Simulations in evolution. II. Relative fitness and the propagation of mutants.

In Neo-Darwinism, variation and natural selection are the two evolutionary mechanisms which propel biological evolution. Our previous article presented a histogram model [1] consisting in populations of individuals whose number changed under the influence of variation and/or fitness, the total population remaining constant. Individuals are classified into bins, and the content of each bin is calculated generation after generation by an Excel spreadsheet. Here, we apply the histogram model to a stable population with fitness F(1)=1.00 in which one or two fitter mutants emerge. In a first scenario, a single mutant emerged in the population whose fitness was greater than 1.00. The simulations ended when the original population was reduced to a single individual. The histogram model was validated by excellent agreement between its predictions and those of a classical continuous function (Eqn. 1) which predicts the number of generations needed for a favorable mutation to spread throughout a population. But in contrast to Eqn. 1, our histogram model is adaptable to more complex scenarios, as demonstrated here. In the second and third scenarios, the original population was present at time zero together with two mutants which differed from the original population by two higher and distinct fitness values. In the fourth scenario, the large original population was present at time zero together with one fitter mutant. After a number of generations, when the mutant offspring had multiplied, a second mutant was introduced whose fitness was even greater. The histogram model also allows Shannon entropy (SE) to be monitored continuously as the information content of the total population decreases or increases. The results of these simulations illustrate, in a graphically didactic manner, the influence of natural selection, operating through relative fitness, in the emergence and dominance of a fitter mutant.

Interactive readings of children's literature in day care: Microgenetic analysis of the semiopictorial construction.

In line with educational issues involved in emergent literacy practices in preschool, in particular those concerning comprehension processes, this paper focuses on picture-based narrative comprehension during an interactive reading session of a wordless picture book, involving a group of children aged three and their teacher. Children are asked to make inferences about the meaning and outcome of the story, a procedure which gradually elicits their responses on how events link together, thus enhancing their capacity to use prior and implicit knowledge to build the story meaning. Moreover, this study highlights the importance of interaction for developing comprehension. Data collected was analysed following didactic microgenesis, an analytical approach showing that knowledge built during interaction depends on the joint construction of a zone of common meaning by which teacher and children try to adjust to each other. In order to help the process of merging different meanings of the story built online, a text written by researchers, following the narrative structure of the story, was read by the teacher after the picture-based reading. This led us to examine through interactional analysis which semiotic cues were used during recall on the following day, as an additional measure of knowledge construction.

Responding to Young People's Health Risks in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomised Trial of Training Clinicians in Screening and Motivational Interviewing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention implementing best practice guidelines recommending clinicians screen and counsel young people across multiple psychosocial risk factors, on clinicians' detection of health risks and patients' risk taking behaviour, compared to a didactic seminar on young people's health. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial where volunteer general practices were stratified by postcode advantage or disadvantage score and billing type (private, free national health, community health centre), then randomised into either intervention or comparison arms using a computer generated random sequence. Three months post-intervention, patients were recruited from all practices post-consultation for a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview and followed up three and 12 months later. Researchers recruiting, consenting and interviewing patients and patients themselves were masked to allocation status; clinicians were not. SETTING: General practices in metropolitan and rural Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: General practices with at least one interested clinician (general practitioner or nurse) and their 14-24 year old patients. INTERVENTION: This complex intervention was designed using evidence based practice in learning and change in clinician behaviour and general practice systems, and included best practice approaches to motivating change in adolescent risk taking behaviours. The intervention involved training clinicians (nine hours) in health risk screening, use of a screening tool and motivational interviewing; training all practice staff (receptionists and clinicians) in engaging youth; provision of feedback to clinicians of patients' risk data; and two practice visits to support new screening and referral resources. Comparison clinicians received one didactic educational seminar (three hours) on engaging youth and health risk screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were patient report of (1) clinician detection of at least one of six health risk behaviours (tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use, risks for sexually transmitted infection, STI, unplanned pregnancy, and road risks); and (2) change in one or more of the six health risk behaviours, at three months or at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were likelihood of future visits, trust in the clinician after exit interview, clinician detection of emotional distress and fear and abuse in relationships, and emotional distress at three and 12 months. Patient acceptability of the screening tool was also described for the intervention arm. Analyses were adjusted for practice location and billing type, patients' sex, age, and recruitment method, and past health risks, where appropriate. An intention to treat analysis approach was used, which included multilevel multiple imputation for missing outcome data. RESULTS: 42 practices were randomly allocated to intervention or comparison arms. Two intervention practices withdrew post allocation, prior to training, leaving 19 intervention (53 clinicians, 377 patients) and 21 comparison (79 clinicians, 524 patients) practices. 69% of patients in both intervention (260) and comparison (360) arms completed the 12 month follow-up. Intervention clinicians discussed more health risks per patient (59.7%) than comparison clinicians (52.7%) and thus were more likely to detect a higher proportion of young people with at least one of the six health risk behaviours (38.4% vs 26.7%, risk difference [RD] 11.6%, Confidence Interval [CI] 2.93% to 20.3%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.7, CI 1.1 to 2.5). Patients reported less illicit drug use (RD -6.0, CI -11 to -1.2; OR 0·52, CI 0·28 to 0·96), and less risk for STI (RD -5.4, CI -11 to 0.2; OR 0·66, CI 0·46 to 0·96) at three months in the intervention relative to the comparison arm, and for unplanned pregnancy at 12 months (RD -4.4; CI -8.7 to -0.1; OR 0·40, CI 0·20 to 0·80). No differences were detected between arms on other health risks. There were no differences on secondary outcomes, apart from a greater detection of abuse (OR 13.8, CI 1.71 to 111). There were no reports of harmful events and intervention arm youth had high acceptance of the screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: A complex intervention, compared to a simple educational seminar for practices, improved detection of health risk behaviours in young people. Impact on health outcomes was inconclusive. Technology enabling more efficient, systematic health-risk screening may allow providers to target counselling toward higher risk individuals. Further trials require more power to confirm health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN16059206.