zilongwang/ReadingBank huggingface dataset:
PART THREE: DETAILS OF SUPPORT REQUESTED You can apply for funding for staff, consumables and equipment. As a charity, we only fund the direct costs of research. We do not fund infrastructure costs or indirect costs. Salaries for applicants are not funded. Staff to be engaged in the project Grade Start point on scale Increment date Starting salary Allowances Superannuation and NI Research staff 1 2 3 Technical staff 1 2 3 Clinical staff 1 2 3 Other staff 1 2 3 Proposed annual cost to project of above posts % of time Months on project Year 1 cost Year 2 cost Year 3 cost cost Research staff 1 2 3 TOTAL COST RESEARCH STAFF: Technical staff 1 2 3 TOTAL COST TECHNICAL STAFF: Clinical staff 1 2 3 TOTAL COST CLINICAL STAFF: staff 1 2 3 TOTAL COST OTHER STAFF TOTALS CARRIED TO PART 1 SECTION 7 Year 1 costs Year 2 staff costs Year 3 costs Total staff costs
PART FOUR: CURICULUM VITAES Please provide a professional and publications CV for all applicants. Max 2 pages per individual. These should be compiled into ONE document and attached as a separate document when parts one and three of the application are submitted. Please confirm file name attached: SECTION FIVE: CHECKLIST one and three (this form) completed and attached Part two (proposed research study) completed and attached Part four (curriculm vitaes) completed and attached Statement(s) of support from all collaborators at part one, section 7 attached Above documentation emailed to Signed copy of part one, section 14 (declaration) sent by post
Meeting Location: 2985 Innsbruck Drive, Redding CA 11.18.16 Agenda 8:15 – 10:30 am Welcome [8:15 am] EdCamp (Mary Lord) [8:15-8:40] Model Lessons: ERWC 6th Grade Pilot (Mary Lord) [8:40-9:10] State and Local Updates (Judy Flores) [9:10-9:40] Upcoming Professional Development (ALL) RHS Updates (ALL) Instructional Best Practices to Increase Achievement of All Students: Student Goal Setting and Data Notebooks (Rebecca Lewis and Wendy Hall) [9:40-10:00] Instructional Best Practices to Increase Achievement of All Students: How to Approach The Instruction of Vocabulary (Kelly Rizzi and Stephanie Alexander) [10:00 – 10:20] 10:20 – 10:30: Questions/Comments/Ideas? Next Meeting: January 20, 2017
Dermal lethal dose (LD50) < 2,000 mg/kg For purposes of demonstrating compliance with this requirement, existing acute toxicity data for each of the product’s components present at 0.01% or more in the undiluted product may be used. These data are used to calculate a weighted average that assumes that the toxicity of the individual components is additive. The toxicity values are adjusted by the weight of the components in the product and summed using the following formula: Where, TP = toxicity of the product wti = the weight fraction of the component TV = the toxicity value for each component (LD50) n = number of components Inhalation toxicity be determined from all components present at 0.01% or more in the undiluted product, when the component has a vapor pressure greater than 1 mm Hg at 1 atm pressure and 20°C. Note: Refer to Annex C for potential alternate thresholds for closed dilution-control systems. Note: Refer to Annex D for potential alternate thresholds for powder/solid/nonaqueous liquid products. 3.4 *Skin and Eye Damage. The undiluted product shall not cause skin corrosion or cause serious eye damage. For purposes of demonstrating compliance with this requirement, data may be evaluated for each of the product’s components at present 0.01% or more in the undiluted product. If these components, at their concentrations in the undiluted product, are not shown to cause skin corrosion or serious eye damage, then the product will not be considered to cause skin corrosion or serious eye damage. Results from peer-reviewed studies or standard in vitro or in vivo testing methods may also be accepted. Testing is not required for any ingredient for which sufficient information exists. Further, a product is considered to cause skin corrosion or to cause serious eye damage if it has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 11.5, unless data prove otherwise. Note: to Annex C for potential alternate thresholds for closed dilution-control systems.
A contact becomes a referral when it is that the threshold is met for a social care assessment or a Child Protection Enquiry (CPE). The SPA SW makes this decision A referral is a matter the SW deems ‘Core Business’. The TM will review every referral and make the decision regarding next steps
Institutional Arrangements: Oversight Roles and Responsibilities The key institutions involved in the Global Fund grants, starting with the overall responsibility, include the CCM, the CCM-Z Secretariat, the Principal Recipients, the and the Global Fund’s Local Fund Agent (LFA). Coordinating Mechanism Zambia (CCM-Z) Full CCM-Z The full CCM has the overall responsibility for oversight. While some of the functions below may be delegated to the CCM-Z’s Oversight Committees (see below) the CCM-Z’s responsibility is to: Gather information about the grants Understand the status and progress of each through dashboard reports to the CCM-Z and Progress Update and Disbursement Requests (PU/DRs) submitted by each PR to the Global Fund, taking into consideration the comments of the Oversight Committees Seek clarification from the PR on issues arising from the reports Seek additional information through site visits as needed (see Annexes 1 and 2 for site visit guidelines) Review other information as needed Analyze information Identify and understand key successes Identify and understand key issues and bottlenecks Review the recommendations of the Oversight Committees Take action Decide on which actions should be taken to overcome problems and bottlenecks and to strengthen the grants (actions may include gathering more information needed to resolve a problem) Receive feedback on and monitor the status of the recommended actions Report Report back to the CCM-Z on the progress (to be included in minutes) In addition, the CCM-Z will Review this oversight plan periodically to address challenges and issues emerging over time Organize sessions at least once a year to orient or re-orient its members to their oversight role (see Annex 3 for sample orientation agendas) CCM-Z Oversight Committees To fulfill its oversight function, the CCM-Z has delegated the oversight activities to two committees: i) Finance, Audit & Procurement Oversight Committee and ii) Programme Implementation Oversight Committee. These Oversight Committees are established in the CCM-Z’s Manual of Procedure, as is the selection of committee members (including both CCM members and external technical experts). The main function of the CCM-Z’s Oversight Committees is to support the full CCM-Z in overseeing each grant. Members must be particularly sensitive to conflict of interest.
Middle School High School Out of the Dust Dragonwings The Giver The Outsiders Soldier’s Heart Hoot Diary of Anne Frank Winterdance Tuck Everlasting True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle Ender’s Game Pigman Tom Sawyer Around the World in 80 Days Farewell to Manzanar The Witch of Blackbird Pond Harry Potter Among the Hidden Airborne Holes Call of the Wild Red Badge of Courage Number the Stars Treasure Island Hatchet Fever 1783 Wrinkle in Time Unwind Tangerine Secret Garden Monster Johnny Tremain Beauty A Christmas Carol Love that Dog The Tell-Tale Heart The Masque of the Red Death Flowers for Algernon They’re Made Out of Meat Southbound on the Freeway (poem) To Build a Fire Good Masters, Sweet Ladies Three Skeleton Key All Summer in a Day The Odyssey Romeo & Juliet Of Mice & Men Cups of Tea All Quite on the Western Front Fahrenheit 451 The Killer Angels The Old Man and the Sea The Book Thief Princess Bride 1984 And Brave New World Animal Farm Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet Julius Caesar Frankenstein 12 Men Hamlet Into the Wild The The Hot Zone The Crucible Huckleberry Finn The Great Gatsby A Raisin in the Sun The Glass Menagerie Death of a Salesman A Scarlet Letter A Streetcar Named Desire Of Mice & Men Lord of the Flies Pride & Prejudice The Count of the Monte Cristo The Things They Carried The Hiding Place Into Thin Air Whale Rider Unbroken Metamorphosis The Stranger A Tale of Two Cities Great Expectations Catcher in the Rye Grapes of Wrath The Road
Appendix 2 My Health Assessments Assessment type and name Date completed Notes YYYY-MMM-DD YYYY-MMM-DD YYYY-MMM-DD YYYY-MMM-DD Appendix 3 My Most Recent Hospital Visit Hospital name: date: YYYY-MMM-DD Reason for visit: Visit description: ☐ Emergency room to home ☐ Emergency room to inpatient unit Date of discharge: YYYY-MMM-DD Length of stay: Comments:
Wednesday Tyler is laying tile on his rectangular kitchen floor. The dimensions of the floor are by If he is using square tiles with a side length of , how many tiles will he need to cover the floor? What is the surface area of this figure? Problem 2 Thursday What is the difference between the students’ Mean Absolute Deviation? Johnathan’s bathroom is 7 feet by 5 feet. He is laying square tiles with a side length of 4 inches. How many tiles does he need? Problem 2 Friday Solve for x. Steven has 24 t-shirts. One third of the t-shirts are white, one fourth of the t-shirts are blue; the remainder of the t-shirts are orange. How many orange t-shirts does he own? Problem 1
Problem 1 Problem 2 Gridded Response Monday The sides of a triangle measure 2.4, 3.2, and 4. Is this triangle a right triangle? The measure of angle 4 is 45o and the measure of angle 5 is 67o. What is the measure of angle 1? Problem 2 Tuesday Solve for x. Garrett bought a new cylindrical water bottle. The bottle is 8 inches tall and has a diameter of 4 inches. How much water will the bottle hold to the nearest tenth? Problem 2 Wednesday The measure of <5 is 5x + 1 and the measure of < 6 is x – 1, find the value of x. Which point represents Problem 1
Problem 1 Problem 2 Gridded Response Monday The surface area of North America is approximately 9,355,000 square miles. Write this value in scientific notation. Fourteen less than the quantity of a number times five is the same as the product of eight and the number increased by four. What is the number? Problem 2 Tuesday A cylinder is 15 inches long and has a diameter of 7 inches. What is the volume of the cylinder in terms of pi? What is the area of the triangle shown below? Problem 2 Wednesday Evaluate Convert to a fraction. Problem 1
Problem 1 Problem 2 Gridded Response Monday A 13-foot ladder leans against a building. The ladder reaches the building 12 feet above the ground. How far is the base of the ladder from the wall? Describe the graph from x = -1 and x =1 as linear, non-linear, increasing, decreasing. Problem 1 Tuesday Write the equation of a line that passes through the origin and the point (-4,5) What is the value of the expression Problem 2 Wednesday What is the negative solution to the equation Circle the irrational values. Problem 1
Thursday In the diagram, line r is parallel to line s. Find the measure of angle 3. Solve for x. 8x+4(4x− 3)= 4(6x+ 4)− 4 Problem 1 Friday What is the slope of the line that passes through the points (-5, 3) and (-5, 8)? Paisley can send 5 texts per minute. The table below shows how fast Zinn can text. What is the difference between their texting rates? Problem 2
Committee Membership Form Committee Name: Curriculum Committee Year: 2017-18 Committee Position Name Unit Represented Start Term Phone Email Chair Sue Ellenberger N/A Fall 2016 1301 Immediate Past Chair John Woodson N/A Fall 2016 1313 Voting member Tonia Faulling Comp Studies Fall 2015 1383 Voting member Chad Gregory A&S Fall 2016 1324 Voting member Donna Palmer Health Ed Fall 2015 1347 Voting member Jason Poole EIT Fall 2015 1414 Voting member Amy Roberts BPS Fall 2014 1314 Voting member Sandra Strickland CCE Fall 2016 1732 Nonvoting member Marilyn Angoli Registrar’s Office N/A 1613 Nonvoting member Scott Harvey Registrar’s Office N/A 2034 Nonvoting member Adam Ghiloni Financial Aid N/A 1583 @tctc.edu Nonvoting member Amoena Norcross Curriculum & Instructional Support N/A 1365 Nonvoting member Leslie Salley Curriculum & Instructional Support N/A 1678
Algebra 2A – 3.2 In Exercises 1–3, find the square root of the number. 1. 2. 3A. 3B. In Exercises 4–7, find the values of x and y that satisfy the equation. 4. 5. 6. 7. In Exercises 8–11, add or subtract. the answer in standard form. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Write each expression as a complex number in standard form. a. b. In Exercises 13–16, multiply. Write the answer in standard form. 13. 14. 15. 16. In Exercises 17 - 20, find the of the function. 17. 18. 19. 20. In Exercises 21 - 24, the equation. Check your solution(s). 21. 22. 23. 24.
Clean Catch Midstream Urine Collection It is important that this specimen be as clean as possible. Please read the instructions carefully before you start. If you have any questions, ask the laboratory tech or nurse that handed this to you or contact our laboratory at 260-266-1500 option 1. Wash your hands before collection Unscrew cap of the cup. Place cap on counter with “straw” facing upward. TO AVOID CONTAMINATION, DO NOT TOUCH INSIDE OF CUP, CAP OR STRAW. Cleanse yourself with towelettes as follows: MALE: Wipe head of in a single motion with first towelette. Repeat with second towelette. If not circumcised, hold foreskin back before cleansing. FEMALE: Separate the labia. Wipe inner labial folds front to back in a single motion with the first towelette. Wipe down through center of labial folds with second towelette. Keep labial separated. Urinate a amount of urine directly into toilet. Stop flow of urine. Then hold specimen container and move into “midstream” to collect sample. Finish voiding into the toilet. Replace cap on cup. Tighten cap securely. Wash hands after collection. Specimen should be labeled with full legal patient name, date of birth, date and time of collection. CAUTION: DO NOT REMOVE LABEL FROM CAP SHARP NEEDLE LOCATED UNDER LABEL.
LAB: Periods 2, 5, 7 Instructional Activities Collect Scavenger Hunt Number Systems Bellringer - Hershey Bar Act. For understanding fractions - Part 1: Decimal Expansion Part 1 - Part 2: Comparing Rational and Irrational Numbers Wheel of Theodorus (connection to Pythagorean Theorem) Instructional Activities Number Systems Bellringer -Revisit previous lesson with dry erase check -common Core Station Rotation -Whole group discussion. Instructional Activities NS 1 Webquest -Compass (8001 8002 m8011 8012 m8013) -Classifying Rational and Irrational Numbers Game - Pull and Drop – identifying Irrational and Rational number Game. -“Classifying Rational and Irrational”and “Is it Rational?” Activity Instructional Activities -Number Systems Bellringer Numberline: estimating the location of an irrational number on a numberline -Number Systems Coachbook Practice Instructional Activities -Number Systems Bellringer -Flashback Friday: Operations with fraction Differentiation: -Skill-based -“Spending Money” constructed response Assessment: Assessment: Observation Assessment: Compass reports Assessment: Observation/placement of cards- Exit Slip. Assessment: Observation Misc. Notes: /
Transcripts. Deadline for receiving applications is May 29, 2016. Send all application materials to Dr. Nafeesa Sheikh by May 29, 2016. Emailed documents should be sent in PDF format. Scholarship recipient to be announced early Fall 2016. Scholarship money will be deposited to the educational institution that the student is attending. Mailing Address: Dr. Nafeesa Sheikh, 3-1398 Gordon Street, Guelph, Ontario N1L1C8 Address: Last Name: First Name: Date: Street Address: Apt/Unit #: City: Province: Postal Code: Phone: E-mail Address: Are you a Canadian citizen? YES NO If no, are you a permanent resident in Canada? YES NO School Attending in 2016-2017 How did hear of this scholarship? High School Address From To Did you graduate? YES NO College/ University Address From To Did you graduate? YES NO Other Address From To Did you graduate? YES NO Full Name Phone ( ) Address I certify that my answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature Date
Hosp A (n=83,948) Hosp B (n=85,787) Hosp C (n=52,610) Hosp D (n=33,066) Hosp E (n=14,588) Total (n=269,999) Dates included Number of beds 500 350 150 120 135 Teaching status Major teaching Major teaching Major teaching Minor teaching Age, mean (SD), years 54 (18) 56 (21) 71 (17) 67 (18) 71 (16) 60 (20) Race Black, % 39,461 (47) 7,744 (9) 803 (2) 1,098 (3) 564 (4) 49,670 (18) White, % 31,208 (37) 42,076 (49) 35,359 (67) 21,840 (66) 9,947 (68) 140,430 (52) Other/ Unknown, % 13,279 (16) 35,967 (42) 16,448 (31) 10,128 (31) 4,077 (28) 79,899 (30) Female sex, n (%) 48,021 (57) 57,640 (67) 30, 218 (57) 18,200 (55) 8,202 (56) 162,281 (60) eTable 1. Hospital and patient characteristics
Fluid and electrolyte disorders 7298 (21) 6264 (20.3) 710 (25.6) 182 (28.6) 142 (32.6) Chronic blood loss anemia 1150 (3.3) 1003 (3.3) 109 (3.9) 22 (3.5) 16 (3.7) Deficiency anemias 9787 (28.2) 8556 (27.7) 858 (31) 222 (34.9) 151 (34.6) Alcohol abuse 483 (1.4) 413 (1.3) 51 (1.8) - - Drug abuse 137 (0.4) 120 (0.4) 14 (0.5) - - Psychoses 1769 (5.1) 1479 (4.8) 193 (7) 60 (9.4) 37 (8.5) Depression 3727 (10.7) 3283 (10.6) 305 (11) 79 (12.4) 60 (13.8) Note: Small cell counts values not shown and noted by a ‘-‘. Elixhauser conditions defined using ICD-9-CM diagnoses codes from the previous year.
PA1, Seger D, Krenzelok EP, et al. Position paper: Single-dose activated charcoal. Clin Toxicol. 2005;43(2):61-87. Academy of Clinical Toxicology, European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists. Position gastric lavage. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2004; 42(7): 933-43. American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists. Position paper: cathartics. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2004; 42(3): 243-53. Academy of Clinical Toxicology, European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists. Position Ipecac syrup. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2004; 42(2): 133-43. Daly FF, O'Malley GF, Heard K, Bogdan GM, Dart RC. Prospective evaluation of repeated supratherapeutic acetaminophen (paracetamol) ingestion. Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Oct;44(4):393-8.
µg/kg/min, median (IQ) 0.1 (0.05-0.25) 0.45 (0.19-1.8) <0.001 0.1 (0.05-0.18) 0.45 (0.18-1.6) <0.001 Dopamine, n (%) µg/kg/min, median (IQ) 149 (11.6) 5.5 (3.7-8.9) 103 (21.0) 10 (5-18.8) <0.001 <0.001 116 (10.7) 5.6 (4-8.6) 130 (20.1) 9.1 (5-9) <0.001 0.001 Dobutamine, n (%) µg/kg/min, median (IQ) 131 (10.2) 4.7 (2.7-6.9) 102 (20.8) 5 (3.2-9.5) <0.001 0.048 107 (9.9) 4.3 (2.6-6) 122 (18.9) 5 (3.4-9) <0.001 0.043 Vasopressin, n (%) µg/kg/min, median (IQ) 33 (2.6) 0.04 (0.03-1) 65 (13.2) 1.2 (0.04-2.4) <0.001 0.01 27 (2.7) 0.04 (0.03-1) 68 (10.5) 1.1 (0.04-2.4) <0.001 0.037 IQ: interquartile range; ICU: intensive care unit
Control (14) 2.9 Kono 1977 [88] 1 group/fixed Normal (5) – 20 ng/kg/min 2.2 Lottermoser 2003 [93] 1 Healthy (9) 150-180 10 ng/kg/min 7.4 1973 [100] 3 groups/incremental Normal Anephric Kidney allograft 12 g (5), 20mEq (5) 2 ng/kg/min until 20 mm HG (diastolic) increase 5.9 0.86 6.4 Mediskou 2011 [104] 2 groups/incremental Hyperprolactinemic women (20) Healthy (20) 150 6 ng/kg/min 2.7 Positive (graph) Menard 1991 [105] 1 group/incremental Normal men (6) Ad libitum 4 ng/kg/min 2.1 Mendelsohn 1972 [106] 2 Hypertensive (17) Normotensive (8) 100 10 100 10 100 ng/min 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.3 Oelkers 1975 [118] 1 sustained, incremental sequence Normal (5) – Sequence: Incremental to 12 ng/kg/min (6 h) Sustained 2 ng/kg/min for 66 h Incremental to 16 ng/kg/min (6 h) Graphs DR increase 4.6 Enhanced DR Ozono 1996 [123] 2 groups/incremental Japanese subjects Modulating eHTN (6) Nonmodulating eHTN (9) 250 10 250 10 3 ng/kg/min (high Na) 3 ng/kg/mL (low Na) 3 ng/kg/min (high Na) 3 ng/kg/mL (low Na) Graphs: Modest response Greatest response Modest response Modest response Price 1999 [126] 3 Healthy control (25) Hypertension (137) Hypertension, type II diabetes (42) 10 mmol (low Na) 200 mmol (high Na) 3 ng/kg/min 5.3 2.5 1.9
5 trials not 2 none 29/510 (5.7%) RR 0.45 (0.26 to 0.79) 31 fewer per 1000 (from 12 fewer to 42 fewer) MODERATE Duration of Hospitalization (assessed with: days) 6 trials not none - MD 1 day lower (1.79 lower to 0.21 lower) ⨁⨁⨁⨁ HIGH Hyperglycemia requiring treatment 6 trials not none 50/640 (7.8%) RR 1.49 (1.01 to 2.19) 38 more per 1000 (from 1 more to 93 more) ⨁⨁⨁⨁ HIGH CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; MD: Mean difference 55
Wide confidence intervals do not exclude harm. Small number of events. Influenza Forest Plots - Rodrigo C, Leonardi-Bee J,Nguyen-Van-Tam J, LimWS.Corticosteroids as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of influenza. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD010406. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010406.pub2. Evidence Profile for corticosteroids in Influenza Quality assessment № of patients Effect Quality № of studies Study design Risk of bias considerations Relative (95% CI) Absolute (95% CI) Mortality (assessed with: in-hospital) 4 observational studies not serious 1 not 2 strong association OR 2.82 (1.61 to 4.92) 3 fewer per 1000 (from 2 fewer to 5 fewer) ⨁⨁◯◯ LOW CI: Confidence interval; OR: Odds ratio All 4 trials found to be low risk of bias according to Ottawa-Newcastle scale.
Immediate cause of death 0-30 day Current Recent Former Non-user Diseases of the airways 1862 (36.3) Diseases of the airways 1481 (34.8) Diseases of the airways 2597 (35.5) Diseases of the airways 2499 (31.6) Infectious disease (including parasites) 768 (15.0) Infectious disease (including parasites) 598 (14.1) Poorly defined causes 955 (13.1) Other circulatory diseases 1039 (13.1) Poorly defined causes 640 (12.5) Poorly defined causes 533 (12.5) diseases 867 (11.9) Heart diseases 1034 (13.1) diseases 538 (10.5) Heart diseases 486 (11.4) Infectious disease (including parasites) 833 (11.4) Poorly defined causes 922 (11.7) circulatory diseases 324 (6.3) Other circulatory diseases 359 (8.4) Other circulatory diseases 762 (10.4) Infectious disease (including parasites) 893 (11.3) Diseases of the digestive system 285 (5.6) Diseases of the digestive system 236 (5.5) Diseases of the digestive system 385 (5.3) Disease of the nervous system 414 (5.2) Malignancy 208 (4.1) Disease of the nervous system 129 (3.0) Disease of the nervous system 298 (4.1) Diseases of the digestive system 408 (5.2) Disease of the nervous system 117 (2.3) Malignancy 109 (2.6) Death without medical information 161 (2.2) without medical information 176 (2.2) Disease of the urological or genital system 116 (2.3) Disease of the urological or genital system 109 (2.6) Disease of the urological or genital system 142 (1.9) Malignancy 172 (2.2) Death without medical information 107 (2.1) without medical information 85 (2.0) Malignancy 129 (1.8) Disease of the urological or genital system 159 (2.0) Supplemental Table 6. Ten most frequent immediate causes of death 0-30 days following ICU-admission by exposure status.
74 Hugo Van Aken, MD, PhD; Alexander Zarbock, MD; Melanie Meersch, MD University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany 75 Jacques Creteur, MD; Brimioulle, MD, PhD; David Grimaldi, MD, PhD Erasme University Hospital, Brussels, Belgium ATHOS-3 Study Committees Protocol Committee Lakhmir S. Chawla, MD La Pharmaceutical Company, San Diego, CA Sean Bagshaw, MD, MSc, FRCPC University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada Mitchell P. Fink, MD David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA Stuart L. Goldstein, MD Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH Andrew Shaw, MB, FRCA. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN James Russell, MD University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada George Tidmarsh, MD, PhD La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company, San Diego, CA Executive/Steering/Writing Committee Rinaldo Bellomo, MD The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Ashish Khanna, MD Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH Laurence W. MD Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA Marlies Ostermann, MD, PhD King’s College London, London, UK Lakhmir S. Chawla, MD La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company, San Diego, CA B. Taylor Thompson, MD Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA W. English, MD, MSc University of Ottawa and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada Paul Young, MBChB, PhD Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand Adam M. MD University of Melbourne, Australia Data and Safety Monitoring Board Russell, MD (Chair) University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Joel Singer, PhD University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Sean Bagshaw, MD, MSc, FRCPC
c Dosing may be modified to as low as 1.25 ng/kg/min for those patients considered “hyper-responders”, ie, MAP remains ≥ 85 mmHg despite discontinuation of vasopressin and all catecholamines. Supplemental Table 4. Titration schema: hour 3 through hour 48 (nonbinding) Current MAP mmHg Study Drug Titration Interval min Study Drug Dose Titration ng/kg/min Study Drug Maximal Dose ng/kg/min Study Drug Minimal Dose ng/kg/min ≤ 59 5 Increase to 40 40 2.5 60-64 15 Increase by 10 40 2.5 65-70 15 Maintain dose a 40 2.5 ≥ 70 15 Decrease by 10 b 40 2.5 c MAP=mean arterial pressure. a If the sum of the norepinephrine + epinephrine dose is ≥ 0.03 but < 0.1 µg/kg/min, study drug dose should be maintained. b If vasopressin is being used, vasopressin should be weaned off first. Then, titrate standard-of-care vasopressors until the sum of the norepinephrine + epinephrine dose is as low as 0.03 µg/kg/min. c Dosing may be modified to as low as 1.25 ng/kg/min for those patients considered “hyper-responders”, ie, MAP remains ≥ 70 mmHg despite discontinuation of vasopressin and reduction of sum norepinephrine + epinephrine dose to as low as 0.03 µg/kg/min.
high, moderate, low or very low based on these assessments. Methodologists summarized the quality of evidence assessment in evidence profile format using GDT software (www.GRADEPRO.org). Each evidence profile was reviewed in multiple steps by the primary question reviewer, all section members, and the vice chair and chair before being considered final. The process by which descriptive questions are addressed is described in the methods paper. 10. Evidence to Decision Framework and Recommendation Generation The Evidence to Decision (EtoD) framework was used to help organize discussion around each potential recommendation and ensure each of the following domains/components was considered : a. Priority of the problem. For the purpose of this guideline, all questions addressed important clinical problems. b. Magnitude of the desirable anticipated effects. The larger the desirable outcomes, the more inclined we were to recommend the intervention. c. Magnitude of the undesirable anticipated effects. The larger the undesirable consequences, the less inclined we were to recommend the intervention. d. Certainty of evidence. The higher the quality of evidence the more likely we were to issue a strong recommendation. e. Values and preferences. The more variability in values and preferences, or more uncertainty in values and preferences, the more likely we were to issue a conditional (i.e., weak) recommendation. f. Balance between desirable and undesirable effects. When desirable consequences (desirable treatment effect, consistency in values and preferences) clearly outweigh the undesirable consequences (undesirable treatment effect, large variability in values and preferences) or vice-versa, we were more inclined to issue a strong recommendation. When the balance was less clear or undetermined, then we were more inclined to issue a conditional recommendation or a neutral recommendation. g. Costs/resource allocation. The higher the costs of an intervention (that is, the more resources consumed) the less likely we were to issue a strong recommendation.
Emergency surgery or trauma Abelha 2012 [1] Serafim 2012 [37] 2012 [7] Strong Delirium previous day (e.g. mental status <24h) Agarwal 2010 [38] Pandharipande 2009 [4] Strong Previous coma Agarwal 2010 [38] Ely 2007 [17] Ouimet 2007 [28] Mehta 2015 [24] Strong Fever Aldemir 2001 [31] Inconclusive Sepsis Lin 2008 [36] Aldemir 2001 [31] Simons 2014 [13] Schreiber 2014 [25] Shehabi 2013 [6] Hsieh 2014 [21] Inconclusive Pneumonia Heymann 2007 [30] Inconclusive Poly(trauma) Serafim 2012 [5] Heymann 2007 [30] Simons 2014 [13] Bryczkowski 2014 [10] Moderate TBI Bryczkowski 2014 [10] Inconclusive Medication: Benzodiazepine Agarwal 2010 [38] Pisani 2007 [39] Serafim 2012 [5] Seymour 2012 [40] Pandharipande 2006 Pandharipande 2008 Hsieh 2014 [21] Pisani 2009 [41] Skrobik 2013 [23] 2015 [24] Svenningsen 2013 [42] Schreiber 2014 [9] Ely 2007 [17] Pandharipande 2008 [43] Pandharipande 2009 [4] Pandharipande 2006 [3] Bryczkowski 2014 [10] Strong Opioid Dubois 2001 [27] Svenningsen 2013 [42] Agarwal 2010 [38] Pandharipande 2008 [43] Schreiber 2014 [9] Pandharipande 2006 [3] Pandharipande 2008 [43] Pandharipande 2009 [4] Skrobik 2013 [23] Hsieh 2014 [21] Mehta 2015 [24] Strong
values /enzymes/proteins: Hyperglycemia Heymann 2007 [30] Inconclusive Anemia Aldemir 2001 [31] Inconclusive Bilirubine Dubois 2001 [27] Aldemir 2001 [31] Inconclusive Hypoalbuminemia Lin 2008 [36] Inconclusive Hypocalcemia Aldemir 2001 [31] Inconclusive Hyponatremia Aldemir 2001 [31] Inconclusive Creatinine > 2mg/dL Pisani 2007 [39] Inconclusive Arterial pH <7.35 Pisani 2007 [39] Inconclusive Reactive hyperemia index Inconclusive Elevated serum urea nitrogen Aldemir 2001 [31] Inconclusive Elevated hepatic enzymes Aldemir 2001 [31] Inconclusive Hyperamylasemia Aldemir 2001 [31] Inconclusive Metabolic acidosis Aldemir 2001 [31] Inconclusive present Ely 2007 [17] Inconclusive MMP-9 Girard 2012 [48] Inconclusive sTNFR1 Girard 2012 [48] Inconclusive Protein C Girard 2012 [48] Inconclusive IGF-1 Morandi 2011 [49] Inconclusive 25-OHD Morandi 2013 [50] Inconclusive Serum cortisol Shi 2010 [12] Inconclusive Tryptophan/LNAA Pandharipande 2009 [4] Inconclusive Tyrosine/LNAA ratio Pandharipande 2009 [4] Inconclusive Phenylalanine/LNAA ratio Pandharipande 2009 [4] Inconclusive Ventilation: Mechanical ventilation Guillamondegui 2011 [51] Bryczkowski 2014 [10] van Rompaey 2009 [29] Hsieh 2014 [21] Kamdar 2015 [18] Zhang 2014 [20] Yoshitaka 2013 [8] Lin 2015[22] Limpawattana 2016 [32] Strong Scores: SOFA Angles 2008 [2] Schreiber 2014 [25] Inconclusive trial
Supplemental Table 23. Studies on prediction models Article Study Design Number of delirious / Total (%) Type IC Method Delirium Assessment Inclusion Exclusion Predictors Predictor Effect Estimate Outcome Model Quality vd Boogaard 2012 [1] Prospective Cohort Multicenter 911/3056 (30%) Mixed ICU CAM-ICU 8hrly Bedside LOS ICU>24hrs Persistent Coma Delirious after admission Auditory/visual impairment Mentally disbaled CNS disorder Compliance rate CAM-ICU <80% Age APACHE II Coma No Drug induced Miscellaneous Combination Admission category Surgery Medical Trauma Neurosurgery Infection Metabolic acidosis Use of morphine None 0.01-7.1 mg 7.2-18.6 mg >18.6 mg Use of sedatives Urea concentration (mmol/L) Urgent admission 1.04 1.06 Ref 1.7 14.9 17.1 Ref 1.4 3.1 4.0 2.9 1.3 Ref 1.5 1.1 1.7 4.0 1.0 1.5 ICU Delirium Incidence Logistic Regression ++ Comments Internal validation: bootstrapping, temporal validation. External validation: 4 other Dutch Hospitals. Pooled results presented here. AUROC 0.85 (95% CI 0.82-0.87) Predictors available within 24 hours of admission. Predictor Effect Estimate: OR is the natural logarithm of the logistic regression coefficients of the prediction model. No 95% CI given. ICU: Intensive Care unit, CAM-ICU: Confusion Assessment Method for use in the ICU, LOS: Length of stay, CNS: Central Nervous System, APACHE II: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, AUROC: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, hrly: hourly, hrs:hours, hr: hour, OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval
Supplemental Table 33. Evidence Summary and Evidence to Decision Table for Rehabiliation/Mobilization Actionable Question Question: Rehabilitation or mobilization (performed either in-bed or out-of-bed) compared to usual care in critically ill adults Quality assessment № of patients Effect Quality № of Study design Risk of bias Other or mobilization (performed either in-bed or usual care (95% CI) Absolute (95% CI) Hospital Mortality 13 randomised trials not not serious not serious serious a none 106/706 (15.0%) (16.4%) RR 0.93 (0.74 to 1.18) 11 fewer per 1,000 (from 29 more to 43 fewer) CRITICAL MRC at ICU discharge 6 randomised trials not b serious c not serious serious d none e 147 157 - MD 6.24 higher (1.67 higher to 10.82 higher) LOW CRITICAL n
Undesirable Effects How substantial are the undesirable anticipated effects? ○ Large ○ Moderate ○ Small ● Trivial ○ Varies ○ Don't know Certainty of evidence What is the overall certainty of the evidence of effects? ○ Very low ● Low ○ Moderate ○ High ○ No included studies See Appendix 1 The relative importance or values of the main outcomes of interest:
Desirable Effects Trivial Small Moderate Large Varies Don't know Undesirable Effects Moderate Small Trivial Varies Don't know Certainty of evidence Very low Low Moderate High No included studies Values Important uncertainty or variability Possibly important uncertainty or variability Probably no important uncertainty or variability No important uncertainty or variability Balance of effects Favors the comparison Probably favors the comparison Does not either the intervention or the comparison Probably favors the intervention Favors the intervention Varies Don't know Resources required Large costs Moderate costs Negligible costs and savings Moderate savings Large savings Varies Don't know Certainty of evidence of required resources Very low Low Moderate High No included studies Cost effectiveness Favors the comparison Probably favors the comparison Does not either the intervention or the comparison Probably favors the intervention Favors the intervention Varies No included studies
Equity Reduced Probably reduced Probably no impact Probably increased Increased Varies Don't know Acceptability No Probably no Probably yes Yes Varies Don't know Feasibility No Probably no Probably yes Yes Varies Don't know Should rehabilitation or mobilization (performed either in-bed or out-of-bed) vs. usual care be used in critically ill adults? Type of recommendation Recommendation We suggest rehabilitation or mobilization (performed either in-bed or out-of-bed in the ICU) in adult critically ill patients. Subgroup considerations Early vs. Late - data not enough to perform subgroup analysis Monitoring and evaluation Safety criteria
Supplemental Table 43. Pre-morbid risk factors affecting sleep in ICU patients. Associated with sleep disruption No association with disruption Risk Factor Objective sleep measures Subjective sleep measures Objective sleep measures Subjective sleep measures Sex * Bihari N 100 (multivariate analysis) (under age 60, female sleep worse than males, over age 60, females rate sleep better than males) [1] * Trompeo N 29 [2] * Higgins N 20 [3] * Nicolas N 104 [4] * Freedman N 203 [5] age * Higgins, N 20 [3] *Bihari N 100 -age and sex [1]interaction (multivariate analysis) * Engelmann N 66 [6] * Trompeo (427), N 29 [2] * Roche Campo (2464), N 27 (abnormal wakefulness or abnormal sleep; abnormal EEG) [7] * Chen N 85 [8] * Nicolas N 104 (< or >50 yrs) [4] * N 31 (< or >75 yrs)) [9] * Hardin N 18 [10] * Freedman N 203 [5] * Chen N 85 [8] Hx of HTN * Trompeo N 29 [2] Hx of diabetes * Trompeo N 29 [2] Dx of cancer * Trompeo N 29 [2] Tx for hypo/hyper- thyroidism Bihari N 100 (p=0.10) *authors report this as significant [1] Reported poor quality of at home * Kamdar N 300 [11] * Bihari N 100 [1] * McKinley (41981) N 222 [12] Regular use of sleep medication at home vs. no use * Kamdar N 300 [11] * Bihari N 100 (p=0.07) [1]
Hospital attire * Ehlers N 34 (52.9%) [16] Dislike urinals and/ or bedpans * Ehlers N 34 (32.4%) [16] Blood pressure cuff smelling badly * Ehlers (32006), N 34 (88.2%) [16] “IV sedation” * Little (1733) N 116 Use of “sleeping pills” * Little (1733) N 116 Use of “hypnotic” vs. none * Frisk (6028), N 31 Benzo dose or bezo vs. no benzo * Trompeo N 29 [2] * Fanfulla N 22 [14] * Elliott N 45 [22] * Elliott N 45 [22] Propofol dose & propofol vs. placebo * Kondili N 12 [26] * Trompeo N 29 [2] Morphine dose * Trompeo N 29 Midaz vs. propofol * Treggiari-Venzi N 40 [27] Steroids vs. no steroids * Bihari (1595) N 100 Foreign body sensation due to intubation * Zhang (20647) N 152 (reported by 53.9%) Spontaneous breathing vs. mechanical ventilation (any mode) * Campo (31981) N 16 * Elliot (31948) N 53 * Elliott N 45 * Fanfulla N 22 [14] * Little N 116 [15] * Elliott N 45 [22] * Freedman N 203 [5]
Spontaneous mode (vs. controlled * Parthasarathy N 11 [28] * Andrejak N 26 [29] * Toublanc N 20 [30] PAV+ vs. PS * Alexopoulou N 17 [31] * Bosma N 13 [32] Clinically adjusted PSV vs. automatically adjusted PSV * Cabello N 15 [33] NIV duration * Roche Campo N 27 [7] Spontaneous breathing vs. NIV * Drouot N 24 [34] Patient-ventilator asynchrony on NIV Cordoba-Izquierdo N 24 [35] related to NIV Cordoba-Izquierd N 24 [35] “Ventilation system” * Simpson N 84 (score 2.2/ 4) [13] Trompeo [2] compared ICU patients with REM reduction vs. severe REM reduction. Cabello [33] showed difference only in Stage 2 sleep.
Doi 2005 [11] 40 post-op ventilated patients Ramsay High 0 2 0 2 4 R=-0.669 Tonner 2005 [12] 46 post-abd surgery intubated pts Ramsay High 0 0 0 0 0 Tau=0.40 BIS-XP is incorporated in the currently available model of BIS Better correlation with EMG <30 (this true for all EEG-based tools, including raw EEG) Chisholm 2006 [13] 26 conscious sedation OR patients Ramsay OAA/S High 0 0 0 0 0 R=0.89 In OR but conscious sedation being used with propofol, midazolam, fentanyl Consales 2006 [14] 40 RCT prop vs Midaz postop Ramsay Moder 2 2 0 1 5 R=0.75 Turkmen 2006 [15] 11 pts sternotomy dexmed sedation RASS High 0 0 0 0 0 R=0.78 Also reported a correlation at 8 hours r=0.90 2007 [16] 50 post-op pts Ramsay High 0 1 0 0 1 R=-0.78 assessed Q15 x 60 minutes, no NMB Sackey 2007 [17] 20 vented ICU pts (10 midaz, 10 Isoflurane) Bloomsbury High 0 0 0 0 0 R=-0057/0.012 56% were in 2 deepest sedation groups (B -2 or -3) Haenggi 2008 [18] 44 mostly medical ICU pts Ramsay High 0 1 0 1 2 R=-0.426 EEG mean 30 seconds and 2 mins BEFORE and 2,5,10 mins AFTER event - never stated which was used Lu 2008 [19] 90 post-op surgical ICU Ramsay High 0 1 0 0 1 Tau=0.69 Arbour 2009 [20] 40 vented medical ICU SAS High 2 1 0 0 3 R=0.50 2009 [21] 67 ventilated NeuroICU Ramsay High 0 2 0 0 2 R=0.28
speed. UR_8050 Users shall not need to know anything about the inner of the system in order to use it. 1 UR_8060 The system shall properly handle failures by terminating the query and providing the user with the cause of failure. Failures may be triggered by invalid queries, insufficient data, or some broken component. 1 A.4 Software Requirements Software requirements are prefixed with an “SR” label to distinguish them from user requirements. As with user requirements, a priority level is assigned to each software requirement as a number between 1 and 5, with 1 representing the highest priority. The software requirements for the Common Crawl Mining system are listed in . Table 5. Software Requirements ID Associated User Requirement Description Priority SR_0010 N/A The Common Crawl Mining system shall analyze web crawl data retrieved from Common Crawl. 1 SR_0020 N/A The system shall store analysis results in a NoSQL database. 2 SR_0030 UR_0050 If only a search term is provided as part of a query, the system shall compute relevance scores of each matching page in the range from 0 to 1 as the ratio of search term elements that are present in the page. Search term elements include a multi-token search term and zero or more associated chemical names. 1 SR_0040 UR_0060 If a search term and chemical are provided as part of a query, the system shall compute the relevance score of each matching page in the range from 0 to 1 as the sum of 0.3 (if the queried chemical is 1
NMIJ Static and gravimetric method with flying start and stop Weighing scale Example 2 from CCM.FF-K4.1.2011: 3. Summary of the experimental procedure employed at the different NMIs Weighing* Water** De-aerated water? Density formula 20 L 100 mL CENAM DS DR IE + O No Tanaka et al NIST DR O No Patterson & Morris IPQ SS SS IE + O No Tanaka et al VSL DS DS DM+2D No Bettin & Spieweck SP DS SS IE Yes Bettin & Spieweck INRIM SS SS IE + 2D No Tanaka et al NIM ABA SS IE No Tanaka et al ABA DR DI No measured *Weighing: DS: Double substitution; DR: direct reading; SS: single substitution; ABA: substitution weighing IE: Ion exchange; O: Inverse osmosis; 1D: single distillation; 2D: double distillation, DM: demineralized Example 3 from CCM.FF-K6.2011: The conditions during measurements were described by all participants. The values are given in Table 4. Table 4. Temperature (°C) in participating laboratories during measurements NMI Ukraine GP USA NIST Mexico KRISS China NIM Chinese Taipei CMS Japan NMIJ/ AIST France Max 20.71 22.71 18.89 21.45 23.89 20.40 21.33 21.49 22.83 24.45 18.43 Min 19.84 21.42 18.76 21.30 23.13 19.80 18.67 20.26 22.26 23.91 17.65 Max-Min 0.88 1.29 0.13 0.16 0.76 0.60 2.66 1.23 0.57 0.54 0.78 Mean 20.19 21.77 18.82 21.38 23.66 20.16 20.07 20.89 22.63 24.14 18.15
Attended Work session COUNCILMEMBER ELMORE None COUNCILMEMBER S.ZERWAS None PETERSON None UPDATE - JOHNS BLACK DIRT MINING OPERATION ON 250Th/FOREST LAKE CONTRACTING Administrator Mattson said he discussed with Forest Lake contracting measures to maintain our roads. We have no intention to have any other road fall into more disrepair more than it already has. We would post the road to stop heavy truck traffic. Mark Erichson WSB – The application for the Mine is with the City of Columbus and Forest Lake Contractin. Location is in the city of Columbus but access is via Wyoming on 250th street off of Kettle River Blvd. He stated we would like to sit down with Forest Lake Contracting. They are a reputable contractor, they have a good track record, but we want to protect our infrastructure. Mayor Peterson – willing to put $25,000 for overlay damages, but there is a safety issues at hand as well. Mark Erichson WSB – The $25,000 may be on the light side, we would due a quick boring to check the status of the road Administrator Mattson – We will follow up on this item and we will monitor and take necessary action to make sure we are in control of the situation. We want to make sure that Wyoming has a voice on this issue. ADJOURN A MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER ELMORE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER NANKO/YEAGER, TO ADJOURN THE JUNE 4, 2013 “REGULAR MEETING” OF THE WYOMING, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL AT 7:54 P.M. Voting Aye: Elmore, Peterson, J. Zerwas, S.Zerwas Voting Nay: None Abstain: None A portion of this public meeting may be closed to discuss “Labor Negotiation Strategies”; “Misconduct allegations or charges”; “Attorney-client privilege”; or “Performance evaluations” as per MN State Statute 13D.01-.05. NEXT REGULAR MEETING
44. A user sees the command prompt: Router(config-if)# . What task can be performed at this mode? Reload the device. Perform basic tests. Configure individual interfaces. Configure individual terminal lines. 45. Refer to the exhibit. Interface Fa0/0 on router A is generating excessive broadcast traffic. Which LAN segments will affected by the excessive broadcasts? Only the 192.168.1.200/30 network will be affected. Only the link between 192.168.1.201 and port Fa0/5 on SW1 will be affected. Both the 192.168.1.200/30 and 192.168.1.204/30 networks will be affected. Only the links between 192.168.1.201 and port Fa0/7 on SW2 will be affected. 46. What is the effect of the Router# copy running-config startup-config command on a router? The contents of ROM will change. The contents of RAM will change. The contents of will change. The contents of flash will change. 47. Which option represents a point-to-point logical topology diagram? The correct answer is last image. 48. In a network design project, a network designer needs to select a device to provide collision free connections to 40 hosts on the LAN. Which device should be selected? hub router
In order to measure the amount of low-income participation in your project, please identify individuals whose income is 50% of the area’s median income The guidelines for applicants within the 19-county, Cincinnati Archdiocese are based on the HUD’s income limits for FY 2017 for the Cincinnati-Middletown OH-KY-IN Metro Fair Market Rent Area (the highest limits within the Archdiocese). Fifty percent median income for… Single Household: $26,150; Household of 2: $29,900; Household of 3: $33,650; Household of 4: $37,350. Complete the chart below in full using these guidelines as a low-income indicator Another indicator may be used instead If using an indicator other than the U.S. Census Bureau’s, describe the indicator and explain why it was selected. Indicator used: Total # Number Very Asian/ Pacific Island Black White Hispanic Native American Other Board of Directors from applicant anization *Members of applicant anization board for this project, if different from above Project Total # of persons benefiting directly from this project Identify in general who this population is: *For organizations with members (eg associations, coalitions, and community organizing groups) For Office Use 6 8 2. OF Income
BOARD Please list members of the project Policy-making Duplicate if necessary Check whether this is: your overall organizational board, or a separate project board? Name: Address: City/St/ZIP: Occupation: Term of Office: Very Low Name: Address: City/St/ZIP: Occupation: Term of Office: Very Low Income Name: Address: City/St/ZIP: Occupation: Term of Office: Very Low Income Name: Address: City/St/ZIP: Occupation: Term of Office: Very Low Income Name: Address: City/St/ZIP: Occupation: Term of Office: Very Low Income Name: Address: City/St/ZIP: Occupation: Term of Office: Very Low Income Name: Address: City/St/ZIP: Occupation: Term of Office: Very Low Income Name: Address: City/St/ZIP: Occupation: Term of Office: Very Low Income Name: Address: City/St/ZIP: Occupation: Term of Office: Very Low Income Name: Address: City/St/ZIP: Occupation: Term of Office: Very Low Income For Office Use 6 If the Profile that you have is a project board instead of your overall board, then please explain what kind of status this board has in your Does it report to the board, for How often do they meet?
CCNet North American Coach Training Participants Registrations – January 2016 Name Organization Location Email 1 Caroline Stem (trainer) FOS Saratoga Springs, NY 2 Schulz (trainer) TNC Boulder, CO 3 John Morrison (trainer) WWF Hope, ME John.morrison@wwfus.org 4 Claudia Browne Biohabitats Golden, CO 5 Andrew S. Bridges Institute for Wildlife Studies San Diego, CA 6 Renae Stenhouse WWF GEF Agency Management Unit Washington, DC 7 Diana Toledo River network Ashville, NC 8 Paco Ollervides River network Caldonia, OH 9 Tamia Suoto Amazon Conservation Association Washington, DC 10 Rebecca Garvoille Denver Zoo Denver, CO 11 Aarati Gurung Malla WWF Nepal Baluwatar, Kathmandu, Nepal 12 Julie Sherman Wildlife Impact Portland, OR 13 Pieter A Swanepoel Safaribwana Highlands Ranch, CO 14 Heidi Plank BLM Grand Junction, CO 15 Holly Strand Utah State University Logan, UT 16 Elizabeth Oneill Elizabeth Impact Consulting Boulder, CO 17 Tatiana Hendrix US Fish and Wildlife Service Falls Church, VA 18 Megan Hill US AID Washington, DC 19 Anya Byers TNC Boulder, CO 20 Amanda Robertson US Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, AK 21 Charla Sterne US Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, AK 22 Carol Damberg US Fish and Wildlife Service Anchorage, AK 23 Kristin Sherwood Independent Consultant – Fish Choice Fort Collins, CO