Female adolescent blood donors more likely to have iron deficiency and related

first_imgCredit: iStock Source:https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/study-adolescent-female-blood-donors-at-risk-for-iron-deficiency-and-associated-anemia Each year, an estimated 6.8 million people in the U.S. donate blood, according to the American Red Cross, which coordinates blood drives across the country. Adolescents are increasingly contributing to the donor pool due to blood drives at high schools. In 2015, adolescents ages 16-18 contributed approximately 1.5 million blood donations.Although blood donation is largely a safe procedure, adolescents are at a higher risk for acute, adverse donation-related problems, such as injuries from fainting during donation, explains study leaders Eshan Patel, M.P.H., a biostatistician in the Department of Pathology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and Aaron Tobian, M.D., Ph.D., professor of pathology, medicine, oncology and epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and director of transfusion medicine at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.Additionally, they add, blood donation may also increase the risk of iron deficiency, as each whole blood donation removes about 200-250 milligrams of iron from the blood donor. Because adolescents typically have lower blood volumes, when donating the same amount of blood, they have a relatively higher proportional loss of hemoglobin–the iron-containing protein in blood cells that transports oxygen–and consequently more iron during donation than adults. Females are even more at risk of iron deficiency than males due to blood loss during menstruation every month.Numerous studies have shown that younger age, female sex and increased frequency of blood donation are all associated with lower serum ferritin levels (a surrogate for total body iron levels) in blood donor populations. However, note Patel and Tobian, no study using nationally representative data has compared the prevalence of iron deficiency and associated anemia between blood donor and nondonor populations, specifically adolescents.Related StoriesCancer patients and those with anemia should not be denied opioids, says CDCInnovative microfluidic device simplifies study of blood cells, opens new organ-on-chip possibilitiesDon’t Miss the Blood-Brain Barrier Drug Delivery (B3DD) Summit this AugustToward this end, the researchers analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a long-running study designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the U.S. based on both physical exams and interviews conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. From 1999 to 2010, this study included collections of blood samples as well as questions about blood donation history in the past 12 months.The researchers found 9,647 female participants 16-49 years old who had provided both samples and blood donor history information. There were 2,419 adolescents ages 16-19 in this group.They report in the journal Transfusion on Feb. 19 that about 10.7 percent of the adolescents had donated blood within the past 12 months, compared with about 6.4 percent of the adults. Mean serum ferritin levels were significantly lower among blood donors than among nondonors in both the adolescent (21.2 vs. 31.4 nanograms per milliliter) and the adult (26.2 vs. 43.7 nanograms per milliliter) populations. The prevalence of iron deficiency anemia was 9.5 percent among adolescent donors and 7.9 percent among adult donors–both low numbers, but still significantly higher than that of nondonors in both age groups, which was 6.1 percent. Besides, 22.6 percent of adolescent donors and 18.3 percent of adult donors had absent iron stores.Collectively, the authors say, these findings highlight the vulnerability of adolescent blood donors to associated iron deficiency.Patel and Tobian note that some federal policies and regulations are already in place to protect donors in general from iron deficiency due to this altruistic act, such as hemoglobin screening, a minimum weight to donate and an eight-week interval between donations for repeat whole blood donation. However, more protections are necessary for adolescent donors–for example, suggesting oral iron supplementation, increasing the minimum time interval between donations or donating other blood products such as platelets or plasma rather than whole blood could help mitigate iron loss.”We’re not saying that eligible donors shouldn’t donate. There are already issues with the lack of blood supply,” Tobian says. “However, new regulations or accreditation standards could help make blood donation even safer for young donors.”center_img Reviewed by James Ives, M.Psych. (Editor)Feb 19 2019New public health measures could help protect this vulnerable population, authors sayFemale adolescent blood donors are more likely to have low iron stores and iron deficiency anemia than adult female blood donors and nondonors, which could have significant negative consequences on their developing brains, a new study led by Johns Hopkins researchers suggests. Based on these findings, the authors propose a variety of measures that could help this vulnerable population.last_img read more

Tropical storms likely to become more deadly under climate change research shows

first_imgReviewed by James Ives, M.Psych. (Editor)Mar 21 2019Tropical storms are likely to become more deadly under climate change, leaving people in developing countries, where there may be a lack of resources or poor infrastructure, at increased risk, new research from Oregon State University shows.Under most climate models, tropical storm-related deaths would increase up to 52 percent as the climate changes, said Todd Pugatch, an associate professor of economics in the College of Liberal Arts at OSU and the study’s author.”Tropical storms can strike quickly, leaving little opportunity to escape their path, and the impact on developing countries is significant,” Pugatch said. “Understanding the effects of these storms, and how those effects may change as the climate changes, can help governments and people better prepare in the future, and hopefully save lives.”The findings were published recently in the journal World Development.Pugatch’s research focuses on international economic development. Climate change will likely have the greatest impact on vulnerable populations in the developing world. Mortality risk is the most basic form of vulnerability to natural disasters, so Pugatch wanted to better understand how mortality and climate change might be linked.His first step was to attempt to quantify the effects of tropical storms on mortality in Mexico from 1990 to 2011. He used meteorological data to measure storm strength and death records to estimate storm-related mortality.If deaths in a Mexican state exceeded historical norms for a particular month, the model attributed those deaths to the storm. This methodology has the ability to avert the subjectivity of official death counts and get to a more authentic number, Pugatch said.He found that tropical storms killed approximately 1,600 people during the study period.”Whether a particular death is caused by a storm isn’t always obvious,” he said. “There may also be political motivations to alter counts. Officials might overstate counts to draw more aid money or understate the number of deaths to make the government appear more competent.”Related StoriesTAU’s new Translational Medical Research Center acquires MILabs’ VECTor PET/SPECT/CTChildhood abuse may cause more hot flashes, study revealsAXT enhances cellular research product portfolio with solutions from StemBioSysThe next step for his research was to simulate how the number of storm-related deaths would be impacted by climate change. He used climate modeling scenarios to see how increased weather volatility due to climate change might have impacted deaths during the study period of 1990 to 2011.In five of six scenarios modeling climate change impacts on storm frequency and windspeed, a measure of storm intensity, deaths would have increased, with the highest projection showing a 52 percent increase.However, one simulation showed a decrease of up to 10 percent, because in that scenario, the frequency of tropical storms decreases enough to reduce deaths. The other models fell within the two extremes, but death rates rose in all but one.”If the decrease in storm frequency outweighs the increase in severity, storm-related deaths could fall,” Pugatch said. “Most indications are that storms are more likely to become more deadly as the climate changes.”The findings look specifically at Mexico, but similar results are likely to be seen in other developing countries, where natural disasters can be particularly devastating because communities lack essential resources, Pugatch said.”I wouldn’t expect these results to apply to the same extent in developed countries like the U.S.,” he said. “But there is some relevance to the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Harvey showed that strong storms can lead to tremendous loss of life and physical damage even in the U.S.”More research is needed to understand how climate change may alter storm frequency and severity in the future, Pugatch said. Public policy may also play a role in mitigating or exacerbating the effects of tropical storms, he said.”The more we understand the mortality effects of storms, the more we can use that information to develop strategies to prepare,” Pugatch said. “Investing in strengthened response systems now could avert future deaths.” Source:https://today.oregonstate.edu/news/tropical-storms-likely-become-more-deadly-climate-changes-new-research-indicateslast_img read more

Did We Mishear Neil Armstrongs Famous First Words on the Moon

first_imgOn July 20, 1969, an estimated 650 million people watched in suspense as Neil Armstrong descended a ladder towards the surface of the Moon. As he took his first steps, he uttered words that would be written into history books for generations to come: “That’s one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.” Or at least that’s how the media reported his words.These Sharks Were Too Busy to Notice a Bigger Predator Watching ThemThe unexpected twist at the end of this feeding frenzy delighted scientists.Credit: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, Windows to the Deep 2019Your Recommended PlaylistVolume 0%Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcutsKeyboard Shortcutsplay/pauseincrease volumedecrease volumeseek forwardsseek backwardstoggle captionstoggle fullscreenmute/unmuteseek to %SPACE↑↓→←cfm0-9接下来播放Headbutting Tiny Worms Are Really, Really Loud00:35关闭选项Automated Captions – en-US facebook twitter 发邮件 reddit 链接https://www.livescience.com/65950-neil-armstrong-first-words-on-moon.html?jwsource=cl已复制直播00:0002:2802:28  But Armstrong insisted that he actually said, “That’s one small step for a man.” In fact, in the official transcript of the Moon landing mission, NASA transcribes the quote as “that’s one small step for (a) man.” As a linguist, I’m fascinated by mistakes between what people say and what people hear. In fact, I recently conducted a study on ambiguous speech, using Armstrong’s famous quote to try to figure out why and how we successfully understand speech most of the time, but also make the occasional mistake. Our extraordinary speech-processing abilities Despite confusion over Armstrong’s words, speakers and listeners have a remarkable ability to agree on what is said and what is heard. When we talk, we formulate a thought, retrieve words from memory and move our mouths to produce sound. We do this quickly, producing, in English, around five syllables every second. The process for listeners is equally complex and speedy. We hear sounds, which we separate into speech and non-speech information, combine the speech sounds into words, and determine the meanings of these words. Again, this happens nearly instantaneously, and errors rarely occur. These processes are even more extraordinary when you think more closely about the properties of speech. Unlike writing, speech doesn’t have spaces between words. When people speak, there are typically very few pauses within a sentence. Yet listeners have little trouble determining word boundaries in real time. This is because there are little cues — like pitch and rhythm — that indicate when one word stops and the next begins. But problems in speech perception can arise when those kinds of cues are missing, especially when pitch and rhythm are used for non-linguistic purposes, like in music. This is one reason why misheard song lyrics — called “mondegreens” — are common. When singing or rapping, a lot of the speech cues we usually use are shifted to accommodate the song’s beat, which can end up jamming our default perception process. But it’s not just lyrics that are misheard. This can happen in everyday speech, and some have wondered if this is what happened in the case of Neil Armstrong. Studying Armstrong’s mixed signals Over the years, researchers have tried to comb the audio files of Armstrong’s famous words, with mixed results. Some have suggested that Armstrong definitely produced the infamous “a,” while others maintain that it’s unlikely or too difficult to tell. But the original sound file was recorded 50 years ago, and the quality is pretty poor. So can we ever really know whether Neil Armstrong uttered that little “a”? Perhaps not. But in a recent study, my colleagues and I tried to get to the bottom of this. First, we explored how similar the speech signals are when a speaker intends to say “for” or “for a.” That is, could a production of “for” be consistent with the sound waves, or acoustics, of “for a,” and vice-versa? So we examined nearly 200 productions of “for” and 200 productions of “for a.” We found that the acoustics of the productions of each of these tokens were nearly identical. In other words, the sound waves produced by “He bought it for a school” and “He bought one for school” are strikingly similar. But this doesn’t tell us what Armstrong actually said on that July day in 1969. So we wanted to see if listeners sometimes miss little words like “a” in contexts like Armstrong’s phrase. We wondered whether “a” was always perceived by listeners, even when it was clearly produced. And we found that, in several studies, listeners often misheard short words, like “a.” This is especially true when the speaking rate was as slow as Armstrong’s. In addition, we were able to manipulate whether or not people heard these short words just by altering the rate of speech. So perhaps this was a perfect storm of conditions for listeners to misperceive the intended meaning of this famous quote. The case of the missing “a” is one example of the challenges in producing and understanding speech. Nonetheless, we typically perceive and produce speech quickly, easily and without conscious effort. A better understanding of this process can be especially useful when trying to help people with speech or hearing impairments. And it allows researchers to better understand how these skills are learned by adults trying to acquire a new language, which can, in turn, help language learners develop more efficient strategies. Fifty years ago, humanity was changed when Neil Armstrong took those first steps on the Moon. But he probably didn’t realize that his famous first words could also help us better understand how humans communicate. [Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter to get insight each day] Melissa Michaud Baese-Berk, Associate Professor of Linguistics, University of Oregon This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.last_img read more

Amit Shah files nomination for Gandhinagar LS seat

first_imgnational elections SHARE SHARE EMAIL RELATED Gandhinagar March 30, 2019 BJP President Shri Amit Shah waves to people during a Road Show in Ahmedabad on Saturday, March 30, 2019   –  The Hindu Gujarat Published on COMMENT SHARE There were issues between Sena and BJP, but resolved now: Uddhav Thackeray BJP veteran and former deputy Prime Minister L K Advani had won for five consecutive terms from this constituency (1998 to 2014). The 91-year old leader, however, has not been given a ticket this time. After a mega show-of strength on Saturday in Ahmedabad, Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) president Amit Shah filed his nomination papers for the Gandhinagar Parliamentary constituency eyeing a debut to the Lok Sabha from the saffron bastion.Shah handed over his nomination papers to the Gandhinagar district collector in presence of Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh, Finance Minsiter Arun Jaitley and Thackrey.The seat is currently represented by BJP veteran and former deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani, who had won for five consecutive terms from 1998 to 2014. The 91-year old leader, however, has not been given a ticket this time. The opposition party, Congress has yet not declared its candidate for Gandhinagar constituency. Top brass of the Central BJP leadership and the key National Democratic Alliance (NDA) allies such as Uddhav Thackrey from Shiv Sena, Ram Vilas Paswan from Lok Janshakti Party and Prakash Singh Badal from Shiromani Akali Dal remained present at the rally.TributesBefore heading to Gandhinagar later in the day, Shah paid tributes to Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s statue in Ahmedabad and addressed a large gathering of BJP supporters on Saturday morning. “The party has nominated me from Gandhinagar constituency, which has been represented by Advaniji for long. He worked hard to make this constituency among the most developed ones. I will try to continue his legacy forward,” said Shah, who is currently a Rajya Sabha MP from Gujarat. Notably, before being nominated for Rajya Sabha, Shah had represented a large portion of the Gandhinagar LS constituency in the State Assembly as an MLA from earlier Sarkhej and then Naranpura Assembly constituencies.Eyeing a debut to the Lower House of the Parliament, Shah recalled his journey within the party, “There will be nothing left for me, if BJP is taken away from my life. Whatever I have learnt and catered to the nation, it all belongs to the BJP.”SupportEarlier, Ram Vilas Paswan and Uddhav Thackrey made public address raising questions on the united opposition front under Mahagathbandhan and the Congress. “They have in-fighting about their leader. How can they give a stable government to the country? We will not be among those who back-stab (the BJP). On the principles laid down by My father, our party will support Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the next term,” said Thackrey amid clamour in support of “Modi Again”.Other senior BJP leaders present at the rally were Union Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari and Railways Minister Piyush Goyal besides the Chief Minister of Gujarat Vijay Rupani and deputy Chief Minister Nitin Patel along with State party chief Jitu Vaghani. The Gandhinagar constituency, having an electorate of about 19.20 lakh voters, will go to polls in the third phase on April 13. BJP COMMENTSlast_img read more