Biologic Rhythms Derived from Siberian Mammoths' Hairs

Hair is preserved for millennia in permafrost; it enshrines a record of biologic rhythms and offers a glimpse at chronobiology as it was in extinct animals. Here we compare biologic rhythms gleaned from mammoth's hairs with those of modern human hair. Four mammoths' hairs came from varying locations in Siberia 4600 km, four time zones, apart ranging in age between 18,000 and 20,000 years before present. We used two contemporaneous human hairs for comparison. Power spectra derived from hydrogen isotope ratios along the length of the hairs gave insight into biologic rhythms, which were different in the mammoths depending on location and differed from humans. Hair growth for mammoths was ∼31 cms/year and ∼16 cms/year for humans. Recurrent annual rhythms of slow and fast growth varying from 3.4 weeks/cycles to 8.7 weeks/cycles for slow periods and 1.2 weeks/cycles to 2.2 weeks/cycles for fast periods were identified in mammoth's hairs. The mineral content of mammoth's hairs was measured by electron microprobe analysis (k-ratios), which showed no differences in sulfur amongst the mammoth hairs but significantly more iron then in human hair. The fractal nature of the data derived from the hairs became evident in Mandelbrot sets derived from hydrogen isotope ratios, mineral content and geographic location. Confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy showed varied degrees of preservation of the cuticle largely independent of age but not location of the specimens. X-ray fluorescence microprobe and fluorescence computed micro-tomography analyses allowed evaluation of metal distribution and visualization of hollow tubes in the mammoth's hairs. Seasonal variations in iron and copper content combined with spectral analyses gave insights into variation in food intake of the animals. Biologic rhythms gleaned from power spectral plots obtained by modern methods revealed life style and behavior of extinct mega-fauna

A combined analysis of outcome following breast cancer: differences in survival based on BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation status and administration of adjuvant treatment

BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 in women with breast cancer remains unclear. A combined analysis was performed to address this uncertainty. METHODS: Two retrospective cohorts of Ashkenazi Jewish women undergoing breast-conserving treatment for invasive cancer between 1980 and 1995 (n = 584) were established. Archived tissue blocks were used as the source of DNA for Ashkenazi Jewish BRCA1/BRCA2 founder mutation analysis. Paraffin-embedded tissue and follow-up information was available for 505 women. RESULTS: Genotyping was successful in 496 women, of whom 56 (11.3%) were found to carry a BRCA1/BRCA2 founder mutation. After a median follow-up period of 116 months, breast cancer specific survival was worse in women with BRCA1 mutations than in those without (62% at 10 years versus 86%; P < 0.0001), but not in women with the BRCA2 mutation (84% versus 86% at 10 years; P = 0.76). Germline BRCA1 mutations were an independent predictor of breast cancer mortality in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.2–4.8; P = 0.01). BRCA1 status predicted breast cancer mortality only among women who did not receive chemotherapy (hazard ratio 4.8, 95% confidence interval 2.0–11.7; P = 0.001). The risk for metachronous ipsilateral cancer was not greater in women with germline BRCA1/BRCA2 founder mutations than in those without mutations (P = 0.68). CONCLUSION: BRCA1 mutations, but not BRCA2 mutations, are associated with reduced survival in Ashkenazi women undergoing breast-conserving treatment for invasive breast cancer, but the poor prognosis associated with germline BRCA1 mutations is mitigated by adjuvant chemotherapy. The risk for metachronous ipsilateral disease does not appear to be increased for either BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers, at least up to 10 years of follow up

A critical review of the research literature on Six Sigma, Lean and StuderGroup's Hardwiring Excellence in the United States: the need to demonstrate and communicate the effectiveness of transformation strategies in healthcare

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>U.S. healthcare organizations are confronted with numerous and varied transformational strategies promising improvements along all dimensions of quality and performance. This article examines the peer-reviewed literature from the U.S. for evidence of effectiveness among three current popular transformational strategies: Six Sigma, Lean/Toyota Production System, and Studer's Hardwiring Excellence.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The English language health, healthcare management, and organizational science literature (up to December 2007) indexed in Medline, Web of Science, ABI/Inform, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ERIC was reviewed for studies on the aforementioned transformation strategies in healthcare settings. Articles were included if they: appeared in a peer-reviewed journal; described a specific intervention; were not classified as a pilot study; provided quantitative data; and were not review articles. Nine references on Six Sigma, nine on Lean/Toyota Production System, and one on StuderGroup meet the study's eligibility criteria.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The reviewed studies universally concluded the implementations of these transformation strategies were successful in improving a variety of healthcare related processes and outcomes. Additionally, the existing literature reflects a wide application of these transformation strategies in terms of both settings and problems. However, despite these positive features, the vast majority had methodological limitations that might undermine the validity of the results. Common features included: weak study designs, inappropriate analyses, and failures to rule out alternative hypotheses. Furthermore, frequently absent was any attention to changes in organizational culture or substantial evidence of lasting effects from these efforts.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Despite the current popularity of these strategies, few studies meet the inclusion criteria for this review. Furthermore, each could have been improved substantially in order to ensure the validity of the conclusions, demonstrate sustainability, investigate changes in organizational culture, or even how one strategy interfaced with other concurrent and subsequent transformation efforts. While informative results can be gleaned from less rigorous studies, improved design and analysis can more effectively guide healthcare leaders who are motivated to transform their organizations and convince others of the need to employ such strategies. Demanding more exacting evaluation of projects consultants, or partnerships with health management researchers in academic settings, can support such efforts.</p