Early-life soy exposure and age at menarche.

This study examines the timing of menarche in relation to infant-feeding methods, specifically addressing the potential effects of soy isoflavone exposure through soy-based infant feeding. Subjects were participants in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Mothers were enrolled during pregnancy and their children have been followed prospectively. Early-life feeding regimes, categorised as primarily breast, early formula, early soy and late soy, were defined using infant-feeding questionnaires administered during infancy. For this analysis, age at menarche was assessed using questionnaires administered approximately annually between ages 8 and 14.5. Eligible subjects were limited to term, singleton, White females. We used Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models to assess age at menarche and risk of menarche over the study period. The present analysis included 2920 girls. Approximately 2% of mothers reported that soy products were introduced into the infant diet at or before 4 months of age (early soy). The median age at menarche [interquartile range (IQR)] in the study sample was 153 months [144-163], approximately 12.8 years. The median age at menarche among early soy-fed girls was 149 months (12.4 years) [IQR, 140-159]. Compared with girls fed non-soy-based infant formula or milk (early formula), early soy-fed girls were at 25% higher risk of menarche throughout the course of follow-up (hazard ratio 1.25 [95% confidence interval 0.92, 1.71]). Our results also suggest that girls fed soy products in early infancy may have an increased risk of menarche specifically in early adolescence. These findings may be the observable manifestation of mild endocrine-disrupting effects of soy isoflavone exposure. However, our study is limited by few soy-exposed subjects and is not designed to assess biological mechanisms. Because soy formula use is common in some populations, this subtle association with menarche warrants more in-depth evaluation in future studies.

Genomics research: world survey of public funding.

BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, genomics has evolved as a scientific research discipline. Genomics research was fueled initially by government and nonprofit funding sources, later augmented by private research and development (R&D) funding. Citizens and taxpayers of many countries have funded much of the research, and have expectations about access to the resulting information and knowledge. While access to knowledge gained from all publicly funded research is desired, access is especially important for fields that have broad social impact and stimulate public dialogue. Genomics is one such field, where public concerns are raised for reasons such as health care and insurance implications, as well as personal and ancestral identification. Thus, genomics has grown rapidly as a field, and attracts considerable interest. RESULTS: One way to study the growth of a field of research is to examine its funding. This study focuses on public funding of genomics research, identifying and collecting data from major government and nonprofit organizations around the world, and updating previous estimates of world genomics research funding, including information about geographical origins. We initially identified 89 publicly funded organizations; we requested information about each organization's funding of genomics research. Of these organizations, 48 responded and 34 reported genomics research expenditures (of those that responded but did not supply information, some did not fund such research, others could not quantify it). The figures reported here include all the largest funders and we estimate that we have accounted for most of the genomics research funding from government and nonprofit sources. CONCLUSION: Aggregate spending on genomics research from 34 funding sources averaged around $2.9 billion in 2003-2006. The United States spent more than any other country on genomics research, corresponding to 35% of the overall worldwide public funding (compared to 49% US share of public health research funding for all purposes). When adjusted to genomics funding intensity, however, the United States dropped below Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as measured both by genomics research expenditure per capita and per Gross Domestic Product.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews.

BACKGROUND: When the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base - termed publication bias - results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

Do You Want to Hear the Bad News? The Value of Diagnostic Tests for Alzheimer's Disease.

OBJECTIVE: The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains difficult. Lack of diagnostic certainty or possible distress related to a positive result from diagnostic testing could limit the application of new testing technologies. The objective of this paper is to quantify respondents' preferences for obtaining AD diagnostic tests and to estimate the perceived value of AD test information. METHODS: Discrete-choice experiment and contingent-valuation questions were administered to respondents in Germany and the United Kingdom. Choice data were analyzed by using random-parameters logit. A probit model characterized respondents who were not willing to take a test. RESULTS: Most respondents indicated a positive value for AD diagnostic test information. Respondents who indicated an interest in testing preferred brain imaging without the use of radioactive markers. German respondents had relatively lower money-equivalent values for test features compared with respondents in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents preferred less invasive diagnostic procedures and tests with higher accuracy and expressed a willingness to pay up to €700 to receive a less invasive test with the highest accuracy.