mple. Future research could elucidate the role of adaptive and challenging behaviour in understanding EF variability among children with histories of developmental delay. Subselection inner catheters (Inner-Cath) are used adjunctively with outer guiding catheters (Outer-Cath) during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation. This study aims to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of left ventricular lead placement (LV-LP) guided by Inner-Cath alone. A total of 74 patients undergoing de novo CRT implantation were investigated. LV-LP was initially guided by Inner-Cath in 42 patients (Inner-Cath group) and Outer-Cath in 32 patients (Outer-Cath group). In the Inner-Cath group, a 7Fr Inner-Cath was advanced to the coronary sinus through a 7 Fr sheath inserted in a subclavian vein. In the Outer-Cath group, 9Fr or 10Fr Outer-Caths were used. Success rate of LV-LP, additional use of inner or outer catheters and procedure-related complications were compared between groups. LV-LP was successful in all patients in the Inner-Cath group, while LV-LP had to be abandoned in two patients (6.3%) of the Outer-Cath group due to CS perforation caused by Outer-Cath manipulation. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Inner-Cath group (148 vs. 168min; p=.024). Deployment of both an inner and outer cath became necessary less frequently for the Inner-Cath group (4.8% vs. 56.3%; p<.001). Mechanical CS injuries due to guiding catheter manipulation were only observed in the Outer-Cath group (0% vs. 15.6%, p=.013). LV-LP guided by Inner-Cath alone was feasible in over 95% of the patients without severe complications. This methodology for LV-LP may be preferable in CRT candidates with severe LV dysfunction in terms of shorter procedure time, smaller guiding sheath, and less procedure-related complications.LV-LP guided by Inner-Cath alone was feasible in over 95% of the patients without severe complications. This methodology for LV-LP may be preferable in CRT candidates with severe LV dysfunction in terms of shorter procedure time, smaller guiding sheath, and less procedure-related complications. Difficulties initiating and maintaining sleep (DIMS) are frequent features of autism, yet little is known about why these conditions co-occur. One possibility is that they share etiological factors, yet this hypothesis remains to be tested using quantitative genetic designs. We thus investigated etiological links between autism and DIMS using familial co-aggregation and twin methods. Twins, siblings, half-siblings, and cousins of 50,097 individuals with autism were identified from Swedish population registries. Their risk of DIMS, defined through diagnoses of insomnia and/or melatonin prescriptions, was then estimated. Twin analyses conducted on 15,279 child and adolescent twin pairs investigated etiological links between DIMS and ASD. 22.8% of autistic individuals had DIMS. Monozygotic co-twins of individuals with autism were most at risk of DIMS compared to the reference group (OR=6.6 [2.5-17.4]), followed by dizygotic co-twins (OR=2.6 [1.5-4.5]) and full siblings (OR=2.5 [2.4-2.6]). Half-siblings and cousins of individuals with autism were least likely to have DIMS relative to the reference group (OR range=1.3-1.5). check details Twin analyses estimated a correlation of 0.57 (0.53-0.61) between autism and DIMS, with a genetic correlation of 0.62 (0.60-0.68). These overlapping genetic factors explained 94% of the covariance between these conditions. Autistic traits also showed genetic overlap with DIMS. Our results suggest that shared genetic mechanisms underlie autism and DIMS, which may lead them to co-occur. Untangling the etiological overlap between these conditions has potential to assist in understanding the etiology of each condition, as well as their associated outcomes.Our results suggest that shared genetic mechanisms underlie autism and DIMS, which may lead them to co-occur. Untangling the etiological overlap between these conditions has potential to assist in understanding the etiology of each condition, as well as their associated outcomes.Healthcare researchers are showing renewed interest in the utilization of N-of-1 clinical trials for the individualization of pharmacological treatments. Here, we propose a frequentist approach to conducting treatment individualization in N-of-1 trials that we call "partial empirical Bayes." We infer the most beneficial treatment for the patient from combining the information provided by a previously conducted population crossover trial with individual patient data. We propose a method for estimating an optimal number of treatment cycles and investigate the statistical conditions under which N-of-1 trials are more beneficial than traditional clinical approaches. We represent the patient population with a random-coefficients linear model and calculate estimators of posttreatment individual disease severities. We show the estimators' consistency under the most common N-of-1 designs and examine their prediction errors and performance with small numbers of patient's responses. We demonstrate by simulating new patients that our approach is equivalent or superior to both the common clinical practice of recommending the on-average best treatment for all patients and the common individualization method that simply compares average responses to the tested treatments. We conclude that some situations exist in which individualization with N-of-1 trials is highly beneficial while other situations exist in which individualization may be unfruitful.Previous work indicates mutual exclusivity in word learning in monolingual, but not bilingual toddlers. We asked whether this difference indicates distinct conceptual biases, or instead reflects best-guess heuristic use in the absence of context. We altered word-learning contexts by manipulating whether a familiar- or unfamiliar-race speaker introduced a novel word for an object with a known category label painted in a new color. Both monolingual and bilingual infants showed mutual exclusivity for a familiar-race speaker, and relaxed mutual exclusivity and treated the novel word as a category label for an unfamiliar-race speaker. Thus, monolingual and bilingual infants have access to similar word-learning heuristics, and both use nonlinguistic social context to guide their use of the most appropriate heuristic.