Quantifying the dark data in museum fossil collections as palaeontology undergoes a second digital revolution

Large-scale analysis of the fossil record requires aggregation of palaeontological data from individual fossil localities. Prior to computers, these synoptic datasets were compiled by hand, a laborious undertaking that took years of effort and forced palaeontologists to make difficult choices about what types of data to tabulate. The advent of desktop computers ushered in palaeontology's first digital revolution-online literature-based databases, such as the Paleobiology Database (PBDB). However, the published literature represents only a small proportion of the palaeontological data housed in museum collections. Although this issue has long been appreciated, the magnitude, and thus potential significance, of these so-called 'dark data' has been difficult to determine. Here, in the early phases of a second digital revolution in palaeontology--the digitization of museum collections-we provide an estimate of the magnitude of palaeontology's dark data. Digitization of our nine institutions' holdings of Cenozoic marine invertebrate collections from California, Oregon and Washington in the USA reveals that they represent 23 times the number of unique localities than are currently available in the PBDB. These data, and the vast quantity of similarly untapped dark data in other museum collections, will, when digitally mobilized, enhance palaeontologists' ability to make inferences about the patterns and processes of past evolutionary and ecological changes.

A case study exploring field-level risk assessments as a leading safety indicator

Health and safety indicators help mine sites predict the likelihood of an event, advance initiatives to control risks, and track progress. Although useful to encourage individuals within the mining companies to work together to identify such indicators, executing risk assessments comes with challenges. Specifically, varying or inaccurate perceptions of risk, in addition to trust and buy-in of a risk management system, contribute to inconsistent levels of participation in risk programs. This paper focuses on one trona mine's experience in the development and implementation of a field-level risk assessment program to help its organization understand and manage risk to an acceptable level. Through a transformational process of ongoing leadership development, support and communication, Solvay Green River fostered a culture grounded in risk assessment, safety interactions and hazard correction. The application of consistent risk assessment tools was critical to create a participatory workforce that not only talks about safety but actively identifies factors that contribute to hazards and potential incidents. In this paper, reflecting on the mine's previous process of risk-assessment implementation provides examples of likely barriers that sites may encounter when trying to document and manage risks, as well as a variety of mini case examples that showcase how the organization worked through these barriers to facilitate the identification of leading indicators to ultimately reduce incidents.

A forced titration study of antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil in comparison to losartan: CLAIM Study II

An 8-week, multicentre (72 sites in the US), double-blind, randomised, parallel group, forced titration study compared the antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan cilexetil and losartan. A total of 611 patients with essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 95 to 114 mm Hg) were randomised initially to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily or losartan 50 mg once daily. After 2 weeks of randomised treatment, the doses of candesartan cilexetil and losartan were doubled to 32 mg and 100 mg once daily and continued respectively for 6 weeks. At week 8, candesartan cilexetil lowered the blood pressure (BP) at 24 h (trough), 6 h (peak) and 48 h post dose to a significantly greater extent (P < 0.05) than losartan: candesartan cilexetil lowered trough BP by 13.4/10.5 mm Hg, peak BP by 15.5/12.9 mm Hg and 48-h BP by 10.5/9.9 mm Hg compared to a reduction of trough BP by 10.1/9.1 mm Hg, peak BP by 12.0/9.5 mm Hg, and 48-h BP by 5.9/7.0 mm Hg by losartan. The responder and control rates were numerically higher in the candesartan cilexetil group, but the differences did not reach statistical significance; the responder rates were 58.8% for the candesartan cilexetil group and 52.1% for the losartan group and control rates were 49.0% for the candesartan cilexetil group and 44.6% for the losartan group. Overall, both treatment regimens were well tolerated. A total of 15 of the 611 (2.5%) patients withdrew from the study due to an adverse event, including nine (2.9%) in the candesartan cilexetil group and six (2.0%) in the losartan group. In conclusion, this forced titration study confirms that candesartan cilexetil is more effective in lowering BP than losartan when compared at once daily maximum doses.

Efficacy of candesartan cilexetil as add-on therapy in hypertensive patients uncontrolled on background therapy: a clinical experience trial. ACTION Study Investigators

A large-scale, 8-week, open-label, clinical experience trial evaluated the efficacy of the angiotensin II receptor (AT1 subtype) blocker candesartan cilexetil (16 to 32 mg once daily) either alone or as add-on therapy in 6465 hypertensive patients. The study population was 52% female and 16% African American with a mean age of 58 years. It included 5,446 patients who had essential hypertension (HBP) and 1,014 patients who had isolated systolic hypertension (ISH). These patients had either untreated or uncontrolled hypertension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] 140 to 179 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure [DBP] 90 to 109 mm Hg inclusive at baseline) despite a variety of antihypertensive medications including diuretics, calcium antagonists, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and alpha- or beta-blockers, either singly or in combination. The mean baseline blood pressure for the HBP group was 156/97 mm Hg. Candesartan cilexetil as monotherapy (in 51% of HBP patients) reduced mean SBP/DBP by 18.7/ 13.1 mm Hg. As add-on therapy (in 49% of HBP patients) to various background therapies, candesartan cilexetil consistently reduced mean SBP/DBP further, irrespective of the background therapy: diuretics (17.8/11.3 mm Hg), calcium antagonists (16.6/11.2 mm Hg), beta-blockers (16.5/ 10.4 mm Hg), ACE inhibitors (15.3/10.0 mm Hg), alpha-blockers (16.4/10.4 mm Hg). The mean baseline blood pressure for the ISH group was 158/81 mm Hg. Candesartan cilexetil, as monotherapy (in 34% of ISH patients), reduced SBP/DBP by 17.0/4.4 mm Hg. As add-on therapy (in 66% of ISH patients) to various background therapies, candesartan cilexetil consistently reduced mean SBP/DBP further, irrespective of the background therapy: diuretics (17.4/5.1 mm Hg), calcium antagonists (15.6/3.6 mm Hg), beta-blockers (14.0/4.8 mm Hg), ACE inhibitors (13.4/4.3 mm Hg), and alpha-blockers (11.6/4.5 mm Hg). The further blood pressure lowering effects of candesartan cilexetil as add-on therapy were seen regardless of age, sex, and race. Overall, 6.8% of the 6465 patients withdrew because of adverse events, most commonly headache (6.3%) and dizziness (5.0%). Orthostatic hypotension was infrequent; 0.2% with candesartan cilexetil alone, and 0.8% with candesartan cilexetil as add-on therapy. Thus, candesartan cilexetil either alone or as add-on therapy was highly effective for the control of systolic or diastolic hypertension regardless of demographic background when used in typical clinical practice settings.

Antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan in comparison to losartan: the CLAIM study

An 8-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, forced-titration study was conducted to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy of candesartan vs. losartan in 654 hypertensive patients with a diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 114 mm Hg from 72 sites throughout the U.S. Eligible patients were randomized to candesartan cilexetil 16 mg once daily, or losartan 50 mg once daily. Two weeks following randomization, patients doubled the respective doses of their angiotensin receptor blockers for an additional 6 weeks. At week 8, candesartan cilexetil lowered trough systolic/diastolic blood pressure by a significantly greater amount than did losartan (13.3/10.9 mm Hg with candesartan cilexetil vs. 9.8/8.7 mm Hg with losartan; p less than 0.001). At the same period, candesartan cilexetil also lowered peak blood pressure by a significantly greater amount than did losartan (15.2 to 11.6 mm Hg with candesartan cilexetil vs. 12.6 to 10.1 mm Hg with losartan; p less than 0.05). There were statistically significantly (p less than 0.05) higher proportions of responders and controlled patients in the candesartan cilexetil group (62.4% and 56.0%, respectively) than in the losartan group (54.0% and 46.9%, respectively). Both treatment regimens were well tolerated; 1.8% in the candesartan cilexetil group and 1.6% in the losartan group withdrew because of adverse events. In conclusion, this forced-titration study confirms that candesartan cilexetil is more effective than losartan in lowering blood pressure when both are administered once daily at maximum doses. Both drugs were well tolerated. (c)2001 by Le Jacq.