Background: Pain in a common symptom in adult-onset idiopathic dystonia (AOID). An appropriate tool to understand this symptom is needed to improve AOID patients’ care. We developed a rating instrument for pain in AOID and validated it in cervical dystonia (CD). Methods: Development and validation of the Pain in Dystonia Scale (PIDS) in three phases: 1. International experts and participants generated and evaluated the preliminary items for content validity; 2. The PIDS was drafted and revised, followed by cognitive interviews to ensure suitability for self-administration; and 3. the clinimetric properties of the final PIDS were assessed in 85 participants. Results: PIDS evaluates pain severity (by body part), functional impact and external modulating factors. It showed high test-retest reliability the total score (0.9, p<0.001), intraclass correlation coefficients higher than 0.7 for all items and high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha 0.9). Convergent validity analysis revealed a strong correlation between the PIDS severity score and the TWSTRS pain subscale (0.8, p<0.001), the brief pain inventory short form (0.7, p<0.001) and impact of pain on daily functioning (0.7, p<0.001). Conclusions: The PIDS is the first specific questionnaire developed to evaluate pain in patients with AOID with high-level clinimetric properties in people with CD.

We present a timeseries of 14CO2 for the period 1910–2021 recorded by annual plants collected in the southwestern United States, centered near Flagstaff, Arizona. This timeseries is dominated by five commonly occurring annual plant species in the region, which is considered broadly representative of the southern Colorado Plateau. Most samples (1910–2015) were previously archived herbarium specimens, with additional samples harvested from field experiments in 2015–2021. We used this novel timeseries to develop a smoothed local record with uncertainties for “bomb spike” 14C dating of recent terrestrial organic matter. Our results highlight the potential importance of local records, as we document a delayed arrival of the 1963–1964 bomb spike peak, lower values in the 1980s, and elevated values in the last decade in comparison to the most current Northern Hemisphere Zone 2 record. It is impossible to retroactively collect atmospheric samples, but archived annual plants serve as faithful scribes: samples from herbaria around the Earth may be an under-utilized resource to improve understanding of the modern carbon cycle.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shone a spotlight on how health outcomes are unequally distributed among different population groups, with disadvantaged communities and individuals being disproportionality affected in terms of infection, morbidity and mortality, as well as vaccine access. Recently, there has been considerable debate about how social disadvantage and inequality intersect with developmental processes to result in a heightened susceptibility to environmental stressors, economic shocks and large-scale health emergencies. We argue that DOHaD Society members can make important contributions to addressing issues of inequality and improving community resilience in response to COVID-19. In order to do so, it is beneficial to engage with and adopt a social justice framework. We detail how DOHaD can align its research and policy recommendations with a social justice perspective to ensure that we contribute to improving the health of present and future generations in an equitable and socially just way.

Wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum L.) is a weed found globally in agricultural systems. The facultative winter annual nature of this plant and high genetic variability makes modeling its growth and phenology difficult. In the present study, R. raphanistrum natural seedbanks exhibited a biphasic pattern of emergence, with emergence peaks occurring in both fall and spring. Traditional sigmoidal models were inadequate to fit this pattern, regardless of the predictive environmental variable, and a corresponding biphasic model (sigmoidal + Weibull) was used to describe emergence based on the best parameters. Each best-fit chronological, thermal, and hydrothermal model accounted for at least 85% of the variation of the validation data. Observations on phenology progression from four cohorts were used to create a common model that described all cohorts adequately. Different phenological stages were described using chronological, thermal, hydrothermal, daylength-dependent thermal time, and daylength-dependent hydrothermal time. Integrating daylength and temperature into the models was important for predicting reproductive stages of R. raphanistrum.

This project will work closely with existing service partners involved in street level services and focus on testing and evaluating three approaches for street level interventions for youth who are homeless and who have severe or moderate mentally illness. Youth will be asked to choose their preferred service approach:

Housing First related initiatives focused on interventions designed to move youth to appropriate and available housing and ongoing housing supports.

Treatment First initiatives to provide Mental Health/Addiction supports and treatment solutions, and; Simultaneous attention to both Housing and Treatment Together

Our primary objective is to understand the service delivery preferences of homeless youth and understand the outcomes of these choices. Our research questions include:

1. 1. Which approaches to service are chosen by youth?

2. 2. What are the differences and similarities between groups choosing each approach?

3. 3. What are the critical ingredients needed to effectively implement services for homeless youth from the perspectives of youth, families and service providers?

Focus groups with staff and family members will occur to assist in understanding the nature of each of service approach, changes that evolve within services, & facilitators and barriers to service delivery. This work will be important in determining which approach is chosen by youth and why. Evaluating the outcomes with each choice will provide valuable information about outcomes for the service options chosen by youth. This assist in better identifying weaknesses in the services offered and inform further development of treatment options that youth will accept.

Given the common view that pre-exercise nutrition/breakfast is important for performance, the present study investigated whether breakfast influences resistance exercise performance via a physiological or psychological effect. Twenty-two resistance-trained, breakfast-consuming men completed three experimental trials, consuming water-only (WAT), or semi-solid breakfasts containing 0 g/kg (PLA) or 1·5 g/kg (CHO) maltodextrin. PLA and CHO meals contained xanthan gum and low-energy flavouring (approximately 122 kJ), and subjects were told both ‘contained energy’. At 2 h post-meal, subjects completed four sets of back squat and bench press to failure at 90 % ten repetition maximum. Blood samples were taken pre-meal, 45 min and 105 min post-meal to measure serum/plasma glucose, insulin, ghrelin, glucagon-like peptide-1 and peptide tyrosine-tyrosine concentrations. Subjective hunger/fullness was also measured. Total back squat repetitions were greater in CHO (44 (sd 10) repetitions) and PLA (43 (sd 10) repetitions) than WAT (38 (sd 10) repetitions; P < 0·001). Total bench press repetitions were similar between trials (WAT 37 (sd 7) repetitions; CHO 39 (sd 7) repetitions; PLA 38 (sd 7) repetitions; P = 0·130). Performance was similar between CHO and PLA trials. Hunger was suppressed and fullness increased similarly in PLA and CHO, relative to WAT (P < 0·001). During CHO, plasma glucose was elevated at 45 min (P < 0·05), whilst serum insulin was elevated (P < 0·05) and plasma ghrelin suppressed at 45 and 105 min (P < 0·05). These results suggest that breakfast/pre-exercise nutrition enhances resistance exercise performance via a psychological effect, although a potential mediating role of hunger cannot be discounted.

Following publication, errors were discovered in the y-axis labels of the electron and hole concentration plots in the following figure panels: figure 4c, figure 4d, figure 5c, figure 5d, figure 6c, figure 6d, figure 8c and figure 8d. The error does not affect the description, analysis or conclusions. The correct representation of the figure panels are shown here.

Introduction: Although use of point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) protocols for patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the Emergency Department (ED) is widespread, our previously reported SHoC-ED study showed no clear survival or length of stay benefit for patients assessed with PoCUS. In this analysis, we examine if the use of PoCUS changed fluid administration and rates of other emergency interventions between patients with different shock types. The primary comparison was between cardiogenic and non-cardiogenic shock types. Methods: A post-hoc analysis was completed on the database from an RCT of 273 patients who presented to the ED with undifferentiated hypotension (SBP <100 or shock index > 1) and who had been randomized to receive standard care with or without PoCUS in 6 centres in Canada and South Africa. PoCUS-trained physicians performed scans after initial assessment. Shock categories and diagnoses recorded at 60 minutes after ED presentation, were used to allocate patients into subcategories of shock for analysis of treatment. We analyzed actual care delivered including initial IV fluid bolus volumes (mL), rates of inotrope use and major procedures. Standard statistical tests were employed. Sample size was powered at 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate difference. Results: Although there were expected differences in the mean fluid bolus volume between patients with non-cardiogenic and cardiogenic shock, there was no difference in fluid bolus volume between the control and PoCUS groups (non-cardiogenic control 1878 mL (95% CI 1550 – 2206 mL) vs. non-cardiogenic PoCUS 1687 mL (1458 – 1916 mL); and cardiogenic control 768 mL (194 – 1341 mL) vs. cardiogenic PoCUS 981 mL (341 – 1620 mL). Likewise there were no differences in rates of inotrope administration, or major procedures for any of the subcategories of shock between the control group and PoCUS group patients. The most common subcategory of shock was distributive. Conclusion: Despite differences in care delivered by subcategory of shock, we did not find any significant difference in actual care delivered between patients who were examined using PoCUS and those who were not. This may help to explain the previously reported lack of outcome difference between groups.

Introduction: Point of care ultrasound has been reported to improve diagnosis in non-traumatic hypotensive ED patients. We compared diagnostic performance of physicians with and without PoCUS in undifferentiated hypotensive patients as part of an international prospective randomized controlled study. The primary outcome was diagnostic performance of PoCUS for cardiogenic vs. non-cardiogenic shock. Methods: SHoC-ED recruited hypotensive patients (SBP < 100 mmHg or shock index > 1) in 6 centres in Canada and South Africa. We describe previously unreported secondary outcomes relating to diagnostic accuracy. Patients were randomized to standard clinical assessment (No PoCUS) or PoCUS groups. PoCUS-trained physicians performed scans after initial assessment. Demographics, clinical details and findings were collected prospectively. Initial and secondary diagnoses including shock category were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes. Final diagnosis was determined by independent blinded chart review. Standard statistical tests were employed. Sample size was powered at 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate difference. Results: 273 patients were enrolled with follow-up for primary outcome completed for 270. Baseline demographics and perceived category of shock were similar between groups. 11% of patients were determined to have cardiogenic shock. PoCUS had a sensitivity of 80.0% (95% CI 54.8 to 93.0%), specificity 95.5% (90.0 to 98.1%), LR+ve 17.9 (7.34 to 43.8), LR-ve 0.21 (0.08 to 0.58), Diagnostic OR 85.6 (18.2 to 403.6) and accuracy 93.7% (88.0 to 97.2%) for cardiogenic shock. Standard assessment without PoCUS had a sensitivity of 91.7% (64.6 to 98.5%), specificity 93.8% (87.8 to 97.0%), LR+ve 14.8 (7.1 to 30.9), LR- of 0.09 (0.01 to 0.58), Diagnostic OR 166.6 (18.7 to 1481) and accuracy of 93.6% (87.8 to 97.2%). There was no significant difference in sensitivity (-11.7% (-37.8 to 18.3%)) or specificity (1.73% (-4.67 to 8.29%)). Diagnostic performance was also similar between other shock subcategories. Conclusion: As reported in other studies, PoCUS based assessment performed well diagnostically in undifferentiated hypotensive patients, especially as a rule-in test. However performance was similar to standard (non-PoCUS) assessment, which was excellent in this study.

Increasing evidence suggests that the presence of mobile ions in perovskite solar cells (PSCs) can cause a current–voltage curve hysteresis. Steady state and transient current–voltage characteristics of a planar metal halide CH3NH3PbI3 PSC are analysed with a drift-diffusion model that accounts for both charge transport and ion vacancy motion. The high ion vacancy density within the perovskite layer gives rise to narrow Debye layers (typical width ~2 nm), adjacent to the interfaces with the transport layers, over which large drops in the electric potential occur and in which significant charge is stored. Large disparities between (I) the width of the Debye layers and that of the perovskite layer (~600 nm) and (II) the ion vacancy density and the charge carrier densities motivate an asymptotic approach to solving the model, while the stiffness of the equations renders standard solution methods unreliable. We derive a simplified surface polarisation model in which the slow ion dynamics are replaced by interfacial (non-linear) capacitances at the perovskite interfaces. Favourable comparison is made between the results of the asymptotic approach and numerical solutions for a realistic cell over a wide range of operating conditions of practical interest.

Absorption coefficient (k), infinite reflectance (Ri), and scattering coefficient (s) were tabulated for five wavelengths and analyzed for statistical differences for seven weed species. The wavelengths were: 0.55 μm, 0.65 μm, 0.85 μm, 1.65 μm, and 2.20 μm. The Ri of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.), johnsongrass [Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers.], and annual sowthistle (Sonchus oleraceus L.) leaves at the 0.85-μm wavelength were significantly (p = 0.05) higher than for sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.), ragweed parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus L.), or London rocket (Sisymbrium irio L.). Annual sowthistle had the largest k value, and Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats.) had the smallest k value at the 0.65-μm chlorophyll absorption wavelength. In general, johnsongrass, ragweed parthenium, or London rocket had the largest s values among the five wavelengths, whereas annual sowthistle and Palmer amaranth were usually lowest.

Introduction: Point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) is an established tool in the initial management of patients with undifferentiated hypotension in the emergency department (ED). While PoCUS protocols have been shown to improve early diagnostic accuracy, there is little published evidence for any mortality benefit. We report the findings from our international multicenter randomized controlled trial, assessing the impact of a PoCUS protocol on survival and key clinical outcomes. Methods: Recruitment occurred at 7 centres in North America (4) and South Africa (3). Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. Screening at triage identified patients (SBP<100 or shock index>1), randomized to PoCUS or control (standard care and no PoCUS) groups. Demographics, clinical details and study findings were collected prospectively. Initial and secondary diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes, with ultrasound performed in the PoCUS group prior to secondary assessment. The primary outcome measure was 30-day/discharge mortality. Secondary outcome measures included diagnostic accuracy, changes in vital signs, acid-base status, and length of stay. Categorical data was analyzed using Fishers test, and continuous data by Student T test and multi-level log-regression testing. (GraphPad/SPSS) Final chart review was blinded to initial impressions and PoCUS findings. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. There was no difference between groups for the primary outcome of mortality; PoCUS 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%) vs. Control 32/129 (24.8%; 95% CI 14.3-35.3%); RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.869 to 1.15; p=1.00). There were no differences in the secondary outcomes; ICU and total length of stay. Our sample size has a power of 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Other secondary outcomes are reported separately. Conclusion: This is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We did not find any mortality or length of stay benefits with the use of a PoCUS protocol, though a larger study is required to confirm these findings. While PoCUS may have diagnostic benefits, these may not translate into a survival benefit effect.

Introduction: Point of Care Ultrasound (PoCUS) protocols are commonly used to guide resuscitation for emergency department (ED) patients with undifferentiated non-traumatic hypotension. While PoCUS has been shown to improve early diagnosis, there is a minimal evidence for any outcome benefit. We completed an international multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the impact of a PoCUS protocol on key resuscitation markers in this group. We report diagnostic impact and mortality elsewhere. Methods: The SHoC-ED1 study compared the addition of PoCUS to standard care within the first hour in the treatment of adult patients presenting with undifferentiated hypotension (SBP<100 mmHg or a Shock Index >1.0) with a control group that did not receive PoCUS. Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. 4 North American, and 3 South African sites participated in the study. Resuscitation outcomes analyzed included volume of fluid administered in the ED, changes in shock index (SI), modified early warning score (MEWS), venous acid-base balance, and lactate, at one and four hours. Comparisons utilized a T-test as well as stratified binomial log-regression to assess for any significant improvement in resuscitation amount the outcomes. Our sample size was powered at 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. There was no significant difference in mean total volume of fluid received between the control (1658 ml; 95%CI 1365-1950) and PoCUS groups (1609 ml; 1385-1832; p=0.79). Significant improvements were seen in SI, MEWS, lactate and bicarbonate with resuscitation in both the PoCUS and control groups, however there was no difference between groups. Conclusion: SHOC-ED1 is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard of care in hypotensive ED patients. No significant difference in fluid used, or markers of resuscitation was found when comparing the use of a PoCUS protocol to that of standard of care in the resuscitation of patients with undifferentiated hypotension.

Introduction: Point of care ultrasonography (PoCUS) is an established tool in the initial management of hypotensive patients in the emergency department (ED). It has been shown rule out certain shock etiologies, and improve diagnostic certainty, however evidence on benefit in the management of hypotensive patients is limited. We report the findings from our international multicenter RCT assessing the impact of a PoCUS protocol on diagnostic accuracy, as well as other key outcomes including mortality, which are reported elsewhere. Methods: Recruitment occurred at 4 North American and 3 Southern African sites. Screening at triage identified patients (SBP<100 mmHg or shock index >1) who were randomized to either PoCUS or control groups. Scans were performed by PoCUS-trained physicians. Demographics, clinical details and findings were collected prospectively. Initial and secondary diagnoses were recorded at 0 and 60 minutes, with ultrasound performed in the PoCUS group prior to secondary assessment. Final chart review was blinded to initial impressions and PoCUS findings. Categorical data was analyzed using Fishers two-tailed test. Our sample size was powered at 0.80 (α:0.05) for a moderate effect size. Results: 258 patients were enrolled with follow-up fully completed. Baseline comparisons confirmed effective randomization. The perceived shock category changed more frequently in the PoCUS group 20/127 (15.7%) vs. control 7/125 (5.6%); RR 2.81 (95% CI 1.23 to 6.42; p=0.0134). There was no significant difference in change of diagnostic impression between groups PoCUS 39/123 (31.7%) vs control 34/124 (27.4%); RR 1.16 (95% CI 0.786 to 1.70; p=0.4879). There was no significant difference in the rate of correct category of shock between PoCUS (118/127; 93%) and control (113/122; 93%); RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.936 to 1.08; p=1.00), or for correct diagnosis; PoCUS 90/127 (70%) vs control 86/122 (70%); RR 0.987 (95% CI 0.671 to 1.45; p=1.00). Conclusion: This is the first RCT to compare PoCUS to standard care for undifferentiated hypotensive ED patients. We found that the use of PoCUS did change physicians’ perceived shock category. PoCUS did not improve diagnostic accuracy for category of shock or diagnosis.