@article{ManchiaAdliAkulaetal.2013,
  author    = {Manchia, Mirko and Adli, Mazda and Akula, Nirmala and Arda, Raffaella and Aubry, Jean-Michel and Backlund, Lena and Banzato, Claudio E. M. and Baune, Bernhard T. and Bellivier, Frank and Bengesser, Susanne and Biernacka, Joanna M. and Brichant-Petitjean, Clara and Bui, Elise and Calkin, Cynthia V. and Cheng, Andrew Tai Ann and Chillotti, Caterina and Cichon, Sven and Clark, Scott and Czerski, Piotr M. and Dantas, Clarissa and Del Zompo, Maria and DePaulo, J. Raymond and Detera-Wadleigh, Sevilla D. and Etain, Bruno and Falkai, Peter and Fris{\´e}n, Louise and Frye, Mark A. and Fullerton, Jan and Gard, S{\´e}bastien and Garnham, Julie and Goes, Fernando S. and Grof, Paul and Gruber, Oliver and Hashimoto, Ryota and Hauser, Joanna and Heilbronner, Urs and Hoban, Rebecca and Hou, Liping and Jamain, St{\´e}phane and Kahn, Jean-Pierre and Kassem, Layla and Kato, Tadafumi and Kelsoe, John R. and Kittel-Schneider, Sarah and Kliwicki, Sebastian and Kuo, Po-Hsiu and Kusumi, Ichiro and Laje, Gonzalo and Lavebratt, Catharina and Leboyer, Marion and Leckband, Susan G. and L{\´o}pez Jaramillo, Carlos A. and Maj, Mario and Malafosse, Alain and Martinsson, Lina and Masui, Takuya and Mitchell, Philip B. and Mondimore, Frank and Monteleone, Palmiero and Nallet, Audrey and Neuner, Maria and Nov{\´a}k, Tom{\´a}s and O'Donovan, Claire and {\"O}sby, Urban and Ozaki, Norio and Perlis, Roy H. and Pfennig, Andrea and Potash, James B. and Reich-Erkelenz, Daniela and Reif, Andreas and Reininghaus, Eva and Richardson, Sara and Rouleau, Guy A. and Rybakowski, Janusz K. and Schalling, Martin and Schofield, Peter R. and Schubert, Oliver K. and Schweizer, Barbara and Seem{\"u}ller, Florian and Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Maria and Severino, Giovanni and Seymour, Lisa R. and Slaney, Claire and Smoller, Jordan W. and Squassina, Alessio and Stamm, Thomas and Steele, Jo and Stopkova, Pavla and Tighe, Sarah K. and Tortorella, Alfonso and Turecki, Gustavo and Wray, Naomi R. and Wright, Adam and Zandi, Peter P. and Zilles, David and Bauer, Michael and Rietschel, Marcella and McMahon, Francis J. and Schulze, Thomas G. and Alda, Martin},
  title     = {Assessment of Response to Lithium Maintenance Treatment in Bipolar Disorder: A Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) Report},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {6},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0065636},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-130938},
  pages     = {e65636},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Objective: The assessment of response to lithium maintenance treatment in bipolar disorder (BD) is complicated by variable length of treatment, unpredictable clinical course, and often inconsistent compliance. Prospective and retrospective methods of assessment of lithium response have been proposed in the literature. In this study we report the key phenotypic measures of the "Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with Bipolar Disorder" scale currently used in the Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) study. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine ConLiGen sites took part in a two-stage case-vignette rating procedure to examine inter-rater agreement [Kappa (\(\kappa\))] and reliability [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)] of lithium response. Annotated first-round vignettes and rating guidelines were circulated to expert research clinicians for training purposes between the two stages. Further, we analyzed the distributional properties of the treatment response scores available for 1,308 patients using mixture modeling. Results: Substantial and moderate agreement was shown across sites in the first and second sets of vignettes (\(\kappa\) = 0.66 and \(\kappa\) = 0.54, respectively), without significant improvement from training. However, definition of response using the A score as a quantitative trait and selecting cases with B criteria of 4 or less showed an improvement between the two stages (\(ICC_1 = 0.71\) and \(ICC_2 = 0.75\), respectively). Mixture modeling of score distribution indicated three subpopulations (full responders, partial responders, non responders). Conclusions: We identified two definitions of lithium response, one dichotomous and the other continuous, with moderate to substantial inter-rater agreement and reliability. Accurate phenotypic measurement of lithium response is crucial for the ongoing ConLiGen pharmacogenomic study.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Schubert2012,
  author    = {Schubert, Lisa},
  title     = {The Respective Impact of Stimulus Valence and Processing Fluency on Evaluative Judgments in Stereotype Disconfirmation},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-77426},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Both specific stimulus valence and unspecific processing dynamics can influence evaluative responses. Eight experiments investigated their respective influence on evaluative judgments in the domain of stereotyping. Valence of stereotypic information and consistency-driven fluency were manipulated in an impression formation paradigm. When information about the to-be-evaluated target person was strongly valenced, no effects of consistency-driven fluency were observed. Higher cognitive processes, valence of inconsistent attributes, processing priority of category information, and impression formation instructions were ruled out as possible factors responsible for the non-occurrence of fluency effects. However, consistency-driven fluency did influence the evaluative judgment, if the information about a target person was not strongly valenced. It is therefore concluded that both stimulus valence and consistency-driven processing fluency play a role in evaluative judgments in the domain of stereotyping. The respective impact of stimulus valence is much stronger than the impact of unspecific processing dynamics, however. Implications for fluency research and the applied field of stereotype change are discussed.},
  subject      = {Vorurteil},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HebestreitZeidlerSchippersetal.2022,
  author    = {Hebestreit, Helge and Zeidler, Cornelia and Schippers, Christopher and de Zwaan, Martina and Deckert, J{\"u}rgen and Heuschmann, Peter and Krauth, Christian and Bullinger, Monika and Berger, Alexandra and Berneburg, Mark and Brandstetter, Lilly and Deibele, Anna and Dieris-Hirche, Jan and Graessner, Holm and G{\"u}ndel, Harald and Herpertz, Stephan and Heuft, Gereon and Lapstich, Anne-Marie and L{\"u}cke, Thomas and Maisch, Tim and Mundlos, Christine and Petermann-Meyer, Andrea and M{\"u}ller, Susanne and Ott, Stephan and Pfister, Lisa and Quitmann, Julia and Romanos, Marcel and Rutsch, Frank and Schaubert, Kristina and Schubert, Katharina and Schulz, J{\"o}rg B. and Schweiger, Susann and T{\"u}scher, Oliver and Ungeth{\"u}m, Kathrin and Wagner, Thomas O. F. and Haas, Kirsten},
  title     = {Dual guidance structure for evaluation of patients with unclear diagnosis in centers for rare diseases (ZSE-DUO): study protocol for a controlled multi-center cohort study},
  series = {Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13023-022-02176-1},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-300440},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background In individuals suffering from a rare disease the diagnostic process and the confirmation of a final diagnosis often extends over many years. Factors contributing to delayed diagnosis include health care professionals' limited knowledge of rare diseases and frequent (co-)occurrence of mental disorders that may complicate and delay the diagnostic process. The ZSE-DUO study aims to assess the benefits of a combination of a physician focusing on somatic aspects with a mental health expert working side by side as a tandem in the diagnostic process. Study design This multi-center, prospective controlled study has a two-phase cohort design. Methods Two cohorts of 682 patients each are sequentially recruited from 11 university-based German Centers for Rare Diseases (CRD): the standard care cohort (control, somatic expertise only) and the innovative care cohort (experimental, combined somatic and mental health expertise). Individuals aged 12 years and older presenting with symptoms and signs which are not explained by current diagnoses will be included. Data will be collected prior to the first visit to the CRD's outpatient clinic (T0), at the first visit (T1) and 12 months thereafter (T2). Outcomes Primary outcome is the percentage of patients with one or more confirmed diagnoses covering the symptomatic spectrum presented. Sample size is calculated to detect a 10 percent increase from 30\% in standard care to 40\% in the innovative dual expert cohort. Secondary outcomes are (a) time to diagnosis/diagnoses explaining the symptomatology; (b) proportion of patients successfully referred from CRD to standard care; (c) costs of diagnosis including incremental cost effectiveness ratios; (d) predictive value of screening instruments administered at T0 to identify patients with mental disorders; (e) patients' quality of life and evaluation of care; and f) physicians' satisfaction with the innovative care approach. Conclusions This is the first multi-center study to investigate the effects of a mental health specialist working in tandem with a somatic expert physician in CRDs. If this innovative approach proves successful, it will be made available on a larger scale nationally and promoted internationally. In the best case, ZSE-DUO can significantly shorten the time to diagnosis for a suspected rare disease.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KarakayaBiderFranketal.2022,
  author    = {Karakaya, Emine and Bider, Faina and Frank, Andreas and Teßmar, J{\"o}rg and Sch{\"o}bel, Lisa and Forster, Leonard and Schr{\"u}fer, Stefan and Schmidt, Hans-Werner and Schubert, Dirk Wolfram and Blaeser, Andreas and Boccaccini, Aldo R. and Detsch, Rainer},
  title     = {Targeted printing of cells: evaluation of ADA-PEG bioinks for drop on demand approaches},
  series = {Gels},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Gels},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {2310-2861},
  doi       = {10.3390/gels8040206},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-267317},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {A novel approach, in the context of bioprinting, is the targeted printing of a defined number of cells at desired positions in predefined locations, which thereby opens up new perspectives for life science engineering. One major challenge in this application is to realize the targeted printing of cells onto a gel substrate with high cell survival rates in advanced bioinks. For this purpose, different alginate-dialdehyde—polyethylene glycol (ADA-PEG) inks with different PEG modifications and chain lengths (1-8 kDa) were characterized to evaluate their application as bioinks for drop on demand (DoD) printing. The biochemical properties of the inks, printing process, NIH/3T3 fibroblast cell distribution within a droplet and shear forces during printing were analyzed. Finally, different hydrogels were evaluated as a printing substrate. By analysing different PEG chain lengths with covalently crosslinked and non-crosslinked ADA-PEG inks, it was shown that the influence of Schiff's bases on the viscosity of the corresponding materials is very low. Furthermore, it was shown that longer polymer chains resulted in less stable hydrogels, leading to fast degradation rates. Several bioinks highly exhibit biocompatibility, while the calculated nozzle shear stress increased from approx. 1.3 and 2.3 kPa. Moreover, we determined the number of cells for printed droplets depending on the initial cell concentration, which is crucially needed for targeted cell printing approaches.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchubertKoernerLindauetal.2017,
  author    = {Schubert, Lisa and K{\"o}rner, Anita and Lindau, Berit and Strack, Fritz and Topolinski, Sascha},
  title     = {Open-Minded Midwifes, Literate Butchers, and Greedy Hooligans - The Independent Contributions of Stereotype Valence and Consistency on Evaluative Judgments},
  series = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Psychology},
  number    = {1723},
  doi       = {10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01723},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-170222},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Do people evaluate an open-minded midwife less positively than a caring midwife? Both open-minded and caring are generally seen as positive attributes. However, consistency varies—the attribute caring is consistent with the midwife stereotype while open-minded is not. In general, both stimulus valence and consistency can influence evaluations. Six experiments investigated the respective influence of valence and consistency on evaluative judgments in the domain of stereotyping. In an impression formation paradigm, valence and consistency of stereotypic information about target persons were manipulated orthogonally and spontaneous evaluations of these target persons were measured. Valence reliably influenced evaluations. However, for strongly valenced stereotypes, no effect of consistency was observed. Parameters possibly preventing the occurrence of consistency effects were ruled out, specifically, valence of inconsistent attributes, processing priority of category information, and impression formation instructions. However, consistency had subtle effects on evaluative judgments if the information about a target person was not strongly valenced and experimental conditions were optimal. Concluding, in principle, both stereotype valence and consistency can play a role in evaluative judgments of stereotypic target persons. However, the more subtle influence of consistency does not seem to substantially influence evaluations of stereotyped target persons. Implications for fluency research and stereotype disconfirmation are discussed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ElHelouBiegnerBodeetal.2019,
  author    = {El-Helou, Sabine M. and Biegner, Anika-Kerstin and Bode, Sebastian and Ehl, Stephan R. and Heeg, Maximilian and Maccari, Maria E. and Ritterbusch, Henrike and Speckmann, Carsten and Rusch, Stephan and Scheible, Raphael and Warnatz, Klaus and Atschekzei, Faranaz and Beider, Renata and Ernst, Diana and Gerschmann, Stev and Jablonka, Alexandra and Mielke, Gudrun and Schmidt, Reinhold E. and Sch{\"u}rmann, Gesine and Sogkas, Georgios and Baumann, Ulrich H. and Klemann, Christian and Viemann, Dorothee and Bernuth, Horst von and Kr{\"u}ger, Renate and Hanitsch, Leif G. and Scheibenbogen, Carmen M. and Wittke, Kirsten and Albert, Michael H. and Eichinger, Anna and Hauck, Fabian and Klein, Christoph and Rack-Hoch, Anita and Sollinger, Franz M. and Avila, Anne and Borte, Michael and Borte, Stephan and Fasshauer, Maria and Hauenherm, Anja and Kellner, Nils and M{\"u}ller, Anna H. and {\"U}lzen, Anett and Bader, Peter and Bakhtiar, Shahrzad and Lee, Jae-Yun and Heß, Ursula and Schubert, Ralf and W{\"o}lke, Sandra and Zielen, Stefan and Ghosh, Sujal and Laws, Hans-Juergen and Neubert, Jennifer and Oommen, Prasad T. and H{\"o}nig, Manfred and Schulz, Ansgar and Steinmann, Sandra and Klaus, Schwarz and D{\"u}ckers, Gregor and Lamers, Beate and Langemeyer, Vanessa and Niehues, Tim and Shai, Sonu and Graf, Dagmar and M{\"u}glich, Carmen and Schmalzing, Marc T. and Schwaneck, Eva C. and Tony, Hans-Peter and Dirks, Johannes and Haase, Gabriele and Liese, Johannes G. and Morbach, Henner and Foell, Dirk and Hellige, Antje and Wittkowski, Helmut and Masjosthusmann, Katja and Mohr, Michael and Geberzahn, Linda and Hedrich, Christian M. and M{\"u}ller, Christiane and R{\"o}sen-Wolff, Angela and Roesler, Joachim and Zimmermann, Antje and Behrends, Uta and Rieber, Nikolaus and Schauer, Uwe and Handgretinger, Rupert and Holzer, Ursula and Henes, J{\"o}rg and Kanz, Lothar and Boesecke, Christoph and Rockstroh, J{\"u}rgen K. and Schwarze-Zander, Carolynne and Wasmuth, Jan-Christian and Dilloo, Dagmar and H{\"u}lsmann, Brigitte and Sch{\"o}nberger, Stefan and Schreiber, Stefan and Zeuner, Rainald and Ankermann, Tobias and Bismarck, Philipp von and Huppertz, Hans-Iko and Kaiser-Labusch, Petra and Greil, Johann and Jakoby, Donate and Kulozik, Andreas E. and Metzler, Markus and Naumann-Bartsch, Nora and Sobik, Bettina and Graf, Norbert and Heine, Sabine and Kobbe, Robin and Lehmberg, Kai and M{\"u}ller, Ingo and Herrmann, Friedrich and Horneff, Gerd and Klein, Ariane and Peitz, Joachim and Schmidt, Nadine and Bielack, Stefan and Groß-Wieltsch, Ute and Classen, Carl F. and Klasen, Jessica and Deutz, Peter and Kamitz, Dirk and Lassy, Lisa and Tenbrock, Klaus and Wagner, Norbert and Bernbeck, Benedikt and Brummel, Bastian and Lara-Villacanas, Eusebia and M{\"u}nstermann, Esther and Schneider, Dominik T. and Tietsch, Nadine and Westkemper, Marco and Weiß, Michael and Kramm, Christof and K{\"u}hnle, Ingrid and Kullmann, Silke and Girschick, Hermann and Specker, Christof and Vinnemeier-Laubenthal, Elisabeth and Haenicke, Henriette and Schulz, Claudia and Schweigerer, Lothar and M{\"u}ller, Thomas G. and Stiefel, Martina and Belohradsky, Bernd H. and Soetedjo, Veronika and Kindle, Gerhard and Grimbacher, Bodo},
  title     = {The German national registry of primary immunodeficiencies (2012-2017)},
  series = {Frontiers in Immunology},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {Frontiers in Immunology},
  doi       = {10.3389/fimmu.2019.01272},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-226629},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Introduction: The German PID-NET registry was founded in 2009, serving as the first national registry of patients with primary immunodeficiencies (PID) in Germany. It is part of the European Society for Immunodeficiencies (ESID) registry. The primary purpose of the registry is to gather data on the epidemiology, diagnostic delay, diagnosis, and treatment of PIDs. Methods: Clinical and laboratory data was collected from 2,453 patients from 36 German PID centres in an online registry. Data was analysed with the software Stata® and Excel. Results: The minimum prevalence of PID in Germany is 2.72 per 100,000 inhabitants. Among patients aged 1-25, there was a clear predominance of males. The median age of living patients ranged between 7 and 40 years, depending on the respective PID. Predominantly antibody disorders were the most prevalent group with 57\% of all 2,453 PID patients (including 728 CVID patients). A gene defect was identified in 36\% of patients. Familial cases were observed in 21\% of patients. The age of onset for presenting symptoms ranged from birth to late adulthood (range 0-88 years). Presenting symptoms comprised infections (74\%) and immune dysregulation (22\%). Ninety-three patients were diagnosed without prior clinical symptoms. Regarding the general and clinical diagnostic delay, no PID had undergone a slight decrease within the last decade. However, both, SCID and hyper IgE-syndrome showed a substantial improvement in shortening the time between onset of symptoms and genetic diagnosis. Regarding treatment, 49\% of all patients received immunoglobulin G (IgG) substitution (70\%-subcutaneous; 29\%-intravenous; 1\%-unknown). Three-hundred patients underwent at least one hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Five patients had gene therapy. Conclusion: The German PID-NET registry is a precious tool for physicians, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, politicians, and ultimately the patients, for whom the outcomes will eventually lead to a more timely diagnosis and better treatment.},
  language  = {en}
}