Mix it and fix it: functions of composite olfactory signals in ring-tailed lemurs.

Animals communicating via scent often deposit composite signals that incorporate odorants from multiple sources; however, the function of mixing chemical signals remains understudied. We tested both a 'multiple-messages' and a 'fixative' hypothesis of composite olfactory signalling, which, respectively, posit that mixing scents functions to increase information content or prolong signal longevity. Our subjects-adult, male ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta)-have a complex scent-marking repertoire, involving volatile antebrachial (A) secretions, deposited pure or after being mixed with a squalene-rich paste exuded from brachial (B) glands. Using behavioural bioassays, we examined recipient responses to odorants collected from conspecific strangers. We concurrently presented pure A, pure B and mixed A + B secretions, in fresh or decayed conditions. Lemurs preferentially responded to mixed over pure secretions, their interest increasing and shifting over time, from sniffing and countermarking fresh mixtures, to licking and countermarking decayed mixtures. Substituting synthetic squalene (S)-a well-known fixative-for B secretions did not replicate prior results: B secretions, which contain additional chemicals that probably encode salient information, were preferred over pure S. Whereas support for the 'multiple-messages' hypothesis underscores the unique contribution from each of an animal's various secretions, support for the 'fixative' hypothesis highlights the synergistic benefits of composite signals.

The Relationship Between Support Systems and Disease Burden for Families Coping with Sickle Cell Disease in South Africa and Cameroon

Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a debilitating genetic blood disorder that seriously impacts the quality of life of affected individuals and their families. With 85% of cases occurring in sub-Saharan Africa, it is essential to identify the barriers and facilitators of optimal outcomes for people with SCD in this setting. This study focuses on understanding the relationship between support systems and disease outcomes for SCD patients and their families in Cameroon and South Africa.

Methods: This mixed-methods study utilizes surveys and semi-structured interviews to assess the experiences of 29 SCD patients and 28 caregivers of people with SCD across three cities in two African countries: Cape Town, South Africa; Yaoundé, Cameroon; and Limbe, Cameroon.

Results: Patients in Cameroon had less treatment options, a higher frequency of pain crises, and a higher incidence of malaria than patients in South Africa. Social support networks in Cameroon consisted of both family and friends and provided emotional, financial, and physical assistance during pain crises and hospital admissions. In South Africa, patients relied on a strong medical support system and social support primarily from close family members; they were also diagnosed later in life than those in Cameroon.

Conclusions: The strength of medical support systems influences the reliance of SCD patients and their caregivers on social support systems. In Cameroon the health care system does not adequately address all factors of SCD treatment and social networks of family and friends are used to complement the care received. In South Africa, strong medical and social support systems positively affect SCD disease burden for patients and their caregivers. SCD awareness campaigns are necessary to reduce the incidence of SCD and create stronger social support networks through increased community understanding and decreased stigma.

A Framework to Support the Sharing and Reuse of Computable Phenotype Definitions Across Health Care Delivery and Clinical Research Applications.

INTRODUCTION: The ability to reproducibly identify clinically equivalent patient populations is critical to the vision of learning health care systems that implement and evaluate evidence-based treatments. The use of common or semantically equivalent phenotype definitions across research and health care use cases will support this aim. Currently, there is no single consolidated repository for computable phenotype definitions, making it difficult to find all definitions that already exist, and also hindering the sharing of definitions between user groups. METHOD: Drawing from our experience in an academic medical center that supports a number of multisite research projects and quality improvement studies, we articulate a framework that will support the sharing of phenotype definitions across research and health care use cases, and highlight gaps and areas that need attention and collaborative solutions. FRAMEWORK: An infrastructure for re-using computable phenotype definitions and sharing experience across health care delivery and clinical research applications includes: access to a collection of existing phenotype definitions, information to evaluate their appropriateness for particular applications, a knowledge base of implementation guidance, supporting tools that are user-friendly and intuitive, and a willingness to use them. NEXT STEPS: We encourage prospective researchers and health administrators to re-use existing EHR-based condition definitions where appropriate and share their results with others to support a national culture of learning health care. There are a number of federally funded resources to support these activities, and research sponsors should encourage their use.

DEMOCRACY ISN'T THAT SMART (BUT WE CAN MAKE IT SMARTER): ON LANDEMORE'S DEMOCRATIC REASON

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016In her recent book, Democratic Reason, Hélène Landemore argues that, when evaluated epistemically, “a democratic decision procedure is likely to be a better decision procedure than any non-democratic decision procedures, such as a council of experts or a benevolent dictator” (p. 3). Landemore's argument rests heavily on studies of collective intelligence done by Lu Hong and Scott Page. These studies purport to show that cognitive diversity – differences in how people solve problems – is actually more important to overall group performance than average individual ability – how smart the individual members are. Landemore's argument aims to extrapolate from these results to the conclusion that democracy is epistemically better than any non-democratic rival. I argue here that Hong and Page's results actually undermine, rather than support, this conclusion. More specifically, I argue that the results do not show that democracy is better than any non-democratic alternative, and that in fact, they suggest the opposite – that at least some non-democratic alternatives are likely to epistemically outperform democracy.