Nyt fra tidsskrifterne
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Klik på knappen for at kopiere eller tryk på linket nedenfor.
Kopieret til udklipsholder!
Ingen søgeord valgt.
23 emner vises.
Denise Ann Dayao, Justyna Jaskiewcz, Sangun Lee, Bruno Cesar Oliveira, Abhineet Sheoran, Giovanni Widmer, Saul Tzipori aDepartment of Infectious Disease and Global Health; Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts Universitygrid.429997.8, North Grafton, Massachusetts, USA bCenter for Engineering in Medicine, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospitalgrid.32224.35, Harvard Medical School, and Shriners Hospitals for Children, Boston, Massachusetts, USA cUnião das Faculdades dos Grandes Lagos, São José do Rio Preto, Brazil, Liise-anne Pirofski
Infection and Immunity, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
James A. Watson, Stephen M. Kissler, Nicholas P. J. Day, Yonatan H. Grad, Nicholas J. White aMahidol-Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol Universitygrid.10223.32, Bangkok, Thailand bCentre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom cDepartment of Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Antimicrobial Agents And Chemotherapy, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Jakub M. Kwiecinski, Diamond A. Jelani, Ernesto J. Fuentes, Alexander R. Horswill aDepartment of Immunology and Microbiology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA bDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Biochemistry, Biophysics and Biotechnology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland cDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Iowagrid.214572.7, Iowa City, Iowa, USA dDepartment of Veterans Affairs, Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Aurora, Colorado, USA
Antimicrobial Agents And Chemotherapy, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Garam Choi, Sang Ho Choi
Trends in Microbiology, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
The fulminating zoonotic pathogen Vibrio vulnificus is the causative agent of fatal septicemia in humans and fish, raising tremendous economic burdens in healthcare and the aquaculture industry. V. vulnificus exploits various virulence factors, including biofilm-related factors and exotoxins, for its persistence in nature and pathogenesis during infection. Substantial studies have found that the expression of virulence factors is coordinately regulated by numerous transcription factors that recognize the changing environments.
Læs mere Tjek på PubMedNtuku, H., Smith-Gueye, C., Scott, V., Njau, J., Whittemore, B., Zelman, B., Tambo, M., Prach, L. M., Wu, L., Schrubbe, L., Kang Dufour, M.-S., Mwilima, A., Uusiku, P., Sturrock, H., Bennett, A., Smith, J., Kleinschmidt, I., Mumbengegwi, D., Gosling, R., Hsiang, M.
BMJ Open, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Objectives
To estimate the cost and cost effectiveness of reactive case detection (RACD), reactive focal mass drug administration (rfMDA) and reactive focal vector control (RAVC) to reduce malaria in a low endemic setting.
Setting
The study was part of a 2x2 factorial design cluster randomised controlled trial within the catchment area of 11 primary health facilities in Zambezi, Namibia.
Participants
Cost and outcome data were collected from the trial, which included 8948 community members that received interventions due to their residence within 500 m of malaria index cases.
Outcome measures
The primary outcome was incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) per in incident case averted. ICER per prevalent case and per disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted were secondary outcomes, as were per unit interventions costs and personnel time. Outcomes were compared as: (1) rfMDA versus RACD, (2) RAVC versus no RAVC and (3) rfMDA+RAVC versus RACD only.
Results
rfMDA cost 1.1x more than RACD, and RAVC cost 1.7x more than no RAVC. Relative to RACD only, the cost of rfMDA+RAVC was double ($3082 vs $1553 per event). The ICERs for rfMDA versus RACD, RAVC versus no RAVC and rfMDA+RAVC versus RACD only were $114, $1472 and $842, per incident case averted, respectively. Using prevalent infections and DALYs as outcomes, trends were similar. The median personnel time to implement rfMDA was 20% lower than for RACD (30 vs 38 min per person). The median personnel time for RAVC was 34 min per structure sprayed.
Conclusion
Implemented alone or in combination, rfMDA and RAVC were cost effective in reducing malaria incidence and prevalence despite higher implementation costs in the intervention compared with control arms. Compared with RACD, rfMDA was time saving. Cost and time requirements for the combined intervention could be decreased by implementing rfMDA and RAVC simultaneously by a single team.
Trial registration number
NCT02610400; Post-results.
Læs mere Tjek på PubMed
Wang, H., Zhou, X., Song, C., Yin, P., Shi, R., Zhang, H., Dan, Y., Wu, H., Ye, J.
BMJ Open, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Objectives
This study aimed to examine the influence and conditioning process of hindrance stressors on the emotional exhaustion of the front-line healthcare workers during recuperation, examine the potential mediating process of rumination, and explore the moderating role of organisational and family factors.
Setting
This cross-sectional study was conducted during 12–20 July 2020. Total 418 questionnaires were collected from front-line healthcare workers by random cluster sampling. Hierarchical regression was performed to analyse the mediating effect of affective rumination using SPSS25.0, while PROCESS was used to further investigate the moderating role of servant leadership and family support.
Participants
418 healthcare workers were investigated randomly from front-line medical teams. Inclusion criteria included worked as front-line health workers and participated in the fight against COVID-19 in Hubei; age ≥18 years; normal cognitive and comprehension abilities under physical and mental health; volunteer to participate in this study. Exclusion criteria included recently affected by major events other than COVID-19 or those with a history of neurasthenia and trauma.
Results
Using descriptive analysis of average value and SD measured by a five-item scale (MBI-GS), we found that front-line healthcare workers’ emotional exhaustion score (2.45±0.88) was at the medium level. Hindrance stressors, mediated by affective rumination, had a significant positive predictive effect on emotional exhaustion. Servant leadership negatively moderated the direct effect of hindrance stressors on emotional exhaustion (β=–0.106, p<0.01). Family support positively moderated the impact of hindrance stressors on emotional exhaustion (β=0.082, p<0.05).
Conclusions
During the recuperation period, after successfully controlling COVID-19 at the front line, the first-line healthcare workers should be screened through affective rumination evaluation to gain insight for targeted interventions. We find that servant leadership is beneficial in alleviating emotional exhaustion while family support worsens emotional exhaustion. We suggest that servant leadership should be further promoted in medical organisations, and family support should be applied correctly and cautiously.
Læs mere Tjek på PubMed
Hong, C., Zhang, H. G., L'Yi, S., Weber, G., Avillach, P., Tan, B. W. Q., Gutierrez-Sacristan, A., Bonzel, C.-L., Palmer, N. P., Malovini, A., Tibollo, V., Luo, Y., Hutch, M. R., Liu, M., Bourgeois, F., Bellazzi, R., Chiovato, L., Sanz Vidorreta, F. J., Le, T. T., Wang, X., Yuan, W., Neuraz, A., Benoit, V., Moal, B., Morris, M., Hanauer, D. A., Maidlow, S., Wagholikar, K., Murphy, S., Estiri, H., Makoudjou, A., Tippmann, P., Klann, J., Follett, R. W., Gehlenborg, N., Omenn, G. S., Xia, Z., Dagliati, A., Visweswaran, S., Patel, L. P., Mowery, D. L., Schriver, E. R., Samayamuthu, M. J., Kavuluru, R., Lozano-Zahonero, S., Zöller, D., Tan, A. L. M., Tan, B. W. L., Ngiam, K. Y., Holmes, J. H., Schubert, P., Cho, K., Ho, Y.-L., Beaulieu-Jones, B. K., Pedrera-Jimenez, M., Garcia-Barrio, N., Serrano-Balazote, P., Kohane, I., The Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by EHR (4CE), South, A., Brat, G. A., Cai, T.
BMJ Open, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Objective
To assess changes in international mortality rates and laboratory recovery rates during hospitalisation for patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 between the first wave (1 March to 30 June 2020) and the second wave (1 July 2020 to 31 January 2021) of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Design, setting and participants
This is a retrospective cohort study of 83 178 hospitalised patients admitted between 7 days before or 14 days after PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within the Consortium for Clinical Characterization of COVID-19 by Electronic Health Record, an international multihealthcare system collaborative of 288 hospitals in the USA and Europe. The laboratory recovery rates and mortality rates over time were compared between the two waves of the pandemic.
Primary and secondary outcome measures
The primary outcome was all-cause mortality rate within 28 days after hospitalisation stratified by predicted low, medium and high mortality risk at baseline. The secondary outcome was the average rate of change in laboratory values during the first week of hospitalisation.
Results
Baseline Charlson Comorbidity Index and laboratory values at admission were not significantly different between the first and second waves. The improvement in laboratory values over time was faster in the second wave compared with the first. The average C reactive protein rate of change was –4.72 mg/dL vs –4.14 mg/dL per day (p=0.05). The mortality rates within each risk category significantly decreased over time, with the most substantial decrease in the high-risk group (42.3% in March–April 2020 vs 30.8% in November 2020 to January 2021, p<0.001) and a moderate decrease in the intermediate-risk group (21.5% in March–April 2020 vs 14.3% in November 2020 to January 2021, p<0.001).
Conclusions
Admission profiles of patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 infection did not differ greatly between the first and second waves of the pandemic, but there were notable differences in laboratory improvement rates during hospitalisation. Mortality risks among patients with similar risk profiles decreased over the course of the pandemic. The improvement in laboratory values and mortality risk was consistent across multiple countries.
Læs mere Tjek på PubMed
Krauss, S. R., Barbateskovic, M., Klingenberg, S. L., Djurisic, S., Petersen, S. B., Kenfelt, M., Kong, D. Z., Jakobsen, J. C., Gluud, C.
BMJ Open, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Objectives
To assess the benefits and harms of aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in randomised clinical trials in relation to human vaccine development.
Design
Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis assessing the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
Data sources
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science until 29 June 2021, and Chinese databases until September 2021.
Eligibility criteria
Randomised clinical trials irrespective of type, status and language of publication, with trial participants of any sex, age, ethnicity, diagnosis, comorbidity and country of residence.
Data extraction and synthesis
Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Cochrane’s RoB tool 1. Dichotomous data were analysed as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences. We explored both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was quantified with I2 statistic. We GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence.
Results
We included 102 randomised clinical trials (26 457 participants). Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may have no effect on serious adverse events (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.43; very low certainty) and on all-cause mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.41; very low certainty). No trial reported on quality of life. Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may increase adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.20; very low certainty). We found no or little evidence of a difference between aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention when assessing serology with geometric mean titres or concentrations or participants’ seroprotection.
Conclusions
Based on evidence at very low certainty, we were unable to identify benefits of aluminium adjuvants, which may be associated with adverse events considered non-serious.
Læs mere Tjek på PubMed
Aukland, E. A., Klepstad, P., Aukland, S. M., Ghavidel, F. Z., Buanes, E. A.
BMJ Open, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Objectives
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication among critical ill patients with COVID-19, but the actual incidence is unknown as AKI-incidence varies from 25% to 89% in intensive care unit (ICU) populations. We aimed to describe the prevalence and risk factors of AKI in patients with COVID-19 admitted to ICU in Norway.
Design
Nation-wide observational study with data sampled from the Norwegian Intensive Care and Pandemic Registry (NIPaR) for the period between 10 March until 31 December 2020.
Setting
ICU patients with COVID-19 in Norway. NIPaR collects data on intensive care stays covering more than 90% of Norwegian ICU and 98% of ICU stays.
Participants
Adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to Norwegian ICU were included in the study. Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) were excluded in order to avoid bias from CKD on the incidence of AKI.
Primary and secondary outcome measures
Primary outcome was AKI at ICU admission as defined by renal Simplified Acute Physiology Score in NIPaR. Secondary outcome measures included survival at 30 and 90 days after admission to hospital.
Results
A total number of 361 patients with COVID-19 were included in the analysis. AKI was present in 32.0% of the patients at ICU admission. The risk for AKI at ICU admission was related to acute circulatory failure at admission to hospital. Survival for the study population at 30 and 90 days was 82.5% and 77.6%, respectively. Cancer was a predictor of 30-day mortality. Age, acute circulatory failure at hospital admission and AKI at ICU admission were predictors of both 30-day and 90-day mortality.
Conclusions
A high number of patients with COVID-19 had AKI at ICU admission. The study indicates that AKI at ICU admission was related to acute circulatory failure at hospital admission. Age, acute circulatory failure at hospital admission and AKI at ICU admission were associated with mortality.
Læs mere Tjek på PubMed
Griffin, L., Riley, R.
BMJ Open, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Objectives
To identify the psychological impact of working during the COVID-19 pandemic on medical and nursing students’ psychological well-being. To inform recommendations for the provision of future student well-being support.
Design
An interpretative qualitative, semistructured interview study employing maximum variation sampling, snowball sampling and a thematic analysis.
Setting
A large West Midlands (UK) university with medical and nursing undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. Study undertaken between January and May 2020.
Participants
A purposive sample of eight medical (six women and two men) and seven nursing (all women) students who worked >2 weeks in a healthcare setting during the COVID-19 pandemic (from 1 March 2020 onwards).
Results
Four core themes with corresponding subthemes were identified: (1) COVID-19 sources of distress—working conditions, exposure to suffering, death and dying, relationships and teams, individual inexperience and student identity, (2) negative impact on mental health and well-being—psychological and emotional distress, delayed distress, exhaustion, mental ill health, (3) protective factors from distress—access to support, environment, preparation and induction, recognition and reward, time for breaks and rest and (4) positive experiences and meaningful outcomes.
Conclusions
Student pandemic deployment has had a significant negative impact on students’ psychological well-being, as a result of demanding working conditions, unprecedented exposure to death and suffering and lack of preparation for new job roles. Universities and healthcare organisations must formally acknowledge this impact and provide well-being support for distressed students working in such challenging contexts. They must also establish more supportive and inclusive healthcare environments for medical and nursing students in future pandemic and postpandemic circumstances, through the implementation of support systems and adequate preparation.
Læs mere Tjek på PubMed
Infection, 22.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Abstract
Purpose
In infections of the Central Nervous System (iCNS), rapid identification of causing pathogens is crucial for survival and to avoid long-term sequelae. Targeted therapy may reduce side effects and development of antibiotic resistance. New molecular-based syndromic tests such as the “meningitis/encephalitis panel” (MEP) allow accelerated pathogen identification from cerebrospinal fluid. We conducted a clinical study to evaluate the MEP’s efficacy in paediatric patients.
Methods
Cohort study in a unique clinical setting by comparing the outcome data of two neighbouring Children’s Hospitals in Germany which are comparable in size, catchment area and equipment but differ regarding availability of the MEP: study centre 1 (SC1): yes; SC2: no. The study population included 213 paediatric patients with a suspected iCNS (SC1: 106; SC2: 107), with comparable age, CRP at admission and frequency of intensive care. The primary outcome was total use of antibiotics.
Results
Total antibiotic use per patient was numerically lower in SC1 than in SC2 (SC1: median 2.83 days; SC2 3.67 days; p = 0.671). Multiple linear regression analysis did not show a relevant association between MEP-availability and total antibiotic use (ß = 0.1, 95% confidence interval [−1.46; +1.67], p = 0.897). In the subcohort with suspected meningoencephalitis (SC1: 18, SC2: 17), duration of acyclovir treatment was shorter in SC1 than in SC2 (median 1.3 days vs. 2.7 days, descriptive p = 0.0397).
Conclusions
The add-on use of the MEP in paediatric patients with suspected iCNS was associated with a non-significant reduction in total antibiotic use, and with a reduced exposure to acyclovir in treated patients.
Læs mere Tjek på PubMed
Beate Schmoele-Thoma, Agnieszka M. Zareba, Qin Jiang, Mohan S. Maddur, Rana Danaf, Alex Mann, Kingsley Eze, Juin Fok-Seang, Golam Kabir, Andrew Catchpole, Daniel A. Scott, Alejandra C. Gurtman, Kathrin U. Jansen, William C. Gruber, Philip R. Dormitzer, Kena A. Swanson
New England Journal of Medicine, 22.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 386, Issue 25, Page 2377-2386, June 2022.
Læs mere Tjek på PubMedEric J. Rubin, Lindsey R. Baden, Stephen Morrissey
New England Journal of Medicine, 22.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
New England Journal of Medicine, 22.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 386, Issue 25, Page 2438-2440, June 2022.
Læs mere Tjek på PubMedMalini DeSilva, Jacob Haapala, Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez, Kimberly K. Vesco, Matthew F. Daley, Darios Getahun, Ousseny Zerbo, Allison Naleway, Jennifer C. Nelson, Joshua T.B. Williams, Simon J. Hambidge, Thomas G. Boyce, Candace C. Fuller, Heather S. Lipkind, Eric Weintraub, Michael M. McNeil, Elyse O. Kharbanda
New England Journal of Medicine, 22.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Nicole P. Hachmann, Jessica Miller, Ai-ris Y. Collier, John D. Ventura, Jingyou Yu, Marjorie Rowe, Esther A. Bondzie, Olivia Powers, Nehalee Surve, Kevin Hall, Dan H. Barouch
New England Journal of Medicine, 22.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Sonja A. Rasmussen, Denise J. Jamieson
New England Journal of Medicine, 22.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Natasha B. Halasa, Samantha M. Olson, Mary A. Staat, Margaret M. Newhams, Ashley M. Price, Pia S. Pannaraj, Julie A. Boom, Leila C. Sahni, Kathleen Chiotos, Melissa A. Cameron, Katherine E. Bline, Charlotte V. Hobbs, Aline B. Maddux, Bria M. Coates, Kelly N. Michelson, Sabrina M. Heidemann, Katherine Irby, Ryan A. Nofziger, Elizabeth H. Mack, Laura Smallcomb, Stephanie P. Schwartz, Tracie C. Walker, Shira J. Gertz, Jennifer E. Schuster, Satoshi Kamidani, Keiko M. Tarquinio, Samina S. Bhumbra, Mia Maamari, Janet R. Hume, Hillary Crandall, Emily R. Levy, Matt S. Zinter, Tamara T. Bradford, Heidi R. Flori, Melissa L. Cullimore, Michele Kong, Natalie Z. Cvijanovich, Suzanne M. Gilboa, Kara N. Polen, Angela P. Campbell, Adrienne G. Randolph, Manish M. Patel
New England Journal of Medicine, 22.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Gen Miao, Haoran Peng, Hailin Tang, Yangang Liu, Xu Zheng, Bin Liu, Liangliang Jiang, Wanda Tang, Yanhua He, Yan Liu, Hao Ren, Ping Zhao, Zhongtian Qi, Cuiling Ding
Journal of Medical Virology, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Jule Rüter, Srinivas Reddy Pallerla, Christian G. Meyer, Nicolas Casadei, Michael Sonnabend, Silke Peter, Dennis Nurjadi, Le Thi Kieu Linh, Rolf Fendel, Siri Göpel, Olaf Riess, Peter G Kremsner, Thirumalaisamy P. Velavan
International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Maria Skaalum Petersen, Marnar Fríðheim Kristiansen, Katrin Dahl Hanusson, Billa Mouritsardóttir Foldbo, Marjun Eivindardóttir Danielsen, Bjarni á Steig, Shahin Gaini, Marin Strøm, Pál Weihe
International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Melissa M Higdon, Anurima Baidya, Karoline K Walter, Minal K Patel, Hanane Issa, Emmanuelle Espié, Daniel R Feikin, Maria Deloria Knoll
Lancet Infectious Diseases, 23.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
We recently conducted a systematic review and meta-regression of the duration of effectiveness of primary series COVID-19 vaccination against clinical outcomes before the predominance of the omicron (B.1.1.529) SARS-CoV-2 variant.1 Here we assess the duration of vaccine protection, after a primary vaccine series and after the first booster dose, against omicron, the current predominant variant, using the same methods.1
Læs mere Tjek på PubMedGanggang Zhao, Yun Ling, Yajuan Su, Zanyu Chen, Cherian J. Mathai, Ogheneobarome Emeje, Alexander Brown, Dinesh Reddy Alla, Jie Huang, Chansong Kim, Qian Chen, Xiaoqing He, David Stalla, Yadong Xu, Zehua Chen, Pai-Yen Chen, Shubhra Gangopadhyay, Jingwei Xie, Zheng Yan
Science Advances, 22.06.2022
Tilføjet 23.06.2022
Science Advances, <a href='https://www.science.org/toc/sciadv/8/25'>Volume 8, Issue 25</a>, June 2022.
Læs mere Tjek på PubMed