A distinguishing feature of Pongo upper molars and its implications for the taxonomic identification of isolated hominid teeth from the Pleistocene of Asia.

OBJECTIVES: The taxonomic status of isolated hominoid teeth from the Asian Pleistocene has long been controversial due to difficulties distinguishing between pongine and hominin molars given their high degree of morphometrical variation and overlap. Here, we combine nonmetric and geometric morphometric data to document a dental pattern that appears to be taxonomically diagnostic among Pongo. We focus on the protoconule, a cuspule of well-documented evolutionary history, as well as on shape differences of the mesial fovea of the upper molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined 469 upper molars of eight hominid genera (Australopithecus, Paranthropus, Homo, Meganthropus, Sivapithecus, Pan, Gorilla, and Pongo), including representatives of Homo erectus and extinct and recent Pongo. Analyses were conducted at the enamel-dentine junction to overcome the limitations introduced by dental wear. RESULTS: We found that a moderate or large protoconule is present in ~80% of Pleistocene and extant Pongo. Conversely, a moderate to pronounced protoconule in hominins, Meganthropus, and African great apes occurs in low frequencies (~0-20%). Canonical variate analyses for the mesial fovea show that Pleistocene and extant Pongo cluster together and are clearly differentiated from all other groups, except for Sivapithecus. DISCUSSION: This study suggests that the protoconule and the shape of the mesial fovea in upper molars are useful features for the taxonomic identification of isolated hominid teeth. By identifying these new features, our results can contribute to the better understanding of hominoid evolutionary history and biogeography during the Asian Pleistocene. However, we emphasize that the reported features should be used in combination with other diagnostic variables for the most accurate taxonomic assessments.

Heat-Stable Carbetocin versus Oxytocin to Prevent Hemorrhage after Vaginal Birth.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum hemorrhage is the most common cause of maternal death. Oxytocin is the standard therapy for the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage, but it requires cold storage, which is not available in many countries. In a large trial, we compared a novel formulation of heat-stable carbetocin with oxytocin. METHODS: We enrolled women across 23 sites in 10 countries in a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial comparing intramuscular injections of heat-stable carbetocin (at a dose of 100 µg) with oxytocin (at a dose of 10 IU) administered immediately after vaginal birth. Both drugs were kept in cold storage (2 to 8°C) to maintain double-blinding. There were two primary outcomes: the proportion of women with blood loss of at least 500 ml or the use of additional uterotonic agents, and the proportion of women with blood loss of at least 1000 ml. The noninferiority margins for the relative risks of these outcomes were 1.16 and 1.23, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 29,645 women underwent randomization. The frequency of blood loss of at least 500 ml or the use of additional uterotonic agents was 14.5% in the carbetocin group and 14.4% in the oxytocin group (relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.06), a finding that was consistent with noninferiority. The frequency of blood loss of at least 1000 ml was 1.51% in the carbetocin group and 1.45% in the oxytocin group (relative risk, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.25), with the confidence interval crossing the margin of noninferiority. The use of additional uterotonic agents, interventions to stop bleeding, and adverse effects did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Heat-stable carbetocin was noninferior to oxytocin for the prevention of blood loss of at least 500 ml or the use of additional uterotonic agents. Noninferiority was not shown for the outcome of blood loss of at least 1000 ml; low event rates for this outcome reduced the power of the trial. (Funded by Merck Sharpe & Dohme; CHAMPION Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12614000870651 ; EudraCT number, 2014-004445-26 ; and Clinical Trials Registry-India number, CTRI/2016/05/006969 .).