant sponsor:  NIH  (to PIR's UniProtKB activities); Grant number:  R01GM080646 ,  G08 LM010720 , and  P20GM103446 ; Grant sponsor:  National Science Foundation (NSF) ; Grant number:  DBI-1062520 ; Grant sponsor:  Department of Biotechnology, Government of India ; Grant number:  BT/01/COE/09/01  (to RS and NS); Grant sponsor:  Wellcome Trust ; Grant number:  WT0077044/Z/05/Z  (to Neil Rawlings); Grant sponsor:  NIH ; Grant number:  GM077402  (to TCDB); Grant sponsor:  Swiss SERI (Secretariat for Education, Research, and Innovation)  through the  SIB-Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics ; Grant sponsor:  Wellcome Trust  (to The  IUPHAR/BPS Guide  to PHARMACOLOGY); Grant number:  099156/Z/12/Z ; Grant sponsors: Industry sponsors (Servier), the  British Pharmacological Society (BPS) , and  IUPHAR ; Grant sponsor:  STW  and  EU ; Grant number:  KBBE-2011-5 289350  (to GV).
biol. uoa. gr/gpDB/ 8 and their interactions) the Histone Database http://genome. nhgri. nih. gov/histones/ 9 the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to pharmacology http://www. guidetopharmacology. org/ 10 Kinase. com http://kinase. com/ the KinG database (a database of protein http://megha. garudaindia. in/king/index. jsp 11 kinases in genomes) the MACiE Database (Mechanism, Annotation http://www. ebi. ac. uk/thornton-srv/databases/MACiE 12 and Classification in Enzymes) MEROPS (the peptidase database) http://merops. sanger. ac. uk/ 13 neXtProt (knowledge resource on human proteins) http://www. nextprot. org/ 14 OMPdb (a database of b-barrel outer membrane http://www. ompdb. org/ 15 proteins from Gram-negative bacteria) PASS2 database of structure-based sequence http://caps. ncbs. res. in/pass2/ 16 alignments of protein structural domain superfamilies Pfam http://pfam.
xfam. org/ 17 Reference Sequence (RefSeq) database http://www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/refseq/ 18 the Structure-Function Linkage Database (SFLD) http://sfld. rbvi. ucsf. edu/ 19 Transporter Classification Database (TCDB) http://www. tcdb. org/ 20 TIGRFAMs http://www. jcvi. org/cgi-bin/tigrfams/index. cgi 21 UniProtKB http://www. uniprot. org/ 22.
Therefore, targeting this molecule is of potential clinical interest, due to a mixed activity on both the tumor cells and its cell niche, making the molecule attractive for radioimmunotherapy  [37]. Different mAbs have been developed in early clinical phases including anti-CD40 mAbs such as lucatumumab, dacetuzumab, or mAb directed against HM1. 24, the XmAb 5592  [38]. A total of 91 studies with mAbs are registered (https://clinicaltrials. gov/ct2/results? term=monoclonal+antibodies+in+multiple+myeloma&Search= Search) in MM patients, as of  March 13, 2015. I L 6 R T A C I / B C M A I G F -1 R F G F R 3 V E G F R C -k it For all of these mAbs and similarly to rituximab, clinical efficacy was only observed with combination strategies, particularly with other active drugs, depending on the response or the refractoriness to prior therapies, including bortezomib, IMiDs such as lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, and other new active drugs including approved molecules such as pomalidomide and carfilzomib, or other new targeted molecules.
Clinical trials for B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (B-CLL), lymphoma (NHL = non-Hodgkin's lymphoma), and multiple myeloma, based on research made by using key words for the different diseases, through https://clinicaltrials. gov/, as of March 13, 2015. VEGF: vascular endothelial growth factor; EGFR: epithelial growth factor; IGF-1 R: insulin growth factor receptor type 1; BTK: Bruton's tyrosine kinase; PI3k: phosphoinositide 3-kinase; HDAC: histone deacetylase; CAR-T: chimeric antigen receptor-T lymphocytes; Cdk: cyclin-dependent kinase; DKK: Dickkopf-related protein; ADCC = antibody-dependent cell cytotoxicity; CDC = complement-dependent cytotoxicity; A = direct apoptosis; M = mouse; H = humanized; Ch = chimeric; C = cytotoxicity; Phag. = phagocytosis; Doxo. = doxorubicin; Cytotox. = cytotoxicity.
Clinical trials for multiple myeloma, based on https://clinicaltrials. gov/, as of March 13, 2015. ASCT: autologous stem cell transplantation; PD-L-1: programmed death-1 ligand 1; CTLA-4: cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4; IGF-1R: insulin growth factor-1 receptor; KIR: killer cell Ig-like receptor; DKK: Dickkopf-related protein; BTK: Bruton's tyrosine kinase; PI3k: phosphoinositide 3-kinase; PARP: poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. Idelalisib, BYL719, CUDC-907, nelfinavir, SOM230 LAR, and sorafenib Phase 1.
Background Patients with R/M SCCHN have a poor prognosis, and current therapies used after failure of first-line platinum-based chemotherapy provide transient, limited benefit. SCCHN tumors are highly immunosuppressive and evade immune detection by exploiting inhibitory immune checkpoints such as the programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1)/programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) axis. High mutational load and their relationship to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection may make these tumors amenable to immunotherapy. Durvalumab is a selective, human IgG1 mAb that blocks binding of PD-L1: to PD-1 (IC 50 0. 1 nM) and CD80 (IC 50 0. 04 nM). Tremelimumab is a selective human IgG2 mAb inhibitor of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4). The PD-1 and CTLA-4 pathways are non-redundant and targeting both induces synergistic antitumor effects, according to preclinical data, and was found to be active and tolerable in a Phase Ib study in patients with NSCLC (NCT02000947).
Durvalumab monotherapy has also shown preliminary antitumor activity in a Phase I/II study in patients with solid tumors, including a SCCHN cohort (NCT01693562). In a comprehensive clinical development program of durvalumab in SCCHN, the Phase III EAGLE study (NCT02369874) will investigate the efficacy and safety of durvalumab as monotherapy or in combination with tremelimumab versus SoC.
, 2013). The first meteorological measurements were taken on the Elbrus glaciers in 1934-1935 by an expedition of the USSR Academy of Sciences  (Baranov and Pokrovskaya, 1936). Air temperatures, pressure, humidity, wind regime, and incoming solar radiation have been measured at four sites from Terskol at 2214 m a. s. l. to the col of Elbrus at 5300 m. A permanent meteorological station was established near Priyut-9 on the southern slope of the Garabashi Glacier at 4200 m a. s. l. in 1934. 1949-1952  data demonstrate a mean annual air temperature of -9. 2 • C. The temperature of the coldest month (January) was -17. 1 • C, while the July temperature was -0. 5 • C. The minimum air temperature of -36. 1 • C was measured on 30 January 1950, with a maximum of 10. 7 • C on 1 August 1950. An annual precipitation rate of 1128 mm was observed for 1949-1952.
On-site meteorological measurements An automatic weather station (AWS) from AANDERAA Data Instruments was installed on the western Elbrus plateau at 5115 m a. s. l. at the drill site in 2007. The AWS was working between 30 July 2007 and 11 January 2008, but disappeared afterwards under unascertained circumstances. Here we discuss records until 12 October 2007, comprising the period with uninterrupted, consistent data. Air temperature, wind speed and direction, humidity, air pressure, radiation balance, and snow cover thickness have been measured with a time resolution of 1 h. According to AWS records, mean daily air temperatures were negative during the period of observations. Hourly averaged temperatures were also negative, while the maximum un-averaged air temperatures were recorded on eight occasions and ranged from 0.
Winter snow and ice layers were identified when both ammonium and succinate criteria were fulfilled for more than two successive samples. Figure  8a , shows the result of this data dissection over the uppermost 12 m w. e. along with the δ 18 O record (Fig. 8e ). The mean δ 18 O level of selected winter data is -19. 6 ‰, and as demonstrated in Fig. 8a  and c , the winter season selected from ammonium and succinate concentrations matches with winter sections deduced from the δ 18 O profile quite well. However, when examining the δ 18 O variability compared to the major ions, it appears that sometimes the spring season or even the beginning of the summer season may be included. For dating by annual layer counting, this shortcoming is not critical; however, if the data set is inspected at seasonal resolution this definition of the spring season might be a handicap.
Acknowledgements. The ice-core recovery in 2009 was funded by the  Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR)  grants  07-05-00410  and  09-05-10043. V. Mikhalenko ,  S. Kutuzov , and  I. Lavrentiev  acknowledge support of the  Russian Academy of Sciences (Department of Earth Sciences   ONZ-12  Project) and  RFBR  grant  14-05-00137. S. Sokratov  acknowledges support of.
study design The study was a multicenter, international, randomized, investigator-masked, parallel-group study to compare the efficacy and safety of azithromycin 1. 5% eyedrops (Azyter ® , Laboratoires Théa, Clermont-Ferrand, France) versus tobramycin 0. 3% (Tobrex ® , Laboratoires Alcon, Rueil-Malmaison, France) in pediatric patients. The methodology has been previously reported. 10  total of 21 investigational centers in 8 countries (Algeria, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Tunisia) participated. The study was carried out in accordance with Good Clinical Practice, the Declaration of Helsinki, and local regulations and registered under the reference number NCT01155999 (http://clinicaltrials. gov). Ethics committee approvals were obtained in each country prior to enrolling any patient.
The questionnaires were returned at the end of treatment (day 3 for the azithromycin group, day 7 for the tobramycin group). statistics Ocular signs, ocular symptoms, and global efficacy assessments were analyzed for both eyes in randomized patients with bacterial conjunctivitis confirmed by positive microbiological samples (microbiologically positive full analysis set [MFAS]). The acceptability criteria (ease of treatment use and impact on daily life) were assessed in the FAS (all randomized patients who instilled at least one drop of treatment). Descriptive statistics were provided overall and by age category (expressed as mean values ± standard deviation [SD]). Missing data were handled using a last available assessment carried forward approach. For treatment group comparison, ordinal variables were analyzed using the exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenzel test, stratified by age group.
Patient disposition and demographics The FAS population comprised 282 patients (146 in the azithromycin group and 136 in the tobramycin group). Age ranged from 1 day to 17 years (mean of 3. 2±3. 8 years), and 148 patients (52. 5%) were less than 2 years old. A total of 203 patients (102 on azithromycin and 101 on tobramycin) had documented purulent bacterial conjunctivitis with a positive microbiological sample at day 0 (MFAS population). Of the 203 patients with bacteriologically confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis, 112 (55%) were younger than 24 months old. Demographic data for the full analysis set are provided in Table  1. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in baseline characteristics including age, sex ratio, ocular signs, and symptoms in both eyes, as described previously.
Acknowledgments John Stolz  provided editorial support in the preparation of the manuscript. This support was reim bursed by  Laboratoires Théa. The authors acknowledge the contribution of the  Azithromycin Pediatric Study Group investigators: Harrtani A, Mustapha University Hospital, Ophthalmology Department, Alger, Algeria; Kaercher T, Ophthalmology, Private Practice, Heidelberg, Germany; Khairallah M, Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital, Ophthalmology Department, Monastir, Tunisia; Kocyla B, Children's Memorial Health Institute, Ophthalmological Consulting Unit for Children, Warzaw, Poland; Lorenz B, Justus-Liebig University of Giessen, Ophthalmology Department, Giessen, Germany; Mortemousque B, University Hospital of Rennes, Pontchaillou Hospital, Ophthalmology Department, Rennes, France; Murta J, University Hospital of Coimbra, Ophthalmology Department, Coimbra, Portugal; Nezzar H, University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, Gabriel Montpied Hospital, Ophthalmology Department, Clermont-Ferrand, France; Nucci P, San Giuseppe Hospital, University Eye Clinic, Ophthalmology Department, Milan, Italy; Salgado-Borges J, S.
Ingwersen and Subramanian (2013)  state that apart from the European standard for PCRs in the construction sector EN 15084+A1  (CEN 2013 )-which will now allow the further development of EPDs-and some recent but limited efforts amongst programme operators to sign a memorandum of understanding agreements (Del Borghi 2012), there has also been an insufficient level of coordination amongst programme operators to develop and align PCRs. Del Borghi states that the lack of a global PCR database with participation of all programme operators who create PCRs has exacerbated the situation because existing PCRs are often not easily discovered, and this has resulted in a sporadic and uncoordinated process of PCR development that is inconsistent and sometimes unnecessarily duplicative. According to Del Borghi, the legitimacy of product environmental claims/EPDs is jeopardised by the increasing costs and time needed to develop PCRs.
However, representatives of the Bau-EPD GmbH have participated in the working groups of the ECO Platform since the application for the membership. Due to the fact that data from EPDs of the Austrian EPD programme are entered into the Austrian baubook database and the German oekobau. dat, EPDs can apply ecoinvent and/or GaBi datasets (depending on whether the client wants to enter his data in one or both databases) for the performance of the LCA. The Austrian Bau EPD GmbH organises frequent Workshops for its EPD verifiers and practitioners in order to keep them up to date regarding new developments on the EPD sector.
Current situation in Belgium The Belgian policy with a focus on the LCA approach is mostly driven by the Federal Public Service and the Flemish Waste Agency OVAM, in collaboration with the Brussels Environmental Administration (IBGE-BIM) and the Walloon Region 4 and supported by the Belgian Construction Products Producers (BMP-PMC). There is no private EPD programme operator in Belgium. Instead, the Federal Public Administration of Health and Environment has prepared a legislative document (Royal Decree) which lays down the rules for the uptake of specific EPDs in a federal database. This database will be used by the regions for their building assessment tool MMG (see further). Manufacturers are free to submit EPDs to this national database. Besides this product-building approach, the Royal Decree also contains a measure against greenwashing.
If a manufacturer decides to put an environmental claim on his product, he is obliged to make an EPD publically available in the national database from 2015 on. The Royal Decree refers to the EN 15804 yet includes an article that ensures that from 2017 on also module A4, C and D become mandatory, as well as the whole set of environmental indicators of the EC PEF method for reasons of having a robust set of indicators. Regarding the background database used for the LCA, the Decree is open, but the federal database will request transparent information about which database has been used. In 2015, the Belgium federal administration will start the development of rules for the verification and acceptance of 4 All three regions also have other policies to stimulate sustainable construction. PCRs, implementing the general stipulations in the Royal Decree.
Belgium strives as much as possible towards mutual recognition. For cradle to gate, this will pose few problems (as it does not matter where a production site is located), but for the part gate to grave, the relevance for the Belgian situation should be verified (transport distances, incineration and landfill scenarios, climatic conditions influencing maintenance, etc. ). Belgium will try to establish a system where verifiers can register, including an acceptance procedure. By doing this, the verifiers of other programme operators will have the opportunity to include a verification for Belgium if desired by their client. This will lead to a considerable cost reduction for the manufacturer who will then only need one verification process. Another Decree asks for a very low fee for inclusion of the EPD in the national database.
g. designers). The methodology has been developed and is now being fine-tuned (Allacker 2012). Based on this methodology, a tool for architects will be developed in the next few years. One of the next steps is the collection of data-which will come from manufacturers-in the national database (see also previous section). This database will be the only entry to the calculation tool for environmental performance, with attention paid to mutual recognition and with an explicit wish to shift this database to the EU level to facilitate the data submission by internationally active companies. In a later stage, the setting of benchmarks and eventually threshold levels at the building (element) level should follow. Once the environmental performance tool is operational, it could be inserted into existing building rating schemes (e.
In both systems, the use of EPD is encouraged and avoids the application of 10 to 30 % safety margins for data with reduced quality to the obligatory building LCA calculation. Conclusively, after the introduction of these building certification schemes in 2008, a strong development towards wider spread of providing EPDs across the different product categories was observed. EPDs are collected into the German BÖkobau. dat^public database for building product LCA data that is operated by a subsidiary administration of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BBundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und Reaktorsicherheit^, BMUB). The abovementioned safety margins are defined for all generic or EPD datasets that are intended to be added to the Ökobau.
dat database (PE INTE RNATIONAL, BBSR 2013) based on each dataset's quality metrics. Through the distribution and provision of EPDs via a single database, planners are encouraged to utilise data that is available from EPDs in their planning procedures. In conclusion, one may easily come to the understanding that EPDs have found their way from niche application to a broad base, spanning across a wide range of building product categories and suppliers. Frequently, discussions have shifted in recent years from whether a company should have single lighthouse EPDs to how EPD generation can be automated for broad product portfolios.
Current situation in France The national EPD programme in France consists of a publicprivate multi-stakeholder management (INIES 2014, AFNOR 2014a) established since 2001. The goal is to develop a national reference database for the environmental and sanitary impacts of products, equipment and services to be used in the environmental assessment of buildings. This database is called INIES (2014) and is derived from the name of the French EPD programme. At the beginning, the PCR was based on two standards XP P 01-010 and NF P 01-010 from 2004  (AFNOR 2004)  where 60 EPDs were released. The programme includes both an environmental and a health production declaration (EHPD) named FDES in French. It includes public authorities with the ministries in charge of Sustainable Development, Housing, Health, Communication and Culture and the Environmental Protection Agency (ADEME), the Scientific and Technical Centre for Buildings (CSTB), the standardisation agency (AFNOR), the construction stakeholders and trade unions including the Construction Products Manufacturers Association (AIMCC), the Building Federation (FFB), the Electrical equipment association (FIEEC), the SME Building Confederation (CAPEB), the Union of architects (UNSFA) and other members including the HQE Association (building labelling scheme (HQE 2014), the association for sustainable residential dwellings (QUALITEL), the National Agency for Improvement of Housing (ANAH), the Federation of consultancy engineering firms (CINOV) and the Social Union for Housing (USH).
The EPD programme is associated with the standardisation works conducted at the commission AFNOR P01E Bsustainable construction^working group Bconstruction products and buildings^. Concerning the governance of the EPD programme, the owner of the INIES database is the HQE association. The ministry in charge of housing is the chairman of the supervising committee, the AFNOR being the secretary. The AIMCC the is chairman of the technical committee while the CSTB is the secretary. Concerning the other aspects, the AFNOR is responsible of the verification programme and CSTB is responsible for the IT development of the database. Finally, a user committee includes stakeholders responsible of the online declaration of EPDs, users of EPDs (e. g. developers of building-level LCA tools), editors of LCA software and verifiers of EPDs.
The French EPD programme is now in line with the NF EN 15804+A1 and XP P01-064/CN, a national appendix to the European standard (AFNOR 2014b). The national appendix has stringent requirements including toxicity and ecotoxicity indicators and sanitary and comfort requirements amongst others to keep the former NF P 01-010 requirements. Next to the voluntary aspects of EPDs, a new regulation (JORF 2013a, b) also exists. Since 1 January 2014, a decree on EPDs for construction products states that if a manufacturer (or anyone who introduces a product to the market) wants to make a product's environmental claim or communicate about a product's environmental aspects, an EPD has to be registered in the national database of the regulation project  (METL 2014). The decree is also based upon the NF EN 15804+A1 and XP P 01-064/CN (AFNOR 2014b).