17 results
Distinguishing between translational science and translational research in CTSA pilot studies: A collaborative project across 12 CTSA hubs
- Margaret Schneider, Amanda Woodworth, Marissa Ericson, Lindsie Boerger, Scott Denne, Pam Dillon, Paul Duguid, Eman Ghanem, Joe Hunt, Jennifer S. Li, Renee McCoy, Nadia Prokofieva, Vonda Rodriguez, Crystal Sparks, Jeffrey Zaleski, Henry Xiang
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 8 / Issue 1 / 2024
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 18 December 2023, e4
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
The institutions (i.e., hubs) making up the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded network of Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) share a mission to turn observations into interventions to improve public health. Recently, the focus of the CTSAs has turned increasingly from translational research (TR) to translational science (TS). The current NIH Funding Opportunity Announcement (PAR-21-293) for CTSAs stipulates that pilot studies funded through the CTSAs must be “focused on understanding a scientific or operational principle underlying a step of the translational process with the goal of developing generalizable solutions to accelerate translational research.” This new directive places Pilot Program administrators in the position of arbiters with the task of distinguishing between TR and TS projects. The purpose of this study was to explore the utility of a set of TS principles set forth by NCATS for distinguishing between TR and TS.
Methods:Twelve CTSA hubs collaborated to generate a list of Translational Science Principles questions. Twenty-nine Pilot Program administrators used these questions to evaluate 26 CTSA-funded pilot studies.
Results:Factor analysis yielded three factors: Generalizability/Efficiency, Disruptive Innovation, and Team Science. The Generalizability/Efficiency factor explained the largest amount of variance in the questions and was significantly able to distinguish between projects that were verified as TS or TR (t = 6.92, p < .001) by an expert panel.
Conclusions:The seven questions in this factor may be useful for informing deliberations regarding whether a study addresses a question that aligns with NCATS’ vision of TS.
134 Comparing Real-World Impacts of Cohorts using the Translational Science Benefits Model
- Part of
- Nicole Miovsky, Amanda Woodworth, Margaret Schneider
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 7 / Issue s1 / April 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 April 2023, pp. 40-41
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM), developed at Washington University in St. Louis, was used to create a survey to collect group-level data on the real-world impacts of research. It was used with two cohorts of CTSA-supported pilot studies to compare the benefits of campus-community partnerships to campus-only projects. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Investigators from two funding streams were surveyed: a campus-based cohort (n=31), and a campus-community partnership cohort (n=6). All studies were related to COVID-19. The Translational Benefits Survey collected quantitative and qualitative data for each of the 30 TSBM benefits, in 4 benefit categories: clinical, community, economic and policy. Text provided by investigators to support each reported benefit was evaluated by two coders through a process that required coder consensus to verify a benefit as realized. Verified benefits were aggregated for each cohort, and the percentage of projects per cohort with realized clinical, community, economic and policy benefits were calculated. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Campus-community partnerships did not realize any clinical benefits, whereas 26% of campus-based projects realized at least one clinical benefit. In contrast, campus-community partnerships were more likely to realize community health benefits (17% vs 10% of campus projects) and economic benefits (17% vs 13% of campus projects). We identified a substantial amount of self-reported benefits (64% across all categories) that were unable to be confirmed as realized using the provided text, which either described activities not relevant to the selected benefit, or lacked critical details needed to verify that the benefit was realized. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This project demonstrates that the TSBM can be utilized to collect group-level data and to compare cohorts’real-world benefits. It also illuminates the need to improve the process for verifying self-reported benefits. Sharing data on these real-world impacts has the potential to convey the strengths of translational science to the public.
402 Developing a rubric to distinguish translational science from translational research in CTSA pilot projects
- Part of
- Pamela Dillon, Renee McCoy, Paul Duguid, Crystal Sparks, Swathi Thaker, Henry Xiang, Lindsie Boerger, Joe Hunt, Scott Denne, Tim McCaffree, Jennifer Lee, Margaret Schneider
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 7 / Issue s1 / April 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 April 2023, p. 120
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of the CTSA consortium is to move scientific discoveries to clinical application. Translational science (TS) focuses on the process by which this happens, and NCATS supports pilot projects that propose TS questions. We are developing a rubric to guide program managers’ability to discriminate between TS and translational research (TR). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CTSA External Review Exchange Consortium (CEREC) and CEREC II are reciprocal review collaborations between CTSA hubs that identify reviewers for each other’s pilot grant applications. CEREC and CEREC II partners developed a 31-item rubric, based on NIH’s Translational Science Principles, for discriminating pilot TS grant applications from those proposing TR. The hubs contributed proposals pre-selected as either TS or TR projects. Then, experienced reviewers and/or program administrators from the hubs used the rubric to score each of the proposals. Reliability of the rubric will be assessed using inter-rater reliability (% agreement and kappa). To identify which of the items in the rubric best discriminate between TS and TR, Item Response Theory analysis will be employed. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Ten CEREC participating hubs submitted 30 applications: 20 TS proposals and 10 TR proposals. Twenty-two reviewers from 12 CEREC hubs evaluated the applications by using the scoring rubric; at least two reviewers evaluated each proposal. The results of the analyses will describe the reliability of the rubric and identify which of the seven TS Principles are most useful for distinguishing between TS and TR pilot grant proposals. Ultimately, this work will yield a scoring rubric that will be disseminated throughout the CTSA network to facilitate the screening of TS applications. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Optimizing research processes is critical to ensure that scientific discoveries are integrated into clinical practice and public health policy as rapidly, efficiently, and equitably as possible. By appropriately identifying and funding TS projects, CTSA hubs can accelerate the impact of clinical and translational research.
Feasibility and acceptability of a structured quality by design approach to enhancing the rigor of clinical studies at an academic health center
- Hamid Moradi, Margaret Schneider, Elani Streja, Dan Cooper
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 5 / Issue 1 / 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 August 2021, e175
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
Clinical trials are a critical step in the meaningful translation of biomedical discoveries into effective diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Quality by design (QbD) is a framework for embedding quality into the design, conduct, and monitoring of clinical trials. Here we report the feasibility and acceptability of a process for implementing QbD in clinical research at an academic health center via multidisciplinary design studios aimed at identifying and prioritizing critical to quality (CTQ) factors.
Methods:The Clinical Trial Transformation Initiative’s Principles Document served as a guide to identify and categorize key CTQ factors, defined as elements of a clinical trial that are critical to patient safety and data integrity. Individual trials were reviewed in CTQ design studios (CTQ-DS) and the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention was examined through post-meeting interviews and surveys.
Results:Eight clinical research protocols underwent the QbD evaluation process. The protocols ranged from multicenter randomized clinical trials to nonrandomized investigator-initiated studies. A developmental evaluation informed the iterative refinement of the CTQ-DS process, and post-meeting surveys revealed that CTQ-DS were highly valued by principal investigators (PIs) and resulted in multiple protocol changes.
Conclusions:The present study demonstrated that QbD principles can be implemented to inform the design and conduct of clinical research at an academic health center using multidisciplinary design studios aimed at identifying and prioritizing CTQ elements. This approach was well received by the participants including study PIs. Future research will need to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach in improving the quality of clinical research.
91348 A mixed methods analysis of hurdles to productivity among T and K awardees
- Margaret Schneider, Lisa Jones, Amanda Woodward
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 5 / Issue s1 / March 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 30 March 2021, p. 68
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
ABSTRACT IMPACT: Recommendations for increasing trainee productivity will be highlighted. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Using a combination of qualitative (interview) and quantitative (publications tracking) data, we undertook to describe the hurdles and concerns impeding academic accomplishments among T and K awardees at one CTSA hub and to examine whether hurdles at 6 months would predict academic output within one year following completion of the training program. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 trainees (28 TL1 and 8 KL2) 6 months into their training. Interview transcripts were analyzed using Atlas.ti to identify hurdles (factors that had already impeded research progress) and concerns (future challenges anticipated by the trainee). PubMed searches yielded the number of publications within one year of exiting the training program. Frequencies of hurdles and concerns were examined to characterize the factors most likely to impact trainee progress during the first 6 months of their training program. Among 18 trainees who had completed their training, the mean number of publications within one year of exiting the program (identified via verified PubMed searches) was compared across the total number of hurdles reported at 6 months (range = 0 to 3). RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The thematic analysis yielded 19 categories of hurdles and 14 categories of concerns. The top three hurdles were technological challenges (e.g., issues with equipment or data reduction; reported by 63% of trainees), professional competing responsibilities (40%), and navigating collaborations (30%). The top three concerns were future funding (33%), potential as an independent researcher (27%), and institutional context (e.g., departmental structure; 23%). The number of hurdles reported at 6 months significantly predicted number of publications one year post-exit (F (3,14) = 3.14, p < .05). Trainees reporting zero hurdles generated a mean of 8.67 publications; those with 3 hurdles generated a mean of 2.4 publications. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Future concerns were completely different from past hurdles, suggesting that the issues impeding research progress are not anticipated. Results suggest trainees would benefit from training related to how to balance competing professional responsibilities and navigate collaborations and that early attention to hurdles may enhance productivity.
Biodiversity conservation as infectious disease prevention: why a social-ecological perspective is essential
- Florian D. Schneider, Denise Margaret Matias, Stefanie Burkhart, Lukas Drees, Thomas Fickel, Diana Hummel, Stefan Liehr, Engelbert Schramm, Marion Mehring
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 4 / 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 15 March 2021, e13
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
Investing in stricter biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection to reduce the number of emerging diseases and, consequently, the risk of pandemics such as coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), must integrate a social-ecological perspective. Biodiversity conservation, in order to be effective as disease prevention, requires consideration of people's needs, knowledge and institutions within their locally specific contexts. To meet this goal, future biodiversity research and conservation policy should apply six social-ecological principles for shaping future practices of co-existence of societies and nature.
Technical summaryThe COVID-19 pandemic, presumably originating in a spillover event from natural wildlife reservoirs into the human population, sets a new benchmark for the indirect cost of biodiversity exploitation. To reverse the trend of increasing pandemic risk, biodiversity conservation and wildlife protection must be strengthened globally. In this paper, we argue that such preventive measures explicitly need to employ a social-ecological approach. In particular, attention must be paid to the societal relations to nature to avoid falling for simplistic solutions that neglect regional and local particularities of both, biodiversity and local communities. We emphasize the importance of avoiding a Western-biased view and acknowledging the factors and causations of infectious disease emergence in industrialized countries. To reduce the emergence of zoonotic and vector-borne diseases in their specific contexts, we propose applying a social-ecological systems approach by integrating plural local knowledge and values, established practices, formal and informal institutions, as well as technology. We further introduce six social-ecological principles for shaping transformations in the Anthropocene to maintain and build more resilient and sustainable communities. By operationalizing these inter- and transdisciplinary principles, biodiversity conservation can be effectively implemented as infectious disease prevention.
Social media summaryA social-ecological approach to biodiversity conservation can pave the way for an effective and socially just reduction of future pandemic risks.
The CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium (CEREC): Engagement and efficacy
- Margaret Schneider, April Bagaporo, Jennifer A. Croker, Adam Davidson, Pam Dillon, Aileen Dinkjian, Madeline Gibson, Nia Indelicato, Amy J. Jenkins, Tanya Mathew, Renee McCoy, Hardeep Ranu, Kai Zheng
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue 6 / December 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 October 2019, pp. 325-331
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
Many institutions evaluate applications for local seed funding by recruiting peer reviewers from their own institutional community. Smaller institutions, however, often face difficulty locating qualified local reviewers who are not in conflict with the proposal. As a larger pool of reviewers may be accessed through a cross-institutional collaborative process, nine Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs formed a consortium in 2016 to facilitate reviewer exchanges. Data were collected to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the consortium.
Methods:The CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium (CEREC) has been supported by a custom-built web-based application that facilitates the process and tracks the efficiency and productivity of the exchange.
Results:All nine of the original CEREC members remain actively engaged in the exchange. Between January 2017 and May 2019, CEREC supported the review process for 23 individual calls for proposals. Out of the 412 reviews requested, 368 were received, for a fulfillment ratio of 89.3%. The yield on reviewer invitations has remained consistently high, with approximately one-third of invitations being accepted, and of the reviewers who agreed to provide a review, 88.3% submitted a complete review. Surveys of reviewers and pilot program administrators indicate high satisfaction with the process.
Conclusions:These data indicate that a reviewer exchange consortium is feasible, adds value to participating partners, and is sustainable over time.
2286 A CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium: Description and lessons learned
- Margaret Schneider, Tanya Mathew, Madeline Gibson, Christine Zeller, Hardeep Ranu, Adam Davidson, Pamela Dillon, Nia Indelicato, Aileen Dinkjian
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 2 / Issue S1 / June 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 November 2018, p. 2
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To share the experience gained and lessons learned from a cross CTSA collaborative effort to improve the review process for Pilot Studies awards by exchanging external reviewers. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The CEREC process is managed by a web-based tracking system that enables all participating members to view at any time the status of reviewer invitations. This online tracking system is supplemented by monthly conference calls during which new calls for proposals are announced and best practices are identified. Each CTSA hub customized the CEREC model based on their individual pilot program needs and review process. Some hubs have supplemented their internal reviews by only posting proposals on CEREC that lack reviewers with significant expertise within their institutions. Other hubs have requested 1–3 external reviewers for each of their proposals or a selection of most promising proposals. In anticipation of potential scoring discrepancies, several hubs added a self-assessment of reviewer expertise and confidence at the end of each review. If a proposal is on the cusp of fundability, then the reviewers’ self-assessment may be taken into account. In addition to the tracking data collected by the online system, a survey of CEREC reviewers was conducted using Qualtrics. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Across the 144 proposals submitted for reviews, CEREC members issued a total of 396 email invitations to potential reviewers. The number of invitations required to yield a reviewer ranged from 1 to 17. A total of 224 invitations were accepted, for a response rate of 56%. An external reviewer was unable to be located for 5 proposals (3%). Ultimately, 196 completed reviews were submitted, for a completion rate of 87%. The most common reasons for non-completion after acceptance of an invitation included reviewer illness and discovery of a conflict of interest. CEREC members found the process extremely useful for locating qualified reviewers who were not in conflict with the proposal being reviewed and for identifying reviewers for proposals related to highly specialized topics. The survey of CEREC reviewers found that they generally found the process easy to navigate and intellectually rewarding. Most would be willing to review additional CEREC proposals in the future. External reviewer comments and scores were generally in agreement with internal reviewer comments and scores. Thus, hubs could factor in external reviewer scores equally to internal reviewer scores, without feeling compelled to calibrate external reviewer scores. Overall, through CEREC external reviewers, mainly due to the stronger matching of scientific expertise and reduction of potential bias, the quality of reviews appear to be higher and more pertinent. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Some aspects of the process emerged that will be addressed in the future to make the system more efficient. One issue that arose was the burden on the system during multiple simultaneous calls for proposals. Future plans call for harmonizing review cycles to avoid these overlaps. Efficiency also will be improved by optimizing the timing of reviewer invitations to minimize the probability of obtaining more reviews than requested. In addition to the original objective of CEREC, the collaboration has led to additional exchange of information regarding methods and processes related to running the Pilot Funding programs. For example, one site developed a method using REDCap to manage their reviewer database; an innovation that is being shared with the other CEREC partners. Another site has a well-developed process for integrating community reviewers into their review process and is sharing their training materials with the remaining CEREC partners.
Exploring the potential role of community engagement in evaluating clinical and translational science grant proposals
- Jeffrey W. Treem, Margaret Schneider, Robynn L. Zender, Dara H. Sorkin
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 2 / Issue 3 / June 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 18 September 2018, pp. 139-146
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Introduction
This study explored the effects of integrating community members into the evaluation of clinical and translational science grants.
MethodsThe University of California, Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) engaged 21 community reviewers alongside scientific reviewers in a 2-stage process of evaluating research proposals. In Stage 1 reviewers scored proposals, and during Stage 2 two study sections convened: one a mix of community reviewers and scientific reviewers, and one only engaging scientific reviewers. In total, 4 studies were discussed by both study sections.
ResultsComparisons of reviews revealed little difference between ratings of community reviewers and those of scientific reviewers, and that community reviewers largely refrained from critiquing scientific or technical aspects of proposals.
ConclusionsThe findings suggest that involving community reviewers early in the grant cycle, and exposing them to the entirety of the review process, can bolster community engagement without compromising the rigor of grant evaluations.
Using Timely Survey-Based Information Networks to Collect Data on Best Practices for Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response: Illustrative Case From the American College of Emergency Physicians’ Ebola Surveys
- Mahshid Abir, Melinda Moore, Margaret Chamberlin, Kristi L. Koenig, Jon Mark Hirshon, Cynthia Singh, Sandra Schneider, Stephen Cantrill
-
- Journal:
- Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness / Volume 10 / Issue 4 / August 2016
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 June 2016, pp. 681-690
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective
Using the example of surveys conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) regarding the management of Ebola cases in the United States, we aimed to demonstrate how survey-based information networks can provide timely data to inform best practices in responding to public health emergencies.
MethodsACEP conducted 3 surveys among its members in October to November 2014 to assess the state of Ebola preparedness in emergency departments. We analyzed the surveys to illustrate the types of information that can be gleaned from such surveys. We analyzed qualitative data through theme extraction and collected quantitative results through cross-tabulations and logistic regression examining associations between outcomes and potential contributing factors.
ResultsIn the first survey, most respondents perceived their hospital as being reasonably prepared for Ebola. The second survey revealed significant associations between a hospital’s preparedness and its perceived ability to admit Ebola patients. The third survey identified 3 hospital characteristics that were significantly and independently associated with perceived ability to admit Ebola patients: large size, previous Ebola screening experience, and physician- and nurse-led hospital preparedness.
ConclusionProfessional associations can use their member networks to collect timely survey data to inform best practices during and immediately after public health emergencies. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:681–690)
The Medical Traumatic Stress Toolkit
- Margaret L. Stuber, Stephanie Schneider, Nancy Kassam-Adams, Anne E. Kazak, Glenn Saxe
-
- Journal:
- CNS Spectrums / Volume 11 / Issue 2 / February 2006
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 07 November 2014, pp. 137-142
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Children and their parents who are exposed to medical life-threat due to illness or injury are at risk for developing symptoms of posttraumatic stress. However, the prevention, detection, and treatment needed are often not available in the acute care settings of the hospital. The National Child Traumatic Stress Network and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration have created a set of materials for use by hospital health providers and families that is available for download free from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network website, www.nctsn.org.
Newly Seen Debris Disks from the HST NICMOS Archive
- Marshall D. Perrin, Elodie Choquet, Christine Chen, John Debes, David Golimowski, J. Brendan Hagan, Dean C. Hines, Tushar Mittal, Margaret Moerchen, Mamadou N'Diaye, Laurent Pueyo, I. Neill Reid, Glenn Schneider, Schuyler Wolff, Remi Soummer
-
- Journal:
- Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union / Volume 8 / Issue S299 / June 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 06 January 2014, pp. 354-355
- Print publication:
- June 2013
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
By reprocessing the NICMOS coronagraphic archive using improved PSF subtraction methods, we have obtained new images of 5 debris disks, all previously unseen using classical PSF subtractions. Three of the disks are edge on and two appear to be ring like, one of which is extremely asymmetric.
Their stellar hosts are nearby, young F and G type stars (40-90 pc, 12–30 Myr), including one that is a close analog to the young sun at roughly the age at which terrestrial planets were assembling. This is a 25% increase in the sample of debris disks seen in scattered light. Analysis and modeling of the disk geometries is in process. Given these systems' youth, proximity, and brightness (V = 7.2 to 8.5), these will be superb targets for investigating planet formation, and are perfect targets for studies with GPI, SPHERE and JWST.
Archival Legacy Investigation of Circumstellar Environments using KLIP algorithm on HST NICMOS coronagraphic data
- Elodie Choquet, J. Brendan Hagan, Laurent Pueyo, Marshall D. Perrin, Dean C. Hines, Christine Chen, Glenn Schneider, John Debes, David Golimowski, Neill Reid, Tushar Mittal, Margaret Moerchen, Mamadou N'Diaye, Abhijith Rajan, Sean Lonsdale, Remi Soummer
-
- Journal:
- Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union / Volume 8 / Issue S299 / June 2013
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 06 January 2014, pp. 30-31
- Print publication:
- June 2013
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
The Archival Legacy Investigation of Circumstellar Environments (ALICE) project (AR-12652) is currently conducting a comprehensive and consistent reprocessing of HST-NICMOS coronagraphic survey data to search for point sources and disks using advanced PSF subtraction. The KLIP algorithm (Karhunen-Loève Image Projection) was developed for this project, and has proven very effective at processing the hundreds of selected archival images. This project has already been very successful with numerous detections of previously unseen point sources and several resolved debris disks that we are currently following up by multiple avenues. We give an overview of the project including preliminary scientific results with companion candidates and improved images of known disks
Association of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein with de novo major depression
- Julie A. Pasco, Geoffrey C. Nicholson, Lana J. Williams, Felice N. Jacka, Margaret J. Henry, Mark A. Kotowicz, Hans G. Schneider, Brian E. Leonard, Michael Berk
-
- Journal:
- The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 197 / Issue 5 / November 2010
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 January 2018, pp. 372-377
- Print publication:
- November 2010
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Although there is cross-sectional evidence that changes in the immune system contribute to the pathophysiology of depression, longitudinal data capable of elucidating cause and effect relationships are lacking.
AimsWe aimed to determine whether subclinical systemic inflammation, as measured by serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) concentration, is associated with an increased risk of de novo major depressive disorder.
MethodMajor depressive disorder was diagnosed using a clinical interview (SCID–I/NP). This is a retrospective cohort study; from a population-based sample of 1494 randomly selected women recruited at baseline during the period 1994–7, 822 were followed for a decade and provided measures of both exposure and outcome. Of these women, 644 (aged 20–84 years) had no prior history of depression at baseline and were eligible for analysis.
ResultsDuring 5827 person-years of follow-up, 48 cases of de novo major depressive disorder were identified. The hazard ratio (HR) for depression increased by 44% for each standard deviation increase in log-transformed hsCRP (ln-hsCRP) (HR = 1.44, 95% CI 1.04–1.99), after adjusting for weight, smoking and use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Further adjustment for other lifestyle factors, medications and comorbidity failed to explain the observed increased risk for depression.
ConclusionsSerum hsCRP is an independent risk marker for de novo major depressive disorder in women. This supports an aetiological role for inflammatory activity in the pathophysiology of depression.
Contributors
-
- By Rose Teteki Abbey, K. C. Abraham, David Tuesday Adamo, LeRoy H. Aden, Efrain Agosto, Victor Aguilan, Gillian T. W. Ahlgren, Charanjit Kaur AjitSingh, Dorothy B E A Akoto, Giuseppe Alberigo, Daniel E. Albrecht, Ruth Albrecht, Daniel O. Aleshire, Urs Altermatt, Anand Amaladass, Michael Amaladoss, James N. Amanze, Lesley G. Anderson, Thomas C. Anderson, Victor Anderson, Hope S. Antone, María Pilar Aquino, Paula Arai, Victorio Araya Guillén, S. Wesley Ariarajah, Ellen T. Armour, Brett Gregory Armstrong, Atsuhiro Asano, Naim Stifan Ateek, Mahmoud Ayoub, John Alembillah Azumah, Mercedes L. García Bachmann, Irena Backus, J. Wayne Baker, Mieke Bal, Lewis V. Baldwin, William Barbieri, António Barbosa da Silva, David Basinger, Bolaji Olukemi Bateye, Oswald Bayer, Daniel H. Bays, Rosalie Beck, Nancy Elizabeth Bedford, Guy-Thomas Bedouelle, Chorbishop Seely Beggiani, Wolfgang Behringer, Christopher M. Bellitto, Byard Bennett, Harold V. Bennett, Teresa Berger, Miguel A. Bernad, Henley Bernard, Alan E. Bernstein, Jon L. Berquist, Johannes Beutler, Ana María Bidegain, Matthew P. Binkewicz, Jennifer Bird, Joseph Blenkinsopp, Dmytro Bondarenko, Paulo Bonfatti, Riet en Pim Bons-Storm, Jessica A. Boon, Marcus J. Borg, Mark Bosco, Peter C. Bouteneff, François Bovon, William D. Bowman, Paul S. Boyer, David Brakke, Richard E. Brantley, Marcus Braybrooke, Ian Breward, Ênio José da Costa Brito, Jewel Spears Brooker, Johannes Brosseder, Nicholas Canfield Read Brown, Robert F. Brown, Pamela K. Brubaker, Walter Brueggemann, Bishop Colin O. Buchanan, Stanley M. Burgess, Amy Nelson Burnett, J. Patout Burns, David B. Burrell, David Buttrick, James P. Byrd, Lavinia Byrne, Gerado Caetano, Marcos Caldas, Alkiviadis Calivas, William J. Callahan, Salvatore Calomino, Euan K. Cameron, William S. Campbell, Marcelo Ayres Camurça, Daniel F. Caner, Paul E. Capetz, Carlos F. Cardoza-Orlandi, Patrick W. Carey, Barbara Carvill, Hal Cauthron, Subhadra Mitra Channa, Mark D. Chapman, James H. Charlesworth, Kenneth R. Chase, Chen Zemin, Luciano Chianeque, Philip Chia Phin Yin, Francisca H. Chimhanda, Daniel Chiquete, John T. Chirban, Soobin Choi, Robert Choquette, Mita Choudhury, Gerald Christianson, John Chryssavgis, Sejong Chun, Esther Chung-Kim, Charles M. A. Clark, Elizabeth A. Clark, Sathianathan Clarke, Fred Cloud, John B. Cobb, W. Owen Cole, John A Coleman, John J. Collins, Sylvia Collins-Mayo, Paul K. Conkin, Beth A. Conklin, Sean Connolly, Demetrios J. Constantelos, Michael A. Conway, Paula M. Cooey, Austin Cooper, Michael L. Cooper-White, Pamela Cooper-White, L. William Countryman, Sérgio Coutinho, Pamela Couture, Shannon Craigo-Snell, James L. Crenshaw, David Crowner, Humberto Horacio Cucchetti, Lawrence S. Cunningham, Elizabeth Mason Currier, Emmanuel Cutrone, Mary L. Daniel, David D. Daniels, Robert Darden, Rolf Darge, Isaiah Dau, Jeffry C. Davis, Jane Dawson, Valentin Dedji, John W. de Gruchy, Paul DeHart, Wendy J. Deichmann Edwards, Miguel A. De La Torre, George E. Demacopoulos, Thomas de Mayo, Leah DeVun, Beatriz de Vasconcellos Dias, Dennis C. Dickerson, John M. Dillon, Luis Miguel Donatello, Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev, Susanna Drake, Jonathan A. Draper, N. Dreher Martin, Otto Dreydoppel, Angelyn Dries, A. J. Droge, Francis X. D'Sa, Marilyn Dunn, Nicole Wilkinson Duran, Rifaat Ebied, Mark J. Edwards, William H. Edwards, Leonard H. Ehrlich, Nancy L. Eiesland, Martin Elbel, J. Harold Ellens, Stephen Ellingson, Marvin M. Ellison, Robert Ellsberg, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Eldon Jay Epp, Peter C. Erb, Tassilo Erhardt, Maria Erling, Noel Leo Erskine, Gillian R. Evans, Virginia Fabella, Michael A. Fahey, Edward Farley, Margaret A. Farley, Wendy Farley, Robert Fastiggi, Seena Fazel, Duncan S. Ferguson, Helwar Figueroa, Paul Corby Finney, Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, Thomas E. FitzGerald, John R. Fitzmier, Marie Therese Flanagan, Sabina Flanagan, Claude Flipo, Ronald B. Flowers, Carole Fontaine, David Ford, Mary Ford, Stephanie A. Ford, Jim Forest, William Franke, Robert M. Franklin, Ruth Franzén, Edward H. Friedman, Samuel Frouisou, Lorelei F. Fuchs, Jojo M. Fung, Inger Furseth, Richard R. Gaillardetz, Brandon Gallaher, China Galland, Mark Galli, Ismael García, Tharscisse Gatwa, Jean-Marie Gaudeul, Luis María Gavilanes del Castillo, Pavel L. Gavrilyuk, Volney P. Gay, Metropolitan Athanasios Geevargis, Kondothra M. George, Mary Gerhart, Simon Gikandi, Maurice Gilbert, Michael J. Gillgannon, Verónica Giménez Beliveau, Terryl Givens, Beth Glazier-McDonald, Philip Gleason, Menghun Goh, Brian Golding, Bishop Hilario M. Gomez, Michelle A. Gonzalez, Donald K. Gorrell, Roy Gottfried, Tamara Grdzelidze, Joel B. Green, Niels Henrik Gregersen, Cristina Grenholm, Herbert Griffiths, Eric W. Gritsch, Erich S. Gruen, Christoffer H. Grundmann, Paul H. Gundani, Jon P. Gunnemann, Petre Guran, Vidar L. Haanes, Jeremiah M. Hackett, Getatchew Haile, Douglas John Hall, Nicholas Hammond, Daphne Hampson, Jehu J. Hanciles, Barry Hankins, Jennifer Haraguchi, Stanley S. Harakas, Anthony John Harding, Conrad L. Harkins, J. William Harmless, Marjory Harper, Amir Harrak, Joel F. Harrington, Mark W. Harris, Susan Ashbrook Harvey, Van A. Harvey, R. Chris Hassel, Jione Havea, Daniel Hawk, Diana L. Hayes, Leslie Hayes, Priscilla Hayner, S. Mark Heim, Simo Heininen, Richard P. Heitzenrater, Eila Helander, David Hempton, Scott H. Hendrix, Jan-Olav Henriksen, Gina Hens-Piazza, Carter Heyward, Nicholas J. Higham, David Hilliard, Norman A. Hjelm, Peter C. Hodgson, Arthur Holder, M. Jan Holton, Dwight N. Hopkins, Ronnie Po-chia Hsia, Po-Ho Huang, James Hudnut-Beumler, Jennifer S. Hughes, Leonard M. Hummel, Mary E. Hunt, Laennec Hurbon, Mark Hutchinson, Susan E. Hylen, Mary Beth Ingham, H. Larry Ingle, Dale T. Irvin, Jon Isaak, Paul John Isaak, Ada María Isasi-Díaz, Hans Raun Iversen, Margaret C. Jacob, Arthur James, Maria Jansdotter-Samuelsson, David Jasper, Werner G. Jeanrond, Renée Jeffery, David Lyle Jeffrey, Theodore W. Jennings, David H. Jensen, Robin Margaret Jensen, David Jobling, Dale A. Johnson, Elizabeth A. Johnson, Maxwell E. Johnson, Sarah Johnson, Mark D. Johnston, F. Stanley Jones, James William Jones, John R. Jones, Alissa Jones Nelson, Inge Jonsson, Jan Joosten, Elizabeth Judd, Mulambya Peggy Kabonde, Robert Kaggwa, Sylvester Kahakwa, Isaac Kalimi, Ogbu U. Kalu, Eunice Kamaara, Wayne C. Kannaday, Musimbi Kanyoro, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Frank Kaufmann, Léon Nguapitshi Kayongo, Richard Kearney, Alice A. Keefe, Ralph Keen, Catherine Keller, Anthony J. Kelly, Karen Kennelly, Kathi Lynn Kern, Fergus Kerr, Edward Kessler, George Kilcourse, Heup Young Kim, Kim Sung-Hae, Kim Yong-Bock, Kim Yung Suk, Richard King, Thomas M. King, Robert M. Kingdon, Ross Kinsler, Hans G. Kippenberg, Cheryl A. Kirk-Duggan, Clifton Kirkpatrick, Leonid Kishkovsky, Nadieszda Kizenko, Jeffrey Klaiber, Hans-Josef Klauck, Sidney Knight, Samuel Kobia, Robert Kolb, Karla Ann Koll, Heikki Kotila, Donald Kraybill, Philip D. W. Krey, Yves Krumenacker, Jeffrey Kah-Jin Kuan, Simanga R. Kumalo, Peter Kuzmic, Simon Shui-Man Kwan, Kwok Pui-lan, André LaCocque, Stephen E. Lahey, John Tsz Pang Lai, Emiel Lamberts, Armando Lampe, Craig Lampe, Beverly J. Lanzetta, Eve LaPlante, Lizette Larson-Miller, Ariel Bybee Laughton, Leonard Lawlor, Bentley Layton, Robin A. Leaver, Karen Lebacqz, Archie Chi Chung Lee, Marilyn J. Legge, Hervé LeGrand, D. L. LeMahieu, Raymond Lemieux, Bill J. Leonard, Ellen M. Leonard, Outi Leppä, Jean Lesaulnier, Nantawan Boonprasat Lewis, Henrietta Leyser, Alexei Lidov, Bernard Lightman, Paul Chang-Ha Lim, Carter Lindberg, Mark R. Lindsay, James R. Linville, James C. Livingston, Ann Loades, David Loades, Jean-Claude Loba-Mkole, Lo Lung Kwong, Wati Longchar, Eleazar López, David W. Lotz, Andrew Louth, Robin W. Lovin, William Luis, Frank D. Macchia, Diarmaid N. J. MacCulloch, Kirk R. MacGregor, Marjory A. MacLean, Donald MacLeod, Tomas S. Maddela, Inge Mager, Laurenti Magesa, David G. Maillu, Fortunato Mallimaci, Philip Mamalakis, Kä Mana, Ukachukwu Chris Manus, Herbert Robinson Marbury, Reuel Norman Marigza, Jacqueline Mariña, Antti Marjanen, Luiz C. L. Marques, Madipoane Masenya (ngwan'a Mphahlele), Caleb J. D. Maskell, Steve Mason, Thomas Massaro, Fernando Matamoros Ponce, András Máté-Tóth, Odair Pedroso Mateus, Dinis Matsolo, Fumitaka Matsuoka, John D'Arcy May, Yelena Mazour-Matusevich, Theodore Mbazumutima, John S. McClure, Christian McConnell, Lee Martin McDonald, Gary B. McGee, Thomas McGowan, Alister E. McGrath, Richard J. McGregor, John A. McGuckin, Maud Burnett McInerney, Elsie Anne McKee, Mary B. McKinley, James F. McMillan, Ernan McMullin, Kathleen E. McVey, M. Douglas Meeks, Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, Ilie Melniciuc-Puica, Everett Mendoza, Raymond A. Mentzer, William W. Menzies, Ina Merdjanova, Franziska Metzger, Constant J. Mews, Marvin Meyer, Carol Meyers, Vasile Mihoc, Gunner Bjerg Mikkelsen, Maria Inêz de Castro Millen, Clyde Lee Miller, Bonnie J. Miller-McLemore, Alexander Mirkovic, Paul Misner, Nozomu Miyahira, R. W. L. Moberly, Gerald Moede, Aloo Osotsi Mojola, Sunanda Mongia, Rebeca Montemayor, James Moore, Roger E. Moore, Craig E. Morrison O.Carm, Jeffry H. Morrison, Keith Morrison, Wilson J. Moses, Tefetso Henry Mothibe, Mokgethi Motlhabi, Fulata Moyo, Henry Mugabe, Jesse Ndwiga Kanyua Mugambi, Peggy Mulambya-Kabonde, Robert Bruce Mullin, Pamela Mullins Reaves, Saskia Murk Jansen, Heleen L. Murre-Van den Berg, Augustine Musopole, Isaac M. T. Mwase, Philomena Mwaura, Cecilia Nahnfeldt, Anne Nasimiyu Wasike, Carmiña Navia Velasco, Thulani Ndlazi, Alexander Negrov, James B. Nelson, David G. Newcombe, Carol Newsom, Helen J. Nicholson, George W. E. Nickelsburg, Tatyana Nikolskaya, Damayanthi M. A. Niles, Bertil Nilsson, Nyambura Njoroge, Fidelis Nkomazana, Mary Beth Norton, Christian Nottmeier, Sonene Nyawo, Anthère Nzabatsinda, Edward T. Oakes, Gerald O'Collins, Daniel O'Connell, David W. Odell-Scott, Mercy Amba Oduyoye, Kathleen O'Grady, Oyeronke Olajubu, Thomas O'Loughlin, Dennis T. Olson, J. Steven O'Malley, Cephas N. Omenyo, Muriel Orevillo-Montenegro, César Augusto Ornellas Ramos, Agbonkhianmeghe E. Orobator, Kenan B. Osborne, Carolyn Osiek, Javier Otaola Montagne, Douglas F. Ottati, Anna May Say Pa, Irina Paert, Jerry G. Pankhurst, Aristotle Papanikolaou, Samuele F. Pardini, Stefano Parenti, Peter Paris, Sung Bae Park, Cristián G. Parker, Raquel Pastor, Joseph Pathrapankal, Daniel Patte, W. Brown Patterson, Clive Pearson, Keith F. Pecklers, Nancy Cardoso Pereira, David Horace Perkins, Pheme Perkins, Edward N. Peters, Rebecca Todd Peters, Bishop Yeznik Petrossian, Raymond Pfister, Peter C. Phan, Isabel Apawo Phiri, William S. F. Pickering, Derrick G. Pitard, William Elvis Plata, Zlatko Plese, John Plummer, James Newton Poling, Ronald Popivchak, Andrew Porter, Ute Possekel, James M. Powell, Enos Das Pradhan, Devadasan Premnath, Jaime Adrían Prieto Valladares, Anne Primavesi, Randall Prior, María Alicia Puente Lutteroth, Eduardo Guzmão Quadros, Albert Rabil, Laurent William Ramambason, Apolonio M. Ranche, Vololona Randriamanantena Andriamitandrina, Lawrence R. Rast, Paul L. Redditt, Adele Reinhartz, Rolf Rendtorff, Pål Repstad, James N. Rhodes, John K. Riches, Joerg Rieger, Sharon H. Ringe, Sandra Rios, Tyler Roberts, David M. Robinson, James M. Robinson, Joanne Maguire Robinson, Richard A. H. Robinson, Roy R. Robson, Jack B. Rogers, Maria Roginska, Sidney Rooy, Rev. Garnett Roper, Maria José Fontelas Rosado-Nunes, Andrew C. Ross, Stefan Rossbach, François Rossier, John D. Roth, John K. Roth, Phillip Rothwell, Richard E. Rubenstein, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Markku Ruotsila, John E. Rybolt, Risto Saarinen, John Saillant, Juan Sanchez, Wagner Lopes Sanchez, Hugo N. Santos, Gerhard Sauter, Gloria L. Schaab, Sandra M. Schneiders, Quentin J. Schultze, Fernando F. Segovia, Turid Karlsen Seim, Carsten Selch Jensen, Alan P. F. Sell, Frank C. Senn, Kent Davis Sensenig, Damían Setton, Bal Krishna Sharma, Carolyn J. Sharp, Thomas Sheehan, N. Gerald Shenk, Christian Sheppard, Charles Sherlock, Tabona Shoko, Walter B. Shurden, Marguerite Shuster, B. Mark Sietsema, Batara Sihombing, Neil Silberman, Clodomiro Siller, Samuel Silva-Gotay, Heikki Silvet, John K. Simmons, Hagith Sivan, James C. Skedros, Abraham Smith, Ashley A. Smith, Ted A. Smith, Daud Soesilo, Pia Søltoft, Choan-Seng (C. S.) Song, Kathryn Spink, Bryan Spinks, Eric O. Springsted, Nicolas Standaert, Brian Stanley, Glen H. Stassen, Karel Steenbrink, Stephen J. Stein, Andrea Sterk, Gregory E. Sterling, Columba Stewart, Jacques Stewart, Robert B. Stewart, Cynthia Stokes Brown, Ken Stone, Anne Stott, Elizabeth Stuart, Monya Stubbs, Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, David Kwang-sun Suh, Scott W. Sunquist, Keith Suter, Douglas Sweeney, Charles H. Talbert, Shawqi N. Talia, Elsa Tamez, Joseph B. Tamney, Jonathan Y. Tan, Yak-Hwee Tan, Kathryn Tanner, Feiya Tao, Elizabeth S. Tapia, Aquiline Tarimo, Claire Taylor, Mark Lewis Taylor, Bishop Abba Samuel Wolde Tekestebirhan, Eugene TeSelle, M. Thomas Thangaraj, David R. Thomas, Andrew Thornley, Scott Thumma, Marcelo Timotheo da Costa, George E. “Tink” Tinker, Ola Tjørhom, Karen Jo Torjesen, Iain R. Torrance, Fernando Torres-Londoño, Archbishop Demetrios [Trakatellis], Marit Trelstad, Christine Trevett, Phyllis Trible, Johannes Tromp, Paul Turner, Robert G. Tuttle, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Peter Tyler, Anders Tyrberg, Justin Ukpong, Javier Ulloa, Camillus Umoh, Kristi Upson-Saia, Martina Urban, Monica Uribe, Elochukwu Eugene Uzukwu, Richard Vaggione, Gabriel Vahanian, Paul Valliere, T. J. Van Bavel, Steven Vanderputten, Peter Van der Veer, Huub Van de Sandt, Louis Van Tongeren, Luke A. Veronis, Noel Villalba, Ramón Vinke, Tim Vivian, David Voas, Elena Volkova, Katharina von Kellenbach, Elina Vuola, Timothy Wadkins, Elaine M. Wainwright, Randi Jones Walker, Dewey D. Wallace, Jerry Walls, Michael J. Walsh, Philip Walters, Janet Walton, Jonathan L. Walton, Wang Xiaochao, Patricia A. Ward, David Harrington Watt, Herold D. Weiss, Laurence L. Welborn, Sharon D. Welch, Timothy Wengert, Traci C. West, Merold Westphal, David Wetherell, Barbara Wheeler, Carolinne White, Jean-Paul Wiest, Frans Wijsen, Terry L. Wilder, Felix Wilfred, Rebecca Wilkin, Daniel H. Williams, D. Newell Williams, Michael A. Williams, Vincent L. Wimbush, Gabriele Winkler, Anders Winroth, Lauri Emílio Wirth, James A. Wiseman, Ebba Witt-Brattström, Teofil Wojciechowski, John Wolffe, Kenman L. Wong, Wong Wai Ching, Linda Woodhead, Wendy M. Wright, Rose Wu, Keith E. Yandell, Gale A. Yee, Viktor Yelensky, Yeo Khiok-Khng, Gustav K. K. Yeung, Angela Yiu, Amos Yong, Yong Ting Jin, You Bin, Youhanna Nessim Youssef, Eliana Yunes, Robert Michael Zaller, Valarie H. Ziegler, Barbara Brown Zikmund, Joyce Ann Zimmerman, Aurora Zlotnik, Zhuo Xinping
- Edited by Daniel Patte, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity
- Published online:
- 05 August 2012
- Print publication:
- 20 September 2010, pp xi-xliv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Do Circadian Rhythms Affect Adult Age-Related Differences in Auditory Performance?
- Payam Ezzatian, Margaret Kathleen Pichora-Fuller, Bruce A. Schneider
-
- Journal:
- Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement / Volume 29 / Issue 2 / June 2010
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 April 2010, pp. 215-221
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Time-of-day effects have been identified as a possible confound in research on age-related differences in cognitive performance. Circadian rhythms have been related to time-of-day variations in sensory measures; however, more is known about the effect of circadian rhythms on vision than on hearing, and virtually nothing is known about whether time-of-day effects are potential confounds in studies of auditory aging. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether age-related differences in performance on auditory tasks are affected by time of day. A set of four auditory experiments was repeated three times over the course of one day with a group of Evening-type younger adults and a group of Morning-type older adults. The results replicated previous findings of age-related differences, but time of day did not affect the basic results. Thus, time of day does not confound the results observed in typical laboratory experiments investigating auditory aging.
Immunological Identification of Small-Mammal Proteins on Aboriginal Milling Equipment
- Robert M. Yohe II, Margaret E. Newman, Joan S. Schneider
-
- Journal:
- American Antiquity / Volume 56 / Issue 4 / October 1991
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 January 2017, pp. 659-666
- Print publication:
- October 1991
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Ethnographic accounts of animal pulverization using stone grinding implements have led archaeologists to believe that this same behavior took place in the past. This important subsistence activity can now be confirmed through the immunological analysis of archaeological materials. Small-mammal blood-protein residue has been identified immunologically for the first time on milling equipment from two archaeological sites in southern California. Immunoprotein trace analysis has the potential for a wide range of applications in the study of prehistory.