Publish in OALib Journal
APC: Only $99
In psychiatric outpatients, the usefulness of the dimensional NEO-FFI as a screening instrument for personality disorders (PDs) was compared with the categorical screening instrument SAPAS-SR using the SCID-II as the gold standard. Major research questions are: 1) is the NEO-FFI a useful screening instrument for PDs? 2) does the NEO-FFI outperform a categorical screening instrument (SAPAS-SR)? 3) does combining both instruments improve the screening results? Extreme raising on Big Five personality trait domains (NEO-FFI) domain scores were examined in relation to the presence and the number of PDs as diagnosed, with to the SCID-II. Additionally, the NEO-FFI, in conjunction with a short self-report screening instrument (SAPAS-SR), was analysed with respect to sensitivity and specificity for screening of PDs. According to the SCID II, 97 patients (50%) were suffering from a PD. The majority of them had no (35.9%) or only one (40%) extreme score on one of the Big Five personality domains. There were no significant relationships between separate extreme traits on PD or five factor profiles, as proposed in the literature, and the presence of a SCID-II PD. Comparisons of the NEO-FFI with the SAPAS-SR showed no significant relationships. Using both screeners in conjunction resulted in an increase in specificity and the number of correctly classified cases at the expense, however, of the sensitivity. Correlation and regression analyses showed that personality traits are statistically significant predictors for each of the12 PDs. However, the associations between NEO-FFI scores and the DSM-VI-TR PD criteria were rather modest. Support could not be obtained for the view that separate extreme scores on basic personality traits or combinations of such scores in five-factor profiles will provide adequate screening possibilities for PDs. The SAPAS-SR has better screening potential than the NEO-FFI or the SAPAS-SR and the NEO-FFI together.
An HPLC method is presented for the separation and determination of lanthanides (Lns), thorium (Th), uranium (U) and plutonium (Pu) from irradiated (Th, Pu)O2. Individual separation of Lns, Th, U and Pu is a challenging task becauseof 1) lanthanideshavingsimilar physical and chemical properties, 2) presence of complex matrix like irradiated fuel and 3) the co-existence of multiple oxidation states of Pu. Different procedures were developed for separation of individual lanthanides and actinides.The individual lanthanides were separated on a dynamically modified reversed phase (RP) column using n-octane sulfonic acid as an ion interaction reagentand employingdual gradient(pH and concentration) of α-hydroxyisobutyric acid (HIBA). In order to improve the precision on the determination of Lns, terbium (Tb) was used as an internal standard. The method was validated employing simulated high level liquid waste. Concentrations of lanthanides viz. lanthanum (La) and neodymium (Nd) in the dissolver solution were determined based on their peak areas. Th, U and Pu were separated on a RP column using mobile phase containing HIBA and methanol. Since Pu is prone to exist in multiple oxidation states, all the oxidation states were converted into Pu (IV) using H2O2 in 3M HNO3. Under the optimized conditions, Pu(IV) eluted first followed by Th and U. The concentrations of Th, U and Pu were determined by standard addition method andwere found to be 1.10 ± 0.02 mg/g, 5.3 ± 0.3 μg/g and 27 ± 1 μg/g, respectively, in the dissolver solution of irradiated fuel. These values were in good agreement with the concentration of Th determined by biamperometry and those of U and Puby isotope dilution thermal ionization mass spectrometry.
Objective: To evaluate the expectations and experience of
patients undergoing mini-arthroscopy compared to contrast enhanced MRI for
research purposes. Methods: Seventeen
patients with early, active arthritis (Group A) and 21 autoantibody-positive individuals without any evidence of
arthritis upon physical examination (Group B) were included. All subjects
underwent both contrast enhanced MRI and synovial biopsy sampling by mini-arthroscopy
of the same joint within one week. At inclusion and after both procedures,
subjects filled in questionnaires with items about expectations and experience
with regard to the procedures. Results: Before procedures, subjects in
group B had a higher fear of and reluctance to undergo
mini-arthroscopy compared to MRI (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.001, respectively).
Before procedures, 42% of the subjects preferred MRI, 11% of the subjects preferred
mini-arthroscopy and 47% had no preference for either
procedure. After both procedures, subjects preferences changed to 39% for MRI,
32% for mini-arthroscopy and 29% for no preference for one or the other
procedure. When comparing Group A with Group B, there were no significant differences in preference before