Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « Peterborough Public Library (N.H.) »

The third scientific and practical conference “The letters and digits: The libraries on the way to digitalization” “BilioPiter–2022” is reviewed. The conference w as h eld i n S t. P etersburg o n A pril 6–8, 2022. Every year, the conference gathers together library professionals, educationalists and researchers to contribute to the development of library and information sphere. The conference key topic is discussed: joint efforts of the libraries and educational, informational and research organizations in developing new approaches, methods and technologies for the library and information sphere in the modern digital environment. The focus is made on specialized research and practical seminar “Automation of libraries in the digital information educational environment” and IRBIS School one-day session (St. Petersburg State Institute of Culture); lecture-seminar series “The libraries in the modern information and digital environment “Concepts, technologies, laws and regulations”; discussion round table “The libraries’ interacting with the society, business and authorities”; presentation of the memorial threevolume book “My friend Katya Genieva” (V. V. Mayakovsky Central City Public Library); special seminar “Information support of science and Education: Theory and practice” (National Library of Russia); and special seminar “The projects of the National Library of Russia in digitalization of the national cultural heritage” (Russian Academy of Science Library). The key topics and keynote papers are also discussed.

A Review of: Luetkenhaus, H., Hvizdak, E., Johnson, C., & Schiller, N. (2017). Measuring library impacts through first year course assessment. Communications in Information Literacy, 11(2), 339-353. http://comminfolit.org/index.php Abstract Objective – To determine whether there is a correlation between information literacy skill development and participation in one or more library instruction sessions. Design – Learning outcomes assessment. Setting – A public research institution with multiple campuses. Subjects – 244 first-year undergraduates enrolled in a compulsory general education course during the 2014-2015 academic year. All subjects completed a series of library research assignments, followed by a final research paper. 65% of subjects participated in at least one library instruction session as part of the course, and 35% did not. Methods – The researchers convened six librarians and six instructors/faculty to score 244 research papers using a rubric designed to measure six possible information literacy learning outcomes. Evaluators established inter-rater reliability through a norming session, and each artifact was scored twice. The authors analyzed rubric scores using Ordinary Least Squares regression modeling. Main Results – Participation in a library instruction session correlated with higher rubric scores in three information literacy learning outcomes: argument building; source type integration; and ethical source citation. Conclusion – Students may achieve greater information literacy learning outcomes when they participate in course-integrated library instruction.

A Review of: Vix, H. M., & Buckman, K. M. (2011). Academic librarians: Status, privileges, and rights. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(1), 20-25. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2011.11.004 Objective – To provide cross-comparable information on the number of students per librarian, salary, faculty status, contract lengths, and maternity benefits of academic librarians. Design – Online questionnaire. Setting – Four-year private, four-year public, and two-year public academic institutions in Arkansas. Subjects – Academic library deans and directors were surveyed three times over a six-year period. Methods – Three surveys were sent to library deans and directors of four-year private, four-year public, and two-year public academic institutions in Arkansas in 2007, 2009, and 2011. The surveys were created by the College and University Library Division of the Arkansas Library Association, with questions created based on reports from the Association of College and Research Libraries (e.g., Standards and Statements). Committee members tested the survey before distribution. Over the course of the six-year period the questions were modified and were chosen to ensure that respondents could easily answer them (i.e., no questions on topics such as retirements, vacation, which can vary significantly from librarian to librarian). All responses were confidential. Main Results – The 2007 survey had a 78% response rate (n=35/45); the 2009 survey had a 93% response rate (n=42/45); and the 2011 survey had a 90% response rate (n=44/49). While the survey covered a number of topics (shown in supplementary material online), the article focused on five areas of interests and had the following findings. 1) The number of students per librarian is increasing at four-year private and two-year public institutions. While the data shows a decrease in the ratio at four-year public institutions the authors believe this is due to the addition of new institutions in the follow-up surveys, one of which had a very low study-to-librarian ration. 2) Tenured librarians make more than non-tenured librarians. 3) The number of institutions granting faculty status is increasing at a statistically significant rate at four-year private and two-year public institutions, and has remained relatively constant at four-year public institutions. 4) Most libraries have 12-month contracts for librarians, although this has decreased slightly over the survey period. 5) The number of institutions providing paid maternity leave has decreased. Conclusion – This study provides a broad overview of the changing state of academic librarians’ rights and benefits in Arkansas over the last six years. Some of the trends demonstrated, such as an increase in the number of students per librarian, are potentially troubling and may have a negative impact on the quality of service provided by individual institutions. Other trends, such as increases in institutions granting faculty status to librarians and decreasing the number of 12-month contracts, may signal that some institutions are beginning to acknowledge the significance and impact of librarian research. Ultimately, this article provides a starting point for other states and provinces to begin collecting similar data in an attempt to understand changing trends in academic libraries.

The economic burden and high mortality associated with multidrug-resistant bacteria is a major public health concern. Biosynthesized copper nanoparticles (CuNPs) could be a potential alternative to combat bacterial resistance to conventional medicine. This study for the first time aimed at optimizing the synthesis conditions (concentration of copper ions, temperature, and pH) to obtain the smallest size of CuNPs, characterizing and testing the antibacterial efficacy of CuNPs prepared from Senna didymobotrya (S. didymobotrya) roots. Extraction was done by the Soxhlet method using methanol as the solvent. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis was performed to identify compounds in S. didymobotrya root extracts. Box–Behnken design was used to obtain optimal synthesis conditions as determined using a particle analyzer. Characterization was done using ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis), particle size analyzer, X-ray diffraction, zeta potentiometer, and Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR). Bioassay was conducted using the Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion susceptibility test. The major compounds identified by GC-MS in reference to the NIST library were benzoic acid, thymol, N-benzyl-2-phenethylamine, benzaldehyde, vanillin, phenylacetic acid, and benzothiazole. UV-Vis spectrum showed a characteristic peak at 570 nm indicating the formation of CuNPs. The optimum synthesis conditions were temperature of 80°C, pH 3.0, and copper ion concentration of 0.0125 M. The FT-IR spectrum showed absorptions in the range 3500–3400 cm−1 (N-H stretch), 3400–2400 cm−1 (O-H stretch), and 988–830 cm−1 (C-H bend) and peak at 1612 cm−1 (C=C stretch), and 1271 cm−1 (C-O bend). Cu nanoparticle sizes were 5.55–63.60 nm. The zeta potential value was −69.4 mV indicating that they were stable. The biosynthesized nanoparticles exhibited significant antimicrobial activity on Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus with the zone of inhibition diameters of 26.00 ± 0.58 mm and 30.00 ± 0.58 mm compared to amoxicillin clavulanate (standard) with inhibition diameters of 20 ± 0.58 mm and 28.00 ± 0.58 mm, respectively.

Background: Widespread adoption of a westernized diet represents a major lifestyle change characterized by substantially higher sodium consumption and lower potassium intake, which is related to cardiovascular morbidity. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis over published studies in accordance with quantifying the dietary intake of sodium and potassium of the universal population across the world. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were used to find research that pronounced 24-hour urinary sodium or potassium excretion (reference period: 2014–2021). The effect size was estimated using the fixed-effect model; sub-group analysis become accomplished to determine urinary sodium and potassium excretion disaggregated by geographical location. Publication bias became evaluated the usage of graphical funnel plot. Data analysis was performed using STATA 16. Results: Forty-three studies (n= 62,940) qualified the selection criteria. The mean urinary excretion of sodium and potassium was 156.73 mmol/24h [95% confidence interval (CI), 148.98–164.47] and 48.89 mmol/24 h (95% CI, 43.61–54.17), respectively; the mean urinary sodium/potassium ratio was 3.68 (95% CI, 2.96–4.40). Conclusions: This updated systematic review highlights excessively high dietary intake of sodium and low intake of potassium at the community level in most parts of the world. The urinary Na/K ratio exceeded the level recommended by the WHO guidelines.

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 Arno, A., Elliott, J., Wallace, B., Turner, T., & Thomas, J. (2021). The views of health guideline developers on the use of automation in health evidence synthesis. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01569-2 Ashiq, M., & Warraich, N. F. (2022). A systematized review on data librarianship literature: Current services, challenges, skills, and motivational factors. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 55(2), 414–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006221083675 Beller, E., Clark, J., Tsafnat, G., Adams, C., Diehl, H., Lund, H., Ouzzani, M., Thayer, K., Thomas, J., Turner, T., Xia, J., Robinson, K., & Glasziou, P. (2018). Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: Principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Systematic Reviews, 7(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0740-7 Brierley, L., Nanni, F., Polka, J. K., Dey, G., Pálfy, M., Fraser, N., & Coates, J. A. (2022). Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic. PLOS Biology, 20(2), e3001285. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8806067/ Briscoe, S., Abbott, R., & Melendez‐Torres, G. J. (2022). Expert searchers identified time, team, technology and tension as challenges when carrying out supplementary searches for systematic reviews: A thematic network analysis. Health Information & Libraries Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12468 Brody, S., Loree, S., Sampson, M., Mensinkai, S., Coffman, J., Mueller, M., Askin, N., Hamill, C., Wilson, E., McAteer, M. B., & Staines, H. (2023). Searching for evidence in public health emergencies: A white paper of best practices. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 111(1), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1530 Butcher, R., Sampson, M., Couban, R. J., Malin, J. E., Loree, S., & Brody, S. (2022). The currency and completeness of specialized databases of COVID-19 publications. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 147, 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.03.006 CABI Digital Library. (2023). searchRxiv. Retrieved October 12, 2023, from https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/journal/searchrxiv Callaway, J. (2021). The Librarian Reserve Corps: An emergency response. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 40(1), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2021.1873627 Chappell, M., Edwards, M., Watkins, D., Marshall, C., & Graziadio, S. (2023). Machine learning for accelerating screening in evidence reviews. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods, 1(5), e12021. https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12021 Chen, Y. Y., Bullard, J., & Giustini, D. (2023). Automated indexing using NLM's Medical Text Indexer (MTI) compared to human indexing in Medline: A pilot study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 111(3), 684–695. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2023.1588 Clyne, B., Walsh, K. A., O'Murchu, E., Sharp, M. K., Comber, L., O’ Brien, K. K., Smith, S. M., Harrington, P., O'Neill, M., Teljeur, C., & Ryan, M. (2021). Using preprints in evidence synthesis: Commentary on experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 138, 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.010 Cooper, C., Booth, A., Husk, K., Lovell, R., Frost, J., Schauberger, U., Britten, N., & Garside, R. (2022). A Tailored Approach: A model for literature searching in complex systematic reviews. Journal of Information Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221114452 De Brún, C. (2022, June 1–3). Knowledge makes the world go round: Librarians working together to fight the COVID infodemic [Poster session]. European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Rotterdam, Netherlands. de Kock, S., Stirk, L., Ross, J., Duffy, S., Noake, C., & Misso, K. (2020). Systematic review search methods evaluated using the Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews tool. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 37(1), E18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462320002135 EBI-SIG. (2023). Library of Search Strategy Resources. Retrieved October 12, 2023, from https://sites.google.com/view/searchresourceslib/home El Mikati, I. K., Khabsa, J., Harb, T., Khamis, M., Agarwal, A., Pardo-Hernandez, H., Farran, S., Khamis, A. M., El Zein, O., El-Khoury, R., Schünemann, H. J., & Akl, E. A. (2022). A Framework for the development of living practice guidelines in health care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 175(8), 1154-1160. https://doi.org/10.7326/M22-0514 Elliott, J. H., Synnot, A., Turner, T., Simmonds, M., Akl, E. A., McDonald, S., Salanti, G., Meerpohl, J., MacLehose, H., Hilton, J., Tovey, D., Shemilt, I., & Thomas, J. (2017). Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 91, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.010 Foster, M. J., & Jewell, S. T. (2022). Piecing together systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses. Rowman & Littlefield. Greenhalgh, T., Fisman, D., Cane, D. J., Oliver, M., & Macintyre, C. R. (2022). Adapt or die: How the pandemic made the shift from EBM to EBM+ more urgent. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 27(5), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-111952 Greenhalgh, T., & Peacock, R. (2005). Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: Audit of primary sources. BMJ, 331(7524), 1064–1065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68 Johnson, E. E., O’Keefe, H., Sutton, A., & Marshall, C. (2022). The Systematic Review Toolbox: Keeping up to date with tools to support evidence synthesis. Systematic Reviews, 11(1), 258. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02122-z Khalil, H., Tamara, L., Rada, G., & Akl, E. A. (2021). Challenges of evidence synthesis during the 2020 COVID pandemic: A scoping review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 142, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2021.10.017 Kirkham, J. J., Penfold, N. C., Murphy, F., Boutron, I., Ioannidis, J. P., Polka, J., & Moher, D. (2020). Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting. BMJ Open, 10(12), e041849. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849 Levay, P., & Craven, J. (2019). Conclusion: Where do we go from here? In P. Levay, & J. Craven (Eds.), Systematic searching: Practical ideas for improving results (pp. 289–292). Facet Publishing. Levay, P., Heath, A., & Tuvey, D. (2022a). Efficient searching for NICE public health guidelines: Would using fewer sources still find the evidence? Research Synthesis Methods, 13(6), 760–789. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1577 Levay, P., Walsh, N., & Foster, L. (2022b). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence information specialist development pathway: Developing the skills, knowledge and confidence to quality assure search strategies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 39(4), 392–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12460 MacFarlane, A., Russell-Rose, T., & Shokraneh, F. (2022). Search strategy formulation for systematic reviews: Issues, challenges and opportunities. Intelligent Systems with Applications, 15, 200091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswa.2022.200091 McDonald, S., Sharp, S., Morgan, R. L., Murad, M. H., & Fraile Navarro, D. (2023). Methods for living guidelines: Early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 4: Search methods and approaches for living guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 155, 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.12.023 Metzendorf, M., & Featherstone, R. M. (2021). Evaluation of the comprehensiveness, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production. Research Synthesis Methods, 12(5), 607–617. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1501 Metzendorf, M., Weibel, S., Reis, S., & McDonald, S. (2022). Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 8(4), 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112019 Naicker, R. (2022). Critically appraising for antiracism. Education for Information, 38(4), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-220052 National Library of Medicine. (2022). Indexing FAQs. Retrieved October 12, 2023, from https://support.nlm.nih.gov/knowledgebase/article/KA-05326/en-us O’Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., McNaught, J., Miwa, M., & Ananiadou, S. (2015). Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: A systematic review of current approaches. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-5 Pierre, O., Riveros, C., Charpy, S., & Boutron, I. (2021). Secondary electronic sources demonstrated very good sensitivity for identifying studies evaluating interventions for COVID-19. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 141, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.09.022 Qureshi, R., Shaughnessy, D., Gill, K. A. R., Robinson, K. A., Li, T., & Agai, E. (2023). Are ChatGPT and large language models “the answer” to bringing us closer to systematic review automation? Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02243-z Ramirez, D., Foster, M. J., Kogut, A., & Xiao, D. (2022). Adherence to systematic review standards: Impact of librarian involvement in Campbell Collaboration's education reviews. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 48(5), 102567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102567 Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J. B. (2021). PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z Rosonovski, S., Levchenko, M., Ide‐Smith, M., Faulk, L., Harrison, M., & McEntyre, J. (2023). Searching and evaluating publications and preprints using Europe PMC. Current Protocols, 3(3), e694. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpz1.694 Sampson, M. (2019). Communication for information specialists. In P. Levay, & J. Craven (Eds.), Systematic searching: Practical ideas for improving results (pp. 249–268). Facet Publishing. Shemilt, I., Noel-Storr, A., Thomas, J., Featherstone, R., & Mavergames, C. (2022). Machine learning reduced workload for the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register: Development and evaluation of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Classifier. Systematic Reviews, 11(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01880-6 Shokraneh, F., & Adams, C. E. (2019). Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: Discussion and case report. Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1035-3 Stansfield, C., Stokes, G., & Thomas, J. (2022). Applying machine classifiers to update searches: Analysis from two case studies. Research Synthesis Methods, 13(1), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1537 Svarre, T., & Russell-Rose, T. (2022). Think outside the search box: A comparative study of visual and form-based query builders. Journal of Information Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221138536 Thomas, J., McDonald, S., Noel-Storr, A., Shemilt, I., Elliott, J., Mavergames, C., & Marshall, I. J. (2021). Machine learning reduced workload with minimal risk of missing studies: Development and evaluation of a randomized controlled trial classifier for Cochrane Reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 133, 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.003 Townsend, W., Anderson, P., Haines, K., Hansen, S., James, L., MacEachern, M., Rana, G., Saylor, K. & Saylor, K. (2022). Addressing antiquated, non-standard, exclusionary, and potentially offensive terms in evidence syntheses and systematic searches. Retrieved October 12, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.7302/6408 van Noorden, R. (2023). ChatGPT-like AIs are coming to major science search engines. Nature, 620(7973), 258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.12.023 Verdugo-Paiva, F., Vergara, C., Ávila, C., Castro-Guevara, J., Cid, J., Contreras, V., Jara, I., Jiménez, V., Lee, M. H., Muñoz, M., Rojas-Gómez, A. M., Rosón-Rodríguez, P., Serrano-Arévalo, K., Silva-Ruz, I., Vásquez-Laval, J., Zambrano-Achig, P., Zavadzki, G., & Rada, G. (2022). COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence repository is highly comprehensive and can be used as a single source for COVID-19 studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 149, 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.001 Waffenschmidt, S., & Hausner, E. (2019). Collaborative working to improve searching. In P. Levay, & J. Craven (Eds.), Systematic searching: Practical ideas for improving results (pp. 229–248). Facet Publishing. Wang, S., Scells, H., Koopman, B., & Zuccon, G. (2023). Can ChatGPT write a good Boolean query for systematic review literature search? SIGIR '23: Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Taipei. 1426–1436. https://doi.org/10.1145/3539618.3591703

Context. High-resolution échelle spectra confine many essential stellar parameters once the data reach a quality appropriate to constrain the various physical processes that form these spectra. Aim. We provide a homogeneous library of high-resolution, high-S/N spectra for 48 bright AFGKM stars, some of them approaching the quality of solar-flux spectra. Our sample includes the northern Gaia benchmark stars, some solar analogs, and some other bright Morgan-Keenan (M-K) spectral standards. Methods. Well-exposed deep spectra were created by average-combining individual exposures. The data-reduction process relies on adaptive selection of parameters by using statistical inference and robust estimators. We employed spectrum synthesis techniques and statistics tools in order to characterize the spectra and give a first quick look at some of the science cases possible. Results. With an average spectral resolution of R ≈ 220 000 (1.36 km s−1), a continuous wavelength coverage from 383 nm to 912 nm, and S/N of between 70:1 for the faintest star in the extreme blue and 6000:1 for the brightest star in the red, these spectra are now made public for further data mining and analysis. Preliminary results include new stellar parameters for 70 Vir and α Tau, the detection of the rare-earth element dysprosium and the heavy elements uranium, thorium and neodymium in several RGB stars, and the use of the 12C to 13C isotope ratio for age-related determinations. We also found Arcturus to exhibit few-percent Ca II H&K and Hα residual profile changes with respect to the KPNO atlas taken in 1999.

Background: Previous studies of infants born to HIV-positive mothers have linked HIV exposure to poor outcomes from gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses, and to overall increased mortality rates. The mechanism behind this is unknown, but it is possible that differences in the nasopharyngeal (NP) microbiome between HIV-unexposed and HIV-exposed infants could play a role in perpetuating some outcomes. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal analysis of 170 NP swabs of healthy HIV-exposed, uninfected (HEU; n=10) infants and their HIV(+) mothers and HIV-unexposed, uninfected (HUU; n=10) infants and their HIV(-) mothers. These swabs were identified from a sample library collected in Lusaka, Zambia between 2015 and 2016. Using 16S rRNA gene sequencing, we characterized the maturation of the microbiome over the first 14 weeks of life to determine what quantifiable differences exist between HEU and HUU infants, and what patterns are reflected in the mothers' NP microbiomes. Results: In both HEU and HUU infants, Staphylococcus and Corynebacterium began as primary colonizers of the NP microbiome but were in time replaced by Dolosigranulum, Streptococcus, Moraxella and Haemophilus. When studying differences between infants, the microbe Staphylococcus haemolyticus indicated a distinctive high association with HIV exposure at birth, even when accounting for the interaction between HIV exposure status and time of sampling. When comparing infants to their mothers with paired analyses, HEU infants’ NP microbiome composition was only slightly different from their HIV(+) mothers at birth or 14 weeks, including in their carriage of S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and S. haemolyticus. Conclusions: Our analyses indicate that the HEU infants in our study exhibit subtle differences in the NP microbial composition throughout the sampling interval. Given our results and the sampling limitations of our study, we believe that further research must be conducted in order to confidently understand the relationship between HIV exposure and infants’ NP microbiomes.

Tuberculosis (TB) is a deep public health concern worldwide worsened by reported multi drugresistant (MDR) and extensively drug- resistant (XDR) stralins of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the causative agent of the disease. A new class of thiadiazole inhibitors were reported to inhibit the enoyl-acyl transporter protein reductase (InhA) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTb). We performed here the computer-aided molecular design of novel thiadiazole (TDZ) inhibitors of InhA by in situ modifying the reference crystal structure of (S)-1-(5-((1-(2,6-difluorobenzyl)-1 H-pyrazol-3yl)amino)-1,3,4-thiadiazol-2-yl)-1-(4-methylthiazol-2-yl)ethanol-InhA (PDB code: 4BQP). Thus a training set of 15 hybrids with known inhibition potency \(\left(\mathrm{IC}_{50}^{\exp }\right)\) was selected to establish a onedescriptor quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) model resulting in a linear correlation between the Gibbs free energy (GFE) during the formation of the InhA-TDZ complex and \(\mathrm{IC}_{50}^{\mathrm{exp}}\left(\mathrm{plC} \mathrm{C}_{50} \exp ==-0.29 \mathrm{x} \Delta \Delta \mathrm{G}_{\mathrm{com}}+8.13 ; \mathrm{n}=15 ; \mathrm{R}^2=0.92, \mathrm{R}^2{ }_{\mathrm{xv}}=0.91 ;\right.\) F-test of \(142.6 ; \sigma=0.21 ; \alpha>\) \(\left.95 \% ; R^2-R_{x v}^2=0.01\right)\). The 3D pharmacophore model \((\mathrm{PH} 4)\) generated from the active conformations of TDZs ( \(\mathrm{pIC}_{50}^{\mathrm{exp}}=0.93 \times \mathrm{pIC}_{50}^{\text {pred }}+0.47 ; \mathrm{n}=15 ; \mathrm{R}^2=0.97 ; \mathrm{R}_{\mathrm{xv}}=0.94 ;\) F-test of \(215.45 ; \sigma=0.17 ; \alpha>98 \% ; R^2-R_{x v}^2=0.03\) ) served as a virtual screening tool for new analogs from a virtual library (VL). The combination of molecular modeling and \(\mathrm{PH} 4\) in silico screening of (\(\mathrm{VL}\)) resulted in the identification of novel potent antitubercular agent candidates with favorable pharmacokinetic profiles of which the six best hits predicted inhibitory potencies \(\mathrm{IC}_{50}^{\text {pre }}\) in the sub nanomolar range \((0.1-0.2 \mathrm{nM})\).

Abstract Introduction Implementation of novel digital technologies into complex hospital systems, particularly within the United Kingdom’s (UKs) National Health Service, is challenging and can result in delays to the use and evaluation of innovative systems. MedEye is a bedside tool for preventing medication administration errors used as part of a closed-loop medication administration system. Aim The aim of this study was to understand the barriers and facilitators associated with implementing MedEye for the first time in a large UK Teaching Hospital Trust. Methods We used a case study approach and conducted semi-structured interviews (n=9) with key members of the project implementation team from Pharmacy (n=3), Nursing (n=2), commercial system provider(n=2), IT (n=1) and academia (n=1) and 20 hours of field observations. We explored stakeholder’s experiences about the implementation process, barriers and facilitators and any key lessons learnt according to constructs from Sittig and Singh’s Eight Dimension Sociotechnical Model.1 We analysed the data from interviews and observations using the framework approach.2 We firstly familiarised ourselves with the data, coded interviews, guided by our analytical framework, charted and then interpreted the data. All necessary ethical and organisational approvals were obtained. Results We identified themes relating to eight sociotechnical domains. Clinical Content: the format of the medication library and process for ordering medications were different to other European sites that had implemented MedEye, posing challenges for developers. Hardware and Software Computing Infrastructure: the integration of MedEye with the electronic prescribing system was one of the “biggest challenges”(P2) and contributed to delays. Human Computer Interface: the MedEye system’s user interface was described as “clean, simple and easy to use”(P2).People: nurses and senior management “absolutely wanted this [project] to work”(P1).Communication and Workflow: it was sometimes difficult to communicate effectively because the IT team had their own “set of jargon which is very technical” and the clinical team used “lots of medical jargon”(P2), resulting in misunderstandings. Internal Organisational Policies, Procedures and Culture: the hospital recognised the potential safety benefits of MedEye. However, its implementation was different to other IT products, which would “have actually gone through the development cycle”(P7).External Rules, Regulations and Pressures: the IT and informatics team’s resources were stretched with multiple projects been implemented simultaneously. System Measurement and Monitoring: the project team conducted “a lot of testing”(P3), to refine the technology. Conclusions This study sought to understand the sociotechnical challenges when implementing a novel digital technology in a UK hospital and identified themes related to eight domains. We acknowledge that our study had a few limitations: we interviewed a small number of participants who were directly involved in the implementation process, and the study was conducted in one hospital Trust, limiting the generalisability of the findings. However, use of the eight-domain sociotechnical framework strengthened our study, allowing us to derive the specific facilitators and barriers to the implementation and deployment process. This study also emphasises the importance of working closely with IT managers who can coordinate work within an organisation to anticipate delays and mitigate against project risks. References 1. Sittig, D.F. and H. Singh, A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Quality & safety in health care, 2010. 19 Suppl 3(Suppl 3): p. i68-i74. 2. Pope, C., S. Ziebland, and N. Mays, Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2000. 320(7227): p. 114–116.