Source population Sample Clauses

Source population. An actively breeding population that has an average birth rate that exceeds its average death rate, and thus produces an excess of animals that may disperse to other areas. Species management plan: Guidance document prepared by one or more participants which identifies detailed actions and activities for conservation of the Columbia spotted frog throughout its range, subject to Adaptive Management review by the Columbia Spotted Frog Technical Team (CSFTT). Species monitoring plan: Guidance document prepared by one or more participants which defines the structure, timing, protocols, and locations for short- and long-term population monitoring, subject to Adaptive Management review by the Columbia Spotted Frog Technical Team (CSFTT).
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Source population. The State of Georgia provides the source population for this dissertation. Georgia population estimates and distributions of the exposures of interest are discussed below. These estimates are based on the data from the 2000 U.S. Census and from the later U.S. Census Current Population Surveys (CPS). Residential Segregation Beginning in the 1890s and ending with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Georgia and other southern states issued legislation that mandated racial segregation of public facilities under what was termed Xxx Xxxx laws 145. Under Xxx Xxxx, blacks experienced discrimination in housing and employment that resulted in residential racial segregation. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 ended legal discrimination in housing sales and rentals. Although de jure segregation was outlawed in the 1960s, many Georgians still reside in racially segregated areas. A recent examination of the extent of racial segregation in U.S. cities showed that Georgia has cities ranking amongst the most and the least racially segregated 90. Employing the dissimilarity index, Atlanta, Georgia ranked fourth among U.S. cities with the highest dissimilarity indices, D=0.83, meaning that 83% of blacks must leave Atlanta in order to equalize the distribution of whites and blacks in Atlanta. Hinesville, Georgia ranked 12th among U.S. cities with the lowest dissimilarity indices, D=0.17. Levels of economic segregation in Georgia have not been assessed. Rural-Urban Residence According to the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS), the rural population of Georgia (defined by RUCA codes calculated from the 2000 U.S. Census) is two million, which accounts for 24.7% of the population of the state 146. In comparison, 20.5% of the U.S. population lives in rural areas. Eighteen percent of the Georgian rural population lives in households below the poverty line versus 14.8% of the U.S rural population. The percent of persons age 65 or greater (age of our Medicare study population) living in rural areas is 12.7% which is lower than the 14.8% estimate for the U.S. rural population, Racial Distribution The U.S. Census reports in 2008 that 30.0 % of Georgians are black and 65.4 % are white 147. In comparison blacks and whites constitute 12.8 % and 79.8 % of the U.S. population, respectively. Using data from the 2008 and 2009 U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, the Xxxxxx Family Foundation reported that the poverty rate is 31.9 % among black Georgians and 11.5 % among white Georgians 148. T...
Source population. ‌ All blood donors’ sample which was previously screened and stored at NBBS laboratory.
Source population. An actively breeding population that has an average birth rate that exceeds its average death rate, and thus produces an excess of animals that may disperse to other areas. Subpopulation: A geographically distinct population segment (e.g., Jarbidge - Independence, Ruby, Toiyabe). Survey: Field assessment to determine an organism’s distribution in potential habitat. Threats: Ongoing or potential actions having negative or potential negative impacts to an organism or its habitat. Viable population: A population that maintains its reproductive vigor and its potential for evolutionary adaptation.
Source population. All currently married couples residing in Dukem town.
Source population. An actively breeding population that has an average birth rate that exceeds its average death rate, and thus produces an excess of animals that may disperse to other areas Species Management Plan: Guidance document prepared by one or more participants which identifies detailed actions and activities for conservation of the spotted frog throughout its range, subject to Adaptive Management review by the TSFTT. Species Monitoring Plan: Guidance document prepared by one or more participants which defines the structure, timing, protocols, and locations for short- and long-term population monitoring, subject to Adaptive Management review by the TSFTT. Subpopulation: A geographically distinct population segment (e.g., Jarbidge-Independence, Ruby, Toiyabe). Survey: Field survey to determine an organism’s distribution and abundance in potential habitat.
Source population. All neuro- surgical patients whose cases were presented on preoperative neuro radiology sessions.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Source population

  • Target Population The Grantee shall ensure that diversion programs and services provided under this grant are designed to serve juvenile offenders who are at risk of commitment to Department.

  • Population The Population shall be defined as all Paid Claims during the 12-month period covered by the Claims Review.

  • Study Population The study was based at the San Francisco KPNC Anal Cancer Screening Clinic. We enrolled men who were identified as positive for HIV through the Kaiser HIV registry, who were aged ≥ 18 years, who were not diag- nosed with anal cancer before enrollment, and who pro- vided informed consent. In total, 363 men were enrolled between August 2009 and June 2010. The study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards at KPNC and at the National Cancer Institute. All partici- pants were asked to complete a self-administered ques- tionnaire to collect risk factor information. Additional information regarding HIV status and medication, sexu- ally transmitted diseases, and histopathology results were abstracted from the KPNC clinical database. For 87 of the 271 subjects without biopsy-proven AIN2 or AIN3 at the time of enrollment, follow-up infor- mation concerning outcomes from additional clinic visits up to December 2011 was available and included in the analysis to correct for the possible imperfect sensitivity of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA).13,15 Clinical Examination, Evaluation, and Results During the clinical examination, 2 specimens were col- lected by inserting a wet flocked nylon swab16 into the anal canal up to the distal rectal vault and withdrawing with rotation and lateral pressure. Both specimens were trans- ferred to PreservCyt medium (Hologic, Bedford, Mass). A third specimen was collected for routine testing for Chla- mydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea. After specimen collection, participants underwent a digital anorectal ex- amination followed by HRA. All lesions that appeared sus- picious on HRA were biopsied and sent for routine histopathological review by KPNC pathologists, and were subsequently graded as condyloma or AIN1 through AIN3. No cancers were observed in this study population. From the first specimen, a ThinPrep slide (Hologic) was prepared for routine Xxxxxxxxxxxx staining and xxxxx- xxxxx. Two pathologists (T.D. and D.T.) reviewed the slides independently. Cytology results were reported anal- ogous to the Bethesda classification17 for cervical cytology except when otherwise noted. The following categories were used: negative for intraepithelial lesion or malig- xxxxx (NILM); ASC-US; atypical squamous cells cannot rule out high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) (ASC-H); low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL); HSIL, favor AIN2 (HSIL-AIN2); and HSIL-AIN3. ASC-H, HSIL-AIN2, and HSIL-AIN3 were combined into a single high-grade cytology category for the current analysis. Biomarker Testing Using the residual specimen from the first collection, mtm Laboratories AG (Heidelberg, Germany) performed the p16INK4a/Ki-67 dual immunostaining (‘‘p16/Ki-67 staining’’) using their CINtec Plus cytology kit according to their specifications. A ThinPrep 2000 processor (Holo- gic) was used to prepare a slide, which then was stained according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The CINtec Plus cytology kit was then applied to the unstained cytol- ogy slide for p16/Ki-67 staining. On the second collected specimen, Roche Molecular Systems (Pleasanton, Calif) tested for HR-HPV, includ- ing separate detection of HPV-16, and HPV-18 DNA, using their cobas 4800 HPV test. To prepare DNA for the cobas test, automated sample extraction was per- formed as follows: 500 lL of the PreservCyt specimen was pipetted into a secondary tube (Falcon 5-mL polypropyl- ene round-bottom tube, which measured 12-mm-by-75- mm and was nonpyrogenic and sterile). The tube was capped, mixed by vortexing, uncapped, placed on the x-480 specimen rack, and loaded onto the x-480 sample extraction module of the cobas 4800 system. The x-480 extraction module then inputs 400 lL of this material into the specimen preparation process. The extracted DNA was then tested as previously described.16 NorChip AS (Klokkarstua, Norway) also tested the second specimen for HPV-16, -18, -31, -33, and -45 HPV E6/E7 mRNA using their PreTect HPV-Proofer assay according to their specifications. All testing was per- formed masked to the results of the other assays, clinical outcomes, and patient characteristics.

  • OPEN SOURCE COMPONENTS The DS Offerings may include open source components. Whenever notices (such as acknowledgment, copies of licenses or attribution notice) are required by the original licensor, such notices are included in the Documentation of the DS Offerings. Moreover, some open source components may not be distributed and licensed under the terms of the Agreement but under the terms of their original licenses as set forth in the Documentation of the DS Offerings themselves. Source code for open source software components licensed under terms and conditions that mandate availability of such source code is available upon request. Except for components mentioned in the section EXCLUSIONS below, the warranty and indemnification provided by DS under the Agreement apply to all open source software components and shall be provided by DS and not by the original licensor, but only for the use of the DS Offerings that is in compliance with the terms of the Agreement, and in conjunction with the DS Offerings. The original licensors of said open source software components provide them on an “as is” basis and without any liability whatsoever to Customer.

  • Program Components Activities and services delivered under this Program Element align with Foundational Programs and Foundational Capabilities, as defined in Oregon’s Public Health Modernization Manual, (xxxx://xxx.xxxxxx.xxx/oha/PH/ABOUT/TASKFORCE/Documents/public_health_modernization_man ual.pdf) as well as with public health accountability outcome and process metrics (if applicable) as follows:

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!