No description available.

It is now known that autism is a lifelong handicapping condition. While some of the characteristic behaviors of autistic children remain unchanged in adolescence and adulthood, there is evidence that other behaviors change as a function of development. Assessment instruments for identifying autism are generally intended for use with. young children and may not accurately assess autism in adolescents. Two studies compared autistic adolescents with matched autistic children and nonautistic adolescents on two autism rating scales. The validity of the Childhood Autism Rating Scale for use with adolescents was supported while the validity of the Prescreening Checklist was questioned. The findings were discussed in relation to the age-related changes which occur in autistic adolescents.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-07-29T15:25:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Suelene Brito do Nascimento.pdf: 777082 bytes, checksum: f9660425f3055477271c6efbe8608c9e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-09-29 / False-negative rates constitute a common problem in the daily routine of cytopathology laboratories. Among the various internal quality control methods, 10% random review is the least effective in detecting false-negative results in routine screening. On the other hand, good results have been found with 100% rapid review and with rapid prescreening. Nevertheless, no studies comparing these two methods have been reported. Objective: To compare the performance of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review as internal quality control methods in cervical cytopathology. Methods: Over 27 months, 12,208 cervical cytology smears collected from Units of Primary Health Care of Goiânia were submitted to rapid prescreening and routine screening at Rômulo Rocha Center for Clinical Analyses at the School of Pharmacy, Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil. The 100% rapid review method was performed on all smears classified as negative at routine screening. Conflicting results obtained with either method were reviewed in detail to define final diagnosis, which was considered the gold-standard for evaluating the performance of rapid prescreening and 100% rapid review. In cases with abnormal cytology were evaluated the results of colposcopy, histopathology and of the new cytopathology. The sensitivity and specificity of internal quality control methods were estimated when compared to the final diagnosis, and to follow-up colposcopy, histopathology and at new cytopathology. Results: Compared to the final diagnosis, the sensitivity of routine screening and rapid prescreening was 72.9% (IC 95%: 70,0%-75,8%) and 75.6% (IC 95%: 72,8%-78,4%), respectively. Taking into account only those smears classified as negative at routine screening, the sensitivity of rapid prescreening and RR-100% was 90.2% (IC 95%: 86,4-93,9) and 57.0% (50,8%-63,2%), respectively. Rapid prescreening identified 220 (1.8%), while RR-100% identified 140 (1.15%) of the 244 (2.0%) cases with false-negative results at routine screening. The sensitivity of rapid prescreening in detect abnormal cases at follow-up colposcopy, histopathology and at new cytopathology was 87.5% (CI95%; 74.3%-100.7%) 82,4% (CI95%: 64.2%-100.,5%), 95.7% (CI95%:89.8%-101.5%), respectively, the sensitivity of 100% rapid review was 54.2% (CI95%: 34.2%-74.1%), 52.9% (CI95%: 29.2%-76.7%), 47.8% (CI95%: 33.4%-62.3%) respectively and the sensibility of routine screening was 83.2% (CI95%: 77.1%-89.3%), 85.7% (CI95%: 79.4%-92.0%), 73.3% (CI95%: 66.6%-79.9%), respectively. Conclusions: Rapid prescreening was more effective than 100% rapid review for the detection of false-negative results at routine screening, with a better performance when compared to final diagnosis, to follow-up colposcopy and at new cytopathology. The methods showed similar performance when compared at follow-up histopathology. Therefore, according to the results of this study, rapid prescreening provides subsidies to improve the performance of cervical cytopathology tests, whose the principal function of which is to detect cervical cancer precursor lesions. / As altas taxas de resultados falso-negativos são problemas enfrentados na rotina dos laboratórios de citopatologia. Dentre os métodos de controle interno da qualidade, a revisão de 10% é a menos eficiente para detectar os resultados falso-negativos do escrutínio de rotina. No entanto, há evidências de que a revisão rápida de 100% e o pré-escrutínio rápido apresentam bons resultados na sua detecção. Porém, não existem estudos que compararam estes dois métodos. Objetivo: Comparar o desempenho do pré-escrutínio rápido e da revisão rápida de 100% como métodos de controle interno da qualidade dos exames citológicos do colo do útero. Métodos: Durante 27 meses 12.208 esfregaços citológicos cervicais provenientes das Unidades de Atenção Básica à Saúde do município de Goiânia foram submetidos ao pré-escrutínio rápido e ao escrutínio de rotina no Centro de Análises Clínicas Rômulo Rocha da Faculdade de Farmácia da Universidade Federal de Goiás-Goiânia-GO-Brasil. A revisão rápida de 100% foi realizada nos esfregaços negativos no escrutínio de rotina. Os resultados discordantes por qualquer dos métodos foram revisados detalhadamente para definição do diagnóstico citológico final, considerado padrão ouro para avaliar o desempenho do pré-escrutínio rápido e da revisão rápida de 100%. Nos casos com anormalidades citológicas foi avaliado o resultado dos exames colposcópicos, histológicos e da nova citologia. Foram estimadas a sensibilidade e a especificidade dos métodos de controle interno da qualidade quando comparados ao diagnóstico citológico final, ao exame colposcópico, histológico e ao novo exame citológico. Resultados: Comparado ao diagnóstico citológico final a sensibilidade do escrutínio de rotina e do pré-escrutínio rápido foi de 72,9% (IC 95%: 70,0%-75,8%) e 75,6% (IC 95%: 72,8%-78,4%), respectivamente. A sensibilidade do pré-escrutínio rápido e da revisão rápida de 100%, levando em conta os esfregaços negativos no escrutínio de rotina foi 90,2% (IC 95%: 86,4-93,9) e 57,0% (50,8%-63,2%), respectivamente. O pré-escrutínio rápido identificou 220 (1,8%) e a revisão rápida de 100% 140 (1,15%) dos 244 (2,0%) falso-negativos do escrutínio de rotina. A sensibilidade do pré-escrutínio rápido na detecção de anormalidades colposcópicas, histoológicas e no novo exame citológico foi de 87,5% (IC95%: 74,3%-100,7%), 82,4% (IC95%: 64,2%-100,5%), 95,7% (IC95%: 89,8%-101,5%), respectivamente, a sensibilidade da revisão rápida de 100% foi de 54,2% (IC95%: 34,2%-74,1%), 52,9% (IC95%: 29,2%-76,7%), 47,8% (IC95%: 33,4%-62,3%), respectivamente e a sensibilidade do escrutínio de rotina foi de 83,2% (IC95%: 77,1%-89,3%), 85,7% (IC95%: 79,4%-92,0%), 73,3% (IC95%: 66,6%-79,9%), respectivamente. Conclusões: O pré-escrutínio rápido foi mais eficiente que a revisão rápida de 100% para detectar resultados falso-negativos do escrutínio de rotina obtendo melhor desempenho quando comparado ao diagnóstico citológico final, ao resultado do exame colposcópico e ao novo exame citológico. Os métodos apresentaram desempenho semelhante quando comparado ao resultado do exame histológico. Portanto, de acordo com os resultados desse estudo, o pré-escrutínio rápido fornece subsídios para melhorar o desempenho dos exames citológicos, cuja principal função é detectar as lesões precursoras do câncer do colo do útero.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-07-29T15:29:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao Suelene Brito do Nascimento Tavares.pdf: 1452329 bytes, checksum: 6d86236e3c08daf9227c6b9f207128b7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-09-06 / Cytopathology is an effective method of screening for cervical cancer; however, this method has high rates of false-negative results (FNR). To reduce FNR, routine measures of internal and external quality control are required in laboratories. The 10% random review of negative smears (R-10%) is the most commonly used method; however, it is not effective in reducing FNR. Nevertheless, there is evidence that the review of smears selected according to clinical risk factors (RCRF) and rapid prescreening (RPS) of all smears present good results. This study evaluated the performance of RPS, R-10% and RCRF as methods of internal quality control of cervical smear testing. The sample was composed of a total of 6,135 cervical smears from women who had attended Basic Health Clinics in Goiânia Goiás between March 2006 and March 2007. The cytopathological results were classified according to the 2001 Bethesda System. Initially, 6,135 smears were submitted to RPS followed by routine scrutiny (RS). Following RS, smears classified as negative were selected on the basis of clinical risk criteria, while 10% of all the smears were selected randomly, both sets then being submitted to the respective reviews. Four cytologists were responsible for RPS, RS, R-10% and RCRF, and three for reviewing the abnormal and discordant smears from any of the reviews. The smears classified as negative in RPS, RS, R-10% and RCRF were considered to have a final diagnosis (FD) of negative. Smears considered suspect or unsatisfactory at RPS were analyzed separately by two other cytologists. Smears considered abnormal or unsatisfactory at RS, R-10% and/or RCRF were likewise reviewed. When the two reviewing cytologists reached concordant diagnoses, these were considered the FD. Discordant results were analyzed by a third cytologist and a consensus meeting was held to define the FD. All stages of the study were performed blinded except for the consensus meeting. Smears classified as negative at RS, which were suspect at RPS and/or considered abnormal at R-10% and RCRF and confirmed abnormal in the FD, were considered FN results. Of the 6,135 smears, 5,522 were classified as negative, 84 as unsatisfactory and 529 as abnormal in the FD. Sensitivity of RPS was 63.0% for all abnormalities and 96.7% for high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) compared to RS. The sensitivity of RPS was 74.9% for all abnormalities and 95.0% for HSIL compared to FD. The sensitivity of R-10% was 53.8% for all abnormalities when compared to FD. R-10% failed to detect any cases of HSIL. The sensitivity of RCRF was 64.0% for all abnormalities and 75.0% for HSIL compared to the FD. RPS identified an additional 132 (2.15%) abnormal smears, whereas R-10% and RCRF identified an additional 7 (0.11%) and 32 (0.52%), respectively. In conclusion, RPS is an effective method of internal quality control and has better sensitivity than R-10% and RCRF for the detection of FN results. It also allows the FN rate of the laboratory to be monitored and permits continuous evaluation of the prescreening cytologist and the routine screening cytologist. / O exame citopatológico é um método eficiente para prevenir o câncer do colo do útero, no entanto, apresenta altas taxas de resultados falso-negativos (RFN). Para reduzir os RFN, são necessárias medidas de controle interno e externo da qualidade na rotina dos laboratórios. O método de revisão aleatória de 10% dos esfregaços negativos (R-10%) é o mais utilizado, no entanto, não é eficiente para reduzir os RFN. Porém, há evidências de que a revisão dos esfregaços selecionados por critérios clínicos de risco (RCCR) e o pré-escrutínio rápido (PER) apresentam bons resultados. Esse estudo comparou o desempenho do PER, R-10% e RCCR como métodos de controle interno da qualidade dos esfregaços cervicais. A casuística foi constituída por 6.135 esfregaços citopatológicos cervicais de mulheres atendidas nas Unidades Básicas de Saúde de Goiânia GO, no período de março de 2006 a março de 2007. Os resultados citopatológicos foram classificados de acordo com o Sistema de Bethesda 2001. Inicialmente 6.135 esfregaços foram submetidos ao PER e em seguida ao escrutínio de rotina (ER). Após o ER os esfregaços classificados como negativos foram selecionados com base em critérios clínicos de risco e aleatoriamente 10% do total de esfregaços e submetidos às respectivas revisões. Quatro citologistas foram responsáveis pelo PER, ER, R-10% e RCCR e três pelas revisões dos esfregaços alterados e discordantes em qualquer revisão. Os esfregaços com resultados negativos no PER, ER, R-10% e RCCR foram considerados diagnóstico final (DF). Os esfregaços com resultados suspeitos ou insatisfatórios, pelo PER, foram analisados separadamente por dois outros citologistas. Também os esfregaços cujos resultados foram considerados alterados ou insatisfatórios pelo ER, R-10% e/ou RCCR foram igualmente revisados. Quando os dois citologistas revisores emitiram diagnósticos concordantes estes foram considerados DF. Os resultados discordantes foram analisados por um terceiro citologista e em uma reunião de consenso foi definido o DF. Todas as etapas do estudo foram realizadas às cegas, exceto na reunião de consenso. Os esfregaços classificados como negativos pelo ER que foram suspeitos pelo PER e/ou alterados nas R-10% e RCCR e confirmados pelo DF foram considerados RFN. Dos 6.135 esfregaços, 5.522 foram classificados como negativos, 84 como insatisfatórios e 529 como alterados pelo DF. A sensibilidade do PER foi de 63,0% para todas as anormalidades e de 96,7% para lesão intra-epitelial escamosa de alto grau (HSIL) quando comparado ao ER. A sensibilidade do PER foi de 74,9% para todas as anormalidades e de 95,0% para HSIL quando comparado ao DF. A sensibilidade da R-10% foi de 53,8% para todas as anormalidades quando comparado ao DF e não detectou nenhuma HSIL, enquanto a sensibilidade da RCCR foi de 64,0% para todas as anormalidades e de 75,0% para HSIL quando comparado ao DF. O PER acrescentou 132 (2,15%) esfregaços alterados, enquanto que a R-10% e a RCCR acrescentaram sete (0,11%) e 32 (0,52%), respectivamente. Enfim, o PER é uma alternativa eficiente de controle interno da qualidade, apresentando maior sensibilidade que as R-10% e RCCR na detecção de RFN. Permite, ainda, monitorar a taxa de RFN do laboratório, assim como avaliar continuamente o desempenho tanto do pré-escrutinador quanto do escrutinador de rotina.

This project is primarily focused on improving the storage stability of bio-oils or pyrolysis oils by varying feedstock, reactor, and storage conditions. Pyrolysis oil is a complex medley of oxygenated chemicals (aliphatic and aromatic) that are well known to undergo unstable polymeric reactions (auto-catalyzed) if suitable additives are not utilized. These reactions can be severely detrimental to the long-term storage stability of pyrolysis oils. Hence, a detailed investigation was conducted in four phases namely: 1) pyrolysis oil production 2) additive prescreening 3) concentration optimization and 4) stability testing. During the first phase a lab-scale semi-continuous auger reactor is utilized to produce 16 pyrolysis oils. The reactor variables include pyrolysis temperature and vapor residence time. The feed stocks include pine wood, pine bark, oak wood, and oak bark. During the second phase a range of chemical additives (26) are prescreened to obtain three best performing additives. Anisole, glycerol, and methanol are consequently utilized to perform concentration optimization studies during the third phase. Viscosity, water content, and pH of pyrolysis oils are timely measured to assess the accelerated storage stability of pyrolysis oils during the phases 2-3. During the fourth phase, pyrolysis oils produced from three different reactor systems (lab-scale auger, large-scale auger, and entrained flow) were tested for their storage stability. Viscosity, water content, pH, density, and acid value are timely measured to assess the ambient and accelerated storage stability of pyrolysis oils during phase 4. Extrinsic variables such as light and filtration are utilized during the experimental testing of phase 4. The rheological data (Newtonian/non-Newtonian) enhanced the understanding of pyrolysis oil storage stability both qualitatively and quantitatively. The stability performance of a chemical additive is very much dependent on the concentration and its organic functional group. Consequently, alcohols fared above all the other functional groups in stabilizing the pyrolysis oils. Glycerol is observed to have special blending and homogenizing properties compared to all other additives. Feedstock seems to be the single most important factor affecting storage stability of pyrolysis oils. Consequently, pine wood resulted in the most stable pyrolysis oil whereas pine bark resulted in the least stable pyrolysis oil.