Explore the vast range of titles available.

The senior year program at my school is elective-based, allowing students to select an English course that will immerse them in a specific genre or theme. I am one of several instructors who teach Senior Writers Seminar, a yearlong intensive writing class designed for students who want to strengthen their writing foundation by experimenting with the literary techniques of creative nonfiction. Students are the generative agents in the class; they continuously craft and submit essays for feedback, and the focus is on process, not product. Formal and informal writing activities allow learners to experiment within a wide range of genres: college, exploratory, causal, place essays, dialogues, and literary analyses are just a sampling of what they explore. While the desire to be a better writer is often the impetus for students to take the course, most are overwhelmed-downright afraid-when tasked with using their own lives as source material and having to share it with classmates.

High rates of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in girls’ and women’s sports have garnered significant attention from researchers, sport organisations and the media. Gender/sex disparities in ACL injury rates are often estimated using the construct of athlete-exposures (AEs), a widely used measure of exposure time in sports science and epidemiology that is defined as one athlete participating in one practice or competition. In this narrative review, we explain the limitations of AEs as a measure of exposure time and develop a series of conceptual critiques regarding the use of AEs for the purposes of comparing injury rates by gender/sex. We show that the differing training-to-match ratio and average team size between women and men—rooted in persistent gendered inequities in sports participation and professionalisation—may jeopardise the validity of using AEs for cross-gender comparisons and skew gender/sex disparities in ACL injury rates. To avoid bias, we invite researchers interested in gender/sex disparities in injury rates to collect finer-grained data including individual-level AEs disaggregated by training and competition, as well as to appropriately control for team size and training-to-match ratio at the data analysis stage. Any quantitative comparisons of injury rates should also thoroughly contextualise the limitations of AEs, including their inability to capture the potential qualitative differences between women’s and men’s training and sporting environments that may influence injury rates.

ObjectiveThe Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) is a validated instrument measuring the economic burden experienced by patients with cancer. We evaluated the frequency of financial toxicity at different COST levels and stratified risk factors and associations with cost-coping strategies by financial toxicity severity.MethodsWe analyzed previously collected survey data of gynecologic oncology patients from two tertiary care institutions. Both surveys included the COST tool and questions assessing economic and behavioral cost-coping strategies. We adapted a proposed grading scale to define three groups: no/mild, moderate, and severe financial toxicity and used χ2, Fisher’s exact test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare groups. We used Poisson regression to calculate crude and adjusted risk ratios for cost-coping strategies, comparing patients with moderate or severe to no/mild financial toxicity.ResultsAmong 308 patients, 14.9% had severe, 32.1% had moderate, and 52.9% had no/mild financial toxicity. Younger age, non-white race, lower education, unemployment, lower income, use of systemic therapy, and shorter time since diagnosis were associated with worse financial toxicity (all p<0.05). Respondents with moderate or severe financial toxicity were significantly more likely to use economic cost-coping strategies such as changing spending habits (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 2.7, 95% CI 1.8 to 4.0 moderate; aRR 3.6, 95% CI 2.4 to 5.4 severe) and borrowing money (aRR 5.5, 95% CI 1.8 to 16.5 moderate; aRR 12.7, 95% CI 4.3 to 37.1 severe). Those with severe financial toxicity also had a significantly higher risk of behavioral cost-coping through medication non-compliance (aRR 4.6, 95% CI 1.2 to 18.1).ConclusionsAmong a geographically diverse cohort of gynecologic oncology patients, nearly half reported financial toxicity (COST <26), which was associated with economic cost-coping strategies. In those 14.9% of patients reporting severe financial toxicity (COST <14) there was also an increased risk of medication non-compliance, which may lead to worse health outcomes in this group.

To explain observed disparities in health outcomes between men and women, sex essentialist approaches assign causal primacy to sex-related biology. In this essay, we present three case studies to illustrate how sex essentialism can distort human biomedical research and distill three maxims for countering this distortion: (1) engage in responsible citation practices; (2) generate and weigh alternative hypotheses for apparent observations of sex differences; (3) take care in constructing the appropriate denominator when making sex comparisons. We offer these maxims as broadly applicable standards of evidence to guide biomedical research that includes analysis of potential sex differences, as well as to support Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), funders, publishers, and peer reviewers in evaluating sex difference findings. If widely applied, these maxims would substantially improve the rigor, precision, and utility of the knowledge base of sex and gender science. Highlights Sex essentialism distorts human biomedical research by assigning causal primacy to sex-related factors and ignoring how gender-related factors impact biology To illustrate strategies for countering sex essentialism, we offer case studies of sex differences in COVID-19, adverse drug events, and anterior cruciate ligament injury Engaging in responsible citation practice can combat the uncritical repetition of sex difference claims that embed sex essentialism in human biomedical research Generating and weighing alternative hypotheses for apparent sex differences found in data can reveal the important role of gender-related social factors in shaping human biology Constructing appropriate denominators for making sex comparisons can help account for the gendered social processes that shape data generating mechanisms

Background Genes with multiple co-active promoters appear common in brain, yet little is known about functional requirements for these potentially redundant genomic regulatory elements. SCN1A, which encodes the Na V 1.1 sodium channel alpha subunit, is one such gene with two co-active promoters. Mutations in SCN1A are associated with epilepsy, including Dravet syndrome (DS). The majority of DS patients harbor coding mutations causing SCN1A haploinsufficiency; however, putative causal non-coding promoter mutations have been identified. Methods To determine the functional role of one of these potentially redundant Scn1a promoters, we focused on the non-coding Scn1a 1b regulatory region, previously described as a non-canonical alternative transcriptional start site. We generated a transgenic mouse line with deletion of the extended evolutionarily conserved 1b non-coding interval and characterized changes in gene and protein expression, and assessed seizure activity and alterations in behavior. Results Mice harboring a deletion of the 1b non-coding interval exhibited surprisingly severe reductions of Scn1a and Na V 1.1 expression throughout the brain. This was accompanied by electroencephalographic and thermal-evoked seizures, and behavioral deficits. Conclusions This work contributes to functional dissection of the regulatory wiring of a major epilepsy risk gene, SCN1A . We identified the 1b region as a critical disease-relevant regulatory element and provide evidence that non-canonical and seemingly redundant promoters can have essential function.

Overall, men have died from COVID-19 at slightly higher rates than women. But cumulative estimates of mortality by sex may be misleading. We analyze New York State COVID-19 mortality by sex between March 2020 and August 2021, demonstrating that 72.7% of the total difference in the number of COVID-19 deaths between women and men was accrued in the first seven weeks of the pandemic. Thus, while the initial surge in COVID-19 mortality was characterized by stark sex disparities, this article shows that disparities were greatly attenuated in subsequent phases of the pandemic. Investigating changes over time could help illuminate how contextual factors contributed to the development of apparent sex disparities in COVID-19 outcomes.