text:
Making it easy for you to find requirements information is a key purpose of IBM® Rational® Requirements Composer. This assists with requirements validation and discussion, as well as reuse and contextual understanding. Methods for achieving this include folders, saved filters, tagging, attributes, and collections (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Filters by collection, folder, tags, attribute can be saved
Folder structure
The purpose of the folder structure is to make it easy for authors to find, create, and edit requirement artifacts while, at the same time, making it easy for reviewers to find and comment on or formally review requirements. The key is to consider the audience.
The folder structure provides a logical storage mechanism for projects. Searching and browsing can also be accomplished through the various tabs, links, tags, filters, and search dialog.
When using the interface, business stakeholders need to understand at a glance how to navigate, comment, or formally review the project. If stakeholders are expected to navigate the folder structure, it can help to use language that the business people understand, rather than technical language.
While most stakeholders use the interface as expected—viewing artifacts and making comments— some take another approach. Stakeholders might prefer to print the artifacts and comment later, either by using the interface or in some other way.
Approaches to folder structure
Several approaches are described here to provide ideas. Many other approaches can be taken. The most typical, and the approach provided in Rational Requirements Composer, is to use artifact types. The structure can be modified by project administrators at any time after it is created. The recommendation is to set the structure in the beginning and to make minor updates as needed.
Folder structure by artifact type
This example uses artifact types to determine folder names. Due to expectations of collaboration with business stakeholders, we use business wording to describe areas as opposed to technical terminology:
- Vision statement or business case (why you are building the system)
- Business process diagram
- What the system does (use cases or user stories)
- Usability, reliability, performance, supportability, scalability (nonfunctional requirements or technical stories)
- Storyboards
- Glossary
- Pre-project documentation
- Workshop notes
- Checkpoints
- Release documentation
On many projects, it is useful to pull in background information from the early workshops that planted seeds for the project. These artifacts might take the form of photo or image files, documents, or presentations that document the business case. Pre-project documentation, background information, or workshop notes folders could hold this information
Folder structure to reflect a particular approach or method
Many agile projects take a lightweight approach to documentation, including requirements artifacts. Folders need to reflect this and typically include:
- Vision or business case
- Epics
- User Stories
- Glossary
- Storyboards
- Reference material
A similar approach to using folders by artifact type would be appropriate for many methods, including ones with iterative, incremental, and waterfall-style lifecycles.
Folder structure by functional area of the system or business area
Each functional area (order processing or new business, for example) can include a different set of people leading or working on it. In this scenario, it might be preferable to set up a folder for each functional area, with subfolders containing that area's artifacts.
When a project includes multiple business areas that collaborate on specific requirements (sales, marketing, and accounting, for example), it might be preferable to separate the business areas of concern so that it's easy for Reviewer stakeholders to follow. In this case, a folder is created for each business area, and subfolders are created for artifacts for them to review.
Table 1. Example of folder structure by functional area
|Functional area
|Project reuse library
|Reusable bits, e.g., user interface (UI) parts, glossary
|System administration
|Requirements for the system administration part of the project
|Requirements for the reporting portion of the project
|Functional area n
|Requirements for another functional area (n)
|Functional area n+1
|Requirements for another functional area (n+1)
|Background information
|Information that provides background to the project in general. This could include items such as a Statement of Work, a set of slides that depict the proposed solution, a photo of a whiteboard diagram, and so on.
A tag is a keyword or term assigned to any artifact or requirement. It is later used to search or filter artifacts and requirements within and across projects. Tagging across many different requirements and artifact types gives you the flexibility to group a diverse range of artifacts and requirements together.
There are shared and personal tags:
- Shared tags are maintained in upload and download and can be used in saved filter queries.
- Personal tags are just used for filtering in a person's local area.
Tagging is typically used in conjunction with folders and can also be used as an alternative approach.
Tagging is useful in conjunction with filters, because specific queries can be preconfigured for particular business users to view artifacts of interest. For example, if the folder structure is arranged by artifact type, tagging by business area across all folders can be a very useful approach. This makes it easier for everyone to locate relevant information.
A very useful application of tagging is to assign a tag to show that a requirement is part of a release (Release 1, for instance). When these requirements are filtered, they can be added to a collection. This is particularly useful when using Rational Requirements Composer in conjunction with IBM Rational Team Concert™ because plan items can be automatically created based on the requirements in this collection.
In theory, there are several approaches to tagging:
- Ad hoc policy
- Creators use tags in any way that they find helpful.
- Informal policy
- This typical includes some structure and guidance: Certain tags are suggested, such as department names. Flexibility for social bookmarking is also allowed.
Formal classification structure
Guidelines and best practices
Typically, tags are used to help search and browse in Rational Requirements Composer, rather than in managing requirements.
Tags are useful when they help people collaborate better among roles, teams, and geographies.
Tags can be especially useful when they are relevant across multiple types of artifact.
Encourage informal shared bookmarking, because it makes tool use more flexible and artifacts easier to find for a broad range of users.
Tagging is favored over a deep sub-folder hierarchy, because deep hierarchies can be cumbersome to navigate.
Seeding a project with shared tags from the beginning encourages tag use.
Attribute groups are generally preferred for more formal classifications.
Attribute groups
Attributes specify characteristics about a requirement or artifact. Attribute groups provide a way to reuse attributes across specific project artifacts and requirements. Attributes are used for querying and ordering groups of requirements and artifacts.
File name, date, user, artifact type, and lifecycle status are default attributes available on artifacts for filtering.
Specifically defining attributes (by business priority, stability, and difficulty, for example) results in additional filtering options. A good way to decide which attributes and attribute groups to use is to think about which reports or filters could be used to answer expected questions.
Requirement types
Requirements use attribute groups to show their requirement types. A requirement can be associated with only one attribute group (see Table 2). This is selected either as part of the requirements creation, using the wizard, or added after creation.
File name, date, user, and lifecycle status are default attributes available on requirements for filtering.
Attribute us might be affected by your choice of requirements management tool and how any existing IBM® Rational® DOORS® or IBM® Rational® RequisitePro® projects are already configured.
Table 2. Example of an attribute group definition
|Attribute group
|Attribute values
|Storyboard attribute group
| In progress (default)
Under revision
|Test ranking
| Testable
Under revision
Not testable
|Architectural review
| Reviewed
Under revision
|Complexity to implement
| Complex
| Paula
|Contact person
| Kirk
Table 3. Example of a table to show an attribute group definition
|Attribute groups
|Use case
|Artifact types
|User interface part
|Business process diagram
|Screen flow
|User interface Sketch
|Use case
|Use case diagram
|Resource wrapper*
*Resource wrapper is for all external artifacts that have been loaded into the repository, such as JPG files of whiteboard sessions.
Saving shared filters makes it easier for people to adopt filters. By applying a preconfigured filter, the user sees a shorter list of artifacts or requirements. As a result, they are less likely to be overwhelmed with information that doesn't pertain to them.
One point of Rational Requirements Composer filters is to make finding groups of requirements and artifacts easy. They work in conjunction with the data defined using tags, attribute groups and IBM® Rational® C/ALM (Collaborative ALM) links to provide a means of rapidly reduces the amount of information a user sees. Rational Requirements Composer provides one requirements repository for all stakeholders, containing one version of the truth with a high level of transparency, so making it easy to find relevant information and artifacts is vital for all users within and across projects. Filters make this possible.
These might be shared filters that everyone can use or personal filters that an author creates for private use. It is best that some initial shared filters are provided on the team's behalf and, in particular, on the business stakeholders' behalf. Personal filters can be specific, saved views or ad hoc filters that are used often. The folder structure is a special case of public filtering, as are tags.
Ad hoc filtering capabilities
There are many ways available for filtering in Rational Requirements Composer. Some filters work only if you take an action, such as tagging artifacts or setting attribute values on requirements. Other filtering capabilities will work as long as you have artifacts or requirements available to list. These are based on file name, on location in the folder structure, on the name of the user who created the artifact, on the date, or on artifact type.
Shared filters
Any filter can be saved as a shared filter for all team members to reuse.
If attribute values about requirements are set, such as "Priority" and "Difficulty," a filter based on the attributes could be created and saved as a group identified for an iteration. For example, all high-priority and high-difficulty requirements could be saved for Iteration 1. Filtering on an attribute such as Status, combined with an Iteration filter or attribute, is useful for identifying how much work needs to be completed for the next iteration.
Certain filters might be useful for the entire team. Maybe a filter on artifact type, such as storyboards and date, over the last month would help everyone find all of the storyboards created in the past month.
The Stakeholder Collaboration Strategy might contain details of preconfigured saved shared filters.
A collection is a mechanism to group artifacts and requirements. Collections can be used to provide an easy way to view a grouping of artifacts or requirements.
Collections group together a range of artifacts or requirements, or both, for targeted reviews for particular stakeholders, either as a formal or an informal review. Snapshots can also be included within a collection for review.
They can also help establish a baseline for a group of functionality for a particular iteration.
You can create multiple Plan items by using Rational Team Concert rich-text client, basing them on the requirements included in a collection, and establish links from the Plan items back to the requirements. This is typically an activity performed by a team lead or project manager.
You can create test cases in bulk by using the IBM® Rational® Quality Manager client from requirements included in a collection, and establish links from test cases back to requirements. This is typically performed by a test lead.
Although planning for collections might start from the beginning of the project, collections are created when artifacts start to take shape and the team is ready (or preparing) for reviewers to use them for informal or formal reviews, linking to test plans, or creating work items. Typically, these would be viewed by clicking the Collections tab on the project dashboard. It can also be helpful to create a folder for collections.
The Stakeholder Collaboration Strategy can contain any policy regarding collection use.
Fast View, Search, and Advanced Search
Access to Fast Views can be set up with a button that is typically at the left of the screen and can also be anchored on sidebar on the right. This can be especially useful for properties and outline views. Outline views are especially useful for UI sketch editing.
Advanced Search can also be used to search across multiple projects.
Table 4 summarizes the various techniques for organizing the project and repository space. Review and approval are considered in more detail later in the series.
Table 4. Summary of key techniques for organizing the project and repository space
|Type of organization
|Folders are used to create a fixed hierarchical project structure and to create a fundamental project framework for storing requirements, artifacts and collections. This can be used in conjunction with tags.
|Tags are a more informal way to classify requirements, collections and artifacts. They have the advantage of working across folders and projects so they are useful for a broad classification. It is also possible to tag items in bulk.
|Attribute Groups
|Attribute groups provide a more formal classification structure, including attribute names, values and default value. They can be applied across requirements and artifacts and can also map to requirement types. They are useful for both requirements management and an additional, more formal, filtering mechanism.
| Filters can be used to view various artifacts or requirements by folder, tag or attribute values.
All the meta-data above (folders, tags and attribute groups) provides the input for filters which allows users to find and access a subset of the repository's relevant artifacts and requirements.
|Collections are used to group artifacts and requirements. A collections tab on the project dashboard provides a list of collections for the project. These are useful for a number of purposes from targeting reviews to C/ALM integrations.
|A project snapshot is a capture of an entire project at a specific moment in time. It includes all artifacts, folder trees, and the shared tag list.
|Review and Approvals
| A review is a set of artifacts that you create to be reviewed by specific team members. The review follows a lifecycle that changes as participants complete the review.
You can create a review for individual artifacts that you select or you can create a review of a collection (see Collaboration Strategy).
Ultimately, the decision as to exactly how to adopt these techniques will be determined by individual teams. The underlying philosophy to adoption is that doing so will improve collaboration with stakeholders by making information easier to find.
This article considered ways to organize the project and repository space. It laid the foundation for the next article in which content creation is addressed. The next article discusses the approach to selecting artifacts, creating requirements and linking.
The authors thank Robin Bater, Rational Requirements Definition and Management Community of Practice Architect, and Daniel Moul, Market Management Offering Manager for Requirements Definition and Management, for their technical reviews and encouragement.
- Learn more on Jazz.net:
- About Rational Requirements Composer on Jazz.net.
- About Rational C/ALM
- For an introduction, read Capturing Architectural Requirements by Peter Eeles (IBM developerWorks, November 2005).
- Start here to learn more about Rational Requirements Composer on IBM.com:
- Watch this 10-minute demo to learn about the full scope and capabilities.
- Browse the developerWorks page to find more technical articles and much more.
- Explore the Rational Requirements Composer Information Center.
- Learn about other applications in the IBM Rational Software Delivery Platform, including collaboration tools for parallel development and geographically dispersed teams, plus specialized software for architecture management, asset management, change and release management, integrated requirements management, process and portfolio management, and quality management. You can find product manuals, installation guides, and other documentation in the IBM Rational Online Documentation Center.
- Visit the Rational software area on developerWorks for technical resources and best practices for Rational Software Delivery Platform products.
- Explore Rational computer-based, Web-based, and instructor-led online courses. Hone your skills and learn more about Rational tools with these courses, which range from introductory to advanced. The courses on this catalog are available for purchase through computer-based training or Web-based training. Some of the "Getting Started" courses are available free of charge.
- Subscribe to the IBM developerWorks newsletter, a weekly update on the best of developerWorks tutorials, articles, downloads, community activities, webcasts and events.
- Browse the technology bookstore for books on these and other technical topics.
Get products and technologies
- Download IBM Rational Requirements Composer and try it, free.
- Download trial versions of other IBM Rational software.
- Download IBM product evaluation versions and get your hands on application development tools and middleware products from DB2®, Lotus®, Tivoli®, and WebSphere®.
- Join the discussion in the Rational Requirements Composer forum about all aspects of requirements definition, including both general, tool-independent concepts and tool-specific information.
- Check out developerWorks blogs and get involved in the developerWorks community.
Dig deeper into Rational software on developerWorks
- Overview
- Free online course: Getting started with IBM Bluemix
- IBM Bluemix Garage Method
- Technical library (tutorials and more)
- Forums
- Communities
developerWorks Premium
Exclusive tools to build your next great app. Learn more.
developerWorks Labs
Technical resources for innovators and early adopters to experiment with.
IBM evaluation software
Evaluate IBM software and solutions, and transform challenges into opportunities.


text:
trying to sell alot of furniture... so if any of you know someone that is looking for some inbox me.
Thanks so much for joining us at
~*~ Mommy Chats ~*~
Hope to see you posting and chatting soon, and joining in on our many discussions. I look forward to getting to know you
Hi! Welcome to CafeMom!
Please join us in the 20 Something Moms group. It's a really great place to get started here and meet other moms like you.
I hope to see you there!
Posts with Most Replies
Part of the CafeMedia family
© 2016 CMI Marketing, Inc. All rights reserved.
Already Joined? LOG IN

subset: commoncrawl


text:
2013 was a whirlwind for the local real estate market and two areas in particular have been extremely hot for both development and resale. Both Somerville and South Boston have seen meteoric rises in prices in the past two years as builders have continued to gobble up inventory and turn it back over as condos. The charts below offer a glimpse of both markets in the past 8 years and show an eerily similar track record in terms of both average sale price and days on market.
For the purposes of this article we've focused on the 02143 zip code in Somerville, which includes Union Square, Inman Square and Spring Hill. While South Boston and Somerville are distinctly different in many ways it is fairly stunning how similar the last few years have been for their real estate markets. Things have continued to trend upward for both areas since their lows in 2009. South Boston's average sale price in 2013 is up $64,591 from its previous peak in 2007 and Somerville's average sale price is up an even more impressive $100,526 from its 2007 highs.
Both neighborhoods are changing quickly as developers and buyers alike have been pushed out of Downtown Boston by the ever increasing prices there. With this influx of buyers has come skyrocketing prices, fast sales and multiple offer scenarios for property owners. The final 2013 numbers show that the two markets are staggeringly similar. Somerville's average sale price came in at $487,508, only $1,017 above South Boston's. Each neighborhood also sported an amazingly low average days on market of 32 and 33 respectively. The main difference between the two is simple, total sales volume. South Boston had a total of 761 properties sold last year, accounting for $370 Million in sales while the 02143 zip code of Somerville accounted for only 201 transactions and $98 Million in sales. The near future continues to look good for sellers in each area with inventory remaining thus far in 2014. Looking to take advantage of the seller's market? Get a no-obligation home consultation by clicking here or calling Justin Rollo of Re/Max at (978)790-4381.
To view every property for sale in Somerville click here.
To view every home for sale in South Boston click here.
More from this blog on: Justin Rollo - Realtor , Market Updates , Somerville , South Boston


text:
|Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français
Few data have been published on mammography performance in women who are younger than 40 years.
We pooled data from six mammography registries across the United States from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. We included 117738 women who were aged 18–39 years when they had their first screening or diagnostic mammogram during 1995–2005 and followed them for 1 year to determine accuracy of mammography assessment. We measured the recall rate for screening examinations and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and cancer detection rate for all mammograms.
For screening mammograms, no cancers were detected in 637 mammograms for women aged 18–24 years. For women aged 35–39 years who had the largest number of screening mammograms (n = 73335) in this study, the recall rate was 12.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.4% to 12.9%), sensitivity was 76.1% (95% CI = 69.2% to 82.6%), specificity was 87.5% (95% CI = 87.2% to 87.7%), positive predictive value was 1.3% (95% CI = 1.1% to 1.5%), and cancer detection rate was 1.6 cancers per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 1.3 to 1.9 cancers per 1000 mammograms). Most (67468 [77.7%]) of the 86871 women screened reported no family history of breast cancer. For diagnostic mammograms, the age-adjusted rates across all age groups were: sensitivity of 85.7% (95% CI = 82.7% to 88.7%), specificity of 88.8% (95% CI = 88.4% to 89.1%), positive predictive value of 14.6% (95% CI = 13.3% to 15.8%), and cancer detection rate of 14.3 cancers per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 13.0 to 15.7 cancers per 1000 mammograms). Mammography performance, except for specificity, improved in the presence of a breast lump.
Younger women have very low breast cancer rates but after mammography experience high recall rates, high rates of additional imaging, and low cancer detection rates. We found no cancers in women younger than 25 years and poor performance for the large group of women aged 35–39 years. In a theoretical population of 10000 women aged 35–39 years, 1266 women who are screened will receive further workup, with 16 cancers detected and 1250 women receiving a false-positive result.
Little information is available on the performance of mammography in women who are younger than 40 years.
Data were obtained from six registries on mammography among women who were aged 18–39 years at their first mammogram, screening or diagnostic. The women were followed for 1 year to determine the accuracy of their mammograms, the recall rate for screening mammograms, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and cancer detection rate for all mammograms.
Younger women had very low breast cancer rates but experienced high rates of false-positive results, with high recall rates after mammography, high rates of additional imaging, and low cancer detection rates. No cancers were found in women younger than 25 years, and poor performance was found for women aged 35–39 years.
Many young women at low or average risk for breast cancer were exposed to additional imaging with a low probability of cancer detection. Consequently, harms may include additional radiation exposure, anxiety associated with false-positive findings, and costs associated with additional imaging.
There was a sizeable amount of missing data. Complete family pedigree or BRCA1 or BRCA2 status could not be collected, and so women at very high risk could not be identified.
From the Editors
Among US women, breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths (1). Data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program show that 6.5% of breast cancers are diagnosed in women who are younger than 40 years and only 0.6% are diagnosed in women who are younger than 30 years (2). Among younger women, SEER age-adjusted invasive breast cancer incidence rates per 100000 women in the general population are 0.1 cancers for those aged 15–19 years, 0.7 cancers for those aged 20–24 years, 3.8 cancers for those aged 25–29 years, 12.9 cancers for those aged 30–34 years, and 29.3 cancers for those aged 35–39 years; this rate is 59.1 cancers for women aged 40–44 years (2). Breast cancers diagnosed in young women have poorer prognostic characteristics, higher recurrence rates (3), and higher relative mortality rates than those diagnosed in older women (4,5).
In this study, we defined "young" women as being younger than 40 years because this age group is excluded from standard guidelines for screening mammography in the United States (6–8) and other countries (9). Today, the American Cancer Society (1,6), Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium (10), and others (11) advocate screening among young women who have a high-risk profile or known BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations. In the 1980s, the American Cancer Society recommended a baseline mammogram for women at average risk who were aged 35–40 years to provide a comparison image that would be available when regular screening began at age 40 or older years, but this recommendation was dropped in 1992 after a consensus meeting reviewed the evidence on screening recommendations and agreed that there was little evidence to support a benefit of the baseline screening before age 40 years (12). Using data from six counties in California, Kerlikowske et al. (13) reported that the percentage of women receiving a first screening mammogram between the ages of 30 and 39 years increased from 21.8% in 1985 to 28.9% in 1992. However, still in 2005, 28.9% of US women aged 30–39 years reported ever having a mammogram (14). Anecdotal evidence suggests that nearly two decades later, some physicians and women still believe that a baseline mammogram before age 40 years is recommended.
Previous research on mammography use in young women has been mainly confined to retrospective examinations of mammography and ultrasound data (15) from patients with cancer or to examinations of the pathology of the detected cancers. Details relating to mammography in young women are scarce, with particular gaps in our understanding of who has mammography, how accurately mammography is performed, and how the outcomes in women younger than 40 years compare with those of women aged 40 years or older, for whom regular screening is recommended. We address these issues by examining the distribution, performance characteristics, and pathological outcomes of first mammographic examination for screening or diagnostic purposes among young women receiving mammography in community practice in the United States by using data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC).
The BCSC is a National Cancer Institute-funded collaborative network of population-based mammography registries with linkages to pathology and/or tumor registries (16). Analyses in this study are based on pooled data from six registries: North Carolina, Western Washington State, New Hampshire, New Mexico, San Francisco, and Vermont. Each registry links its mammography data to its regional or SEER cancer registry for cancer outcomes data, including tumor size, stage, and molecular markers. Along with the BCSC Statistical Coordinating Center, sites adhere to strict confidentiality procedures, comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and have a Federal Certificate of Confidentiality and other protection for the identities of women, physicians, and facilities who are subjects of this research.
We included 117738 women from the BCSC who were aged 18–39 years when they had their first screening or diagnostic mammogram during 1995–2005 and followed them for 1 year to determine accuracy of mammography assessment. A mammogram was determined to be the first if the woman reported no previous mammogram at the time of the mammography examination and no previous mammogram was found in the registry. We excluded women with a history of breast cancer and women with missing information on the mammogram interpretation. Mammograms were classified according to the radiologists' recorded indication—screening (including 5% where women reported a lump) and/or diagnostic—for evaluation of a breast problem (16).
Each woman completed a questionnaire at the time of her visit for breast imaging that included information on age, race or ethnicity, self-reported presence of breast problems, first-degree family (ie, first-degree relatives) and personal histories of breast cancer, and menopausal status. Radiologists and technologists recorded information on imaging performed, indication for the visit, breast parenchymal density, mammography interpretation, and recommendations for follow-up.
Mammograms were determined to be positive or negative on the basis of the interpretation assessment assigned by the radiologist, who used the lexicon from the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), which scores assessment on a scale of 1–5 with increasing probability of cancer and uses a "0" for indeterminate studies that need further evaluation. The BI-RADS scores for assessment are 1 = normal; 2 = benign finding; 3 = probably benign; 4 = suspicious abnormality; and 5 = suspicious for cancer (17). Previous BCSC articles (18,19) describe the use of this scale. An examination was positive if the patient was recalled for further assessment or recommended for biopsy examination (18,19). Standard definitions for true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, and false-negative results were calculated by use of a 12-month follow-up period (20). Cancers in patients were classified as ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive cancer; lobular carcinomas in situ were not classified as cancer.
We calculated the following performance measures: recall rate for screening (ie, the proportion of screening assessments that led to a recommendation for further workup), sensitivity (ie, the probability of a positive mammogram assessment, given a cancer was detected within 1 year), specificity (ie, the probability of a negative mammogram assessment, given no cancer was diagnosed within 1 year), cancer detection rate (ie, the number of cancers diagnosed within 1 year of a positive mammogram per 1000 mammograms), screening positive predictive value (ie, the probability of a cancer diagnosis within 1 year after a positive screening examination), and diagnostic positive predictive value (ie, the probability of cancer, given a recommendation for biopsy examination that was based on diagnostic mammography) (17).
Performance measures were evaluated separately by indication (screening or diagnostic mammography) and stratified by four age groups (18–25, 26–29, 30–34, or 35–39 years) for descriptive and age characteristics in the performance tables. Measures were stratified by age groups of 18–34 and 35–39 years for assessing family history and pathology characteristics because 84.5% of the women who received screening mammography were aged 35–39 years and because we hypothesized that this unique group most likely received mammography for baseline screening, as described above. For the remaining characteristics, performance measures were age-adjusted via direct standardization. Throughout, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P values were estimated by use of a nonparametric bootstrap method (sampling with replacement from the full sample) that was based on 10000 replications (21). We have calculated P values solely for questions related to lump and family history because we expected that these variables may have an effect among young women, particularly on recall rates, cancer rate, and positive predictive value. P values that were calculated used a Wald statistic in which the standard error in the denominator of the test statistic was taken from the bootstrap sampling distribution of each statistic and the data were collapsed across the groups (ie, under the null hypothesis of no association). Pathology characteristics for cancers were reported as counts and percentages (based on non-missing counts) separately by indication for examination. All statistical tests were two-sided , and all analyses were performed with SAS software, version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC).
Our study sample included 117737 women who had received their first mammography, 86781 (73.7%) with a first screening mammogram and 30956 (26.3%) with a first diagnostic mammogram. There were 714 cancers, 188 (26.3%) among first screening mammograms and 526 (73.7%) among first diagnostic mammograms. The overall cancer detection rate was 1.6 cancers per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 1.3 to 1.9 cancers per 1000 mammograms).
Among the 86781 young women who received screening mammography, 83862 (96.6%) screening mammograms were among women aged 30–39 years, with a striking increase in the number of such mammograms starting at age 35 years (Figure 1 presents the frequency distribution of mammograms for all women in the Carolina Mammography Registry by age). Among the age groups studied, 2919 (3.3%) screened women were aged 18–29 years, 10527 (12.1%) were aged 30–34 years, and 73335 (84.5%) were aged 35–39 years. At age 34 years, approximately 4000 women were screened compared with approximately 17000 women at age 35 years.
The racial distribution among screened women was 67.0% white, 6.9% African American or African American, and 16.0% other (Asian, Alaska Native or American Indian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or mixed) (Table 1). Only 3726 (4.3%) of the 86781 women aged 18–39 years were menopausal, and 3167 (3.6%) women reported use of postmenopausal hormone therapy at the time of their visit. Overall, a family history of breast cancer was reported in 9481 (10.9%) of the 86871 women who received a first screening mammogram, but it was not reported in 67468 (77.7%) (data were missing for 9832 women). There was a statistically significantly higher proportion of positive family history among women who were younger than 35 years (26.4%) than among those who were aged 35–39 years (8.1%) (P < .001) (Table 2). Dense breasts were observed in 35794 (41.2%) women, with 8957 (10.3%) having extremely dense breasts and 26837 (30.9%) having heterogeneously dense breasts; breast density was missing for 27746 (32.0%) women.
The overall cancer rate in this population was 2.2 cancers diagnosed per 1000 mammograms. We observed no cancers in women younger than 25 years. The cancer prevalence rate was low (2.1 cancers per 1000 mammograms) in the oldest age group (ie, 35–39 years). The overall cancer rate was higher in African American women (3.7 cancers per 1000 mammograms) than in white women (2.1 cancers per 1000 mammograms) or in women of other races (1.5 cancers per 1000 mammograms).
Overall, only 4302 (5.0%) of the 86781 women self-reported a lump at screening, yet they had 49 (26.1%) of the 188 cancers. The cancer prevalence rate was 11.4 cancers per 1000 mammograms (ie, 49 cancers per 4302 mammograms) among women reporting a lump, compared with 1.6 cancers per 1000 mammograms (127 cancers per 78924 mammograms) among women with no lump (P < .001). It is not clear why women who reported a lump had screening mammography and not diagnostic mammography.
Among the 30956 diagnostic mammograms identified in this study, women aged 30–39 years received 25164 (81.3%) of them and women aged 18–29 years received 5792 (18.7%). A lump at the time of their diagnostic mammogram was reported by 20392 (65.9%) women (Table 1), and 14789 (47.8%) had heterogeneously or very dense breasts. Breast density was, however, missing for 8742 (28.2%) women. A positive family history of breast cancer was reported by only 2032 (6.6%). The overall cancer prevalence rate among all diagnostic mammograms was 17.0 cancers per 1000 mammograms.
Recall rates decreased with increasing age, from 17.6% (95% CI = 14.8% to 20.6%) for the age group 18–24 years to 12.7% (95% CI = 12.4% to 12.9%) for the age group 35–39 years (P < .001) (Table 3). Age-adjusted recall rates were statistically significantly lower among women with a lump (11.8%, 95% CI = 11.6% to 12.1%) than among those without a lump (31.1%, 95% CI = 29.6% to 32.8%) (P < .001). Women with a family history of breast cancer had a slightly higher age-adjusted recall rate (15.0%, 95% CI = 14.2% to 15.8%) than women without a family history of breast cancer (13.5%, 95% CI = 13.2% to 13.8%). Recall rates did not differ across racial and/or ethnic groups.
Age-adjusted sensitivity was 76.5% (95% CI = 70.1% to 82.5%), and age-specific sensitivity varied by age, with no cancers in the age group of 18–24 years (66.7%, 95% CI = 20.0% to 100%, in women aged 25–29 years; 81.5%, 95% CI = 65.4% to 95.5%, in women aged 30–34 years; and 76.1%, 95% CI = 69.2% to 82.6%, in women aged 35–39 years) (Table 3). Age-adjusted sensitivity was highest among African American women at 81.2% (95% CI = 62.9% to 96.3%) compared with 78.6% (95% CI = 71.0% to 85.8%) among white women and 67.0% (95% CI = 42.8% to 88.9%) among women of other races. Sensitivity was not associated with breast density or with a family history of breast cancer. Age-adjusted sensitivity was statistically significantly higher among the 4302 (5.0%) women with a lump (84.7%, 95% CI = 73.4% to 94.6%) than among those without a lump (74.8%, 95% CI = 66.9% to 82.2%) (P = .022).
Age-adjusted specificity was 87.1% (Table 3). Specificity increased with increasing age, from 82.4% (95% CI = 79.4% to 85.2%) in the age group of 18–24 years to 87.5% (95% CI = 87.2% to 87.7%) in that of 35–39 years. Specificity was higher among women with fatty breasts (91.5%, 95% CI = 90.4% to 92.4%) than among women with more dense categories (86%–89%). Specificity was 19% lower among women with a lump (69.6%, 95% CI = 68.0% to 71.2%) than among women without a lump (88.3%, 95% CI = 88.0% to 88.5%) (P < .001). Specificity was not associated with race or with family history of breast cancer.
Age-adjusted positive predictive value of screening was 1.3% (95% CI = 1.1% to 1.5%), with a slight variation with age (Table 4). Positive predictive value of screening was 3.7% (95% CI = 2.5% to 4.9%) among women with a self-reported lump compared with 1.0% (95% CI = 0.8% to 1.2%) among women without a lump (P < .001). A higher positive predictive value of screening was observed among African American women than among white women, and a statistically significantly higher positive predictive value was observed among women with a positive family history (1.2%, 95% CI = 1.0% to 1.5%) than among women without such history (0.9%, 95% CI = 0.4% to 1.5%) (P = .032).
The overall age-adjusted cancer detection rate was 1.7 cancers per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 1.4 to 1.9 cancers per 1000 mammograms). The cancer detection rate essentially did not change with age and was not associated with family history, particularly in the age group of 35–39 years (Table 2). African American women had higher cancer detection rates than white women. The cancer detection rate was higher among women with a lump (11.4 cancers per 1000 mammograms, 95% CI = 7.8 to 15.4) than among women without a lump (1.2 cancers per 1000 mammograms, 95% CI = 1.0 to 1.4) (P < .001).
Age-adjusted diagnostic sensitivity was high (85.7%, 95% CI = 82.7% to 88.7%) (Table 3). Sensitivity was higher among women who reported a lump (87.5%, 95% CI = 84.3% to 90.5%) than among women who reported other symptoms (71.5%, 95% CI = 59.8% to 82.7%) (P = .001). Sensitivity was lower among African American women (81.5%, 95% CI = 71.5% to 90.0%) than among white women (86.6%, 95% CI = 82.9% to 90.0%) or women of other races (89.0%, 95% CI = 80.7% to 95.7%).
Age-adjusted specificity was 88.8% (95% CI = 88.4% to 89.1%) and was not influenced by family history or race. Specificity was lower in the youngest age group, 18–24 years (83.8%, 95% CI = 81.9% to 85.6%), than in the other three age groups (88%–90%) and was lower among women who reported a lump (86.6%, 95% CI = 86.2% to 87.1%) than among those who did not (93.0%, 95% CI = 92.5% to 93.6%) (P < .001). Across the levels of breast density, specificity was highest among women with fatty breasts (93.2%, 95% CI = 91.6% to 94.7%) and decreased with increasing breast density (91.3% scattered fibroglandular densities, 88.1% heterogeneously dense and 89.2% extremely dense).
The age-adjusted positive predictive value for diagnostic mammography was 14.6% (95% CI = 13.3% to 15.8%) (Table 4). The positive predictive value of diagnostic mammography increased with each age group from 2.3% (95% CI = 0.5% to 4.5%) in those aged 18–24 years to 18.6% (95% CI = 16.6% to 20.6%) in those aged 35–39 years and was statistically significantly higher among women with a lump (16.2%, 95% CI = 14.8% to 17.7%) than among women without a lump (8.3%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 10.6%) (P < .001). In addition, this value was lower (10.6%, 95% CI = 8.1% to 13.3%) among women in the other racial group than among African American women (18.1%, 95% CI = 14.0% to 22.4%) and among white women (15.2%, 95% CI = 13.6% to 16.8%).
Overall, the age-adjusted cancer detection rate was 14.3 cancers detected per 1000 mammograms (95% CI = 13.0 to 15.7). It was higher for African American women (23.5 cancers detected per 1000 mammograms, 95% CI = 17.7 to 29.8) than for white women (14.0 cancers detected per 1000 mammograms, 95% CI = 12.4 to 15.6) or women of other races (13.0 cancers detected per 1000 mammograms, 95% CI = 9.8 to 16.4). Women with a positive family history of breast cancer (20.4 cancers detected per 1000 mammograms, 95% CI = 14.2 to 27.0) had a higher cancer detection rate than those without such a family history (13.5 cancers detected per 1000 mammograms, 95% CI = 12.1 to 15.0). Women who reported a lump had a higher cancer detection rate (19.5 cancers detected per 1000 mammograms, 95% CI = 17.7 to 21.5) than women who did not (4.7 cancers detected per 1000 mammograms, 95% CI = 3.4 to 6.2).
In this study population, no cancers were diagnosed after a first screening mammogram among women aged 18–24 years (Table 5). Tumor characteristics of women aged 25–34 years were associated with poorer prognosis than those of women aged 35–39 years, including a higher proportion of invasive cancers (81.8% vs 70.3%, respectively), stage II or higher (45.4% vs 39.3%), poorly differentiated or undifferentiated (54.5% vs 47.1%), greater than 2 cm (39.4% vs 32.9%), estrogen receptor negative and progesterone receptor negative (30.3% vs 20.6%), and positive lymph nodes (45.4% vs 29.7%).
Women aged 18–34 years, compared with those aged 35–39 years, had higher proportions of invasive cancers (94.8% vs 91.1%, respectively), cancers that were stage II or higher (57.8% vs 55.2%), poorly differentiated or undifferentiated cancers (54.9% vs 51.7%), and estrogen receptor–negative and progesterone receptor–negative cancers (23.7% vs 21.3%). However, we observed little difference between the two age groups in the proportion of cancers that were greater than 2 cm in diameter (42.7% vs 42.6%) or proportion of patients with positive lymph nodes (44.1% vs 45.4%).
To our knowledge, this study was the first comprehensive community-based evaluation of the first mammography experience, including both screening and diagnostic mammography, among women younger than 40 years. In our population, a substantial percentage of young women received screening mammography, but few breast cancers were found, regardless of their specific age, race, or individual characteristics. Yet, these women experience high recall rates with high rates of additional imaging. The sensitivity, specificity, and screening positive predictive value of screening mammography were poor, and cancer detection rates were very low in these young women, who are not yet in an age group for which national organizations recommend regular screening mammography. Harms need to be considered, including radiation exposure because such exposure is more harmful in young women (22,23), the anxiety associated with false-positive findings on the initial examination, and costs associated with additional imaging. If we consider a theoretical population of 10000 women aged 35–39 years, then from our results, an average of 1266 women who are screened will receive further workup, with 16 cancers being detected and 1250 false-positive examinations. This cancer detection rate corresponds to an estimated 79 workups for each cancer detected. Using the same methods that were outlined above, we also considered two theoretical populations of women who underwent their first mammography at the ages of 40–44 years or 45–49 years. The number of workups per cancer detected was estimated to be 66 in the age group of 40–44 years and 40 in the age group of 45–49 years. Performance characteristics were good for diagnostic mammography, as expected because most young women undergoing diagnostic mammography reported the presence of a breast lump and because diagnostic mammography performance improved when a lump was reported.
It is unclear why the first mammogram for some women with a breast lump was classified as a screening mammogram, and for others, it was classified as a diagnostic mammogram. Women reporting a breast lump constituted a small proportion of the screening mammography population (5%) but were different from the women reporting a lump in the diagnostic mammography population (ie, the specificity and the cancer detection rate among women with a lump who received a screening mammogram was observed to be lower than that among women with a lump who received diagnostic mammography). Unfortunately, we could not evaluate when the lumps were detected. For example, it is possible that among women with a breast lump, some made a screening appointment and then developed a lump that was then reported at the time of screening, whereas others with a lump may have sought an immediate consultation for a new breast symptom, without having scheduled a mammogram. The subgroup of women arriving for screening with a lump need further study because they appear to be a clinically distinct group.
The majority of women who were younger than 40 years at their first screening mammogram (67468 [77.7%]) had no family history of breast cancer in a first-degree relative, in particular women aged 35–39 years (80.7%). We caution against screening young women with a positive family history of breast cancer, unless there are characteristics that are associated with an inherited predisposition to breast cancer at a very young age; we make this recommendation because performance characteristics were similar in women with a family history of breast cancer and in women without such history. Women with a family history of breast cancer, compared with those without such history, had higher recall rates but equal cancer rates and cancer detection rates. Some women and/or their providers may be requesting a baseline mammogram, most likely a holdover from historical American Cancer Society guidelines (12,24). It is also possible that the women and/or their providers think that they are at high risk and can benefit from screening. Kapp et al. (25) used data from the National Health Interview Survey and found that women aged 35–39 years who had a mammogram reported a physician recommendation for a mammogram regardless of risk factors. Risk factors, however, were more likely to explain reported phyisician recommendations for mammography for women aged 30–34 years.
To understand the level of performance reported in this study, we compared these results in young women (aged 18–39 years) with results from women in the BCSC who were aged 40–44 years and 45–49 years and who had their first screening mammogram in the BCSC. Mammography performance measures in young women (aged 18–39 years), except for specificity, were inferior to those in women aged 40–49 years. Age-adjusted sensitivity of first screening mammography was lower among young women (76.5%) than among women aged 40–44 years (82.4%) or 45–49 years (87.3%). The cancer detection rate among women aged 18–39 years was 1.7 cancers per 1000 mammograms, among those aged 40–44 years was 2.3 cancers per 1000 mammograms, and among women aged 45–49 years was 4.3 cancers per 1000 mammograms. This cancer detection rate in young women may be higher than expected in comparison to incidence rates because data were from first mammograms. The poor performance of screening mammography among younger women is likely attributed to the very low cancer prevalence in this group. Most of the young women have dense parenchymal tissue that may mask tumors, and so breast density may also contribute to the lower performance of mammography in young women.
Consistent with previously published work (3,26), pathology results indicated that tumors from most young women compared with tumors from older women have poorer prognostic characteristics, higher stage, higher proportion of positive lymph nodes, and higher proportion with an estrogen receptor–negative and progesterone receptor–negative status. Although the young women in our population had a higher proportion of cancers with poor prognostic characteristics, they also had poor mammography performance indicators with low sensitivity, specificity, and cancer detection rate. These results pose challenges to screening decisions. African American women have higher cancer rates and poorer outcomes than white women (27–30). Young African American women are screened at a higher rate than white women (31), which could be explained by physicians giving greater importance to the relative risk of a diagnosis before age 40 years than to the absolute risk and by the perception that because a high level of cancers with poor prognosis are found among young African American women, earlier screening is required for this group (32). Our findings support a need for serious discussion about the appropriateness of mammography in women without the presence of symptoms. The results for diagnostic mammography are much better for all young women perhaps because 70% report the presence of a lump at the time of testing. Symptomatic women should receive mammography.
Few community-based studies have been conducted to evaluate the performance of mammography among young women. The Oregon Breast and Cervical Cancer Program (BCCP), which targeted women at the poverty level, has reported that 21% of women who were younger than 40 years were asymptomatic but that 79% of their women who were sent mammography had been examined for a breast problem, which is a much smaller proportion than were examined by screening in our population (33). Discrepancies between that study and this study might be that data for this study were from all women in participating practices, whereas data in the BCCP study were from women who were eligible for that study (ie, those with incomes of up to 250% of the Federal Poverty Level and who were uninsured or underinsured). Thus, mammographic screening of asymptomatic women is not supported and should be reserved for young women with symptoms.
Breast ultrasound and breast magnetic resonance imaging are increasingly used in young women (34), yet to date there are no community-based evaluations of the performance characteristics or demonstrations of a reduction in morbidity and mortality. Both of these modalities would be important in lowering the radiation dose to young women.
This study has several limitations. First, because our data reflect clinical practice, we had a sizeable amount of missing data for breast density and pathology characteristics. Density data are largely missing as a result of practice-specific nonreporting, and pathology characteristics are missing when they are not reported on the pathology reports to the cancer registries and/or are specific to a hospital or pathology laboratory. Second, we could not collect the complete family pedigree or BRCA1 or BRCA2 status of those in our study, which prevents us from identifying women at very high risk. Finally, we do not know the outmigration of women from the region in which they were diagnosed within 12 months of their mammogram. This percentage is expected to be small, and most women with a positive mammogram complete their workup within a month. The major strengths of our study include the representative community-based nature of the BCSC, the large sample size, and prospective cancer follow-up through linkages with local registry and/or pathology databases.
Future research should explore the association of symptoms with accuracy and health-seeking behavior. In addition, research should provide guidance on defining which young women might benefit from screening mammography and on the role and use of advanced technologies to detect breast cancers in younger women.
In conclusion, young women have received screening mammography, but few cancers have been detected, regardless of their specific age, race, or other individual characteristics. With high recall and low cancer detection rates, many young women, who are at low or average risk for breast cancer, are having additional imaging as a result of undergoing screening mammography, with a low probability of cancer detection. Who should be screened for breast cancer at younger ages and how best to screen them remain important research questions. Cancers in young women, across the board, have characteristics associated with more rapid tumor growth and poorer prognosis than those in older women. Tumor characteristics with poorer prognostic characteristics pose a dilemma: It is important to find breast cancers in young women early because of the underlying tumor biology of such cancers; yet current screening performance is challenged by the high breast density, which is generally found in young women. Research results evaluating the performance of the addition of ultrasound and/or breast magnetic resonance imaging in young women at high risk for breast cancer are needed to show whether these modalities perform better than mammography alone in young women.
National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium cooperative agreements (U01CA63740, U01CA86076, U01CA86082, U01CA63736, U01CA70013, U01CA69976, U01CA63731, and U01CA70040). The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported in part by several state public health departments and cancer registries throughout the United States. For a full description of these sources, please see http://breastscreening.cancer.gov/work/acknowledgement.html.
All authors had full responsibility for all activities related to this manuscript.
We thank the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium participating mammography facilities and radiologists for the data they have provided for this study. We thank Robert A. Smith, PhD, for edits to the final revisions of the manuscript. We also thank Molly Jarman for assistance in editing and manuscript preparation.
PubMed Central Canada is a service of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) working in partnership with the National Research Council's national science library in cooperation with the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine(NCBI/NLM). It includes content provided to the PubMed Central International archive by participating publishers.


text:
SAN FRANCISCO Facebook's Instagram photo sharing service has been hit with what appears to be the first civil lawsuit to result from changed service terms that prompted howls of protest last week.
In a proposed class action lawsuit filed in San Francisco federal court on Friday, a California Instagram user leveled breach of contract and other claims against the company.
"We believe this complaint is without merit and we will fight it vigorously," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in an e-mail.
Instagram, which allows people to add filters and effects to photos and share them easily on the Internet, was acquired by Facebook earlier this year for $715 million.
In announcing revised terms of service last week, Instagram spurred suspicions that it would sell user photos without compensation. It also announced a mandatory arbitration clause, forcing users to waive their rights to participate in a class action lawsuit except under very limited circumstances.
The current terms of service, in effect through mid-January, contain no such liability shield.
The backlash prompted Instagram founder and CEO Kevin Systrom to retreat partially a few days later, deleting language about displaying photos without compensation.
However, Instagram kept language that gave it the ability to place ads in conjunction with user content, and saying "that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such." It also kept the mandatory arbitration clause.
The lawsuit, filed by San Diego-based law firm Finkelstein & Krinsk, says customers who do not agree with Instagram's terms can cancel their profile but then forfeit rights to photos they had previously shared on the service.
"In short, Instagram declares that 'possession is nine-tenths of the law and if you don't like it, you can't stop us,'" the lawsuit says.
Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation who had criticized Instagram, said he was pleased that the company rolled back some of the advertising terms and agreed to better explain their plans in the future.
However, he said the new terms no longer contain language which had explicitly promised that private photos would remain private. Facebook had engendered criticism in the past, Opsahl said, for changing settings so that the ability to keep some information private was no longer available.
"Hopefully, Instagram will learn from that experience and refrain from removing privacy settings," Opsahl said.
The civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Lucy Funes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Instagram Inc., 12-cv-6482.
(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Dan Grebler)
Trending On Reuters
Pokemon GO players robbed at gunpoint in London park
Three teenagers playing the hit game Pokemon GO have been robbed at gunpoint in a north London park and forced to hand over their mobile phones, British police said on Saturday. Full Article
- Russia says spyware found in state computer networks
- Tesla mulling two theories to explain 'Autopilot' crash - source
- Exclusive: Clinton campaign also hacked in attacks on Democrats
- Video: Blind athlete runs desert marathon unassisted using smartphone app
- Video: Exercise plus electro-stimulation boosts calorie burn, study says
Reuters Showcase
Reuters India App
Download the Reuters app from the Apple App Store, Google Play and Amazon. Select the India edition from settings. Full Coverage


text:
Sometimes a gal needs help. When fingers won't do it's time to pull out the power tools: a vibrator, dildo, or other "marital aid." Battery-operated, plug-into-the-wall, or big old rubber thing, these appliances help our ladies achieve faster and stronger orgasms. Watch as these women get a buzz that doesn't need a prescription.-
Kat gets in a quick cum before her husband gets home
This pretty wife knows how to entertain herself! Kat has about 20 minutes before her husband Henri gets off work - and she uses the time to her advantage! This is what happens when you leave a hot little wife home alone with her favorite vibrator.
She starts out on her back, and with her silky pants on. She works the vibe all around her crotch and gets interested. Pretty soon she sheds the bottoms, and lifts up her top to expose her round boobs.
Mid-way through, Kat flips herself over, masturbating on her tummy, only to turn right side-up again when she climaxes. After cumming she licks off the juices from her fingers, and lays exhausted!
Running Time: 6.47
Summer tries to hold back her wet cum but can't
With the warm air wafting through the window, Summer diddles under her cotton dress and gives her clitoris a wake-up call. I don't know what's more erotic - watching her whole-body cum, or listening to her sighs and groans as she reaches orgasm!
Summer's taken an afternoon nap, which she sometimes does when it's warm. The air comes through the window, wafting some metal blinds (that's the "clacking" sound you hear now and then). She starts out by touching herself, and after realizing her clitoris is already hard, and her vagina plenty wet, Summer rolls over, gets her vibrator, and goes to work.
You can see that she's building herself up, then easing up just as she's about to cum. Her bare breasts heave up and down as her back arches. She can't hold it off for long, and she finally allows her orgasm to flood through her.
Running Time: 9:37
Sexy Maddy opens her legs and puts a pink vibe in her pink hole
Madeline steps out of the shower and smothers her smooth skin with lotion. Being the rubbing mood, she gives "Little Maddy" - the pink pearl between her legs - some extra attention.
The camera has been concealed on a dresser directly opposite Maddy's bed. It's a nice and close shot that begins with Maddy coming onto the bed and opening the towel so she can apply the lotion. At first all you can see is her lower body. Pretty soon she gets interested in the growing warmth in her crotch, so she peels the towel aside, gets a small rubber vibrator, and begins to masturbate - complete with sloshy gooey sounds.
Maddy takes her time to build up to orgasm, alternating between rubbing the vibe directly against her rock-hard clitoris, and inserting it up inside her. By the end, she's so ready to cum she just explodes, and is barely able to keep her legs apart as the sensation floods through every inch or her little body.
Running Time: 10:52
A very naughty wife stuffs her pussy when her husband isn't home
Alicia's husband Morgan wanted to try out a small "pinhole" camera he saw advertised on a Web site. It was very easy to conceal, though the quality is only fair. Still, with the lens pointed at beautiful Alicia, there's no such thing as bad video!
Alicia cranks one out while watching a porno video on the TV. She keeps the sound down so she can hear if her husband and family come home early! Using a vibrator and some very sticky fingers, she makes it a fairly quick one -- cumming in less than six minutes. But it's deep and satisfying nevertheless. Good timing on her part, as 10 minutes after she closed up her legs, her family came through the door, asking "Where's dinner?!"
Turn the sound up on this one. It's a little on the low side.
Running Time: 5:44
Kat peels off her jeans and vigorously rubs herself until she cums - HARD!
The hidden camera once more catches Kat as she plays on the job! She knows she's supposed to stay until 7pm to answer the phone if it rings. The last hour of the day is often boring, with little or nothing to do. So she spends it in the office break room, and either snoozes on the couch, or if she's not sleepy reads a book or magazine.
This time she tries to take a short nap, but is restless. She ends up touching her nipples and stroking her crotch to get herself wet. Soon it's off goes the jeans, and there's no stopping our pretty young wife as she brings herself to a major orgasm.
Kat stays reasonably quiet up until the end, then she lets out her trademark squealing as her pocket vibe works its wonders! Of course, I don't mind Kat's little playtime. Being able to secretly watch her is well worth her hourly wage!
Running Time: 8:34
Hot wife stuffs her hot pussy while watching a porn video
Conni gets herself hard using her favorite vibrating toy, and jills off while reading a sex magazine and watching a porn video on TV. She begins by lighting a cigarette, then leafs through the magazine looking at the erotic pictures. She reclines back, and peels her skirt up, revealing lacy panties.
She begins a slow rub over her pussy, but needs more action, so the panties come down and the fingers go inside. Conni occasionally looks over the TV, where she previously put on a gangbang porn tape. The sounds is turned down way low, and a fan nearby the camera masks what's going on, but Conni is clearly aroused as she plants a fat vibrator into her cooch, strokes it in and out, and rubs all over her tingling clit.
Over the next several minutes Conni builds up to her climax, spreading her feet against the edge of the couch, and moving the vibe faster and faster in and out of her vagina. She finally orgasms, her back arched, and her head pushed into the pillow. All cummed out, she tags a final drag on her cigarette, slips her panties back on, and gets up to wash off the scented girl goo that coats her fingers.
Running Time: 7:29
Alicia has an afternoon orgasm break - again
Alicia's husband Morgan is a little concerned that his wife appears to be masturbating more often. They're still having fazirly regular sex, but for the last few months she's been whacking her clit more than she used to. Much of it is late at night in bed when Alicia thinks hubby out like a light. He's tried to capture some of these sessions but so far the video has been too dark. He'll keep trying...
Occasionally Morgan gets lucky and is able to catch her during the day, like in this nifty little episode. This alternative view shows Alicia taking a few minutes off from housework as she jills off to a secret porn videos that she keeps stashed away (too much other sound in the room to hear it). She spreads her legs, and works her married clitoris to a nice female cum!
Running Time: 8:47
Summer having another "afternoon delight" under her skirt
Summer jills off with a pocket vibrator while fingering her sweet pussy, sending shivers down her spine, and tingles to her clitoris.
She begins by playing a minute of a sex tape, then turns the sound down way low. Out of a side pocket in her white skirt she pulls a little vibrator, which she then uses to have an amazing legs-spread-wide cum, fingers deep inside while she buzzes her clit raw.
The video has a couple of glitches in it, but only at the start. Sound is good, though there's a noisy neighbor outside that you can hear now and then. No matter: Summer come to play - she's got her vibrator with fresh batteries by her side, and no panties under on underneath!
Running Time: 8:45
Stephanie enjoys being all-nude as she gets herself off after taking a shower
Stephanie uses a massage wand to make herself cum hard after taking a shower. She flops onto the bed, gets out some lube, and opens her towel for complete access to her special body parts.
As she begins Stephanie opens her legs and puts on plenty of lubricant to keep things slick. In the first part of the video you can see why: she slowly inserts the head of the massager a full inch or two inside her vagina (boyfriend Dennis says she's tight, but she can take four fingers inside no problem).
From there sensation of the buzzing against her clitoris catches her attention, and she concentrates on having a number of small orgasms. Things get more and more intense until she has one final pounding cum at the end.
Running Time: 8:28
How to watch a cute wife pleasing herself in private
Alicia beats off her clitty with a vibrator while watching some swinger action on the TV. Dig the cute little "farmer's daughter" dress she's wearing!
Our lusty wife and MILF alternates between pressing the vibrator hard against her even harder clit, and twirling it around inside her wet vagina. All the while the gleam of her wedding and engagement rings remind us she's a very married lady - with a family no less!
Watch at about 45 seconds in from the start when she pulls up her skirt as she gets ready for her play time. You can see a nice camel toe of her pussy straining through her white panties! And the at the end of the clip, as she rests after having a very big, and very satisfying, orgasm.
Running Time: 8:46
Summer got a nice compliment at the mall; now she needs to fantasize and masturbate!
Summer texted her husband that she got a nice compliment from a stranger while shopping with a friend at the mall. So it didn't surprise him that when his wife got home, she went straight to the bedroom and masturbated while (no doubt!) fantasizing about some great sex.
Starting first with a bit of moisturizing creme, Summer soon gets down to business and massages herself through her shorts. She first lies on her tummy, rubbing through the fabric, then takes the shorts off so she has direct contact with her already-stiff clit.
Armed now with a vibrator, she raises her hips and pretends to get a doggy fucking. Soon she rolls over, opens her legs. and stuffs a vibrator into her wet and open hole. Within minutes, she gives herself very pleasurable moan-and-groan orgasm. Finished, she just lays there, vagina still humming -- maybe she's just resting before having seconds with that stranger at the mall!
Running Time: 9:59
Stephanie peels down her panties and has a cum on the couch
Pretty Stephanie is relaxing before her boyfriend Dennis gets back home. She already has her massage wand ready for a juicy and satisfying orgasm. She rolls her panties down to her ankles just in case she needs to pull 'em back up in a hurry!
As she gets herself going, Stephanie pulls out her full, round boobies - all natural - no artificial flavorings, colorings, or fillings! Her robe falls open enough for us to see her push the wand hard against her tender married clitoris. As she gets closer and closer to cumming, watch as her body twitches with her "mini-gasms"!
And don't forget to keep an eye on her pretty little feet. Her painted toes curl under right at the moment of ecstasy. Delicious!
Running Time: 7:33
Summer gets off while husband and friend are in the next room!
This is hidden masturbation with a twist. Summer's husband Dylan explains it: "Summer told me she wanted to masturbate while a friend of ours was over. She thought it would be 'neat' to jill off while we were talking and playing music in the other room. I'm cool with it, and I like to go along with her fantasies because it always leads to great sex afterwards! While she knew I was aware of her masturbating, she doesn't know I taped her."
The video starts with Summer in some short knickers. Look closely and you can spot her cameltoe! When she takes the panties off you can see they're already damp with girl juice that's seeped out. She gets into the fantasy (whatever it is!) by dribbling some scenting oil on herself, then slowly working her clitoris. When she cums her legs twitch and hover over the sheets.
Running Time: 7:04
Ronee practices stress relief through self-stroking
Kurt has discovered his wife Ronee has a growing collection of video porn that she's downloaded from a couple of Web sites. She likes to put them on DVD discs, and watch them on the living room TV while she plays with her pussy and clit.
Ronee uses masturbation as an anti-stress technique after a hard day's work. It's cheaper than meds, and feels lots better! Ronee gets home from work and immediately puts on one of her discs. With the help of a small vibrator gives herself a good, looooong cum.
Running Time: 11:15
Stephanie crams a vibe deep inside for a deep and hard cum
Stephanie relaxes at home in the evening while her boyfriend is away. She puts on one of her favorite sexy videos and uses a vibrator toy to have a much-needed orgasm.
She comes out of the bathroom and plops down on the bed, ready for action wearing a top (which she keeps on -- boo, hoo!) and panties. Well, it doesn't take long for the panties to come off, and then Stephanie reaches under the pillows for the vibe that she has stashed there.
As she watches the screwing on the TV she methodically pushes the vibe in and out of her eager hole. Every once in a while she takes the vibrator out and uses it to slap her clit to full attention! Stephanie has several small orgasms while spreading out her legs so she can push the vibrating dildo in deep. At the end she has one big orgasm right as the girl on the video moans with pleasure as she's getting fucked senselessly.
Running Time: 10:17
Kat cums while getting a good fucking on a Sybian
A while back Kat's husband, Henri, borrowed the Sybian I had bought for my wife. The couple then went home to visit Kat's parents. Henri was hoping the combination of Kat being in her old bedroom, and the stress of staying with her folks, would get her to relax by masturbating.
And he was right! Henri stuffed a camera in a closet filled with old junk, made an excuse to go out (holiday shopping), and caught this exquisite video of Kat stuffing the rubber dildo of the Sybian deep inside her wet pussy. She operates the controls to give her a nice, Big O.
The lighting is a bit harsh, as it's from a single bare bulb in the ceiling of the room. But you can see everything (and I mean everything!). While you're watching you're treated to Kat's moans of pleasure. Not bad entertainment!
Running Time: 9:05
Summer plays with herself under and over the covers
Summer has a fling -- with herself! She begins by toying with her clit under the bed covers, then decides she wants to have a big girl cum. She uses her fingers and vibrator for a soothing orgasm.
The action in this video is subtle, but very hot! This one is for the true voyeurs out there that like to look at pretty ladies while they masturbate in private. Summer starts with just her fingers. Then goes in a vibrator. Then both fingers and a vibrator.
Even her barking dog (who hates the neighbors) doesn't stop Summer from getting a good wank-off. Well, you can't blame a gal. When she needs it, she needs it.
Running Time: 7:43
Watching a cute horny girl taking care of her sexual needs
Kat is having a lazy day at the office, and a camera intentionally set up to catch her masturbating hits pay dirt when she lifts her dress, and diddles with her bare pussy.
This video was taken in the break room at my one-man office. With the approval of her husband, I've arranged for Kat to occasionally work at the office, but we intentionally give her little to do. On occasion, she's used the opportunity to masturbate while everyone is out.
Kat begins by checking my parking space is empty and that I've gone, then she settles down on the love seat, hitches up her dress, and proceeds to rub her bare slit and bean. She has taken a small vibrator from her purse, and completes the job by pressing the tip hard against her clitoris, spreading her legs, and joyfully cresting with a well-deserved orgasm.
Running Time: 8:48
Alicia buzzes her pussy while her husband is at work
Sweet Alicia hasn't had a good cum in several days, and is looking forward to her secret private time while watching a sex video. Watch as she hikes her dress and rubs herself raw with pleasure.
She's quick to get started. She uses the remote to play the video, and immediately presses the vibrator against her mound. Alicia seems almost impatient to get the action going, and within moments, has lifted her dress, pulled the crotch of her panties aside, and is inserting the vibe into her warm and moist vagina.
As she masturbates we get to see her wonderfully toned legs as they stretch out on the couch. For added stimulation, Alicia pops out her left titty, running a circle around her already rock-hard mommy nipple. As she orgasms, our horny housewife throws back her head, and her body quivers, as little shocks spread into her arms and legs. Looks like another successful girl cum!
Running Time: 6:27
Proof girls love to masturbate, maybe even more than guys do!
Time to wake up, miss sunshine! Madeline believes she is alone at home one fine Saturday morning, so she masturbates to start her day. Only she doesn't know about the camera...
All the boring parts have been cut off from the start, and the video begins with Maddy stirring, and realizing she needs to get up soon. But not before she makes her little clit happy. She rolls over to get her favorite vibe, pushes the heavy comforter down, and gets the ball rolling.
Madeline is all nude, so there's ready access to her pert tits and cute pussy. She puts some extra lube on the vibe, and it slips right into home base. Laying back, feet together, she has a pulsating orgasm that will give her a warm glow all day long.
Running Time: 7:17
Kat jills and humps to her vibrating toy, and grunts when she climaxes
Kat is having a lazy afternoon, day-dreaming about having sex. The fantasy overcomes her, and she needs to play with herself before she has to get up and start dinner.
She starts with just a white tee and cute little panties. She's up from her nap, goes to the bathroom for a pee break (we cut that part out because it took like five minutes), and has come back with vibe, which she stashes by the couch cushion for safe keeping. Off goes the top as she tweaks her nipples, pulling on the pierced studs.
Even the panties prove too much covering, and she wants full access to all her naughty bits. So off they go, where she's now completely naked -- by the partially-open window, no less. As she rubs the vibe against her clit and inside her pussy, This beauty becomes very horny and carried away, turning this way and that, and finally ending up on her tummy, humping her hand and vibrator at the same time!
Running Time: 9:36
Stephanie opens her legs wide, and sets her masturbator wand to STUN!
This has to be one of my favorite Stephanie videos. She's just out of the bath or shower, and wearing a towel around her soft and supple body. She settles on the couch, puts on a sexy video, and then proceeds to jam her vibrating wand HARD against her throbbing clitoris!
Stephanie is a girl that rally likes to masturbate. She knows how to pleasure her body, and exactly where the sweet spots are. She spreads her legs open and props her feet onto the living room table. It doesn't take her long to build up to her climax, especially since she has the wand turned up to High!
When she cums you can see her legs quiver and her toes curl. Done, she closes up her legs, adjusts her towel, then sits back and waits for her boyfriend to come home, so she can have even more toe-curling orgasms!
Running Time: 6:15
Kat's first time fucking on the Sybian
I bought the Sybian fucking machine a few years ago for my wife, but she no longer uses it. It's now "bait" for catching the Team Solowife wives and girlfriends masturbating!
Henri (Kat's husband) and I set up a couple of days for Kat to work in my office. I make an excuse to take off on business, leaving her alone the whole afternoon. Henri showed her the Sybian earlier in the day, which was placed discreetly in the workroom at my office. At first Kat was embarrassed by it. The first day left alone she avoided the machine altogether. Same for the second day.
On the third she must have been feeling horny, because not only does she give it a try, she disrobes completely! Henri says she lives to have sex buck naked, and apparently she wanted the same all-body feel when fucking the machine! So here's Kat's virgin tryout of the Sybian - orgasmic groans and all!!
Running Time: 12:03
Summer plays with herself while gazing at Internet smut
Plenty of ooohs and aaahs from Summer as she takes a few minutes out of her day to browse the Web for interesting porn to masturbate to.
She starts out slow by rubbing under her robe, which bobs up and down with her hand movements. But before long, she's opened up the little nightshirt to reveal an all-nude Summer. She wets the tip and shaft of a small vibrator by briefly putting it in her mouth, then in it goes into her soft and waiting pussy.
Summer works the dildo with one hand, while rubbing her clit with the other. Her eyes keep on the monitor screen as she increases her speed. Our gal is quite loud in this one, with plenty of moans, grunts, and groans, building to an intense toe-curling orgasm.
Running Time: 7:39
Summer cums on her hands and knees
Summer has her favorite ways of making herself cum, usually by laying back and rubbing her pussy with her fingers, or soothing her clit with a dildo. But in this clip, she decides she wants something different. She gets on her knees, and pretending she's riding on top of a lover, pushes a vibrator deep inside until she bursts into orgasm.
It's later in the afternoon, with the sun streaming through the side window. The noise of the city filters through the blinds, but Summer pays little attention to it as she comes into the room wearing just a towel. She lies on the bed, and at first it looks like she's going to jill off with her fingers. But then she reaches into her side table, and brings out one of her more powerful vibrators.
Before long, Summer changes positions, and is on her hands and knees, thrusting the vibrating stick into her soft and cuddly pussy. Her breathing gets heavier and heavier as she approaches orgasm, until she finally goes over the top, and releases all the tensions of the day.
Running Time: 9:54
A pretty wife, a nice day, a vibrator with new batteries
Dylan noticed his wife sometimes looks at herself in the mirror over the dresser while she masturbates. So he figures, why not move the mirror and his favorite "big clock cam" (a camera hidden inside a large analog clock) so they're close together, and opposite the foot of the bed!
That's exactly what Dylan's done here. And sure enough, from time to time his pretty blonde wife Summer glances between her legs to watch herself beating off. The camera has a near-perfect between the legs shot. In this great alternate view we see Summer as she enjoys a breezy summer day. She starts out with just her fingers, but needs more horsepower, and uses a buzzing toy to finish herself off.
Be sure to watch Summer's shapely and slender legs right at the moment of orgasm. They give a little shake as her cum spreads from the inside out.
Running Time: 8:22
Maddy has a nice cum before meeting some friends
Madeline is set to go out with friends, but first needs some relaxation. She gets her fingers all sticky masturbating with a rubber vibrator that stimulates her rock-hard clitoris and G-spot.
It's late one Sunday and Maddy is going to meet some friends for a night out. She has a few extra minutes, and tries a quick cat-nap. But some naughty thoughts intervene, and soon her hand goes under the waistband of her pants. From there, the pants (and panties) come off, and she's strumming her clitty getting it nice and hard. Wanting some extra help, she pops out to the bathroom for a toy, and the horny girl quickly plants it deep inside her already wet and willing vagina. The closer she gets to cumming the farther she stuffs the vibrator inside. Maddy explodes in a legs-wide-open climax.
Now running a little late, she quickly puts her pants back on and hurries off the bed. I wonder if she even washed the pussy juice off her fingers before meeting up with her pals?!
Running Time: 8:21
Conni cums with a vibe in her pussy and a finger in her ass
Conni puts on a favorite sex tape and masturbates with her legs held high. She really gets her vibrator deep into her pussy, and fingers her ass for a satisfying cum!
In this video, Conni has stepped out of the shower and needs to play with herself. Wearing just a towel, she puts a tape or disc into the video player, and watches some on-screen sex while she masturbates.
This is one of those great vids where Conni's feet stretch high into air, legs wide open. We get a clear view of her massaging her vagina with the battery-operated vibrator. To help her reach that special moment of bliss, Conni even sticks a finger into her butt, rubbing the opening and making her orgasm even stronger.
Running Time: 8:01
Summer meditates by giving herself an orgasm
Summer takes time for her ritual masturbation. It's her way of meditating, and (according to her husband Dylan) it releases toxins and stress. Dylan can hardly complain because he gets lots of sex no matter how many times his wife masturbates. And since she doesn't know he videotapes her, and isn't aware her husband knows all the times she plays with herself, there's no reason to let that cat out of the bag!
Her routine involves getting into the right "moment," then buzzing her clit and stroking her pussy until she reaches orgasm. In this video you can also see she is big on setting the mood and fantasizing. She smiles now and then as she pushes her vibrator into her vagina. As she gets closer to coming, she parts her legs wide, opening herself to her imaginary "lover." Right as she climaxes she jabs the vibrator in and out.
Running Time: 7:04
Kat wanks watching porn on the big screen
Kat's at home and wants to get a little nasty with herself. She puts an X-rated tape on the big screen, and settles into her sofa to play. She's wearing a short white nightie, with nothing on underneath.
Her husband Henri says Kat likes girl-girl and girl-girl-boy scenes. He suspects this is what she put on the DVD player. While the video plays, Kat touches her pussy and rubs her fingers over her clit. When it's time for more, she gets out a vibrator and presses it against her mound for maximum release. You can hear Kat hitting the top just as the guy on TV cums inside his honey.
Running Time: 7:24
Jodie has a boring day at work
A very fuckable Jodie is in the break room at my office where there's nothing to do. She's alone for the whole afternoon. They say girls will be girls, and this girl likes to touch herself.
Just when it looks like she's about to take a nap, she pushes her stretch pants to around her thighs, and unhooks her panties for free and easy access to her pussy. Out comes a little pink vibe, and she deftly works it all around her most precious of body parts.
Jodie takes her time cumming, sometimes buzzing her clit directly, and sometimes pushing the vibe into her slit so she can feel the sensations from inside. Her body jerks as the vibrator does its magic, up until the end when her legs gets straight and rigid, and she has a massive, groaning orgasm! Yeah, baby!!
Running Time: 7:41
Alicia rubs one out while looking at a magazine
Alicia's itch needs to be scratched, so one evening before going to bed she looks at a sex magazine and uses a toy to get herself off. The family is down for the night and her husband Morgan is at work. What a better way to get ready for a nice night of slumber?
Watch how Alicia's legs spread out and go stiff as she works herself to her orgasm. She pushes her pelvis up to meet the vibrator, which she moves in gentle circle motions around her tender clitoris.
Running Time: 5:27
Alicia takes off her panties and masturbates in the living room
Alicia likes to wank while watching porn. This time around she wants a quick cum, so she uses her best vibrator to work the orgasm out of her clitoris. She starts out real slow, then eventually removes her panties so she can have direct access to her slit and clit.
Some points of interest in this clip: About a third of the way through, Alicia's cat 'Bowler' comes up to investigate, and even sniffs at the panties that are on the ground.
And at the end of the video, we see Alicia remembers to put her panties back on, so she doesn't have to explain about them to her husband when he gets home!
Running Time: 9:03
Alicia takes off her panties and masturbates in the living room
Alicia likes to wank while watching porn. This time around she wants a quick cum, so she uses her best vibrator to work the orgasm out of her clitoris. She starts out real slow, then eventually removes her panties so she can have direct access to her slit and clit.
Some points of interest in this clip: About a third of the way through, Alicia's cat 'Bowler' comes up to investigate, and even sniffs at the panties that are on the ground.
And at the end of the video, we see Alicia remembers to put her panties back on, so she doesn't have to explain about them to her husband when he gets home!
Running Time: 9:03


text:
Finding Gold in Scientific Pay Dirt
By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: June 28, 2000
The sequencing of the human genome is often described as a triumph akin to landing on the moon. For investors, that might not be the most comforting analogy. Three decades after Apollo 11, no one has yet made a profit going to the moon.
A similar business challenge faces the Celera Genomics Group. Having mapped the human genome at a speed that doubters had said was impossible, Celera now must once again defy the skeptics who say it will not be able to make money by selling information about the genome.
''It's like a private company in 1967 announcing they are going to race NASA to the moon,'' said Dr. William A. Haseltine, chief executive of Human Genome Sciences Inc., a rival genomics company with a different strategy. ''And they did it. The next question is, 'What is the business plan?' ''
Experts agree that knowing the human genetic code will be immensely important for creating drugs and tests for diseases. But even Celera officials acknowledge that the genome, a mind-boggling string of three billion letters, is not that useful on its own. ''It's the starting point for what we want to develop as a business,'' J. Craig Venter, the founder and president, said at a news conference yesterday.
Genomics companies are using different methods to build businesses out of the genome. Incyte Genomics Inc. of Palo Alto, Calif., sells access to a database about genes to drug companies. Millennium Pharmaceuticals of Cambridge, Mass., is using genomics to understand disease processes to develop drugs. Human Genome Sciences of Rockville, Md., is developing drugs and selling its information.
Like Incyte, Celera is licensing access to its databases to corporations for annual fees of several million dollars apiece, with lower fees for academic institutions.
One obvious difficulty with this strategy is that the publicly financed Human Genome Project is also sequencing the genome and is giving its information away.
A second difficulty, competitors argue, is that pharmaceutical companies are most interested not in the raw sequence but the genes themselves, which code for the production of proteins that carry out bodily functions.
Genes account for only about 3 percent of the genome. The function, if any, of most of the rest of the sequence is unknown. Computer programs can spot genes amid the sequence, but not reliably. Even with the genome sequence virtually complete, scientists cannot agree whether there are 30,000 genes or 130,000.
Incyte Pharmaceuticals and Human Genome Sciences have already compiled databases of genes or gene fragments, which they found by catching genes in the act of producing proteins in cells.
Incyte already has more than 20 companies subscribing to its database of genes, yielding revenue last year of $157 million. Celera, which has five corporate subscribers, had revenue of $12.5 million in the 1999 fiscal year. Yesterday, it announced a sixth, the Immunex Corporation, a Seattle biotechnology company.
Moreover, Incyte and Human Genome have applied for patents on thousands of those genes, potentially locking them up before Celera can find them. Celera of Rockville, Md., has also applied for patents or plans to apply for them on genes, but Dr. Venter said the company was depending mainly on sales of information, not gene patents, for its success.
For all the doubts, Celera's supporters seem substantially to outnumber its detractors. Shares of the company's parent have risen more than tenfold the last year, although they fell $13 yesterday, to $100, in a postpartum depression. Celera's revenue is expected to more than triple this year, and analysts see it continuing to rise sharply in the years ahead. And although Incyte has more customers, Celera's stock market valuation recently, just under $6.5 billion, is more than twice Incyte's. Investors say the full genome sequence will be worth more than a database of just genes.
''If information is power, Celera is going to be insanely powerful,'' said Lissa Morgenthaler, biotechnology analyst for the California Technology Stock Letter. ''If you haven't got the whole kit and caboodle, you're one down from someone who does.''
Dr. Venter said he was not worried about competition from Incyte and Human Genome because the method they used misses many genes. And while the Government's Human Genome Project will soon have the whole kit and caboodle, Dr. Venter said Celera had a more accurate sequence and more powerful tools for analyzing the data. Some customers agree. ''It's a more complete effort right now than what's available in the public domain,'' said Carl March, vice president for biochemical sciences at Immunex.
That matchup is similar to that between commercial computer software and so-called public domain software. Public projects can draw on more diverse brain power than a single company, but the resulting product tends to be less polished than a commercial product.
''I don't see the public domain ever doing in collective fashion what someone can do when their whole reason to exist depends on the success of the database,'' said Michael G. King Jr., biotechnology analyst at Robertson, Stephens, a brokerage firm in San Francisco.


text:
Plainwell posts 2-1 win over rival Otsego in league semifinal
It was a case of déjà vu all over again for the girls' soccer teams from Plainwell and Otsego.
It was a case of déjà vu all over again for the girls' soccer teams from Plainwell and Otsego.
Historic Walking Tours of downtown Otsego will begin Saturday, May 23.
Plainwell has picked its outstanding alumni for this year.
Last week Otsego High School students completed their third blood drive of the year.
The City of Plainwell Farmers Market is opening for the season starting Friday, May 22, from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Plainwell Paper Mill site off M-89.
While city officials say the new lane structure in downtown Otsego has largely not caused widespread traffic backups, critics of the plan are speaking up.
When the Smithsonian's How We Worked exhibit arrives in Plainwell, it will be complimented by artistic elements.
During Law Day 2015 on Friday, May 1, at the Allegan County courthouse, James Leonard, a senior at Otsego High School, was awarded the scholarship which recognizes one Allegan County student per ye
At Alamo Elementary School, Project ACES—All Children Exercise Simultaneously—got the students into the halls at 10 a.m. Wednesday, May 6, for dancing and some goofy fun.
ALAMO TWP.—A man has been arrested for fleeing the scene of a car crash and drunk driving.
Kaechele Publications, Inc.
231 Trowbridge St.
P.O. Box 189
Allegan, MI 49010
Phone: 269-673-5534
Fax: 269-673-5535
The Union Enterprise
P.O. Box 417
Plainwell, MI 49080
The Commercial Record
3217 Blue Star Hwy.
P.O. Box 246
Saugatuck, MI 49453
269-857-8187 or 269-857-4637


text:
About Us
Statement of Beliefs
Board of Directors
Photos and Videos
Services & Programs
Victim/Survivor Services
Tributes and Memorials
Awareness Campaigns
Project Red Ribbon
Campaign 911
News & Events
Latest News
Impaired Driving Arrests
Events Calendar
Strides for Change
Contact Us
Strides for Change
Impaired boating IS impaired driving
Get involved
Victim/survivor services
Youth programs
MADD Matters
Welcome to MADD Pictou County.
Our mission is to stop impaired driving and to support victims of this violent crime.
Victim/survivor services
Make the difference
Donate to MADD Pictou County
Latest News
Plan Ahead for Sober Driving This Canada Day Weekend and All Summer Long
June 29, 2016
Drug-Impaired Driving Problem Will Worsen Without New Roadside Testing Measures, MADD Canada Warns Members of Parliament
May 31, 2016
Keep Roads, Waterways and Trails Safe This Holiday Long Weekend – Drive Sober
May 19, 2016
There are no events to show.


text:
UPGRADE: Please report anything out of the ordinary post-upgrade in this thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,66430.new.html
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
"The problem is not wealth," Archpriest Alexander Pavlov, a senior cleric in the area, was quoted as saying. "The problem is the priest's attitude to it. Now we have given him a chance to toil not for his own enrichment but for the church's benefit."
Page created in 0.064 seconds with 24 queries.