Objectives To describe verbal and non-verbal restrictive feeding practices used by low-income mothers with their pre-adolescent children during a laboratory-based protocol, and examine associations between mother/child anthropometrics, child appetitive traits and mothers' restrictive practices. Methods Mothers and children (dyad n = 108, mean child age = 11.0 years [SD = 1.2]) were provided a standardized meal and then buffet of desserts. Sessions were video-recorded, and trained coders reliably identified positive and negative restrictive statements, non-verbal restrictive behaviours and redirection to healthier foods. Mother/child anthropometrics were measured by trained study staff and child appetitive traits reported by mothers using subscales of the Children's Eating Behaviours Questionnaire. Negative binomial regression was used to examine associations between mother/child characteristics and restrictive practices. Results Nearly all mothers (89.8%) engaged in restrictive feeding during the dessert buffet. Positive restrictive statements were the most common form of restriction (mean statements/10 minutes = 3.2 [SD = 3.1]). No associations were observed between children's body mass index (BMI) or appetitive traits and mothers' restrictive feeding practices. Associations of small effect size were observed between mothers' BMI, use of positive restrictive statements (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.98 [0.96-0.996]) and non-verbal restrictive behaviours (IRR = 0.96 [0.93-0.99]). Conclusions Laboratory-based feeding protocols can objectively assess nuances in restrictive feeding practices. Further research is needed to understand how specific approaches to restriction affect children's eating behaviours and weight.Interaction of conjugated polymers with liposomes is an attractive approach that benefits from both systems' characteristics such as electroactivity and enhanced interaction with cells. Conjugated polymer-liposome complexes have been investigated for bioimaging, drug delivery, and photothermal therapy. Their fabrication has largely been achieved by multistep procedures that require first the synthesis and processing of the conjugated polymer. Here, a new one step fabrication approach is reported based on in situ polymerization of a conjugated monomer precursor around liposomes. Polyaniline (PANI) doped with phytic acid is synthesized via oxidative polymerization in the presence of 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphatidylcholine (DOPC) vesicles to produce a conductive aqueous suspension of Liposome-PANI complexes. PANI interacts with liposomes without disrupting the bilayer as shown using differential scanning calorimetry and fluorescence quenching studies of the hydrophobic Nile red probe. Syrosingopine molecular weight The electronic conductivity of the Liposome-PANI complexes, which stems from the doped PANI accessible on the liposome surface, is confirmed using conductive atomic force microscopy and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Further, short-term in vitro cell studies show that the complexes colocalize with the cell membrane without reducing cell proliferation. This study presents a novel fabrication route to conductive suspensions of conjugated polymer-liposome complexes suitable for potential applications at the biointerface.Background Given the growth in dense breast notification (DBN) legislation in the United States, we examined the association between different types of DBN laws and supplemental screening behaviors among women. Methods We surveyed in March-April 2018 a nationally representative sample of women aged 40-59 years who received a routine screening mammogram in the past 18 months. Survey items included the following topics regarding supplemental screening discussing risks or benefits with a provider, knowledge about the risk of false positives, and utilization. We grouped women by state DBN into non-DBN, generic DBN (mentions breast density but not supplemental screening), DBN that mentions supplemental screening (DBN-SS), and DBN with mandated insurance coverage for supplemental screening (DBN-coverage), and estimated adjusted predicted probabilities for supplemental screening behaviors. Results Of 1641 women surveyed, 21.3% resided in non-DBN, 41.2% in generic DBN, 25.8% in DBN-SS, and 12.5% in DBN-coverage states. Overall, 23.0% of respondents had discussed supplemental screening with a provider, 11.3% of whom discussed the risks, and 49.5% discussed the benefits. In adjusted analysis, women living in DBN-coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening (27.5%) than women in non-DBN states (13.6%); pairwise contrast 13.8% (95% CI, 2.1% to 25.6%; P = .01). They were also more likely to have received supplemental screening for increased breast density (19.3%) compared to women living in non-DBN (9.9%); contrast 9.4% (95% CI, 1.6% to 17.3%; P = .01), Generic DBN (7.3%); difference 12.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 19.4%; P = less then .001), and DBN-SS (8.8%); contrast 10.5% (95% CI, 2.6% to 18.5%; P less then .01) states. Conclusions Women in DBN-coverage states were more likely to discuss supplemental screening with their providers, and to undergo supplemental screening, compared to women in states with other types of DBN laws, or without DBN laws.Purpose To compare the effectiveness and safety of a drug in daily practice with the outcomes of a target non-inferiority trial by rigorously mimickingin an observational study the trial's design features. Methods This cohort study was conducted using the British Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to emulate the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial. Patients with atrial fibrillation who were newly prescribed (>=12 months of no use) either rivaroxaban or warfarinfrom October 2008 to December 2017 were included. Non-inferiority of rivaroxaban to warfarin in the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism was assessed in different analysis populations (intention-to-treat [ITT], per-protocol [PP], and as-treated populations) using a hazardratio (HR) of 1.46 as the non-inferiority margin. Major bleeding (safety outcome) was also assessed and compared to that of the target trial.