[Babase] Wounds&Path and white infants - was Censoring + Alto's split

Susan Alberts alberts at duke.edu
Fri Oct 16 15:20:36 EDT 2009


See below for some input on white infants; JA please provide your  
input on the coding that Niki is recommending for the wounds sheets  
after looking through Allison's data.


> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Niki Learn <nlearn at princeton.edu>  
> wrote:
> I've attached a sheet that began as Alison's infants of interests  
> file.  Most of the infants and a handful of others were used in her  
> final analysis.  I've added the others she used and a couple others  
> that she maybe could have used but did not.  I am not sure how she  
> concluded that several of them could have had white monkey syndrome  
> (particularly WAU, LOW, and ENE, all of whom were less than two  
> months old and died of unrelated causes, and PAW seems to me to have  
> had something different).
>

Yes, I agree these do look like mistakes. I can confirm the following  
two:
-PAW had a condition from birth that resulted in spasmodic movements  
in all limbs and the body and died while still a black infant,  
couldn't cling. Looked totally different from WMS.
-WAU died at 3 days after mother disappeared (WAU was the one  
temporarily adopted by Luna, but she had no milk).

Also agreed that the following were not white monkey syndrome based on  
the data you sent:
-LOW
-ENE
-HAV
-CYC.
>
> Alison did locate all the infants with wound sheets indicating they  
> had white fur (except CAC who was only slightly whitish) and those  
> indicating a stiff walk (coded as either 10 or 14).
>

Good, so we maybe have identified the complete set. This looks like  
about 15 infants.
> She flagged some early in the process who had code 7 but only ended  
> up using TOF, HAV, and CYC, none of which I am very confident had  
> the syndrome (TOF at least is reported to have had weak feet, though  
> his arms were primarily affected by whatever he had; the other two  
> seem like unseen injuries to me).  None of these have demography  
> notes indicating any additional useful information (other than to  
> confirm the dcauses that demonstrate that the questionable infants  
> WAU, LOW, and ENE did not die because they were sick).
>

Agreed that TOF is more complicated. I sort of remember TOF and I  
think we did think he had it (but I also think he might have been the  
first case that the team or I saw, so we had no frame of reference for  
"that funny infant walk" like we do now). And, as we've discussed  
before, it's very difficult to identify the disease from just the  
outward observable symptoms, we just have to do the best we can.
>
> Code 7 - Limp, no wound visible
> Code 10 - Malaise, weakness, stiffness in absence of wound
> Code 14 - Other pathology
>

So, my main question about your next very useful 4 paragraphs is, I  
assume we are going to ask the team to implement the recommendations  
you make (which I agree with), rather than letting them do whatever,  
and then do the interpretation here in the lab, right? I think it  
makes sense to tell them about WMS (Jeanne has presumably talked with  
them at some length about it already, I have mentioned it at least)  
and explain that when they see " the walk" they should use 10 and make  
a note that this looks like "that infant disease" or "that infant walk  
that goes with white fur" or "possibly white monkey syndrome" or  
something. If they see white fur they should record it as a separate  
thing. Is everyone agreed? If so, Jeanne, can you (or have you  
already) have this conversation with them?
>
> I would not advise using code 7 for the stiff walk.  This is the  
> most frequently used code and it already has some irregularities  
> that should probably be addressed.  [Essentially, limp has changed  
> from time to time on the datasheets, sometimes being listed simply  
> as limp or even as limp from wound but usually as "limp, no wound  
> visible" - sometimes it is marked along with wounds that could  
> obviously be causing a limp, particularly in older data where the  
> name may not match up with the code's name.  Recent data (2000  
> onward) is fairly consistent in not checking code 7 if there is a  
> limp-causing wound.  This is fine because there is also the column  
> for checking whether the wound "impairs locomotion" which SHOULD  
> always be checked when code 7 is used and whenever a limp-causing  
> wound is evident.  It also often marked with code 10 when the  
> stiffness or weakness impairs locomotion.]
>
> Code 10 is mostly used in the following cases:  To indicate slowing  
> by older baboons (rheumatism, stiffness, slowing down, etc.), to  
> indicate infants that are not thriving (can't cling, etc.), and for  
> cases where a baboon has been badly wounded or is very sick and so  
> is weak/in a state of malaise.  The large outbreak of Coxsackie  
> mentioned earlier was coded as 10, as are two cases that seem  
> similar where 3 or 4 baboons simultaneously had stiff walks/stiff  
> sacral regions for a short period of time.
>
> Code 14 is mostly used for really bizarre things that nobody knows  
> where else to put and for more extreme cases where baboons become  
> very thin (I found several cases of thinning that were flagged "low  
> body weight" in the notes - I similarly flagged Liberty and can flag  
> any other individuals that I actually get wounds & pathologies  
> sheets for).
>
> That said it sounds like 10 is the best existing code to use.   
> Possibly if we think they are white monkey cases we could flag them  
> "possible white monkey syndrome" in the notes?  Of course, right now  
> there are four tables, three of which have notes.  I'll have to see  
> how Karl wants to arrange everything in babase since these sheets  
> were designed with a different database system in mind; babase  
> usually designated ids but these have predesignated ids (with many  
> gaps) to allow the information in the four tables to be aligned with  
> each other.
>
> It appears that wounds and pathologies mentioned solely in  
> demography notes (of which I think there are many) do not appear in  
> the existing wounds and pathologies tables.  For example, surely  
> there were cases of white monkey syndrome before 2003 but they were  
> not given wounds sheets and so cannot be easily located.  Is this  
> something we need to remedy?
>

We started using wounds sheets in the 1980's. Before then, all W&Ps  
were in demog notes. Starting in the early 1980's, all W&Ps should  
have been written on the wounds sheets. Are you saying that you have  
found a lot of W&P notes in demog notes from the 80's, 90's, and 00's  
that have no wounds sheets? I am assuming not, but am just clarifying.

Also, I do think it is possible that there was no (or very little)  
white monkey syndrome before 2002. I know that Jeanne and Stuart saw  
white-furred infants in the  1960's, not sure if those infants had a  
locomotor problem. My understanding is that they did not see it in the  
1970's, I certainly never saw it in the 1980's. It may have appeared  
in the 1990's (and it sounds like we have one possible record of it,  
with SCI's infant), but it sounds like you have looked in the 1990's  
wounds sheets and not seen anything? Or, maybe the team was not  
identifying this as a pathology and so they would take demog notes  
about it but no path notes. This is definitely possible, and may  
explain your earlier comment about W&Ps in the demog notes -- yes?  
But, I think it is also plausible that TOF was the first (or, YUM,  
FIT, COD or FAM).

Susan

>

--------------------------------------------------------
Susan Alberts, Dept of Biology, Duke University, Box 90338, Durham NC  
27708, 919-660-7272 (Ph), 919-660-7293 (Fax)






More information about the Babase mailing list