scholarly journals Drug-Induced Renal Damage in Preterm Neonates: State of the Art and Methods for Early Detection

Drug Safety ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 535-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Girardi ◽  
Emanuel Raschi ◽  
Silvia Galletti ◽  
Elisabetta Poluzzi ◽  
Giacomo Faldella ◽  
...  
Bioanalysis ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (9) ◽  
pp. 1645-1663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt J Boudonck ◽  
Donald J Rose ◽  
Edward D Karoly ◽  
Douglas P Lee ◽  
Kay A Lawton ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianhua Chen ◽  
Qingwen Zhu ◽  
Jingyu Li ◽  
Jing Wang ◽  
Wenjun Bian ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives: Concurrent hearing and genetic screening of newborns is expected to play an important role in the early detection and diagnosis of congenital deafness, which triggers an intervention, as well as in predicting late-onset and progressive hearing loss and identifying individuals who are at risk of drug-induced hearing loss (HL).Methods: A Deafness Gene Variant Detection Array Kit covering fifteen variants in four genes was used to screen for deafness genes in 18001 infants.Results: A total of 108 neonates did not pass the second hearing screening. In addition, 912 (5.07%) screened positive for deafness-associated variants, including 78 (0.43%) genetically referred and 834 (4.63%) genetic deafness-associated variant carriers. Of the 912 screened positive cases, 880 passed the hearing screening, and 32 failed. A total of 62 (0.34%) cases carried the mtDNA 12S rRNA variants. A total of 108 cases did not pass the hearing screening and underwent a hearing diagnostic examination. An expanded DNA test identified 17 patients who possessed deafness gene mutations, increasing the detection rate to 5.16%.Conclusion: Early detection, diagnosis, and interventions are necessary for newborns who are susceptible to deafness. A good strategy is to use a small panel to quickly screen all subjects and then apply an extended panel to study the cause of deafness in affected patients.


2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedram Hayati ◽  
Vidyasagar Potdar

Spam 2.0 is defined as the propagation of unsolicited, anonymous, mass content to infiltrate legitimate Web 2.0 applications. A fake eye-catching profile in social networking websites, a promotional review, a response to a thread in online forums with unsolicited content, or a manipulated Wiki page are examples of Spam 2.0. In this paper, the authors provide a comprehensive survey of the state-of-the-art, detection-based, prevention-based and early-detection-based Spam 2.0 filtering methods.


Plants ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. 1302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reem Ibrahim Hasan ◽  
Suhaila Mohd Yusuf ◽  
Laith Alzubaidi

Deep learning (DL) represents the golden era in the machine learning (ML) domain, and it has gradually become the leading approach in many fields. It is currently playing a vital role in the early detection and classification of plant diseases. The use of ML techniques in this field is viewed as having brought considerable improvement in cultivation productivity sectors, particularly with the recent emergence of DL, which seems to have increased accuracy levels. Recently, many DL architectures have been implemented accompanying visualisation techniques that are essential for determining symptoms and classifying plant diseases. This review investigates and analyses the most recent methods, developed over three years leading up to 2020, for training, augmentation, feature fusion and extraction, recognising and counting crops, and detecting plant diseases, including how these methods can be harnessed to feed deep classifiers and their effects on classifier accuracy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document