Background: Inuit children have been observed to have high rates of macrocephaly, which leads to burdensome travel for medical evaluation, often with no pathology identified. Given reports that WHO growth charts may not reflect all populations, we compared head circumference (HC) measurements in a cohort of Inuit children with the WHO charts. Methods: We extracted HC data from a retrospective cohort study where, with Inuit partnership, we reviewed medical records of Inuit children, born between 2010-2013, and residing in Nunavut. We excluded children with preterm birth, documented neurologic/genetic disease, and most congenital anomalies. We compared HC values with the 2007 WHO charts. Results: We analyzed records of 1960 Inuit children (8866 data points). Most data were from ages 0-36 months. At all age points, the cohort had statistically significantly larger HC than WHO medians. At age 12 months, median HC were 1.3 cm and 1.5 cm larger for male and female Inuit children. Using WHO growth curves, macrocephaly was overdiagnosed and microcephaly underdiagnosed. Conclusions: Our results support the observation that Inuit children from Nunavut have larger HCs, and use of the WHO charts may lead to overdiagnosis of macrocephaly and underdiagnosis of microcephaly. Population specific growth curves for Inuit children should be considered.

The Students Participating as Ambassadors for Research in Kentucky (SPARK) program provides novel health equity research training and targeted mentorship for undergraduates, particularly those from groups underrepresented in the biomedical and behavioral research and workforce. SPARK aims to address inadequate diversity in the medical and scientific research fields by providing comprehensive research mentorship and skill-building. Unlike most existing research training programs that are brief, focus on laboratory research, or are limited to graduate students and junior faculty, SPARK delivers a 16-month intensive behavioral and population health science training, equipping students with needed tools to conceptualize, plan, execute, and analyze their own health equity research study. Trainees complete didactic coursework on health equity, study design and proposal development, data analysis, and ethics. Students receive a stipend and research expenses, and multiple mentors guide them in creating original research projects for which they serve as Principal Investigator. Students disseminate their findings annually at an academic research conference as a capstone. Evaluation data from the first three cohorts suggest SPARK has been pivotal in preparing students for graduate studies and research careers in health equity and behavioral and population health sciences, providing strong support for further investments in similar undergraduate research training models.

Background: Efgartigimod, a human immunoglobulin G (IgG)1 antibody Fc fragment, blocks the neonatal Fc receptor, decreasing IgG recycling and reducing pathogenic IgG autoantibody levels. ADHERE assessed the efficacy and safety of efgartigimod PH20 subcutaneous (SC; co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20) in chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP). Methods: ADHERE enrolled participants with CIDP (treatment naive or on standard treatments withdrawn during run-in period) and consisted of open-label Stage A (efgartigimod PH20 SC once weekly [QW]), and randomized (1:1) Stage B (efgartigimod or placebo QW). Primary outcomes were clinical improvement (assessed with aINCAT, I-RODS, or mean grip strength; Stage A) and time to first aINCAT score deterioration (relapse; Stage B). Secondary outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) incidence. Results: 322 participants entered Stage A. 214 (66.5%) were considered responders, randomized, and treated in Stage B. Efgartigimod significantly reduced the risk of relapse (HR: 0.394; 95% CI: 0.25–0.61) versus placebo (p=0.000039). Reduced risk of relapse occurred in participants receiving corticosteroids, intravenous or SC immunoglobulin, or no treatment before study entry. Most TEAEs were mild to moderate; 3 deaths occurred, none related to efgartigimod. Conclusions: Participants treated with efgartigimod PH20 SC maintained a clinical response and remained relapse-free longer than those treated with placebo.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) has been a leader in weed science research covering topics ranging from the development and use of integrated weed management (IWM) tactics to basic mechanistic studies, including biotic resistance of desirable plant communities and herbicide resistance. ARS weed scientists have worked in agricultural and natural ecosystems, including agronomic and horticultural crops, pastures, forests, wild lands, aquatic habitats, wetlands, and riparian areas. Through strong partnerships with academia, state agencies, private industry, and numerous federal programs, ARS weed scientists have made contributions to discoveries in the newest fields of robotics and genetics, as well as the traditional and fundamental subjects of weed–crop competition and physiology and integration of weed control tactics and practices. Weed science at ARS is often overshadowed by other research topics; thus, few are aware of the long history of ARS weed science and its important contributions. This review is the result of a symposium held at the Weed Science Society of America’s 62nd Annual Meeting in 2022 that included 10 separate presentations in a virtual Weed Science Webinar Series. The overarching themes of management tactics (IWM, biological control, and automation), basic mechanisms (competition, invasive plant genetics, and herbicide resistance), and ecosystem impacts (invasive plant spread, climate change, conservation, and restoration) represent core ARS weed science research that is dynamic and efficacious and has been a significant component of the agency’s national and international efforts. This review highlights current studies and future directions that exemplify the science and collaborative relationships both within and outside ARS. Given the constraints of weeds and invasive plants on all aspects of food, feed, and fiber systems, there is an acknowledged need to face new challenges, including agriculture and natural resources sustainability, economic resilience and reliability, and societal health and well-being.

Despite becoming increasingly represented in academic departments, women scholars face a critical lack of support as they navigate demands pertaining to pregnancy, motherhood, and child caregiving. In addition, cultural norms surrounding how faculty and academic leaders discuss and talk about tenure, promotion, and career success have created pressure for women who wish to grow their family and care for their children, leading to questions about whether it is possible for these women to have a family and an academic career. This paper is a call to action for academia to build structures that support professors who are women as they navigate the complexities of pregnancy, the postpartum period, and the caregiving demands of their children. We specifically call on those of us in I-O psychology, management, and related departments to lead the way. In making this call, we first present the realistic, moral, and financial cases for why this issue needs to be at the forefront of discussions surrounding success in the academy. We then discuss how, in the U.S. and elsewhere, an absence of policies supporting women places two groups of academics—department heads (as the leaders of departments who have discretion outside of formal policies to make work better for women) and other faculty members (as potential allies both in the department and within our professional organizations)—in a critical position to enact support and change. We conclude with our boldest call—to make a cultural shift that shatters the assumption that having a family is not compatible with academic success. Combined, we seek to launch a discussion that leads directly to necessary and overdue changes in how women scholars are supported in academia.

Sickness presenteeism among healthcare workers (HCW) risks nosocomial infection, but its prevalence among HCW with COVID-19 is unknown. Contemporaneous interviews revealed a sickness presenteeism prevalence of 49.8% among 255 HCW with symptomatic COVID-19. Presenteeism prevalence did not differ among HCW with and without specific COVID-19 symptoms or direct patient care.

The National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework has prompted a paradigm shift from categorical psychiatric disorders to considering multiple levels of vulnerability for probabilistic risk of disorder. However, the lack of neurodevelopmentally based tools for clinical decision making has limited the real-world impact of the RDoC. Integration with developmental psychopathology principles and statistical methods actualize the clinical implementation of RDoC to inform neurodevelopmental risk. In this conceptual paper, we introduce the probabilistic mental health risk calculator as an innovation for such translation and lay out a research agenda for generating an RDoC- and developmentally informed paradigm that could be applied to predict a range of developmental psychopathologies from early childhood to young adulthood. We discuss methods that weigh the incremental utility for prediction based on intensity and burden of assessment, the addition of developmental change patterns, considerations for assessing outcomes, and integrative data approaches. Throughout, we illustrate the risk calculator approach with different neurodevelopmental pathways and phenotypes. Finally, we discuss real-world implementation of these methods for improving early identification and prevention of developmental psychopathology. We propose that mental health risk calculators can build a needed bridge between the RDoC multiple units of analysis and developmental science.

Substantial progress has been made in the standardization of nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care. In 1936, Maude Abbott published her Atlas of Congenital Cardiac Disease, which was the first formal attempt to classify congenital heart disease. The International Paediatric and Congenital Cardiac Code (IPCCC) is now utilized worldwide and has most recently become the paediatric and congenital cardiac component of the Eleventh Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). The most recent publication of the IPCCC was in 2017. This manuscript provides an updated 2021 version of the IPCCC.

The International Society for Nomenclature of Paediatric and Congenital Heart Disease (ISNPCHD), in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), developed the paediatric and congenital cardiac nomenclature that is now within the eleventh version of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). This unification of IPCCC and ICD-11 is the IPCCC ICD-11 Nomenclature and is the first time that the clinical nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care and the administrative nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care are harmonized. The resultant congenital cardiac component of ICD-11 was increased from 29 congenital cardiac codes in ICD-9 and 73 congenital cardiac codes in ICD-10 to 318 codes submitted by ISNPCHD through 2018 for incorporation into ICD-11. After these 318 terms were incorporated into ICD-11 in 2018, the WHO ICD-11 team added an additional 49 terms, some of which are acceptable legacy terms from ICD-10, while others provide greater granularity than the ISNPCHD thought was originally acceptable. Thus, the total number of paediatric and congenital cardiac terms in ICD-11 is 367. In this manuscript, we describe and review the terminology, hierarchy, and definitions of the IPCCC ICD-11 Nomenclature. This article, therefore, presents a global system of nomenclature for paediatric and congenital cardiac care that unifies clinical and administrative nomenclature.

The members of ISNPCHD realize that the nomenclature published in this manuscript will continue to evolve. The version of the IPCCC that was published in 2017 has evolved and changed, and it is now replaced by this 2021 version. In the future, ISNPCHD will again publish updated versions of IPCCC, as IPCCC continues to evolve.

A multi-disciplinary expert group met to discuss vitamin D deficiency in the UK and strategies for improving population intakes and status. Changes to UK Government advice since the 1st Rank Forum on Vitamin D (2009) were discussed, including rationale for setting a reference nutrient intake (10 µg/d; 400 IU/d) for adults and children (4+ years). Current UK data show inadequate intakes among all age groups and high prevalence of low vitamin D status among specific groups (e.g. pregnant women and adolescent males/females). Evidence of widespread deficiency within some minority ethnic groups, resulting in nutritional rickets (particularly among Black and South Asian infants), raised particular concern. Latest data indicate that UK population vitamin D intakes and status reamain relatively unchanged since Government recommendations changed in 2016. Vitamin D food fortification was discussed as a potential strategy to increase population intakes. Data from dose–response and dietary modelling studies indicate dairy products, bread, hens’ eggs and some meats as potential fortification vehicles. Vitamin D3 appears more effective than vitamin D2 for raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration, which has implications for choice of fortificant. Other considerations for successful fortification strategies include: (i) need for ‘real-world’ cost information for use in modelling work; (ii) supportive food legislation; (iii) improved consumer and health professional understanding of vitamin D’s importance; (iv) clinical consequences of inadequate vitamin D status and (v) consistent communication of Government advice across health/social care professions, and via the food industry. These areas urgently require further research to enable universal improvement in vitamin D intakes and status in the UK population.

ABSTRACT IMPACT: The Independent Investigator Incubator program provides 1:1 mentoring from ‘super-mentors’ to enhance junior faculty careers in research. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: In 2014, the Indiana University School of Medicine (IUSM) in collaboration with the Indiana CTSI established the Independent Investigator Incubator (I3) Program. The I3 Program is designed to provide 1:1 mentoring for new research faculty during the crucial early years of their careers. Our goal is to provide an overview of the I3 design and 5-year data. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The I3 Program employs a resource-sharing, centralized design that provides concentrated 1:1 mentorship from a senior faculty ‘super mentor’ as well as other resources, such as grant writing support. Unlike many mentorship programs, I3 mentors closely interact with the mentees within the School and are compensated for their efforts (5% full-time equivalency per mentee, max of 15%). The number of ‘super mentors’ has grown from 6 to 15 faculty over 5 years, and mentors typically serve 4 to 5 mentees. Mentee applications are accepted on a rolling enrollment basis. The I3 mentees represent a diverse group based on sex, ethnicity, terminal degree, academic track, and discipline. Mentors and mentees have annual reviews through the program. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: In five years, 110 mentees have enrolled in the I3 program. Upon entering, 53% had no external funding, 28% had internal funding, 12% had K-awards, 7% had R03/R21 awards. Over the first five years, 75% have received extramural funding. The median funding was $340,000 with nearly a third of mentees securing grants > 1 million in direct costs. For mentees who joined the program in its first three years (n=59), the average time to a notable extramural grant (defined as a NIH or foundation grant >$300K direct costs) was 2.2 years (median - 2.6 years). Nearly all mentees were satisfied with their mentor pairing based on the mentor’s ‘availability’ and ‘valuable feedback,’ and all mentees wanted the mentoring relationship to continue DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Since 2014, the I3 Program has had a positive impact on the careers of junior faculty at IUSM as determined by faculty satisfaction and funding metrics. Future focus areas will include developing criteria/models for graduating from the program to balance fiscal sustainability with mentee needs during their transition to mid-career.