Huntington's like conditions in China, A review of published Chinese cases

Background: Knowledge about HD in China is lacking in the international literature. We have therefore analyzed the Chinese literature to thoroughly explore the clinical characteristics of Huntington disease in China. Methods: A computer-based online search of China National Knowledge Infrastructure was performed to review case reports concerning HD published between January 1980 and April of 2011, and the clinical characteristics were extracted. Results: A total of 92 studies involving 279 patients (157 males and 122 females) were collected, 82.0% of which were from provinces of North China. Most of the cases (97.8%) had a family history of HD, and paternal inheritance (65.5%) was higher than maternal inheritance (34.5%). Onset age was 35.8 (± 11.8) years, death occurred with 45.6 (± 13.5) years after a course of 11.6 (± 5.6) years. Involuntary movements were the most frequent reported presentation (found in 52.3%, including 64.4% in the entire body, 19.8% in the upper limbs, and 13.7% in the head and face). Psychiatric symptoms at onset were reported in 16.1%, and cognitive impairment in 1.8%. With disease progression, 99.6% of patients had abnormal movements, 67.9% cognitive impairment, and 35.0% suffered psychiatric symptoms. Of the reported patients, only 22 underwent IT15 gene testing with positive results. Conclusion: HD is a well-reported entity in Chinese medical literature, however, only a small number of instances have been proven by molecular diagnosis. Most of the features resemble what is known in other countries. The highly predominant motor presentation, and the higher male prevalence as well as the apparent concentration in Northern China may be due to observational bias. There is therefore a need to prospectively examine cohorts of patients with appropriate comprehensive assessment tools including genetic testing.

Information Integration Theory and the Construction of Individually Perceived Group Efficacy

According to Bandura (1997) efficacy beliefs are a primary determinant of motivation. Still, very little is known about the processes through which people integrate situational factors to form efficacy beliefs (Myers & Feltz, 2007). The aim of this study was to gain insight into the cognitive construction of subjective group-efficacy beliefs. Only with a sound understanding of those processes is there a sufficient base to derive psychological interventions aimed at group-efficacy beliefs. According to cognitive theories (e.g., Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1973) individual group-efficacy beliefs can be seen as the result of a comparison between the demands of a group task and the resources of the performing group. At the center of this comparison are internally represented structures of the group task and plans to perform it. The empirical plausibility of this notion was tested using functional measurement theory (Anderson, 1981). Twenty-three students (M = 23.30 years; SD = 3.39; 35 % females) of the University of Bern repeatedly judged the efficacy of groups in different group tasks. The groups consisted of the subjects and another one to two fictive group members. The latter were manipulated by their value (low, medium, high) in task-relevant abilities. Data obtained from multiple full factorial designs were structured with individuals as second level units and analyzed using mixed linear models. The task-relevant abilities of group members, specified as fixed factors, all had highly significant effects on subjects’ group-efficacy judgments. The effect sizes of the ability factors showed to be dependent on the respective abilities’ importance in a given task. In additive tasks (Steiner, 1972) group resources were integrated in a linear fashion whereas significant interaction between factors was obtained in interdependent tasks. The results also showed that people take into account other group members’ efficacy beliefs when forming their own group-efficacy beliefs. The results support the notion that personal group-efficacy beliefs are obtained by comparing the demands of a task with the performing groups’ resources. Psychological factors such as other team members’ efficacy beliefs are thereby being considered task relevant resources and affect subjective group-efficacy beliefs. This latter finding underlines the adequacy of multidimensional measures. While the validity of collective efficacy measures is usually estimated by how well they predict performances, the results of this study allow for a somewhat internal validity criterion. It is concluded that Information Integration Theory holds potential to further help understand people’s cognitive functioning in sport relevant situations.

A serial scheme for minimizing the duration of resource-constrained projects within Microsoft Project

Microsoft Project is one of the most-widely used software packages for project management. For the scheduling of resource-constrained projects, the package applies a priority-based procedure using a specific schedule-generation scheme. This procedure performs relatively poorly when compared against other software packages or state-of-the-art methods for resource-constrained project scheduling. In Microsoft Project 2010, it is possible to work with schedules that are infeasible with respect to the precedence or the resource constraints. We propose a novel schedule-generation scheme that makes use of this possibility. Under this scheme, the project tasks are scheduled sequentially while taking into account all temporal and resource constraints that a user can define within Microsoft Project. The scheme can be implemented as a priority-rule based heuristic procedure. Our computational results for two real-world construction projects indicate that this procedure outperforms the built-in procedure of Microsoft Project

Foreign Direct Investment in Agriculture: Land Grab or Food Security Improvement?

“Large-scale acquisition of land by foreign investors” is the correct term for a process where the verdict of guilt is often quicker than the examination. But is there something really new about land grab except in its extent? In comparison with colonial and post-colonial plantation operations, should foreign investors today behave differently? We generally accept coffee and banana exports as pro-growth and pro-development, just as for cars, beef and insurance. What then is wrong with an investment contract allowing the holder to buy a farm and to export wheat to Saudi Arabia, or soybeans and maize as cattle feed to Korea, or to plant and process sugar cane and palm oil into ethanol for Europe and China? Assuming their land acquisition was legal, should foreigners respect more than investment contracts and national legislation? And why would they not take advantage of the legal protection offered by international investment law and treaties, not to speak of concessional finance, infrastructure and technical cooperation by a development bank, or the tax holidays offered by the host state? Remember Milton Friedman’s often-quoted quip: “The business of business is business!” And why would the governments signing those contracts not know whether and which foreign investment projects are best for their country, and how to attract them? This chapter tries to show that land grab, where it occurs, is not only yet another symptom of regulatory failures at the national level and a lack of corporate social responsibility by certain private actors. National governance is clearly the most important factor. Nonetheless, I submit that there is an international dimension involving investor home states in various capacities. The implication is that land grab is not solely a question whether a particular investment contract is legal or not. This chapter deals with legal issues which seem to have largely escaped the attention of both human rights lawyers and, especially, of investment lawyers. I address this fragmentation between different legal disciplines, rules, and policies, by asking two basic questions: (i) Do governments and parliaments in investor home countries have any responsibility in respect of the behaviour of their investors abroad? (ii) What should they and international regulators do, if anything?