Search

Unlabelled: We measured Protein S-100 serum levels in 66 healthy newborns during the first week of life and in 7 newborns with perinatal acidosis. Normal values (n = 66) constantly ranged between 0.66 and 3.33 microg/l (2.5 and 97.5 percentiles) during the evaluation period.Conclusions: Newborns with signs of hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) after perinatal acidosis showed elevated Protein S-100 serum levels, whereas newborns without these signs had normal concentrations. S-100 might thus be a marker of central nervous system damage in newborns. Key words: Asphyxia, brain damage, neonate [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Objective: To evaluate the experience with a new peer review method, "Select Crowd Review" (SCR): anonymized PDFs of manuscripts are accessible to a reviewer crowd via an online platform. It has access for 10 days to enter anonymized comments directly into the manuscript. A SCR-Editor summarizes the annotations, giving a recommendation. Both reviewed PDF and summary are sent back to authors. Upon submission, authors are given a choice to accept or decline SCR., Design: All manuscript submissions since introduction in July 2021 until July 2022 were analyzed regarding acceptance and quality. Manuscripts were sent to a crowd of 45 reviewers and regular double-blinded peer review at the same time. Efficiency and performance of the crowd's reviews were compared with those of regular review. For thoracic manuscripts, a crowd was not yet available., Results: SCR was accepted by the authors for 73/179 manuscripts (40.8%). After desk rejections, 51 cardiac manuscripts entered SCR. For five manuscripts, the crowd did not respond. In all remaining papers, the crowd's recommendation concurred with that of the normal reviewers. Regular peer review took up to 6 weeks. Twelve manuscripts underwent repeated SCR after revision. A median of 2 (0-9) crowd members sent in reviews. In revisions, average response was one reviewer responding., Conclusion: SCR encountered good acceptance by authors. As the first experience showed concordant recommendations compared with traditional review, we have extended SCR to thoracic manuscripts for more experience. SCR may become the sole review method for eligible manuscripts. Efficiency should be increased, especially for re-review of revisions., Competing Interests: J.B. and P.H. are employees of Thieme Medical Publishers and thus have an interest to have this alternative peer review method evaluated for further use. R.G. is the cardiac SCR Editor, and M.H. is the Editor-in-Chief of ThCVS. Both have no material or moral conflicts., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Competing Interests: None declared.

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: P.G. Camici is consultant for Servier. R.S. Rosenson reports research grants to his institutions from Akcea, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Medicines Company and Regeneron. R.S. Rosenson reports speaking engagements at Amgen and Kowa, research consulting for Akcea and Regeneron, royalties from UpToDate, Inc. and stock holdings in MediMergent. All other authors have nothing to disclose.