Author Archives: ev1

Audio-Digest Foundation Announces the Release of Oncology Volume 04, Issue 15: Current and Future Treatment of …

Posted on by

Glendale, CA (PRWEB) January 09, 2014

Audio-Digest Foundation Announces the Release of Oncology Volume 04, Issue 15: Current and Future Treatment of Advanced Prostate Cancer.

The goal of this program is to improve the management of advanced prostate cancer. After hearing and assimilating this program, the clinician will be better able to:

1. Choose effective therapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). 2. Recognize the role of androgen suppression in the treatment of CRPC. 3. Compare the benefits and risks of - and -emitting radiopharmaceuticals. 4. Describe the mechanism of action and advantages of fluorodeoxyuridine monophosphate (FdUMP) polymer in cancer treatment. 5. Consider the potential role of agents that target prostate-specific membrane antigen in the treatment of PC.

The original programs were presented by Daniel P. Petrylak, MD, Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, Co-Director, Signal Transduction Research, and Program Head, Prostate and Urologic Cancers Program, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT, and William H. Gmeiner, PhD, Professor, Cancer Biology, Wake Forest University Graduate School, Department of Integrative Physiology and Pharmacology PhD Program, Winston-Salem, NC.

Audio-Digest Foundation, the largest independent publisher of Continuing Medical Education in the world, records over 10,000 hours of lectures every year in anesthesiology, emergency medicine, family practice, gastroenterology, general surgery, internal medicine, neurology, obstetrics/gynecology, oncology, ophthalmology, orthopaedics, otolaryngology, pediatrics, psychology, and urology, by the leading medical researchers at the top laboratories, universities, and institutions.

Recent researchers have hailed from Harvard, Cedars-Sinai, Mayo Clinic, UCSF, The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, The University of Kansas Medical Center, The University of California, San Diego, The University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, The University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and many others.

Out of these cutting-edge programs, Audio-Digest then chooses the most clinically relevant, edits them for clarity, and publishes them either every week or every two weeks.

In addition, Audio-Digest publishes subscription series in conjunction with leading medical societies: DiabetesInsight with The American Diabetes Association, ACCEL with The American College of Cardiology, Continuum Audio with The American Academy of Neurology, and Journal Watch Audio General Medicine with Massachusetts Medical Society.

For 60 years, the global medical community of doctors, nurses, physician assistants, and other medical professionals around the world has subscribed to Audio-Digest specialty series in order to remain current in their specialties as well as to maintain their Continuing Education requirements with the most cutting-edge, independent, and unbiased continuing medical education (CME).

Read more from the original source:
Audio-Digest Foundation Announces the Release of Oncology Volume 04, Issue 15: Current and Future Treatment of ...

Smokers with HIV/AIDS find quitting easier with cell phone counseling – Video

Posted on by


Smokers with HIV/AIDS find quitting easier with cell phone counseling
Download from iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/smokers-hiv-aids-find-quitting/id431848216?i=226272730 A smoking-cessation intervention delivered ...

By: MD Anderson Cancer Center

See the rest here:
Smokers with HIV/AIDS find quitting easier with cell phone counseling - Video

Improved regulations to protect human research subjects would better protecting study participants

Posted on by

Jan. 9, 2014 Proposed updates to federal regulations that protect human research subjects need additional clarification when applied to the social and behavioral sciences, says a new report from the National Research Council. The report reviews an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), issued in July 2011 to strengthen protection for human subjects, and recommends how best to ensure those protections while promoting effective social and behavioral science research and also respecting the different contexts and processes of biomedical research.

Last updated in 1991, the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, popularly known as the Common Rule, outlines basic regulations for participation of human subjects in biomedical and behavioral research. Since that update, however, rapid advances in technology and the increasing volume of data available on individuals have changed the landscape for investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). The ANPRM addresses how the Common Rule may need to be revised to more effectively protect research subjects and promote important research.

To first determine if research activities fall within the scope of the Common Rule, the report recommends that HHS define "human subjects research" as a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge that involves direct interaction or intervention with a living individual or that involves obtaining identifiable private information about an individual. Only research that fits this definition should be subject to IRB procedures and the Common Rule.

Building on this definition, HHS should also clarify that research which relies on publicly available information, information in the public domain, or information that can be observed in public contexts does not meet the definition of human subjects research -- regardless of whether the information is personally identifiable -- as long as individuals whose information is used have no reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes digital data, some types of administrative records, and public-use data files that have been certified as protected against disclosure.

Once defined as "human subjects research," studies should be put in one of three review categories -- excused research, expedited review, or full review -- already outlined in the ANPRM.

Excused research.

The committee that wrote the report supported the ANPRM's proposal for a new "excused" category, where studies do not require IRB review if they involve only informational risk that is no more than minimal. Examples of excused research could include use of pre-existing data with private information, or benign interventions or interactions that involve activities familiar to people in everyday life, such as educational tests, surveys, and focus groups. The report notes that because the primary risk in most social and behavioral research is informational, much of this research would qualify as excused under the new regulations. In line with an ANPRM suggestion, the committee recommended that excused research remain subject to some oversight; investigators should register their study with an IRB, describe consent procedures, and provide a data protection plan. A very small sample of excused studies could be audited, to provide accountability. After it is registered, an excused study could begin within a week.

Expedited review.

As outlined in the ANPRM, research that might otherwise qualify as excused may be subject to expedited review if the study requires more consideration of human subjects protections because of the nature of the research procedures combined with the characteristics of the subject population. HHS should specify that studies with the potential for causing psychological or physical harm to participants but whose risk can be minimized by additional procedures can be subject to expedited review, the report says. The committee recommended that HHS define minimal risk as the probability and magnitude of physical or psychological harm that does not exceed that which is ordinarily encountered in daily life or in the routine medical, psychological, or educational examinations or tests of the general population. Expedited review would be recommended to take no more than two weeks.

Full review.

Read more from the original source:
Improved regulations to protect human research subjects would better protecting study participants

Rome Academy of Sciences seeks nominations for 'Rome Science Hall of Fame'

Posted on by

ROME -- The Rome Academy of Sciences is seeking nominations for the Class of 2014 into the Rome Science Hall of Fame.

The Academy has been given a wall in the City Hall to display the inductees.

The Academys goal is to recognize and honor those persons, past and present, who have contributed substantial achievements in the areas of science and to honor their achievements by entering their names into the Rome Science Hall of Fame.

The science areas under consideration are: behavioral and social sciences, biochemistry, botany, chemistry, computer science, Earth science, engineering, environmental sciences, mathematics, medicine and health, microbiology, physics, space sciences and zoology.

This recognition will be in two parts.

- Upcoming Science Achievement: Given to graduating high school seniors from both RFA and RCS who have shown exceptional attributes towards the sciences.

- Lifetime Achievement: Given to individuals who have demonstrated exceptional contributions to the fields of science over a distinguished career.

In order for an individual to be nominated to the City of Rome Science Hall of Fame, that individual must either have been from the City of Rome or have lived in this area long enough to be considered their hometown and commonly associated with Rome by the general public.

The Upcoming Science Achievement category is bestowed upon graduating seniors from RFA and RCS who have achieved at least a 95 GPA in the sciences and at least a 90 overall GPA. Students must have attended at least two years in a local high school.

The Lifetime Achievement category is bestowed upon individuals who have demonstrated exceptional contributions to the fields of science over a distinguished career. Anyone from the City of Rome can nominate an individual, providing they meet any of the following criteria: Continued...

Go here to read the rest:
Rome Academy of Sciences seeks nominations for 'Rome Science Hall of Fame'

Improved regulations to protect human research subjects would reduce burden on IRBs while better protecting study …

Posted on by

PUBLIC RELEASE DATE:

9-Jan-2014

Contact: Rachel Brody news@nas.edu 202-334-2138 National Academy of Sciences

WASHINGTON Proposed updates to federal regulations that protect human research subjects need additional clarification when applied to the social and behavioral sciences, says a new report from the National Research Council. The report reviews an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), issued in July 2011 to strengthen protection for human subjects, and recommends how best to ensure those protections while promoting effective social and behavioral science research and also respecting the different contexts and processes of biomedical research.

Last updated in 1991, the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, popularly known as the Common Rule, outlines basic regulations for participation of human subjects in biomedical and behavioral research. Since that update, however, rapid advances in technology and the increasing volume of data available on individuals have changed the landscape for investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). The ANPRM addresses how the Common Rule may need to be revised to more effectively protect research subjects and promote important research.

To first determine if research activities fall within the scope of the Common Rule, the report recommends that HHS define "human subjects research" as a systematic investigation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge that involves direct interaction or intervention with a living individual or that involves obtaining identifiable private information about an individual. Only research that fits this definition should be subject to IRB procedures and the Common Rule.

Building on this definition, HHS should also clarify that research which relies on publicly available information, information in the public domain, or information that can be observed in public contexts does not meet the definition of human subjects research -- regardless of whether the information is personally identifiable -- as long as individuals whose information is used have no reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes digital data, some types of administrative records, and public-use data files that have been certified as protected against disclosure.

Once defined as "human subjects research," studies should be put in one of three review categories excused research, expedited review, or full review already outlined in the ANPRM.

Excused research. The committee that wrote the report supported the ANPRM's proposal for a new "excused" category, where studies do not require IRB review if they involve only informational risk that is no more than minimal. Examples of excused research could include use of pre-existing data with private information, or benign interventions or interactions that involve activities familiar to people in everyday life, such as educational tests, surveys, and focus groups. The report notes that because the primary risk in most social and behavioral research is informational, much of this research would qualify as excused under the new regulations. In line with an ANPRM suggestion, the committee recommended that excused research remain subject to some oversight; investigators should register their study with an IRB, describe consent procedures, and provide a data protection plan. A very small sample of excused studies could be audited, to provide accountability. After it is registered, an excused study could begin within a week.

Expedited review. As outlined in the ANPRM, research that might otherwise qualify as excused may be subject to expedited review if the study requires more consideration of human subjects protections because of the nature of the research procedures combined with the characteristics of the subject population. HHS should specify that studies with the potential for causing psychological or physical harm to participants but whose risk can be minimized by additional procedures can be subject to expedited review, the report says. The committee recommended that HHS define minimal risk as the probability and magnitude of physical or psychological harm that does not exceed that which is ordinarily encountered in daily life or in the routine medical, psychological, or educational examinations or tests of the general population. Expedited review would be recommended to take no more than two weeks.

Read the original:
Improved regulations to protect human research subjects would reduce burden on IRBs while better protecting study ...

The Doctor Is in the House; Dr. Dr. Teresa Sievers Announced as New Spokesperson for Flexcin International, Inc.

Posted on by

Ft. Myers, Florida (PRWEB) January 10, 2014

Flexcin International, Inc., announces that Teresa Sievers M. D., Board Certified Internal Medicine, and Board Certified and Fellowship trained in Anti-aging Medicine, has become a spokesperson for all- natural, USA made, Flexcin. Flexcin with CM8 is a joint nutritional product that helps to alleviate pain and stiffness associated with diseases; including Arthritis, Lupus, Bursitis and Fibromyalgia. Dr. Sievers practice, Restorative Health and Healing Center (http://www.drteresasievers.com), located in Southwest Florida, is an integrative medical practice that bridges the gap between conventional and complementary medicine with a foundation of healthy diets and fitness plans for individuals. Dr. Sievers will be introduced through a series of Flexcin informational videos on the internet and YouTube which will describe different types of arthritis, including Lupus Arthritis, Palindromic Arthritis, and Septic Arthritis with other videos planned. National TV, Convention and Radio talk show appearances are in the planning stages as well as an on-going question and answer option on the Flexcin website, http://www.flexcin.com

See the original post here:
The Doctor Is in the House; Dr. Dr. Teresa Sievers Announced as New Spokesperson for Flexcin International, Inc.

After Arriving On Android, Glooko Lands $7M From Samsung & More To Bring Predictive Diabetes Care Global

Posted on by

The proliferation of connected devices, coupled with rapid advances in data analytics and sensor technology, has fundamentally changed the way people interact with and manage their health. Thanks to smartphones and a new generation of smart, wearable gadgets, its now easier than ever before to monitor and and analyze a dizzying array of inputs and physiological signals and inputs from your heart rate and calorie intake to your biorhythms and stress levels.

The promise of todays health apps is that, by leveraging mobility and realtime analytics, they can help Average Joes like you and me transform biometric data into something more substantial Information, knowledge and changes in behavior. While the market continues to brim with all manners of behavioral change and health management apps, only a tiny fraction of startups are addressing an area in which health management and tracking technology could (arguably) have the greatest impact: Chronic diseases and conditions.

Glooko launched in late 2011 to bring mobility and data tracking to people living with Diabetes, a population underserved by advances in mobile technology. After all, Diabetes, like any chronic condition, by nature requires constant monitoring from patients across a number of devices. So, the company set out on a mission to address the lack of interoperability and standardized methods for data transfer among devices (and glucose meters) to finally create a unified diabetes management solution.

The effort has begun to pay off, as Glooko now supports data transfer between 26 glucose meters and 28 different mobile devices. For some perspective, compatibility with 26 meters means that it covers roughly 85 percent of existing meters in the U.S., says Glookos Vikram Singh. In November, on the heels of approval from the FDA, Glooko took another big step toward device agnosticism, expanding its support from iOS to Android devices a move which the company says makes it the the only FDA-cleared mobile diabetes management system to support the transfer of glucose data from dozens of meters to Android devices.

With its coverage increasing, the company is ready to take the next big step, says CEO Rick Altinger, thanks to the help of a few familiar names in the world of mobile technology. Today, the company announcement that it has raised $7 million in a Series A-1 financing round from investors that include Samsung Venture Investment Company and Lifeforce Ventures, with participation from existing investors, The Social + Capital Partnership, Sundeep Madra and Yogen Dalal, among others.

With its new capital in tow, which brings its total to around $11.5 million, Glooko will focus on the next phase of data tracking technology applied to health: Predictive care. In order to have the biggest possible impact, Glooko will look to leverage its patient datasets to enable predictive diabetes care by delivering both patient data and decision-making algorithms to health providers and payer groups, Altinger says.

With the help of a huge mobile player like Samsung, Glooko believes that it can begin to liberate blood glucose data from meters and make it more accessible to both patients and health providers. Going forward, the company will look to scale its diabetes management system across the globe, while adding a predictive layer of analytics and messaging that it hopes will allow healthcare providers to make therapeutic recommendations to its patients in realtime.

As it stands today, Glookos system now includes its MeterSync Cable and applications for both iOS and Android, which combined, allow data to be transferred from meters directly to a users mobile device. The apps then integrated directly into the existing Glooko management web dashboards, enabling healthcare providers and care management teams to remotely monitor at-risk patients.

By doing so, Glooko is hoping to provide health systems and disease management organizations with access to better population management and analytics tools that can allow them to both increase focus on at-risk patients and, over the long-run, achieve higher levels of adherence to treatment plans. By focusing on increasing involvement of healthcare providers, Glooko also sees a path towards monetization, as it could begin charging health insurance companies a subscription fee for access to tools that allow them to better execute managed care (and higher savings).

For more, find Glooko at home here.

Original post:
After Arriving On Android, Glooko Lands $7M From Samsung & More To Bring Predictive Diabetes Care Global

So 2014 Is International Crystallography Year

Posted on by

Jonathan Nackstrand / AFP / Getty Images

Laureates arrive for the traditional Nobel Prize banquet at the Stockholm City Hall on December 10, 2013. In total, 28 Nobel prized discoveries have been associated with crystallography, among them this year's awards for Chemistry and Physics.

There once was a dark and distant time when we only understood molecules as equations of letters and numbers. With the advent of crystallography the science of how matter is arranged we learned how to visualize molecules in 3D, helping us make everything from better medicines to stronger materials. Despite that huge advance, if you stopped someone in the street and asked them what crystallography was, chances are you would get a blank stare. To help raise awareness, and to celebrate a century of amazing discoveries, UNESCO has declared 2014 to be the International Year of Crystallography. Heres a bluffers guide to the topic. 1. It starts with X-rays

Normally when you want to magnify things, you use a microscope. There is, however, a limit to the smallness of things you can see, namely the wavelength of the light youre using. Since visible light has a frequency of between roughly 400 and 700 nanometers, it is unable to detect atoms, which are separated by merely 0.1 nanometers. X-rays, on the other hand, have just the right frequency.

2. Crystals are used to create diffractions

Unfortunately, we dont have good enough lenses to produce x-ray microscopes capable of studying molecules. So scientists have to beam X-rays onto molecules, which shatter the rays, just as light is reflected when it hits any object. The shattered rays called the diffraction are then reassembled into an image by a computer program. But since the diffraction of a single molecule would be weak to the point of unintelligibility, scientists get the molecules theyre studying to clump together into crystal form. This highly ordered structure, made up of vast amounts of molecules, makes x-ray diffractions the main tool of crystallography easier to study.

3. So why chose 2014 for the International Year of Crystallography?

The International Year of Crystallography celebrates the centennial of the Nobel Prize of Max Von Laue, the first scientist to diffract x-rays with a crystal. However, the first person to solve a molecular structure that of NaCl, or table salt was the Brit William Lawrence Bragg. His equation to translate the diffraction into a structure, Braggs Law, is still in use today. In 1915, at age 25, he became the youngest Nobel laureate, when he jointly received the prize with his father William Henry Bragg. The Braggs went on to create a dynasty of groundbreaking crystallographers at the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

This Royal Institute video describes the legacy of William Lawrence Bragg and his disciples:

4. Crystallography was crucial to one of the great discoveries of the 20th century

Originally posted here:
So 2014 Is International Crystallography Year

Genetic engineering – definition from Biology-Online.org

Posted on by

Dictionary G Genetic engineering

Definition

noun

The technology entailing all processes of altering the genetic material of a cell to make it capable of performing the desired functions, such as producing novel substances.

Supplement

Genetic engineering covers all various experimental techniques that manipulate the genes of the organism. It uses recombinant DNA, molecular cloning and transformation. At present, it is applied in improving crop technology, manufacturing synthetic human insulin (using modified bacteria), production of erythropoietin (using Chinese hamster ovary cells), and production of new types of experimental mice for research (such as cancer mouse). It also has the potential of being used in humans by changing their appearance, intelligence, character and adaptability; however, there are ethical concerns and controversies it has to resolve before it can be widely accepted.

Related forms: genetic engineer (noun). Synonym: recombinant DNA technology, genetic modification, genetic manipulation (GM), gene splicing. See also: bioethics, biotechnology, cloning, genetic pollution.

Please contribute to this project, if you have more information about this term feel free to edit this page

See entire post

This page was last modified 21:31, 19 June 2008.This page has been accessed 80,191 times. What links here | Related changes | Permanent link

Read the original here:
Genetic engineering - definition from Biology-Online.org

There is Only One Evolution

Posted on by

I have frequently pointed out that pharmaceutical companies acknowledge that animal models are not predictive for human response in terms of efficacy or toxicity. More evidence for this position comes from Robert G. Hunter in an article in Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News.[1] Hunter: Having developed over the past 20 years into a global market recently estimated at $5 billion, in vitro and in silico products and services are now about the same size as the in vivo services (contract research organization) industry. If animal models worked well, there would be no need for industry to look at other options. Pharma does not love bunnies. Pharma loves money.

Matthew Herper addressed the problems in drug development in an article in Forbes.[2] Herper:

Theres one factor that, as much as anything else, determines how many medicines are invented, what diseases they treat, and, to an extent, what price patients must pay for them: the cost of inventing and developing a new drug, a cost driven by the uncomfortable fact than 95% of the experimental medicines that are studied in humans fail to be both effective and safe.

Animal models are relied on for the evaluation of both efficacy and safety.[3-9] Herper continues:

A new analysis conducted at Forbes puts grim numbers on these costs. A company hoping to get a single drug to market can expect to have spent $350 million before the medicine is available for sale. In part because so many drugs fail, large pharmaceutical companies that are working on dozens of drug projects at once spend $5 billion per new medicine. . . . This is crazy. For sure its not sustainable, says Susan Desmond-Hellmann, the chancellor at UCSF and former head of development at industry legend Genentech, where she led the testing of cancer drugs like Herceptin and Avastin. Increasingly, while no one knows quite what to do instead, any businessperson would look at this and say, You cant make a business off this. This is not a good investment. I say that knowing that this has been the engine of wonderful things.

This, in part, is why disease-specific drugs like Kalydeco, a drug for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients that have a specific genetic mutation, costs $294,000 per patient per year.

The reason animal models fail for drug development is that animals and humans are evolved systems that are differently complex. While morphological similarities exist, very small differences in the genetic make-up between species and between individuals of the same species means the predictive value for extrapolation is nil in the real world. (For more on this see Trans-Species Modeling Theory.) Moreover, if the concept of evolved, complex systems invalidates trans-species extrapolation in drug development, it is going to do the same when trans-species extrapolation involves any perturbation that affects higher levels of organization. So just based on the evidence from drug development we can safely say that disease research on mice, monkeys, or dogs is not going to result in knowledge that has predictive value for human patients. The literature confirms this.[10-21][[22]p19-33, 73-77] [23-25]

Compare the above to this recent statement from Michael E. Goldberg published in the Wisconsin State Journal: Nearly every medical advance from the last century is a product of responsible animal research, and animal models will continue to be important to medical progress. . . . Activists who claim animal research does not benefit humans are wrong. Animals are essential to medical progress in all fields of human disease. [26] This illustrates the dichotomy regarding animal models. Dr Goldberg is an animal modeler who does basic research, which he sells as applied research. Not surprisingly, Goldberg thinks animal modeling is great. He does not suffer loss of income or prestige when the knowledge from animal modeling fails to translate to human patients.

Pharma on the other hand, can actually measure the success or lack thereof of animal models in the form of drugs successfully brought to market and Pharma says it doesnt work. Remember, Pharma is a business and they do not care how they develop new drugs they just want to develop new drugs so they can make money. Also remember that there are not two different theories of evolution: one for drug development and another for basic science research or basic research masquerading as applied research. If animal modeling in drug development fails to be consistent with evolutionary biology, then it fails in general as well.

Image courtesy of Wkipedia Common http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chromosomes_mutations-en.svg

Continued here:
There is Only One Evolution

Behavior – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted on by

Behavior or behaviour is the range of actions and mannerisms made by organisms, systems, or artificial entities in conjunction with their environment, which includes the other systems or organisms around as well as the physical environment. It is the response of the system or organism to various stimuli or inputs, whether internal or external, conscious or subconscious, overt or covert, and voluntary or involuntary.

Although there is some disagreement as to how to precisely define behavior in a biological context, one common interpretation based on a meta-analysis of scientific literature states that "behavior is the internally coordinated responses (actions or inactions) of whole living organisms (individuals or groups) to internal and/or external stimuli"[1]

Behaviors can be either innate or learned.

Behavior can be regarded as any action of an organism that changes its relationship to its environment. Behavior provides outputs from the organism to the environment.[2]

Human behavior is believed to be controlled primarily by the endocrine system and the nervous system. It is most commonly believed that complexity in the behavior of an organism is correlated to the complexity of its nervous system. Generally, organisms with more complex nervous systems have a greater capacity to learn new responses and thus adjust their behavior.[citation needed]

Behavior outside of psychology includes physical property and chemical reactions.

In environmental modeling and especially in hydrology, a "behavioral model" means a model that is acceptably consistent with observed natural processes, i.e., that simulates well, for example, observed river discharge. It is a key concept of the so-called Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) methodology to quantify how uncertain environmental predictions are.

Visit link:
Behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infor expands analytics tool line with PeopleAnswers buy

Posted on by

News

By Chris Kanaracus

January 8, 2014 11:25 AM ET

IDG News Service - Infor is buying PeopleAnswers, maker of software companies can use to analyze a job candidate's behavioral traits before deciding whether to make a hire. Terms of the deal, which was announced Wednesday, were not disclosed.

PeopleAnswers was developed by a team of behavioral science PhDs, who created a series of algorithms that underpin online tests job applicants take through PeopleAnswers' service. The test measures 39 behavioral attributes, such as discipline, ambition, energy and empathy, weighting them according to the particular job role. The test software is available in 16 languages.

Beyond the algorithms and behavioral science know-how, PeopleAnswers has also built up years of historical data, resulting in more reliable analysis of a candidate, said Infor CEO Charles Phillips.

PeopleAnswers' customers include Audi, Foot Locker, Neiman Marcus and Hertz, all of which are large companies with many hourly employees, and which can experience seasonally high demand for workers as well as excessive turnover.

About 60 percent of PeopleAnswers' customers are using the software as a primary method of ranking and determining who they will offer positions to, according to Phillips. Other customers are using it internally to build promotion lists or put together teams, he said.

PeopleAnswers' approach stops job applicants from gaming the tests by giving answers they think a company will want to hear, Phillips said. "It's asking your preferences on things, what you like or don't like," he said. "Questions don't lead to a particular result. You can't tell why they're asking the question."

Infor will make PeopleAnswers part of its HCM (human capital management) software suite. It plans to expand PeopleAnswers' test coverage into additional verticals over time, according to Phillips.

Read more from the original source:
Infor expands analytics tool line with PeopleAnswers buy

Denny Sanford believes genetic medicine is ‘the medicine of the future’

Posted on by

FARGO Denny Sanford was recovering from possibly fatal blood clots in his lungs when he decided to invest $125 million to bring genetic medicine into the mainstream.

Sanford became ill on a hunting trip in south-central South Dakota in October, about 140 miles west of Sioux Falls.

Doctors there suspected he had pneumonia, but Sanfords personal physician, Dr. Eric Larson of Sanford Health, suspected a pulmonary embolism a blood clot in the lungs and arranged for an air ambulance to whisk him to Sioux Falls.

He really saved my life, Sanford said in a telephone interview with The Forum, referring to Larson, an internal medicine doctor and one of the champions of the new genetic medicine initiative Sanford Health announced Tuesday.

Sanford, who is in his late 70s, did not attend Tuesdays announcement, which was made in Sioux Falls, and simulcast to Sanford medical centers in Fargo, Bismarck and Bemidji, Minn.

While recuperating in his namesake hospital in Sioux Falls, Sanford reminded Kelby Krabbenhoft, Sanford Healths top executive, that his team was preparing a genetic medicine proposal.

He invited them to make their pitch two days later, when he was convalescing at home. Sanfords recent medical emergency made him receptive to the idea of placing results of genetic testing tools in the hands of primary care physicians.

It was an opportune time to lay it out on me, Sanford said, chuckling about the timing and his gratitude for the care he received.

I believe that is the medicine of the future, added Sanford, referring to the use of genetic information in tailoring health care. He recently donated $100 million to a stem cell research program in California.

Sanford, a St. Paul native who founded Premier Bank, now has donated more than $1 billion, much of it to Sanford Health, beginning with a $400 million gift in 2007.

View original post here:
Denny Sanford believes genetic medicine is 'the medicine of the future'

Sanford announces $125 million genetic medicine initiative

Posted on by

FARGO Sanford Health is embarking on a major initiative to integrate genetic information with primary care enabled by a $125 million gift from namesake benefactor T. Denny Sanford.

The new effort, announced Tuesday, is billed by Sanford as the first of its kind in the nation to marry genetic screening with internal medicine doctors throughout its clinic system.

The so-called Sanford Imagenetics program will begin offering patients the opportunity for precise genetic testing and genetic counseling later this year.

This is the frontier of medicine, Sanfords top executive, Kelby Krabbenhoft, said in making the announcement. This is whats going to change everything for everybody.

Sanfords gift will allow the health system to hire and train teams of specialists in a collaboration that also will involve academic centers in the Sanford service area for research, and training physicians and other providers.

Each of Sanfords four regional hubs Sioux Falls, S.D., Fargo, Bismarck, and Bemidji, Minn. will have specialists who will work closely with internal medicine doctors.

Sanford already has seven genetic counselors, including two in Fargo, and five medical geneticists.

Through telemedicine and targeted outreach efforts, the program will be available to patients throughout Sanfords sprawling service area that includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa and Montana.

A portion of Sanfords gift will be used for a new genetic medicine center at its campus near downtown Sioux Falls, with construction to begin in spring 2015.

We will have the same resources, said Dr. Julie Blehm, a senior internal medicine doctor at the Sanford Medical Center in Fargo. Were going to have the same opportunities.

See original here:
Sanford announces $125 million genetic medicine initiative

Mapping the Qatari shows way to prevention of inherited diseases

Posted on by

(MENAFN - Muscat Daily) A Weill Cornell Medical College study that analysed the DNA of Qatar's native population has discovered genetic variations that could help doctors target interventions to reduce the prevalence of a variety of debilitating hereditary disorders

Researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar (WCMC-Q) and Weill Cornell Medical College in New York (WCMC-NY), working with colleagues from Cornell University in Ithaca and Hamad Medical Corporation, identified 37 genetic variants in 33 genes known to play causal roles in a total of 36 diseases, including such devastating conditions as cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia and muscular dystrophy. The study points the way to more comprehensive screening for a host of inherited diseases, which could significantly reduce their incidence.

The project titled, 'Exome Sequencing Identifies Potential Risks Variants for Mendelian Disorders at High Prevalence in Qatar' sequenced the DNA of 100 Qatari nationals representing the three major ethnic subgroups of the country the Bedouin (termed Q1 for the purposes of the study), those of Persian-South Asian descent (Q2), and those of African descent (Q3). By analysing the individuals' exomes important sections of the DNA containing the code that is translated into proteins and comparing them to the genetic data of the participants in the worldwide 1,000 Genomes Project (1000G), the researchers were able to identify the variations that cause disease among the Qatari population.

All the conditions targeted in the study were so-called Mendelian diseases'. Named after Gregor Mendel, the 19th century researcher widely regarded as the founder of genetic science, Mendelian diseases are those caused by a single mutated gene and are also known as monogenic disorders.

Dr Khalid Fakhro, postdoctoral associate in genetic medicine at WCMC-Q, and Dr Juan L Rodriguez-Flores of WCMC-NY, were co-lead principal investigators in the study, which is part of a group of research projects investigating the Qatari genome led by Dr Ronald Crystal, chairman of Genetic Medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. The study has been accepted for publication in the journal Human Mutation, appearing online in December 2013 and in print in January 2014.

Dr Crystal explained the study: ''There are about 3.2bn letters that comprise the human genome and about two percent of those letters code for the actual proteins. This two per cent is found in regions called exomes,'' he said. ''A Mendelian or monogenic disease is caused by a change in a single letter out of the 3.2bn.

''The reason this is relevant for Qatar is that the structure of the society encourages a high degree of consanguineous marriage, so the frequency of these monogenic diseases is quite high,'' he said.

Pre-marital counseling and screening is one method of decreasing the likelihood of children being born with monogenic diseases. Parents undergo screening to see if either or both carry genetic variations that cause disease before having children. The individuals that carry the disorder do not necessarily have the conditions themselves, but may carry them on recessive genes.

Dr Crystal added, ''Disorders are present in all populations around the world, so Qatar is no different. Qatar is only different in that its variations and the frequency with which they occur are unique to its population. By finding out what these variations are and taking appropriate action we can save people from the trauma of some very unpleasant disorders. We're talking here about things like brain malformation, diabetes, blindness, deafness, cardiovascular disorders, inflammatory disorders and many other conditions. While these conditions are not common, they do occur, some are untreatable and many are very difficult to live with, for both the sufferer and their families.''

Currently, pre-marital counseling in Qatar screens for four genetic variations out of the 37 identified by the study, so incorporating the newly discovered variations into the screening process could have a significant impact.

See more here:
Mapping the Qatari shows way to prevention of inherited diseases

Sanford donates $125M to launch genetic medicine program

Posted on by

Christmas was two weeks ago but Sanford Health received quite the gift Tuesday morning. $125 Million, that's how much philanthropist Denny Sanford has pledged to help launch a brand new system of patient treatment.

A lot of people will probably just look at the $125 Million and be blown away by the amount, but what that money will do is far more amazing. With the gift, Sanford is launching Imagenetics to fighting disease on the molecular level. This is personalized medicine where your DNA helps determine the best course of treatment. This will help cut down on the number of medications, limit side-effects, and could even help doctors treat the condition before symptoms show up. Genetic medicine is already being utilized by Sanford doctors to treat cancers and other conditions, but this will take those practices to the clinic as well.

"This really gets to what we call precision medicine that is using the tools of genetics to precisely take care of you as an individual." Said Dr. H. Eugene Hoyme, a geneticist and president of Sanford Research.

"Once again he's taken what was possible and today has made it practical for everybody. Thank you Mr. Sanford." Said Kelby Krabbenhoft, president and CEO of Sanford Health.

The money will be spread throughout the Sanford Health system to build facilities for genetic research and testing. Those projects are expected to break ground starting in the spring of 2015.

In addition to the donation, Sanford announced partnerships with Augustana College, and the Universities of North Dakota and South Dakota to train the next wave of genomic health professionals. Krabbenhoft says this donation puts Mr. Sanford over the $1 Billion mark in charitable gifts. His largest donation came back in 2007, giving $400 million dollars to Sanford Health.

Original post:
Sanford donates $125M to launch genetic medicine program

Nanomedicine – Nanorobots in Medicine – UnderstandingNano

Posted on by

Future applications of nanomedicine will be based on the ability to build nanorobots. In the future these nanorobots could actually be programmed to repair specific diseased cells, functioning in a similar way to antibodies in our natural healing processes.

Developing Nanorobots for Medicine

Design analysis for a cell repair nanorobot: The Ideal Gene Delivery Vector: Chromallocytes, Cell Repair Nanorobots for Chromosome Repair Therapy

Design analysis for an antimicrobial nanorobot: Microbivores: Artifical Mechanical Phagocytes using Digest and Discharge Protocol

A Mechanical Artificial Red Cell: Exploratory Design in Medical Nanotechnology

Nanorobots in Medicine: Future Applications

The elimination of bacterial infections in a patient within minutes, instead of using treatment with antibiotics over a period of weeks.

The ability to perform surgery at the cellular level, removing individual diseased cells and even repairing defective portions of individual cells.

Significant lengthening of the human lifespan by repairing cellular level conditions that cause the body to age.

Nanomedicine Reference Material

Continued here:
Nanomedicine - Nanorobots in Medicine - UnderstandingNano

Leaked files slam stem-cell therapy

Posted on by

Massimo Valicchia/NurPhoto/Corbis

Potential patients have offered vocal support for Staminas stem-cell treatment in Italy.

A series of damning documents seen by Nature expose deep concerns over the safety and efficacy of the controversial stem-cell therapy promoted by Italys Stamina Foundation. The leaked papers reveal the true nature of the processes involved, long withheld by Staminas president, Davide Vannoni. Other disclosures show that the successes claimed by Stamina for its treatments have been over-stated. And, in an unexpected twist, top Italian scientists are dissociating themselves from an influential Miami-based clinician over his apparent support for the foundation.

Stamina, based in Brescia, claims that it successfully treated more than 80 patients, mostly children, for a wide range of conditions, from Parkinsons disease to muscular dystrophy, before the health authorities halted its operations in August 2012. A clinical trial to assess the treatment formally was approved by the Italian government last May, and an expert committee was convened by the health ministry to study Staminas method and to recommend which illnesses the trial should target.

Stamina says that its technique involves extracting mesenchymal stem cells from a patients bone marrow, culturing them so that they turn into nerve cells, and then injecting them back into the same patient. But full details of the method have never been revealed, and Vannoni provided the full protocol to the expert committee only in August.

In October, the committees report prompted health minister Beatrice Lorenzin to halt plans for the clinical trial. That led to public protests in support of Stamina, and, after an appeal by Vannoni, a court ruled in early December that the expert committee was unlawfully biased. Some members had previously expressed negative opinions of the method, the ruling said. As a result, Lorenzin appointed a new committee on 28December, reopening the possibility of a clinical trial.

Staminas protocol, together with the original committees report, was leaked to the press on 20 December (Nature has also been shown transcripts of the committees deliberations). The leaked papers reveal that the original expert committee identified serious flaws and omissions in Staminas clinical protocol. It did not apply legally required Good Manufacturing Practice standards, the committee says. The protocol exposed an apparent ignorance of stem-cell biology and relevant clinical expertise, the report argues, as well as flawed methods and therapeutic rationale (see Protocol opinion).

What the expert committee said on Staminas methods.

The report of the original expert committee tasked with looking at Staminas clinical protocol includes the following opinions:

The protocol contains no method for screening for pathogens such as prions or viruses, even though the culture medium used could contain them.

View original post here:
Leaked files slam stem-cell therapy

Arizona Pain Stem Cell Institute Now Offering PRP Therapy for Joint Arthritis Relief

Posted on by

Phoenix, AZ (PRWEB) January 08, 2014

The top Phoenix stem cell clinic in the Valley, Arizona Pain Stem Cell Institute, is now offering PRP therapy for joint arthritis relief. Platelet rich plasma therapy offers the potential for relieving the pain from knee, hip, shoulder and spinal arthritis. For more information and scheduling with the Board Certified Phoenix pain management doctors, call (602) 507-6550.

Platelet rich plasma therapy, known as PRP therapy, involves a simple blood draw. The blood is then spun in a centrifuge, which then concentrates platelets and growth factors for immediate injection into the arthritic joint. The PRP therapy then acts as an attractant for the body's stem cells.

Recent published studies have shown that PRP therapy offers significant pain relief for arthritic knees and helps preserve existing cartilage. One to three injections may be necessary to obtain optimal results, which are performed as an outpatient and entail minimal risk.

In addition to PRP therapy, the Arizona Pain Stem Cell Institute offers several other regenerative medicine treatments for both joint and spinal arthritis. This includes bone marrow and fat derived stem cell injections along with amniotic stem cell rich injections. These injections are offered for patients as part of numerous clinical research studies.

The stem cell injection studies are enrolling now at the Institute. The studies are industry subsidized, with the procedures performed by the Board Certified pain management physicians.

The Arizona Pain Stem Cell Institute is part of Arizona Pain Specialists. With 5 locations accepting over 50 insurances, the pain clinics offer comprehensive treatment options for patients with both simple and complicated pain conditions.

Call (602) 507-6550 for more information and scheduling.

See more here:
Arizona Pain Stem Cell Institute Now Offering PRP Therapy for Joint Arthritis Relief