dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Serum samples from children and teenagers, with a similar age distribution and living in the U. K. , served as controls from countries with only sporadic or no reported MenX disease cases. These were randomly drawn from the collection of patient samples obtained by the Public Health England (PHE) Seroepidemiology Unit in or prior to 2009  [26]. The collection contains anonymised and stored residual sera derived from patients who provided a sample as part of medical care in England and Wales, and approximate the general population of England and Wales. Data available on each individual were age, sex, date of collection and source laboratory. Control subjects from U. K. and from Burkina Faso were selected by matching the available Togo study sera (n = 290) with the control serum banks by age strata.
Bacterial meningitis surveillance data in Togo Data on suspected meningitis surveillance in Kozah district, 2007-2008, were available from a hospital-based surveillance system set up by the Togolese Ministry of Health and the Agence de Médecine Préventive (AMP)  [31] , using PCR for confirmation of etiology. To estimate age-specific serogroup X meningitis incidence rates were estimated using demographic data from the 2010 Togo national census 2010.
Acknowledgements AJP is a Jenner Institute Investigator and a  James Martin  senior fellow. Prof. D. A. Caugant ,  WHO Collaborating Centre  for Reference and Research on  Meningococci ,  Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway , is thanked for the capsular group X isolates from  Burkina Faso  and providing sequence and serotype data on these. CR is a Jenner Institute Investigator and  Oxford Martin  fellow. Mrs Kalpana Sinnadurai  is thanked for the human complement based serum bactericidal assay testing at  NIPH.
Design and Ethics After a baseline case-control study (RH with OSA vs RH without OSA), we performed a multicenter, randomized, single blind study of the patients with OSA + RH only. Patients were randomized to either sham CPAP (for 3 months) than active CPAP (for 6 months) or active CPAP for 6 months only. The study was conducted in accordance with good clinical practice requirements in Europe, French law, ICH E6 recommendations, and the Helsinki Declaration  (1996 and 2000). The protocol was approved by an independent Ethics Committee (Comité de Protection des Personnes, Grenoble, France, IRB0006705) and registered on the ClinicalTrials. gov site (NCT00746902 RHOOSAS). All patients gave their written informed consent.
Statistical analysis Analysis was performed with SAS software (version 9. 4, SAS Institute Inc. ). All randomized patients were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol population was defined as patients who completed all the visits without any protocol deviation. In the ITT analysis, missing data were replaced by imputation at the median, using the minimum bias method for baseline data and the maximum bias method for data after 3 months of CPAP or sham CPAP treatments. Study design and data are reported here in accordance with the CONSORT criteria  (32). Baseline data were compared by a Student or a Mann-Whitney test for continuous data (depending on the validity of the normality of distribution) and by a Chi 2 or Fishers exact test for categorical data. A Spearman-rank correlation was used to assess the relationship between leptin concentrations and office DBP.
This is a frequent finding in studies in the OSA field  (56). This reflects the real life situation and is accounted for by the intention to treat and per-protocol analyses. Our data give an indication of the range of BP reduction that can be expected in an unselected population with OSA plus RH. Lastly, as some patients were characterized by respiratory polygraphy, we were not able to determine the effect of active CPAP on the arousal index. We speculate that RH itself is associated with persistent sympathetic over-activity that conceals the CPAP effect. Another limitation is that sympathetic nervous system biomarkers have been evaluated in a single blood sample and not in a 24-h urine sample as recommended. Finally, the 6-month effective CPAP study was observational and we acknowledge a potential heterogeneity as some patients were truly CPAP naïve, whereas other patients had been treated with sham CPAP (3 months).
aCKnOWlEDgMEnTS The authors are grateful to Hélène Pierre (Cardiology Department) for patient management, to Anne-Sophie Gauchez (Biochemistry Department) for biological analysis, to Nathalie Arnol (EFCR Laboratory) for statistical analyses, and to Dr. Alison Foote (Publications unit) for revision and critical editing of the manuscript; all from Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, France.
FUnDing Grenoble Alpes University Hospital, the "Fondation de Recherche sur l'Hypertension Arterielle" and the "AGIR pour les maladies chroniques" endowment fund provided unrestricted funding for the study. This work was also supported by the French National Research Agency in the framework of the "Investissements d'avenir" program (ANR-15-IDEX-02). Role of sponsors: The sponsors had no role in the realization of the study (beyond financial support).
Study design The E7389-G000-398 study (ClinicalTrials. gov Identifier: NCT01240421) was conducted as an open-label, multicentre, single-arm trial with EM for the treatment of heavily pretreated advanced breast cancer. Its primary objectives were to provide EM to patients with MBC who had no other treatment options in order to evaluate the safety profile of EM. The completion of this study occurred in the five French sites when EM was officially approved and available, i. e. , in 2012. The sponsor collected safety data prospectively. We will present here these data as well as a retrospective analysis of efficacy data.
Analysis of efficacy data The efficacy population was defined as the group of subjects for whom at least one radiological assessment was available, even if they did not complete one cycle of treatment. Best response rate and its 95% confidence limits were calculated, in all patients and in different subgroups. Complete (CR) and partial responses (PR), as well as stable disease (SD) and progressive disease were defined according to RECIST 1. 1 or PERCIST criteria. Patients were described to have SD as best response if SD was confirmed more than 3 months after treatment initiation. Overall response rate (ORR) was defined as the sum of CR and PR. Disease control rate (DCR) was defined as the sum of ORR and SD. The efficacy analysis case report form included patient and tumour characteristics, previous anti-cancer treatment history with a special focus on the last microtubule-inhibitor treatment (best response and PFS).
Ethical statement Written informed consent was obtained from all patients before inclusion in the expanded access program, and all procedures were done in accordance with Good Clinical Practice standards, after approval of the responsible ethics committee (AFSSAPS approval A100578-21), and the 2008 Helsinki Declaration. Retrospective efficacy analyses were performed as an ancillary analysis of the initial protocol after approval from regulatory agencies (CNIL approval DR-2015-346, CC-TIRS approval 14. 576bis). A dedicated written informed consent from living patients at time of retrospective data collection.
METHODS In order to identify existing health rankings a search was performed using different search engines: PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, Google scholar and Google. The keywords used to perform the search were the following: "health rankings", "health system rankings", "health system performance", "health system efficiency". Google and Google Scholar was used to be able to find rankings that were not published in scientific journals. No ranking was found through the other scientific databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct) in addition to those already found through Google and Google Scholar. Inclusion was based on the objectives of the rankings. Health systems are not easy to compare, mostly because the health sector produces more than one outcome. The most obvious is the health status of the population, followed usually with some measures of financial protection for the population such as paying out of pocket for care in order to measure the performance of the health system.
They were based on information that is necessary to be able to replicate a ranking. The four categories of evaluation are the following: (1) General information, (2) Statistical methods, (3) Data and (4) Indicators. For each category a number of criteria were established. Scores were determined for each criterion on a scale of 0 for No and 1 for Yes, with a higher score representing better attainment in each category. Scores attained by each category were then added and divided by the number of criteria taken into account as some criterion were not applicable (N/A) to get a comparable average score. The highest summation was considered the most complete and transparent methodology. Table  2  shows the list and description of all the categories and the criteria that compose them.
The maximum efficiency index, also called frontier of maximum attainment, of the health system was calculated and the best performing country was used as the reference the other countries were compared to it. The frontier of minimum attainment was calculated by assuming absence health system and this is expressed in the calculation of the efficiency score by considering health inequality and responsiveness level as nonexistent. Uncertainty intervals were estimated and to obtain the confidence intervals Monte Carlo simulation techniques were used. In their conclusions the WHO states that health care system efficiency can be increased without increasing health expenditure and that determinants of relative efficiency are what they aim to focus on studying next  [5, 7]. The CWF ranking used survey data collected from patient and physician and data taken from the WHO and OECD.
It assessed 5 dimensions: (1) Quality, (2) Access, (3) Efficiency, (4) Equity and (5) Healthy lives. Each dimension score was calculated by averaging the score of the different indicators used to evaluate health systems. The indicators used were taken from three surveys performed on patients and primary physicians and the Healthy lives dimension was calculated from data obtained from the WHO and OECD. As mentioned earlier, all indicators in this study were weighted equally  [14]. The Bloomberg ranking considered three indicators: (1) life expectancy of the population in each country (2) percentage of GDP per capita cost of health care (3) absolute per capita cost of health care. Bloomberg gave each country an efficiency "score," with a score of 100 representing a perfect system whereas life expectancy accounted for 60%, the second indicator for 30% and absolute per capita cost of health care accounted for 10%.
General information: Information available, open and clear for the description of the processes used Criteria: a) Published scientific literature i. Methods for statistical analysis performed ii. Methods used to determine weights assigned to each indicator b) Applied weights i. Reported c) Surveys (questionnaires administered to the general population used to determine indicators used and weight assigned to each indicator) i. Published and openly accessible ii. Methodology for the use of survey data published Statistical methods: Sufficient information to replicate statistical methods used Criteria: a) Used statistical software mentioned b) Used models mentioned c) Formulas provided d) Uncertainty intervals calculated and provided e) Sensitivity to weight change calculated and provided f) Sensitivity to different statistical methods calculated and provided Data: Values used to perform the ranking Criteria: a) Data taken from official data banks (coming from established organizations that have data collection groups that update their data regularly) b) Data taken from the same year (if not using time-series data) c) Data sources provided d) Raw data available e) Years of data used provided Indicators: Measures to evaluate a health system Criteria: a) Reason for the use of each indicator provided b) Results and calculations for each indicator provided c) Individual ranking for each indicator provided www.
Funding: The Centre Virchow-Villermé for Public Health in Paris is funded by the  French governmental programme "Investments for the future" (Investissements d'Avenir ) and received a donation from  Sanofi. Authorship contributions: SS contributed to the study design, analysed the data, and wrote the first draft of this paper. PM assisted with the study design, advised on the method and revised the draft paper. AF initiated the project, designed the study and revised the draft paper.
categOries General information: Information available, open and clear for the description of the processes used Criteria: a) Published scientific literature i. Methods for statistical analysis performed ii. Methods used to determine weights assigned to each indicator b) Applied weights i. Reported c) Surveys (questionnaires administered to the general population used to determine indicators used and weight assigned to each indicator) i. Published and openly accessible ii. Methodology for the use of survey data published Statistical methods: Sufficient information to replicate statistical methods used Criteria: a) Used statistical software mentioned b) Used models mentioned c) Formulas provided d) Uncertainty intervals calculated and provided e) Sensitivity to weight change calculated and provided f) Sensitivity to different statistical methods calculated and provided Data: Values used to perform the ranking Criteria: a) Data taken from official data banks (coming from established organizations that have data collection groups that update their data regularly) b) Data taken from the same year (if not using time-series data) c) Data sources provided d) Raw data available e) Years of data used provided Indicators: Measures to evaluate a health system Criteria: a) Reason for the use of each indicator provided b) Results and calculations for each indicator provided c) Individual ranking for each indicator provided www.
Animals Eighty-three male Sprague Dawley rats were obtained from Janvier SAS (France) 5 weeks before exposure to pressure. Before treatment the rats were allowed to become accustomed to the facility for a week. They were housed in an environmentally controlled room (temperature 21 ± 1 • C, relative humidity 27 ± 16%, 12-12 h light-dark cycle) and fed standard rat chow. Animals were randomly divided into six groups. Four groups, based on pharmaceutical intervention, were compared post-dive with the fifth, untreated diving control group for susceptibility to DCS. To control for the influence of either diving itself or treatment before diving on plasmatic markers, an additional untreated non-diving control group (n = 8) was included.
Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using SAS ver. 9. 3 (SAS, Cary, North Carolina). An ordinal logistic regression model was constructed as shown in Equation 1, using a cumulative logit function appropriate for ordinal, polychotomous dependent variables. DCS = β 0 + β 1 TREATMENT + β 2 WEIGHT (1) Where DCS was 0 = asymptomatic, 1 = alive for 1 h but with signs of DCS, 2 = dead within 1 h. WEIGHT was the weight of each rat on the day of compression in grams, TREATMENT indicates whether each rat was treated with enalapril, losartan, or not treated (control). A similar but separate model was created for nifedipine which was compared with the alcohol group and also to the non-treatment control group. Data from kit measurements were analyzed using Statistica software  (ver. 10, StatSoft France, 2011).
Weight change data from long-term weight loss or maintenance studies do not resolve this, because anthropometric outcomes reflected many factors together. Furthermore, weight loss interventions are often composed of a range of dietary and lifestyle changes and rarely include well-controlled assessments of appetite and EI. Data obtained following a period of repeated exposure are necessary to judge if any evidence of adaptation manifests itself. Confirmation of reliable, sustained, effects are relevant to regulatory assessment (to substantiate a health claim) and to assure consumer confidence in commercial products and programmes that claim beneficial effects on appetite or EI. For this, it is essential to have an objective basis to determine whether or what duration of exposure would be needed to observe or exclude the possibility of adaptation.
Literature search A systematic search of the literature was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing both the acute and sustained efficacy of diets, foods, supplements or food ingredients on appetite and/or objectively measured EI. Trials had to include sufficient exposure duration (defined as repeated administration of the relevant manipulation over a duration ≥3 days) and have appetite and/or EI as outcomes after both acute and repeated exposures. The search was run using the OvidSP platform and Medline, FSTA and PsycINFO databases for papers in English published up to 17 January 2018. The full search strategy is described in Supporting Information Table  S1. The PRISMA guidelines (3) were followed and the protocol published on the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42015023686; www.
Data extraction and assessment of adaptation All relevant details were extracted from papers passing phase 2. This included the statistical differences in means between conditions at initial intervention (test of acute effect), last post-intervention dosing (test of sustained effect) and interactions between conditions over the duration of the study (differences between conditions from first to last dosing), to assess whether effects were present and whether they changed after repeated exposure. The extracted data were confirmed by at least two co-authors. A criterion of p < 0. 05 was used as the criterion for statistical significance for all analyses. The study findings pertaining to the acute and sustained effects on appetite and EI were used to draw conclusions. Wherever possible, conclusions were drawn from the primary rather than secondary or post-hoc (e.
Results From the total of 9680 unique title/abstract records identified, 178 papers were selected for full-text screening (Fig. 1 ). The majority of the studies were not specifically designed to assess physiological and behavioural adaptations to the interventions. This hindered the screening and review process as explicit reference to comparisons between initial and sustained exposures to the study manipulations were often lacking in the narrative text and data reporting. More than 25% of the papers assessed (51/178) had a potentially suitable design but were excluded as responses after either acute or sustained exposure were not assessed, making conclusions regarding adaptation impossible. Initially, 32 papers were identified that met the stated inclusion criteria for either EI and/or appetite ratings.
The collected data were anonymized before their analysis. Finally, a return of laboratory results to clinicians was conducted to achieve a better management of the treated patients. Intervention and follow up: One day after the interview, the follow-up of included MSM began with a medical appointment including clinical examinations and biological investigations for the diagnosis of the most common STIs including HIV, syphilis and hepatitis B (Figure  1 ). Biological results were returned 72 hours after and those positive for STIs received adapted treatment. The HIV-positive MSM were enrolled in the HIV cohort followed in the CNRIST/TAR. In order to retain the study participants, included MSM were asked to regularly come back to the medical center every For medical care for patients infected with STIs and HIV-infected patients, HIV positive patients were included in the HIV cohort followed in the medical center and received antiretroviral treatment accordingly to the World Health Organization (WHO) consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection (WHO, 2016).
Acknowledgements We are grateful to the all staff form the  Institut Pasteur de Madagascar  that helped to conduct the study. The authors also thanks to  Ms. Marie Vazeille  and to  Dr. Camillo Arias-Goeta ,  Department of Virology, Arboviruses  and  Insect Vectors ,  Institut Pasteur de Paris  for their help to train staff on vector competence study. We also thank  Dr. Marie Chrystine Solofoharivelo  of  Institut Pasteur de Madagascar  and  Dr. Thomas Walker  of  London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Department of Diseases Control. Keppel Street ,  London WC1E ,  United Kingdom  for helping to edit this manuscript.
11 Although tempting to do, it is challenging to extrapolate the findings of this study from the UK to the rest of the world where generation of similar data is needed but limited; longitudinal systems with highquality data collection and linkage to outcomes are often not feasible because of fragmented health-care systems and absence of a single national e-health database (eg, in the USA) or restrictive data privacy laws that impede application of electronic health records for clinical research (eg, in France). Although prevention is often touted as a means to combat heart failure, effective prevention strategies have clearly not been widely embraced, suggesting that the approach to prevention also needs to evolve. Mechanistic bioprofiling of patients (ie, selecting subgroups of patients on the basis of biomarker profiles, which are indicative of underlying mechanisms that are more specifically activated in those with heart failure) and matching preventive strategies to mechanistic biotargets could hold future promise for more effective implementation of heart failure prevention strategies.
IMPORTANCE The recently updated American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification of cancer staging, the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition (AJCC 8), includes revisions to definitions of T1a vs T1b or greater. The Melanoma Pathology Study database affords a comparison of pathologists' concordance and reproducibility in the microstaging of melanoma according to both the existing 7th edition (AJCC 7) and the new AJCC 8. OBJECTIVE To compare AJCC 7 and AJCC 8 to examine whether changes to the definitions of T1a and T1b or greater are associated with changes in concordance and reproducibility. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this diagnostic study conducted as part of the national Melanoma Pathology Study across US states, 187 pathologists interpreting melanocytic skin lesions in practice completed 4342 independent case interpretations of 116 invasive melanoma cases.
Similarly, M-Path findings revealed only 46% interobserver agreement for T1a invasive melanoma, and 77% agreement for T1b or greater melanomas. 2 e previous study  2  was conceived and executed in the context of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 7th edition (AJCC 7) staging system. Across interpretations at 2 points, pathologists' intraobserver reproducibility reached 63% for T1a melanomas and 83% for T1b or greater melanomas. Given the updated classification in the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition (AJCC 8), particularly with changes in definitions of T1a vs T1b or greater, the M-Path database enables a new comparison of pathologist concordance with a reference standard and reproducibility in the microstaging of melanoma according to both the existing AJCC 7 and the current AJCC 8. 8, 9  Briefly, in AJCC 8, the depth for stage T1a is established at 0.
one would expect to find greater reliability of both T1a and T1b classification in the AJCC 8 staging. In fact, our results correspond exactly to this presupposed increase in reliability of classification of T1a and T1b in AJCC 8. A retrospective restaging of the Netherlands Cancer Registry database also reported a modest improvement in stratification of pT1 melanoma associated with the implementation of AJCC 8 criteria. 15.